Now here is the most devastating part of my case. It describes what has happened to me, but worse yet what has happened to my animals simply because the city wanted revenge. I had a law professor tell me my case alone could be used for 4 different semesters in atleast 6 different law classes he could think of on how the law & courts can go wrong & to perfectly illustrate Judicial, & Prosecutorial Misconduct as well as a study on how many laws can be broken when Constitutional disparities are involved. He said a bunch of other stuff I didn’t understand & some I don’t remember. I only got #8 to add tags. I will add the rest later
*** A WORD OF CAUTION: I have downloaded the brief & my exhibits, the exhibits contain photos which may be disturbing to some people as they have pictures of my dogs mutilation. The exhibits file is huge so it may take some time to download or open.
City of Everett ~ Plaintiff
Brandia Taamu ~ Defendant
Comes now Brandia Taamu, I swear the following statements are true to the best of my knowledge under the penalty of perjury of the State of Washington & these United States.
Causes of Action
1) Ms Trask did do a warrantless search of my car on private property by peering inside, which I realize may invoke the plain view doctrine but by physically placing her hands on the vehicle to “check to see if the vehicle engine was warm” is an act of making a physical search. The vehicle was at his time defendants “home” The search was done initially without warrant by Officer Trask, by her inspecting and “placing her hands on vehicle hood to check to see if it was warm”, unless the city wants the courts to believe that Officer Trask is a clairvoyant & was able to tell that Ms Taamu was going to say she had arrived 20 minutes earlier. (See Exhibit 1,to1-c, 2, 3, 4,to,4-d) The car was not parked on public street, it was in fact located on private property. Alternatively, Ms. Taamu requests that all evidence flowing from this unconstitutional search and seizure be suppressed as Ms. Taamu has a viable due process claim of an inadequate, established procedure by the City of Everett as a result of the unconstitutionality of EMC 6.04 et seq.. There is no pre- or post-deprivation safeguard – in fact it is negligible in preventing the kind of deprivation at issue. The Everett animal impound ordinances fail to adequately define the scope of a humane officer’s enforcement powers – with an ambiguous and unconstitutional grant of authority.
State v. Johnson, 909 P. 2d 293 I am satisfied, though, that the trial court correctly concluded here that the sleeping quarters in the cab of the Defendant’s truck were part of the passenger compartment of the vehicle, as opposed to being merely an area accessible from the passenger compartment. Such a conclusion might not, however, be supportable in another case where a vehicle contains living quarters that are separate and distinct from the portion of the vehicle where the driver and passengers would ordinarily be located. In such a circumstance, the twofold rationale articulated in Stroud would not support a conclusion that a warrantless search of living quarters in a vehicle is justified. While I recognize, as the majority suggests, that bright line rules such as the rule in Stroud make the police officer’s job easier, we should not give the rule such broad application that it totally submerges the protections our state’s founders obviously had in mind when they adopted article I, section 7 of our state constitution. Carrera v. Bertaini, 63Cal.App.3d 721, 134 Cal.Rptr. 14, . but that it is a temporarily private place whose momentary occupants’ expectations of freedom from intrusion are recognized as reasonable. Cf. Rios V Untied States State v. O’NEILL, 62 P. 3d 489 – Wash: Supreme Court
2) Defendant was never given notice of rights or responsibilities in regards to the taking of her animals, the city has no such form as required by state law.
3) Defendant was never given a copy of the probable cause statement, warrant or given a warrant inventory til some 7 months later at which time defendants cat & non-narcotic pain killers were not listed (See Exhibit 1,1-a,1-b,1-c, 2, 3)
4) Defendant was never allowed to see or send a qualified vet to examine her thereby destroying any defense she may have had in regards to the condition or health of her animals. The policies enforced by Animal Care and Control are not law and thereby not enforceable and in fact are unconstitutional in regards to refusing me access to my animals or to be able send a vet into the shelter to check the animals thereby destroying any chance I had to defend myself, and further amounting to cruel and unusual punishment and absolute outrage. (See side by side analysis)
5) Especially disturbing is the fact that defendants animals were taken at 10 to 11 a.m. Yet there is no record of said animals at the City shelter until 4:40 p.m. When they were taken from defendants care they were all warm safe & dry yet some 5 to 6 hours later they were reported as a) bleeding from the rectum/vent b) bloody c) missing teeth d) bleeding from the mouth e) having seizures f) hypothermic. Had animals been in such condition defendant would’ve been charged with felony animal abuse & cruelty (See exhibits 5 to 5-m, 6 to 6-k,7 to 7-i,8 to 8-d,9 to 9-e,10, 10a,11, 11a,12,13)
6) After many calls from defendant to the City Shelter manager where she explained her Native American Beliefs in regards to desecration of her terminally ill dog’s remains, she was disregarded, George was mutilated & post it notes placed on or near his internal organs where it took defendant 15 months to find out that said animals was cremated & thrown away immediately (See exhibits 14, to 14-n) like trash in direct violation of American Indian Freedom of Religion act AKA the Public act, not only were defendants rights to bury the dead violated, & her dog’s remains desecrated, but defendant was laughed at by Ms Delgado upon finding out that her dog was dead. “George”, who passed away from cancer after being impounded in the City Shelter, was outrageously necropsied, dissected, body parts tagged, photographed, and his body thrown way by City of Everett veterinarian or employees causing great emotional distress to the Defendant. (See Exhibit 15) Defendant, who held an important property interest in George’s body, as well as my Native American belief and custom that George’s body not be desecrated in such a way and received a respectful burial, has been damaged as a result of these unreasonable and incomprehensible actions by the City of Everett. Even if AIFRA does not have any teeth the cruel & unusual clause of the Constitution of the United States clearly does, this case could be a text-book example to cite in other cases.
7) At no time did the city of Everett lay claim to my animals, Govt taking is never favored, but defendant made many feeble attempts at trying to regain her property in animal. RCW 69.505 gives very clear & concise procedures of divesting citizens of their property. My first request made to the City of Everett incorrectly has mysteriously disappeared & was sent to their witnesses house not mine, the second request I had copies of (See Exhibit 16 & 16a) This is a pattern of behavior as evidenced in Stoot V Everett & Espinoza V Everett the city of Everett Codes remain silent on matters of forfeiture & RCW 69 clearly shows legislative intent to protect the rights of citizens in a Constitutional manner In regards to the euthanasia of George amounting to permanent deprivation of property and the continued impound of my animals/property my due process rights have been blatantlytrampled 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 client’s 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 & the tragic outrageous loss of a companion animal in his final hours on this earth.The animals were not considered contraband and 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 the rightful owner. As noted in RCW 69.505 If the city argues that the pets are “derivative contraband” the city 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. I received no lawful notice and my due process rights were violated. RCW 69.50.505 Seizure and forfeiture. 69.50.505(a)(2). Everett Municipal Code remains silent on forfeiture procedure and safeguards to prevent erroneous deprivation My ownership interest in the pets seized from me by the City of Everett and its impound agent is a protected property interest under the Fourteenth Amendment. Logan, 455 U.S. at 434, 102 S. Ct. at 1156. “The State may not destroy a property interest without first giving the putative owner an opportunity to present his claim of entitlement.”Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565, 579,95 St. Ct. 729, 738 (1975).Due process requires some kind of notice and some kind of hearing. A pre-deprivation hearing is not required in all circumstances, however. For example, where the State must of a necessity act quickly. This was not the case here. Or, where the degree of deprivation is not serious. Also, this was not the case here. I was never given the required notice of seizure by the City of Everett impounding officer, and of my legal remedies to petition the District Court for return of my animals and/or to determine the reasonableness of boarding fees. The Mathews test is often used to determine what kind of process is required.Mathews v. Eldridge, Id.See, also Mansour v. King County, 128 P.3d 1241 (Wash. App. Div. 1 2006). The ownership rights of the defendant were terminated by the seizure, the animals have apparently been treated as strays by the City and placed in foster care or were otherwise disposed of. The City of Everett has failed to provide Defendant with due process prior to, or following, each of these deprivations of property in my sentient property. The City actors in this case being agents of the city desecrated George’s body and refused to return him to me, so that he can be washed, wrapped, blessed and set free from his earthly bounds. He holds no further evidence, as shown by the fact that he was just tossed away like so much trash, this would and does constitute Cruel And Unusual Punishment in direct violation of the 8thAmendment of the United States of America, for a crime he was never guilty of.Withholding information about my animals, and further secreting them away constitutes theft according to RCW9.56.020.The taking, conversion, killing and secreting of my property and animals amounts to a direct violation of RCW9.08.070.1(a)(c) at no time in these proceedings have I been allowed to see her animals, and for many many months I could not even get the city to tell me if they were even alive, even terrorists offer a sign of life. Just to be clear, we are not discussing a car or an object that was used in the commission of a crime: We are talking about living breathing thinking feeling sentient beings, this is akin to kidnapping someone’s children. For 26 months I have lived in total utter fear that my animals will come to further harm and that I will never see them again. We also submit that the Municipal Court had no right to order forfeiture without a formal hearing specifically to address forfeiture, but per RCW 69.505 they lost that right by not filing at the very least a notice within the 45 day period, whereas I filed a notice via the Superior court showing her own personal and legal interest in my animals in property. Generally when there is a Municipal code violation it falls under 1 of 2 categories, in this case it falls under both procedural and substantive in violation of my fundamental rights in spite of the compelling needs test of the city. The Everett Municipal codes regarding animals is vague and overbroad & denies any equal protection under the law that couldn’t pass muster in a strict scrutiny test let a lone a middle tier scrutiny test or a rational basis test. The preemption here is both Express and Implied, as state and federal law expressly prohibit govt takings and demand due process which is not provided by Everett Municipal Code 6.04 both state & federal law occupy this field. The void-for-vagueness doctrine derives from the constitutional guarantee of due process, which requires that a penal statute define a criminal offense ” ` with sufficient definiteness that ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited and  in a manner that does not encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.'” – in Mannix v. Phillips, 2010 The due process vagueness doctrine serves two important purposes: first, to provide citizens with fair warning of what conduct they must avoid; and second, to protect them from arbitrary, ad hoc, or discriminatory law enforcement. State v. Halstien, 122 Wn.2d 109, 117, 857 P.2d 270 (1993). Under the due process clause,5 a criminal prohibition is void for vagueness if it fails either (1) to define the offense with sufficient definiteness such that ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited, or (2) to provide ascertainable standards of guilt to protect against arbitrary enforcement. Where an alleged error is a manifest error affecting a constitutional right, the issue may be raised for the first time on appeal. RAP 2.5(a)(3). – Wa v Allenbach
8th Amendment In United States v. Bajakajian,524 U.S.321 (1998), In describing what constituted “gross disproportionality,” the Court could not find any guidance from the history of the Excessive Fines Clause and so relied on Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause case law: We must therefore rely on other considerations in deriving a constitutional excesiveness standard, and there are two that we find particularly relevant. The first, which we have emphasized in our cases interpreting the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause, is that judgments about the appropriate punishment for an offense belong in the first instance to the legislature. See, e.g., Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277, 290 (1983)(“Reviewing courts … should grant substantial deference to the broad authority that legislatures necessarily possess in determining the types and limits of punishments for crimes”); see alsoGore v. United States, 357 U.S. 386, 393 (1958)(“Whatever views may be entertained regarding severity of punishment, these are peculiarly questions of legislative policy”). The second is that any judicial determination regarding the gravity of a particular criminal offense will be inherently imprecise. Both of these principles counsel against requiring strict proportionality between the amount of a punitive forfeiture and the gravity of a criminal offense, and we therefore adopt the standard of gross disproportionality articulated in our Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause precedents. See,e.g., Solem v. Helm, supra, at 288; Rummel v. Estelle, 445 U.S. 263, 271 (1980).
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 inArmstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545, 552 (1965),only “wiping 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.
8) In a hearing instigated by defendant for return of her property in Animals, (See Exhibits 17 to 17-f) she was never made aware by the acting Commissioner nor the prosecution of a) her 5th Amendments rights to not incriminate herself, & as a result most of what defendant raised at issue at this hearing was in fact what the City of Everett used against her in proceedings. b)The city further argued that they were not bound by the United States Constitution, the Washington Constitution and various state and federal laws as evidenced by the states exhibits of RCW 35.01.010 and RCW 35.22.010 because they were a first class city. c) This was also a the first time they accused defendant of crimes she was not guilty of nor was she charged with by the city attorney. I would submit that this was not “City Business” and as such the fact that Mr Iles stepped in to the prosecutor’s dept shows that there is malicious intent on the part of the city to retaliate against the me, not just as a single agency but as a whole. If the prosecutor’s Office is incapable of writing out their own briefs then I would submit that their competency be challenged as well.
Rule 8.4 Misconduct State v. Boehning State v. Coles , State v. Huson , State v. Dhaliwal (quoting State v. Pirtle) , State v. Russell , State v. Suarez-Bravo , State v. Brown , State v. Hoffman , State v. Jones , State v. Perez-Mejia State v. Belgarde , State v. Echevarria , State v. Neidigh , State v. Hoffman , State v. Russell , (citing United States v. Garza) , State v. Charlton , Arrieta-Agressot v. United States , United States v. Cabrera , United States v. Solivan , State v. Jungers State v. Reed ,
9) City Agents namely Shannon Delgado, Lori Trask-Lemaire-Carlon-Staib & Mike Fisher were sharing defendants personal information some true, some untrue with the city’s witness who was using this to send out emails to more then 500 individuals & to post well over 100 ads on an internet board called craigslist. The harassment was so bad that defendant filed a 15 page police report (See Exhibits 18 to 18-L, please note that some of the pages are missing, it is unknown why) against their witness & sought to obtain a protection order for herself. At another time both of the city’s witnesses did threaten defendant putting her in fear for her life to the point that she ran to the Everett Police Station & once again made a police report. The city was full aware of this as I sent them numerous emails requesting them to stop having their witnesses threaten & harass me. This violates the laws of blacklisting & makes the city liable for the conduct of their city’s witness. Effectively Blacklisting RCW 49.44.010defendant with the help of the City actors & interfering with the ability to do her job, or to enjoy life, or liberty, because of falsehoods & rumors instigated by the City Officers. Clearly making the City guilty of Criminal Sabatoge RCW 9.05.060, or at the very least Aiding & Abetting Ms Adams in the acts of Blacklisting, Criminal Sabotage, Intimidation, Harassment, Stalking as well as Slander & Libel. If they say they have NOT given Ms Adams the info that she is clearly stating they did then what does that say for the city’s witness?RCW 42.52.050 Confidential information(1) (2) (3) (4) RCW 9A.36.078 Malicious harassment — Finding. RCW 42.23.070 Prohibited acts. RCW 42.52.020 Activities incompatible with public duties.
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2011 11:13:13 -0800
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: email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; WECARE161@hotmail.com; email@example.com
Brandia Ta’amu came to stay at a friend’s home 32 days ago. 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.
To: firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org
Subject: Why Brandia Taamu’s dogs & cats were taken!
Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2011 07:22:11 -0800
Anyone who has any questions about WHY Brandia Taamu’s dogs were taken by Everett Animal Control can call them, or they can call me at Ph# 425-750-7126, since they came to my house with a search warrant for Brandia Taamu’s car, and took her animals that were extremely dehydrated! 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.
(***Messages truncated to include just the statements in question, the full emails can be viewed in my evidence file) RCW 9A.08.020 Liability for conduct of another Complicity. RCW 9A.08.010 General requirements of culpability.(1) Kinds of Culpability Defined. (a) (b) (i) (ii) (c) (d) (2) (3) (4) RCW 49.44.010 Blacklisting RCW 9.05.060
10) Mr Fisher had as a city’s witness Jennifer Speelmon who was on the run with her sex-offender felony fugitive boyfriend and for whatever reasons Mr Fisher at no time ever informed the police where she and he were at to ensure she would come in and testify against me, it was in fact this defendant who had to get assistance in apprehending him from the Tulalip Tribal Police in order to have him arrested. This goes past misconduct or malicious intent to endanger the public to secure testimony against me flies in the face of public interest to ensure a conviction. Ms Speelmon even joked about the fact that they were “Bulletproof” because of this arrangement on her social network page, this is not only disgusting but it is totally reprehensible It would seem that I have an affirmative defense, but the prosecutor and the city are still pursuing charges, so much so that in order to garner a case against me they dropped 3 gross misdemeanor and 3 misdemeanor charges against the states witness in exchange for testimony against me for 1 misdemeanor. (See Exhibits 19 & 19a) Again in direct conflict with Rules 3.8 Also clearly showing the malicious intent with which I am being charged. It should also be noted that Ms Adams began her campaign against Ms Taamu on the same day she came to the Everett Municipal Court to request a hearing for those very same infractions. Rose Adams Cause# IN0128726 Charges, 3 of dangerous dog running at large, 3 of failure to display license, amended to 3 counts of failure to display license on Mar/4/2011 RULE 3.8 Special Responsibilities Of A Prosecutor
11) On one occasion the city was trying to schedule a hearing but I told them that it was a Jewish Holiday & requested a different date, at which point I was asked if I was a Jew or a Native, to which I replied both, by blood & asked if they would like to see DNA evidence. I said I was not aware that I had to “chose” which one to be. Defendant took all of the paperwork she was able to attain to several different attorneys to try to find competent defense but lack of finances did not afford defendant this luxury but all of them pointed out a very notable connection in all of Ms Trask’s statements: In all of her statements she feels the need to describe defendant as a “Thin Native American Woman” she can not seem to help herself, no one else in any other statements they have made have felt the need to point out defendant’s physical attributes or ethnicity to such a great extent in direct violation of numerous State and Federal laws, including Unlawful Discrimination, Color of Law, Malicious Prosecution, and Malfeasance RCW 9.91.010 Denial of civil rights Terms defined. RCW 49.60.030 Freedom from discrimination Declaration of civil rights. At first I blew it off but after 4 different attorneys all pointed it out I was faced with the truth. What kind of a world are we living in where a person’s life can be destroyed, their livelihood almost ruined, the reputation drug through the mud & over 94 laws, rules of procedure & Constitutional rights be overlooked simply on the basis of being thin & being Native American? Unless there is some indicator or ordinance that defines that Thin Native American Women have a higher propensity to abuse or neglect animals in general. All under the guise of Color of Law… Supreme Court Justice Rutledge was very clear in his opinion of these types of abuses
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.Screws v. United States, 325 US 91, 108 (1945). “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.” 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)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; to be free from arrest and detention by methods constitutionally forbidden and from extortion of property by threat of levy, lien, or lock down letters by such methods; from extortion of confessions; from interference with the free exercise of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of speech and assembly;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 securedMr. 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. “There is no crueler tyranny than that which is exercised under cover of law, and with the colors of justice” – U.S. v. Jannotti, 673 F.2d 578, 614 (3d Cir. 1982)
12) 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. Although the charge is only a misdemeanor it stands to destroy my life work, reputation and may cost the lives of 1000’s of animals a year. 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 Defendant, 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. I have repeatedly demanded discovery and the city has blatantly disregarded all requests. False, copied pasted, and shoddy evidence violates every single tenet of the laws or rules of discovery & flies in the face of defendant’s constitutional rights as a natural born citizen of the United States of America. Whether the municipal court judge or city’s prosecutors, believe it or not they bound by the same laws, rules and regulations as every other American. It is called the Constitution and let this be notice that the municipal court is a court of limited jurisdiction granted it’s right of existence by those very same rules
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 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 the following discovery I requested some 15 to 20 times before trial and never received. Generally speaking, those ethical and professional obligations do not hinge on whether theinformation 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.Brady v. Maryland, 373 US 83 – Supreme Court 1963 373 U.S. 83 (1963) No. 490. Supreme Court of United States. Argued March 18-19, 1963. Decided May 13, 1963. CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND. This ruling is an extension of Mooney v. Holohan, 294 U. S. 103, 112, where the Court ruled on what nondisclosure by a prosecutor violates due process: “It is a requirement that cannot be deemed to be satisfied by mere notice and hearing if a State has contrived a conviction through the pretense of a trial which in truth is but used as a means of depriving a defendant of liberty through a deliberate deception of court and jury by the presentation of testimony known to be perjured. Such a contrivance by a State to procure the conviction and imprisonment of a defendant is as inconsistent with the rudimentary demands of justice as is the obtaining of a like result by intimidation.” In Pyle v. Kansas, 317 U. S. 213, 215-216, we phrased the rule in broader terms: “Petitioner’s papers are inexpertly drawn, but they do set forth allegations that his imprisonment resulted from perjured testimony, knowingly used by the State authorities to obtain his conviction, and from the deliberate suppression by those same authorities of evidence favorable to him. These allegations sufficiently charge a deprivation of rights guaranteed by the Federal Constitution, and, if proven, would entitle petitioner to release from his present custody.Mooney v. Holohan, 294 U. S. 103.” The principle of Mooney v. Holohan is not punishment of society for misdeeds of a prosecutor but avoidance of an unfair trial to the accused. Society wins not only when the guilty are convicted but when criminal trials are fair; our system of the administration of justice suffers when any accused is treated unfairly. An inscription on the walls of the Department of Justice states the proposition candidly for the federal domain To the convict and punish a person through the inflence of prejudice and caprice is as pernicious in it’s consequences as the escape of a guilty man Lime v. Ok 1 Rider cites to three cases to support his impermissible poverty inference argument.State v. Matthews, 75 Wn. App. 278, 284, 877 P.2d 252 (1994); State v.Suttle, 61 Wn. App. 703, 812 P.2d 119 (1991); State v. Newton, 42 Wn. App. 718, 724, 714 P.2d 684 (1986).
Defendant’s requested that the city 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 believed such information will make the difference between conviction and acquittal of the Defendant for a charged crime. I was denied a hearing on the credibility of Rose Adams who has numerous charges of crimes of dishonesty & is currently under investigation for animal cruelty for beating her 2 dangerous pitbulls with a bat when she once again allowed them together to fight eachother. Rule CrRLJ 4.7 Discovery (a) Prosecuting Authority’s Obligations. (1)(i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) (vii) (viii) (ix) (x) (xi) (2) (3) (4) Spinelli V United StatesDefendant also filed a request for admissions, and an Affidavit of Truth which went unanswered, and unrebutted well before time for trial.To further prove my claim on March 2nd 2012 I finally got a letter from the City of Everett Clerks telling me that some of my discovery was ready but the rest wouldn’t be available til later, 35 days ATER court & even then they denied me access to most of what I requested (See Exhibits 20 to 20-f)
13) There is also the matter of Judge Mitchell pronouncing me guilty at the custody hearing on April, 21st, 2011, where he stated in an open court “You abused your animals so I think that the City of Everett Shelter knows what’s best for them” which is recorded and memorialized for the courts to hear. When I demanded to know if he has already convicted and pronounced guilty he refused to answer me, but his statement and then his silence spoke his answer immeasurably. These are considered extra judicial comments & he is not allowed to make them, they show his bias in my case & he should’ve IMMEDIATELY recused himself from my case as soon as those words came out of his mouth. During a Motion to represent myself Pro Se, the sitting Judge said “The Supreme Court seems to think you have the right to defend yourself, we here in Everett don’t think so” The Judge should refrain from making any comments that undermine the confidence in the Judicial system as awhole During a Discovery Hearing the Judge made this statement: “I thought all of the lab results say that all of the animals were in horrible condition” Not significant in itself, but the hearing was for the discovery of the lab results themselves showing that he was having Ex Parte Communication with the prosecutor, because we don’t even have the lab results. It also shows bias in that the Judge has a pre-formed opinion about the health safety & welfare of the animals 3.8Code Of Judicial Conduct (CJC) Preamble  Code Of Judicial Conduct (CJC) Scope   
As a final insult the prosecutor asked for 5 days in jail, the Judge went on a rampage, calling me numerous names, degrading and humiliating me, making psychological evaluations about defendants mental capacity, as well as accusing defendant of being a pathological liar. If I was not used to being regularly abused by Judge Mitchell I might have actually cried. The judge ordered me to serve 25 days in jail and refused to hear the my stay of judgment, exceeding the prosecutor’s recommendation 5 times over, showing extreme prejudice. (See Exhibits 21)
At one point I was 8 minutes late for court and Judge Mitchell entered a warrant for my arrest even though I had called in to say I was going to be late, but only after making me wait for most of the day to tell her me was going to have a warrant, unless of course they can show they issue warrants for everyone who is 8 minutes late for court again showing malicious intent. (See Exhibit 22 & 22-a) The Officer who I turned myself into and the Snohomish County correctional Officers said they had never seen such a high bail for something like this, he apologized to me all the way to the jail as did the Correctional Officers, and said it was 5 times higher than the fines were in violation of excessive bails & fines.
The 8th Amendment to the United States Constitution declares that “[e]xcessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted Const. art. 1, § 14 states: “Excessive bail shall not be required, excessive finesimposed, nor cruel punishment inflicted
The Judge also refused to let me defend myself until 1 week before trial an refused to give me time to prepare for trial, at that hearing Judge Mitchell struck a hearing for discovery and additional motions so he prevented defendant from any defense what so ever He also canceled the discovery hearing the day before trial even though I called in and asked for them to reinstate the hearing they refused, so I was never allowed to rebut or enter evidence in my trial.
14) There is also the strange matter of if my charge is a criminal charge or citation, if it is a criminal charge there is no designation for it at the Snohomish County Jail. If in fact this is merely a citation then I never should have had my animals taken or been to trial. In looking to the codes no where can I find a clear & concise language in the code.
EMC 6:04 C.(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;
The language itself is ambiguous & creates confusion for a citizen not versed or educated in law. Because a)I was not allowed a pretrial hearing to dispute any of the prosecutions evidence, or b) to be informed about their witnesses nor c) be allowed to interview any of them or know the nature of their testimony, nor d) to write my own jury instructions, nor e) to enter any of my own evidence or supporting documents, nor f) allowed to have an expert witness, nor were any of my witnesses subpeonaed
15) I was never allowed to build a defense, which is my Constitutionally guaranteed right as a “defendant” but if I am reading the statute in plain language it seems to me that all of the elements of the crime must be proven. The language piles all of the elements together as if all of the conditions must be met, it does not say or, it says and and and throughout the whole paragraph. So does this mean that I am supposed to prove or disprove all of the elements or just a select few. I had $70.00 bags of dry dog food in the car & $40.00 cases of wet food. We were in a sheltered car above ground able to be turned off & on so that we had heat so that it wouldn’t get too cold, my animals had more clothes then I did in the car if needed, the water container was on top of the car because they couldn’t drink while they slept, the city ordered vet records from almost all of our prior vets so had access to up to 7 years of vet records which clearly show the dogs were receiving veterinary care along with the medicine that was seized at the same time as the animals were: Those elements are straightforward, easily understandable, but the last statement which is what I was charged with humane care & treatment… What does that mean? At no time was I ever given any statements which would describe the exact nature of the charge(s) against me & at no time have I ever been sure if I was supposed to prove all of the elements or some of the elements. Or even more confusing does Humane Care encompass all of the prior mentions? If it is separate from vet care, food water, shelter, then I submit it void for vagueness The due process doctrine of “void for vagueness” has two central principles. First, criminality must be defined with sufficient specificity to put citizens on notice concerning conduct they must avoid. And second, legislated crimes must not be susceptible of arbitrary and discriminatory law enforcement
“To be consistent with due process, a penal statute or ordinance must contain ascertainable standards of guilt, so that men of reasonable understanding are not required to guess at the meaning of the enactment.”- in State V Smith. Second, the statute must contain ascertainable standards for adjudication so that police, judges, and juries are not free to decide what is prohibited and what is not, depending on the facts in each particular case.– in State v. Foster, 1979
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;
The worst part is trying to decipher what this “Humane Care” entails, it is a mystery, if in fact the code said Failure to provide humane care as described below or above, then it would be easy to ascertain that food shelter & vet care provisions gave a definite description but it does not: It defines food water, shelter, vet care & then adds “Failure to Provide Humane Care” as a separate entity of it’s own. (See Exhibits 23 to 23-b)
I am a Vegetarian, to me it is IN-humane to cut an animals throat & let it bleed to death & then to salivate over it’s cooking remains, I still will not go into another persons fridge or freezer only to see the frozen remains of what was once a living breathing feeling sentient emotional being, to some it is IN-humane to leave a dog outside, but some who do, love their dogs just the same, to me it is IN-humane to not allow my dogs on the furniture, hence the reason is is called “fur”niture. Others would never dream of letting their dog sleep with them or sit on their couch, my dogs have their own couch. Some consider raw feeding IN-humane some consider any type of packaged dog food IN-humane & cook for their own animals. Some folks consider it IN-humane to leave a dog out in the back yard all day long while at work, others think it is Humane to use a dog to hunt with while some consider that a double In-humanity. To some ear & tail docking is IN-humane but to others it is beautiful. While I understand the need to protect animals, even more so as an animal rescuer, I have seen things no one should ever have to, but there has got to be a very clear line drawn at laws that destroy our Constitutional Freedoms & Rights. In my case I was sleeping/living with my animals in a car for almost 3 weeks, (17days) (See Exhibit 26) knowing it was only a temporary situation because most were senior, instead of dumping them at a shelter to be euthanized, that in my mind is IN-humane. To me these are my children with four legs fur & a speech impediment, they mean as much to me as any human being, would the courts consider it more humane to dump your children because you were temporarily homeless to be killled?
16) This is not a story that begins on January 6th 2011 by any means, it spans over a decade with Ms Trask, or Lemaire, or Carlon or Staib depending on which year I had to deal with her: In 2001 I moved into the city of Everett with 1 pit bull terrier, at which time, my family, children, and myself were harassed mercilessly, to the point that I had to call the Everett Police after City of Everett Animal Control Officer Ms Trask walked into my house without knocking or without a warrant and attempted to grab one of the pitbull terriers. I made the heart-wrenching decision to give the dogs away for their own safety as I was sure that one day I would come home from work and they would be gone. Shortly thereafter I moved from the City. In 2009 I was realizing my dream of starting an animal rescue, and first in line was my dream of rescuing the pit bull Terriers from Everett Animal Services. Years prior I would go sit with the Pit Bull Terriers that I knew were going to be euthanized and sit by their kennels to give them love and human kindness before they were euthanized, promising one day I’d find a way to save them. After receiving many dogs a disturbing trend emerged, all of the dogs were injured, maced or both. After complaining about it, my pulling privileges were suspended without reason, except that one of the animal control officers had complained about the accusations. (See Exhibits 24 to 24-j)Triggering Whistleblower.It should be noted that Mr Fisher the city of Everett prosecutor made a statement claiming that I pulled these dogs using fraud at trial which is technically accusing me of committing a crime I had not been charged with or convicted of while doing my job which is slander as legally defined. He also filed a false complaint against me with the Snohomish County Animal Control telling them I had 20+ animals in my daughter’s home in feces encrusted cages, which he knew not to be true. (See Exhibit 27 & 27a) It is also the second time the city accused me of crimes I was not being charged with & that I was not guilty of. When I demanded very loudly to know if he was accusing me of a crime, & if he was charging me all I got was dead silence. Amongst the many other crimes he accused me of in the entire process of this matter.
17) It would seem that the prosecutor has nothing to do but scan my on-line blog & web pages & file an arbitrary Motion in Limine, (See Exhibits 25 to 25c) since it seems to be such a focus of the Prosecution.It would seem that the court may have nothing better to do than to file frivolous Motions as evidenced by the prosecutions Motion in Limine by scanning Defendants on line blog, we submit that if the charges are not dismissed that the whole blog be admitted into evidence, not just parts which have been taken out of context. Defendant stated she had offers from over 169 people to come to court, several days after she narrowed it down to 23 witnesses, several days later the prosecutor issued a Motion in Limine requesting she produce 169 people and parade each witness in front of the court in the interest of brevity so as not to waste the courts valuable time (HUH?) Again we are bordering on what looks like malicious prosecution. It can be shown that the City of Everett spends 20 to 70 hours a week, some evenings and weekends as well parked on Ms Taamu’s web page and Ms Taamu’s blog, at a cost to taxpayers of 2400.00 to 5600.00 per week and this has been a 40 week ordeal. Ms Taamu as trackers on both sites which record all visits, length, duration and navigational paths as well.If in fact portions of the blogs or webpages were submitted the whole of it’s contents should’ve also been admitted. Rule er 106 remainder of or related writings or recorded statements
18) Constitutional disparities in the everett municipal codes and conflicts with state law (See side by side Analysis)
19) After trial I watched as some of my, or the city’s exhibits were thrown away but I have not had access to any of the transcripts or court records so I am not sure which it is.
20) I was incorrectly imprisoned after trial, Judge Mitchell calimed he was “on vacation” & let me sit in jail for 11 days before he heard my appeal, but at sentencing he didn’t fill out the correct forms denying or asserting that I was a flight risk or a danger to the community
I would reserve the right to file a supplemental brief with the court in regards to evidence I did not have the money to print off, & have not had access to. I have had less then 17 hours to prepare this brief as it is.
Respectfully submitted this 15th day of February in 2013
Brandia Taamu- Defendant
Citizens have the right to control their own property, what next oil in car or when to put it in
File a motion that the county is obstructing my appeal because the county didnt transcribe, court proceedings