I love my paralegal! Even though she picks on me…

Yes! Okay they say… You get what you pay for: but sometimes you get more! I have a very mean paralegal, seriously, she is brutal. See she is a paralegal so she can’t give me legal advice, so its up to me to find the laws, understand, then, read through 1000’s of cases, & pick out what is pertinent to my case & NO amount of whining, begging or bitching on my part gets her to tell me what in the world I am looking for, she said once I got it together & had a clear concise idea of what I was talking about, looking for & understood it she would start writing me briefs once I had created a rough draft. If you follow the blog you’ll remember I sent a demand for discovery after I had popped a gasket, but not before I sent her what I wanted, so she sends me the following, which I still had to fill out a lot of but she has been doing this for decades, so of course it was much more professional. Now it may look like there are 3 different lists of the same thing but for each point I make I have to specify what I am talking about & how it pertains to that certain issue, but the point is made, but I guarantee they’ll ignore that too, as usual, but it will make it easier to take to appellate court

City of Everett V Brandia Taamu (Cause # CRP-03735.)

______________________________


Motion to Dismiss Information/Complaint Against Defendant for Failure to Make Timely Discovery; Alternative for Order to Produce all Information Favorable to Defendant Within 3 Days; Motion for Hearing as the Credibility of State’s Witness Rose Adams.

Motion

COMES NOW defendant and moves for an Order to Dismiss Information/Complaint as all known information has not been timely disclosed in advance of trial pursuant to the defendant’s requests for discovery, the government’s affirmative and ethical obligations, and the Criminal Rules.

Alternatively, defendants moves for an Order for the Government to Produce All information Favorable & requested to Defendant within three days of the date of the order including an order to impose a due diligence obligation on prosecutors to consult with all government agents and locate favorable information, and required disclosure of all favorable & requested information.

Defendant also moves for an order for a Hearing as to the Credibility of the State’s Witness Rose Adams as defendant believes Rose Adams has a previously undisclosed history of filing numerous complaints civil and criminal, abuse of process, mental illness which challenges the ability of the witness to be honest even under penalty of perjury and/or she does not understand the distinction behind truth and deception, prior crimes of dishonesty, a history of a long standing personal grudge against Defendant and personal attacks on Defendant, and a cooperative agreement with the state offering her immunity from prosecuting Rose Adams for her own crimes, all of which have been undisclosed to defendant or her counsel through discovery and which would tend to taint the witness’s testimony as a credible witness.
.

Defendant moves for the government to produce the following:
1) The 20 plus emails back & forth between Rose Adams & several of the EAS staff, along with all electronic communication as wel as any communication made in writing
2) Lab results showing all of the results of any tests done on the dogs with the correct days this time please
3) A more descriptive explanation of what video taped audio taped & photographic evidence you are going to present as well as the originals for authentication. It is requested that Grant Fredricks do the authentication..
4) Medical/Fire records
5) All documents you plan on presenting in great detail
6) Rough notes by state agents memorializing converations with the complaining witness Rose Adams, Jennifer Speelmon, & Mike Zachman
7) Where is the BAC information, it was not included. My attorney does not know what the BAC records are
8) I want a COMPLETE listing of what is described as “any other tangible objects” it is too vague & non descriptive.
9) Any & all communications between the prosecutor, Rose Adams, & any other witness, or complainant ass well as the any & all communication between EAC & the prosecutors office
10) I requested a subpeona of Rose Adams Craigslist account to present the more than 100 ads she posted about me in a matter of days slandering me & defaming me.
11) The credentials as well as the names of your expert witnesses

DATED this 18 day of May, 2011.

This motion is based on the criminal rules for discovery in courts of limited jurisdiction, the ABA and Washington state standards pertaining to ethical obligations of prosecutors, and other authorities below.

Authorities in Support of Motion To Dismiss or Produce
The government’s obligations to produce information favorable to defendants in criminal prosecutions arise from several different sources, including the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and the Rules of Criminal Procedure, and the ethical and professional obligations of individual prosecutors.
1. First and foremost among the government’s obligations to disclose such information is the government’s self-executing constitutional duty to produce certain evidence to a defendant as a matter of due process. The U.S. Supreme Court has articulated the scope of that obligation in the seminal case Brady v. Maryland (citations omitted), and its progeny. In Brady, the Court held that “the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution.” The Court extended that rule in its 1972 decision in Giglio v. United States (citations omitted) to material evidence that tends to impeach the credibility of a government witness, holding that the due process criteria announced in Brady required the disclosure of an alleged promise to a government witness that he would not be prosecuted if he testified on behalf of the government.

Over time, the Supreme Court has wrestled with, but consistently reiterated, Brady’s requirement that the evidence to be produced must be “material either to guilt or to punishment.” Most recently, the Supreme Court has defined evidence as “material” when “there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” “In other words,” the Court stated, “favorable evidence is subject to constitutionally mandated disclosure when it ‘could reasonably be taken to put the whole case in such a different light as to undermine confidence in the verdict.’” The Supreme Court has never held that the government is constitutionally required to produce evidence to a defendant that does not satisfy that standard of materiality.

2. Second are those obligations imposed on the government by the Criminal Rules, which require that the government produce, “[u]pon a defendant’s request,” those documents and objects and the results of examinations and tests that are “material to preparing the defense.” In interpreting an earlier iteration of the “material to preparing the defense” language, the Supreme Court has found it to be narrower than the government’s constitutional obligations as articulated in Brady. In contrast to the government’s Brady obligations, which extend to evidence material to both guilt and punishment, the government’s obligation to produce items “material to preparing the defense” extends only to items material to “the defendant’s response to the government’s case in chief.”

Accordingly, the government is not obligated to produce those documents, objects, and test results that are material to punishment, for example, unless they are otherwise producible for reasons having nothing to do with their exculpatory character. Moreover, pursuant to the plain language of the rules, unless the defendant requests such production, thereby triggering the defendant’s reciprocal obligation to provide to the government those documents, objects, and test results that the defendant plans to use in his or her case-in-chief, the government has no obligation to provide to the defendant those documents, objects, and test results that are material to preparing the defense.

Defendant has previously requested these documents which have never been produced

1) The 20 plus emails back & forth between Rose Adams & several of the EAS staff,
2) Lab results showing all of the results of any tests done on the dogs
3) A more descriptive explanation of what video taped evidence you are going to present as well as a copy of it.
4) Medical/Fire records
5) All documents you plan on presenting in great detail
6) Recorded oral statements from whom?
7) Where is the BAC information, it was not included.
8) The day & the Officer’s name[s] who gave Rose Adams my personal information in a statement made by Rose Adams herself, the state’s witness, as well as a log to show everytime my information has been accessed from a city computer. “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”.
9) I’ve just learned that in the matter of Video, Audio & photographic evidence I need the ORIGINALS of all of such items & they need to be verified by an independent person. I have learned there is a man named Grant Fredricks that is an expert at authenticating these items. The ORIGINALS of all of these need to be turned over to him for authentication & then he needs to be called to verify the validity of such, including date stamping.
10) I would also need all of the emails betwen EAS & any other state agencies to include full headers so that I can also verify the validity of such, please remember to include all emails as well as all responses.
11) I don’t have the original date stamped pictures either just black & white copies which are grainy & unclear. As well as the missing pictures which show the 4rth side of my car.
12) I also need the NAMES of your expert witnesses from the Crime Lab & your records custodian. 13) I also want the names & addresses of any outside lawyers you may have consulted with in this matter as well.

3. Third, prosecutors have ethical and professional obligations to turn over exculpatory information to defendants pursuant to the rules of professional conduct. . Generally speaking, those ethical and professional obligations do not hinge on whether the information to be provided to defendants may be said to be “material” in any sense. Rule 3.8(d) of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct (the “Model Rules”) states that a prosecutor shall “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 unprivileged mitigating information known to the prosecutor, except when the prosecutor is relieved of this responsibility by a protective order of the tribunal.” Although the Model Rules serve as guidance only, almost every state has adopted enforceable rules of professional conduct that are identical to or based upon the Model Rules. Failure of a prosecutor to abide by applicable ethical rules can result in a range of sanctions, including, in particularly egregious circumstances, disbarment.

The government has what is sometimes referred to as a “Super-Brady” obligation to disclose information “beyond that which is ‘material’ to guilt as articulated in Kyles v. Whitley (citations omitted)… and Strickler v. Greene (citations omitted). The government must disclose “information that is inconsistent with any element of any crime charged against the defendant or that establishes a recognized affirmative defense, regardless of whether the prosecutor believes such information will make the difference between conviction and acquittal of the defendant for a charged crime. This also requires disclosure of information that either casts a substantial doubt upon the accuracy of any evidence — including but not limited to witness testimony — the prosecutor intends to rely on to prove an element of any crime charged, or might have a significant bearing on the admissibility of prosecution evidence.

This case is not about prosecution by any means necessary, and the prosecutor is failing to meet its most basic discovery obligations. The Supreme Court’s directed that a criminal trial is a search for the truth. This case is troubling in its failure to produce exculpatory evidence in violation of the law. In particular,
1) The 20 plus emails back & forth between Rose Adams & several of the EAS staff, law enforcement, as well as the prosecutor’s office & , along with all electronic communication as wel as any communication made in writing
2) Lab results showing all of the results of any tests done on the dogs with the correct days this time please
3) A more descriptive explanation of what video taped audio taped & photographic evidence you are going to present as well as the originals for authentication. It is requested that Grant Fredricks do the authentication..
4) Medical/Fire records
5) All documents you plan on presenting in great detail- “Other tangible evidence” is vague & dangerous in that it leaves teh door open for you to introduce anything without giving me an opportunity to review & prepare for it. I want a COMPLETE listing of what is described as “any other tangible objects” it is too vague & non descriptive.
6) Rough notes by state agents memorializing converations with the complaining witness Rose Adams, Jennifer Speelmon, & Mike Zachman
7) Where is the BAC information, it was not included. My attorney does not know what the BAC records are
8) Any & all communications between the prosecutor, Rose Adams, & any other witness, or complainant ass well as the any & all communication between EAC & the prosecutors office
9) I requested a subpeona of Rose Adams Craigslist account to present the more than 100 ads she posted about me in a matter of days slandering me & defaming me.
10) The credentials as well as the names of your expert witnesses
, as previously requested by Defendant.
11) Disclosure of settlement with Rose Adams inregard to her pending animal control charges in relation ot her testimony in my case. Disposition of the pending case in regards to the animal control matter & the final outcome & agreement.
12) An exact accounting of the costs of lab work, housing my animals, vet care, impound costs, cost of Necropsy, court costs per day per appearance, & an estimate of trial costs
13) Rough notes by state agents memorializing converations with the complaining witness Rose Adams
14) Detailed copy of Rose Adams entire criminal history, cahrges, dispositions & outcomes

If the prosecutor fails to provide the requested discovery timely pursuant to the criminal rules and this Court’s Order, defendant further moves to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the possibility of bringing criminal contempt charges against the prosecutor.

The heart of the plaintiff’s case appears to be that defendant placed its lust for money over the safety and well-being of her pets, pursuant to the complaining witnesses’ statements here is information that has been requested by defendant that goes to the very heart of the state’s complaining witnesses’ credibility, calling it into questions in numerous respects. The information will demonstrate that certain of the complaining witnesses have a long standing and cooperative relationship with the prosecutor’s office, and at least one of the complaining witnesses have a long standing and deep grudge again the defendant which include malicious postings to the internet. Defendant believes that emails between the state and the witness and animal control and the witness will show these things, as well as a predisposition that defendant may have been discriminated against as being of Native American ethnicity.

These requests are made to call into question the reliability and credibility of Rose Adams as the prosecutor’s witness. Also, those emails notes may reflect a government offer of immunity on Rose Adams own charges, which appear to have disappeared. This would show Rose Adams was cooperating closely with the state, confident that she would never be prosecuted for her own crimes.

Defendant believes that other significant revelations that further undermine Rose Adams credibility and will call into question the government’s reliance upon these key witnesses.
Defendant requires all evidence that would be helpful to the defense in obtaining exonerating of defendant, to ensure that defendants receive the exculpatory and impeachment material to which she is entitled, including all exculpatory and impeachment material to the defendants including previous perjury or crimes of dishonesty by Rose Adams. The prosecution just wants to cough up what it feels like in this case, or intends to hold onto things until the last minute. The prosecutor must in its duty disclose witness statements, emails, prior criminal convictions, perjury, crimes or allegations of dishonesty, and mental illnesses and other evidence which bear on the witness’s credibility, in a timely manner.

The prosecution’s position seems to be that the virtue of its case sanctifies the means chosen to achieve conviction. This argument cannot prevail in a legal system that is designed to ensure fairness in the proceeding when each side follows the rules. Our confidence in the fairness of our system is rooted in the belief that our process is sound. Useful falsehoods are particularly dangerous in a criminal case, where the cost of wrongful conviction cannot be measured in the impact on the accused alone.

Such tainted proof inevitably undermines the process, casting a dark shadow not only on the concept of fairness, but also on the purpose of the exercise of the coercive power of the state over the individual. No man should go free nor lose his liberty on the strength of false, misleading or incomplete proof.

To date, the prosecution has violated its constitutional obligations to the defendants, the Rules of Criminal Procedure, and other U.S. and state authorities. Prosecutors have an affirmative duty to comply with the Constitution, the Rules of Criminal Procedure and orders from the court. That duty includes the affirmative responsibility to learn of any evidence favorable to the accused and to disclose such evidence in a timely manner so that it can be effectively used by the accused. The government has violated its solemn obligation and duty in this case by suppressing or withholding material proof pertinent to the credibility of its complaining witnesses and other information previously requested by defendant.

This includes all information in any form, whether or not admissible, that tends to: (a) exculpate the defendant; (b) adversely impact the credibility of prosecutor’s witnesses or evidence; (c) mitigate the offense; or (d) mitigate punishment.

The defendant would also like to add something to the statement of facts, possibly the most important thing. You have desecrated George’s body & refused to return him to defendant, so that he can be washed, wrapped, blessed & set free from his earthly bounds. He holds no further evidence, & defendant would request that you take the numerous vital organs & if you still have posession of those or his body & return them immediately, this would & does constitute CRUEL & UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT for a crime he was never guilty of nor that defendant as yet to be convicted of & withholding information about defendants animals, & further secreting them away constitutes theft according to RCW 9.56.020. Defendant requests he be returned for ceremony & so far you have refused. As so MANY times stated in your officer’s reports, yes defendant is a thin Native American woman, as such, Defendant follow Native beliefs, ways & practices & what you have done to him amounts to a FEDERAL CRIME & Defendant demand his body be returned immediately.

If the Court does not grant Defendant’s motion to dismiss, namely, defendant requests that the government disclose “information that is inconsistent with any element of any crime charged against the defendant or that establishes a recognized affirmative defense, regardless of whether the prosecutor believes such information will make the difference between conviction and acquittal of the defendant for a charged crime. Defendant further moves for an order allowing a hearing on the credibility of Rose Adams.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 18th day of May, 2011,

________________________________

Brandia Taamu, Defendant

wordpress visitor
Advertisements

One thought on “I love my paralegal! Even though she picks on me…

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s