Anne Block ~ Why is google, yahoo, & bing blocking search terms?

Going back to my last post “Anne Block & Other Things That Get Under Snohomish County’s Skin” I was talking to a friend who told me that YES there was documentation for everything she was saying but I wasn’t looking right & the most of the major search engines weren’t going to give me crap. I can usually Google anything… not much, then I resorted to Bing & Yahoo: Still not much

Most disturbing to me was some of the accusations she (Anne Block)  has leveled at John Pennington, not because I “like” him, I don’t even know him. For some reason I was doing records searches & decided to throw his name in there & holy crap. He has NUMEROUS divorce, custody, & parenting plan appeals at the state appellate court & supreme court.

So she said that Pennington is no longer the Director of Emergency Management… She has a PDF file on her site that shows Mark Murphy as the new DEM on May,22,2014

Washington State DEM listing by county

BUT when I went to the same site today:

John Pennington is once again listed as the DEM & it was modified on Sunday, June 01, 2014 12:54:46 PM

According to the Arlington times on May 16th 2014 Mark Murphy is the Snohomish County Department of Emergency Management Senior Emergency Program Manager

The Marysville Globe also has him as the DEM Director on May 16th as well

ISSUU - Marysville Globe, May 17, 2014 by Sound Publishing 2014-06-01 13-28-21Are you starting to get my drift? Someone didn’t want it known there had been a quiet change of the guards & when Anne found out everyone was running around trying to do some damage control. TOO LATE

How could you expect anything less from the Snohomish County?

I was told that Anne may try to contact me: I think the entire POS county should be very afraid if she does.

First off if you look at her page you will see a lot of blank space, scroll down & to the right & you will find numerous PDF’s so yes she does have “proof” of what she is saying AND she also has PDF’s of previous stories as well right there on her page I just wasn’t looking at it right.

But the reason I wrote this particular story is because Ms Block leveled a particularly disgusting accusation at Mr Pennington, one that normally has the potential to ruin lives & careers ~ unless it’s in Snohomish County. She claimed he had been the subject of child sexual abuse scandal & had been kicked out of his own church because of it.

Near as I can tell he has been married 3 times. The first two ended up in appellate court & seem to point to not just one domestic violence charge or situation but many. The Snohomish County Judge had to finally recuse himself in the first marriage because he made a ruling about the King Co DV order & cast dispersions on him or her for it, which violates the Judicial Cannons. The thing I haven’t figured out yet is which Judge signed the orders but trust me I will find out.

( I have included all of the PDF’s involving both divorces, you can read the full texts of them by pushing the blue links )


624393 corrected respondent’s brief (Pennington)

624393 amended appellant’s(Fox)
Page #2 Respondent is currently the petitioner in an ongoing dissolution action in King County Superior Court (CP Vol.11246-268) The dissolution was precipitated by incidents of domestic violence (CO Vol. 1168-183) Said dissolution action was commenced prior to the finalization of the instant parenting plan on Sept 8 2008 (CP Vol. I 88-96) As a result of respondenls wife’s allegations she was able to secure the current King County Domestic Violence No-Contact Order (CP Vol II 246-281) Additionally, the King County Prosecutor’s Office brought formal criminal charges against respondents for Assault IV DV and Harassment DV (CP Vol I 59-75) prior to the finalization of the parenting plan on Sept, 8 th 2008… appellant filed pleadings with supporting documentation that raised the above referenced issuses
Page #3 of ongoing domestic violence (CP’s Vol 1 152-56 76-83 59-75 Vol 197-100 Vol 1168-183 Vol 1 184-192 Vol 11196-209, Vol II 210-211 246-281 295-300 301-305 Vol 11306-308 Vol 11309-310 Vol 111413-417 111418-420 Vol III 421-524 & Vol III 426-427) Page #10  As a result of respondents wife’s allegations of domestic violence she was able to secure the current King Co DV No-Contact Order (CP Vol II 248-281)  Additionally the King Co Prosecutors Office brought formal charges against Responent for Assault IV DV & Harassment DV
Page #13 (Footnote) RCW 26.09.191 (2) (iii) addresses restrictions based on a history of domestic violence which was alleged by Appellant and is now alleged by respondents current wife
Page#16 …the constellation of similar allegations by two (2) wives one ex- one current!


653172 appellant’s reply
Page #9 He explains that Ms Laughlins Domestic violence claim, the criminal prosecution resulting from it and her voluntary support of Valerie Fox’s case against him (an allegation not supported by the record) (Please note she told Ms V Fox that her daughter was in fact in danger in Mr Pennington’s home)

653172 appellant’s Seems he has a child that was born, he did not even try to contact the mother until she was 6 weeks old & then had no further contact til the child was 18 months
Page #12 Both Dr Hedrick & Debra Hunter observed that Mr Pennington is prone to excessive rigidity & need for self control: Lack of awareness of how his anger impacts those on the receiving end of that anger (Exhibit 129) has no empathy “for adults or children” & that he uses anger as a tool of manipulation
Page #20 Mr Pennington admitted that he made no effort to see or have any contact with ******* for the first 18 months of her life (RP52) He contributed no financial support even voluntarily, of any kind (RP 86)
Page #21 He failed to cover her under his medical insurance plan which he admitted would be at no cost as beneficiary of his life insurance (RP 86,87) He sought to justify his refusal to have anything to do with his child until trial on the notion that if he did he would set himself up for false accusations of some sort of abuse or innappropriate conduct (See RP 252)

 653172 Respondent’s

681630 Appellant’s

The thing that bothers me the very most is this statement:

He sought to justify his refusal to have anything to do with his child until trial on the notion that if he did he would set himself up for false accusations of some sort of abuse or innappropriate conduct (See RP 252)

Which goes back to Ms Block’s original accusation, rather her announcement of the accusations against Mr Pennington.

He abandons this child for years yet tries to take her from her mother & then under the PROTECTION of the Snohomish County courts tries to make BOTH women seem crazy & unstable. I think the newest Ms Pennington has her work cut out for her: but judging from her actions previously she may deserve the bed she has made for herself BUT there are children involved in this. Hopefully the ex Mr Hill will be able to use this to get his children away from this violence as long as he does it out of Snohomish County

I can not stress how important it is to thoroughly read Ms Blocks article as many times as you need for it to sink in. Some would say that this man’s personal life is his own personal business but in some cases this is simply not true. It also speaks VOLUMES as to his character & values.

I have found no proof of any minor sexual abuse but his very own statement tells me all I need to know. To be honest if I did find it I would blast the morons who have hired & protected him up til now personally with it because it involves a child.

Even more disturbing is this: Why would anyone in a position of any kind of power continue to support a man like this? Trust me I am working on that list of people & their own personal backgrounds to see what it would gain them to protect this kind of person, at the expense of numerous lives. This is commonplace in Snohomish County & so very indicative of the leadership, corruption & attitude in this county.

I have a dinner date with someone next week with more information so we’ll see what they have to show me, I will update then.

It all comes down to research, research those in charge of your money, your safety & your Govt, it is your responsibility & it should be your honor to do so. Millions of men & women have given their lives so that we have the freedom to do so, not being involved in the process is like spitting on their graves.


wordpress visitor

One thought on “Anne Block ~ Why is google, yahoo, & bing blocking search terms?

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s