ethics complaint against lori trask

8/3/2019 Ethics Complaint Against Lori Trask

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ethics-complaint-against-lori-trask 1/15

EVERETT CITY ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICER LORI TRASK

WASHINGTON STATE EXECUTIVE ETHICS BOARD

ETHICS COMPLAINT FORM Case No. ___________________

(Assigned by Board)

1. Please name the person alleged to have violated one or more provisions of the state’s ethics law

(Chapter 42.52 RCW), and provide the following information, if known. If you are alleging that more

than one person may have violated the state’s ethics law, file a separate complaint form for each

individual.

Name: Lori Trask Work Phone: (425)

Position or Title: Animal Control Officer

Employing Agency: Everett Animal Control Work Address:

2. Explain why you believe that the individual name above may have violated the state’s ethics law.

Be as specific as possible as to dates, times, places, and actions. Attach additional sheets of paper if thespace provided below is not sufficient.

1) Officer Trask's & I's problems started in 2002 when she mercilessly harassed my entire familybecause we had 2 pit bull terriers, it got so bad that I gave away my dogs because I feared for their lives, she at one time actually WALKED INTO OUR HOUSE & I shoved her back out the door.

2) In 2009 I was rescuing pit bull terriers ever single dog that was coming out of the Everett Animal Shelter was either injured or maced, sometimes both, it got so bad that I would have a friend who is aSeattle Officer meet me down the street. I started raising a stink about it so they stopped me from pulling from there, with Officer Trask being the complaining officer.

3) January 4th 2011 she came out to a lady's house I was staying at & started harassing me, (the lady I was staying with who is currently facing a forgery charge, as well as having an issue with charges from AC herself about 7 unlicensed & 2 aggressive dogs with a bite history was the one who called on me) she was being very combative & I already knew no matter what I said she was going to try to take my

animals or in some way harass me. Tow days later she showed up with a search warrant, she took mybabies & they killed one. All of this time I honestly believed it was her hatred for pit bulls that fueled her hatred for me but as she started filling out more paperwork it occured to me that she had another entirely different reason. In every report, the warrant request, the letter to the court she refers to me asa "THIN NATIVE AMERICAN WOMAN" every single one. Everyone else somehow are able to fill out reports, without having to use these indicators, everyone else. Not once did she check out he credibilityof her witness or she could've found the same things I did, possibly more (Spinelli V United States)

4) Officer Trask was telling this woman who posted well over 100 ads on craigslist & emailed over 500



people I work with in rescue with information, private information that Officer Trask had given her,most of it untrue.

5) Officer Trask LIED on her statement to the court, & presented hearsay, she evidently is not a good liar, she claims another officer called our vet (Officer Ingrid Weaver) & they told her that they had been worried about my dogs for years & were glad they were out of that situation. The vet is mad beyond belief & still contemplating suing Everett AC after my case has gone to trial, because they don't

have anyone by the name given who made the statements & that particular vet has only been our vet for approximately 6 or 7 months, they said if anything they are worried about me because I only takethe sick & old or dying dogs who no one else would even bother with & don't know why I waste mytime or money on them.

6) This goes on The Color of Law, along with discrimination, of which I am going to file a Tort Claimagainst the City of Everett. It is despicable that these kinds of people & thinking still pervade our legal system & that they have any kind of power of control to push or enforce their hatred. It should be noted that she is an obese caucasian woman, which I personally have no control over, nor can I control my Race or my metabolism. That is not something you should take to work with you, it should not colour your decisions, I thought or hoped I was wrong but I ran an ad on craigslist as well seeking peoplewho had been harassed by this woman as well... all minorities, almost all women, & almost all mediumto petite. I am filing a complaint as well with the Dept of Justice, against teh entire City because I also found something very interesting... they have no, none, not a one minorities working at most of the Cityagencies, their interim manager, although named DelGado is a married name, & in hindisght in the past 11 yrs I have been dealing with Everett AC I have never seen even a minority volunteer let aloneemployee. This is also following deprivation of my cultural beliefs & goes against the ADA in so muchas Soffie one of the dogs seized was my therapy dog, so every time, every day that I get out of the houseto go to court is terrifying to me, I spend the prior night throwing up & I sweat profusely, the wholetime as well as having panic attacks, they said it's not their problem & that really was too bad for me.Why do I have agoraphobia? I was almost murdered in 2000, my whole face had to be reconstructed but because of my fear I haven't even finished that, I moved to Everett to hide from my stalker &instead got a new one in a uniform who terrorized me so badly I gave my only source of comfort or

sense of safety away to save their lives.

7) Furthermore this also goes into deprivation of property since the aw insists on calling sentient beings "property" & also includes conspiracy to deprive me permanently of my civil & property rights. Additionally, the practice of seizing the personal property of owners without following statutory notice requirements, as occurred in this case, is a denial of procedural due process. No proper notice procedures have been followed by the City of Everett/animal careand control authorities under animal seizure statutes, or property forfeiture statutes, to theowners of the pets setting forth the reason for the seizure and the process whereby the petitioners may reacquire possession of their property in their pets. Petitioners have beendenied procedural due process by the City of Everett and/or (AC) authorities. The pets were

seized unlawfully as they were NOT in a life threatening condition pursuant to RCW 16.52.085. Property owners have the right to challenge such seizures and, if they "substantially prevail," recover their costs and reaasonable attorney fees. RCW 69.50.505(6). (6) In any proceeding to forfeit property under this title, where the claimant substantially prevails, the claimant isentitled to reasonable attorneys' fees reasonably incurred by the claimant. In addition, in acourt hearing between two or more claimants to the article or articles involved, the prevailing party is entitled to a judgment for costs and reasonable attorneys' fees. Washington state's civil forfeiture act was adopted to protect people from having their property wrongfully seized by the government. In Guillen v. Contreras (Sup. Ct. En Banc. No. 82531-9 (9/2010), amicus notes



that "an owner has the right to resist the taking of any of his property regardless of market value." Amicus Br. At 8, cf Guillen v. Contreras, Sup. Ct. En Banc, No. 82531-9 (9/9/2010). Acitizen has the right to object to seizure, even if temporary, of his personal property no matter the market value. Id. Forfeitures of personal and real property are not favored in the law and very specific procedures must be followed.by government officials and its agents when seizing property, including animals. If statutory procedures are not followed, the property was illegally

seized and a person is lawfully entitled to possession thereof. Unless the seized property isneeded for evidence, the petitioners are not the rightful owners, the property is contraband, or the property is subject to forfeiture pursuant to statute, the seized property must be returned. Id.The petitioner is the rightful owners of their dogs and cats, their property in dogs and cats isnot "contraband", statutory procedures for seizure of property have not been followed, and the seized property in pets must be returned to the petitioners. If the state argues that the pets are"derivative contraband" and that petitioner is somehow guilty of a crime, the government must follow property forfeiture procedures to divest petitioners of their interest in their property indogs and cats. One 1958 Plymouth Sedan v. Pennsylvannia, 380 U.S. At 699; Cooper, 904 F.2d at 305; Farrell, 606 F. 2d at 1344; David v. Fowler, 504 F. Supp. At 505, cf from State v. Alaway, 64 Wn. App. 796, 828 P.2d 591, p. 3 (4/2/92). Washington courts often look to federal law to determine lawful forfeiture procedures. The State cannot confiscate property merelybecause it is "derivative contraband". Instead it must forfeit it using property forfeiture procedures. Washington has a statutory forfeiture procedure. . . RCW 69.50.505(a)(2). Noticemust be given within 15 days of seizure. RCW 69.50.505(c). If the property is personal property,one claming an interest in it then has 45 days to respond, and if a response is made, a hearing must be held. RCW 69.50.505(d), (e). Washington State's forfeiture statutes are exclusive.Unless statutory procedure are followed, a Washington court cannot order forfeiture and must release the petitioners' property. A court does not have inherent authority to forfeit property.See, State v. Alaway, 64 Wn. App. 796, 828 P.2d 591, p. 3 (4/2/92). The government gave nonotice, so petitioners are not bound by any time frame to reclaim their property which is still inimpound in Everett Wa. In the case of the seizure of an owner's property in pets for feeding and care, as in this matter, the seizure and forfeiture provisions in RCW 16.52.085 appear to track Washington State's civil forfeiture statute RCW 69.50 et seq. and federal law notice procedures. RCW 16.52.100 provides that if an animal is confined without necessary food or water for morethan 36 hours, and the officer finds it extremely difficult to provide the animal with food or water, the officer may remove the animals to protective custody for that purpose. RCW 16.52.085 sets forth the method whereby an animal may be seized for protective custody for feeding and care. An animal may be seized by an officer only with a warrant UNLESS theanimal is in an immediate life-threatening condition. If the officer decides that an animal is inan immediate life threatening condition to justify summary seizure of the animals, proper noticemust be given to the owner of the animal by (1) posting at the place of seizure, and (2) personal service to a person residing at the place of seizure, OR by registered mail to the owner. The Notice must be written notice to the owner of the circumstances of the removal of the animals(without a warrant) and the legal remedies available under this chapter to the owner of theanimal(s). The proper procedures by statute are enumerated below. Petitioners received nolawful notice and their due process rights were violated.

8) It should also be noted that Officer Trask took my animals at around 10 a.m. But didn't show upat the Everett Animals shelter until 4:40 p.m. At which time my Eskimo dog was bleeding fromhis rectum & unable to walk, my Kelpie dog was in full throes of seizures even though he had been seizure free for over a year, & my Schnauzer was bloody, missing teeth & hypothermic. I want to know what those sick & twisted sadistic people did to my dogs, if you notice NONE of



these injuries are noted on any of my charging papers except to say the Eskimo wouldn't walk & that the Kelpie had a seizure.She is also listed as “treating my dogs along with another animals control officer when they are in NO way qualified to treat my animals

Please note: again I am not trying to be fresh in citing laws that you all know full well but I am givingmyself a frame of reference & trying to communicate why I think I have cause for a Tort Claim, & for

filing a complaint.

TITLE 42 > CHAPTER 21 > SUBCHAPTER I SUBCHAPTER I—GENERALLY

§ 1981. Equal rights under the law

(a) Statement of equal rights All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by whitecitizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other.(c) Protection against impairment

The rights protected by this section are protected against impairment by nongovernmental discrimination and impairment under color of State law § 1982. Property rights of citizens

All citizens of the United States shall have the same right, in every State and Territory, as is enjoyed bywhite citizens thereof to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property. § 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not

be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia. § 1985. Conspiracy to interfere with civil rights(2) Obstructing justice; intimidating party, witness, or juror

If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire to deter, by force, intimidation, or threat, any party or witness in any court of the United States from attending such court, or from testifying to anymatter pending therein, freely, fully, and truthfully, or to injure such party or witness in his person or property on account of his having so attended or testified, or to influence the verdict, presentment, or indictment of any grand or petit juror in any such court, or to injure such juror in his person or property on account of any verdict, presentment, or indictment lawfully assented to by him, or of his

being or having been such juror; or if two or more persons conspire for the purpose of impeding,hindering, obstructing, or defeating, in any manner, the due course of justice in any State or Territory,with intent to deny to any citizen the equal protection of the laws, or to injure him or his property for lawfully enforcing, or attempting to enforce, the right of any person, or class of persons, to the equal protection of the laws;(3) Depriving persons of rights or privileges

If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire or go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another, for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws; or



Washington state government employment. The purpose of this chapter is to provide for enforcement measures for affirmative action within Washington state government employment and institutions of higher education in order to eliminate such underrepresentation.[1985 c 365 § 7.]

RCW 49.60.030 Freedom from discrimination — Declaration of civil rights.

(1) The right to be free from discrimination because of race, creed, color, national origin, sex,

honorably discharged veteran or military status, sexual orientation, or the presence of any sensory,mental, or physical disability or the use of a trained dog guide or service animal by a person with adisability is recognized as and declared to be a civil right. This right shall include, but not be limited to:(b) The right to the full enjoyment of any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, or privileges of any place of public resort, accommodation, assemblage, or amusement; (2) Any person deeming himself or herself injured by any act in violation of this chapter shall have acivil action in a court of competent jurisdiction to enjoin further violations, or to recover the actual damages sustained by the person, or both, together with the cost of suit including reasonable attorneys' fees or any other appropriate remedy authorized by this chapter or the United States Civil Rights Act of 1964 as amended, or the Federal Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 3601 et seq.).

RCW 9.62.010 Malicious prosecution.

Every person who shall, maliciously and without probable cause therefor, cause or attempt to causeanother to be arrested or proceeded against for any crime of which he or she is innocent:(1) If such crime be a felony, is guilty of a class C felony and shall be punished by imprisonment in a state correctional facility for not more than five years; and (2) If such crime be a gross misdemeanor or misdemeanor, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

RCW 9A.36.080 Malicious harassment — Definition and criminal penalty.

(1) A person is guilty of malicious harassment if he or she maliciously and intentionally commits one of the following acts because of his or her perception of the victim's race, color, religion, ancestry,national origin, gender, sexual orientation, or mental, physical, or sensory handicap:(b) Causes physical damage to or destruction of the property of the victim or another person; or (2) In any prosecution for malicious harassment, unless evidence exists which explains to the trier of fact's satisfaction that the person did not intend to threaten the victim or victims, the trier of fact mayinfer that the person intended to threaten a specific victim or group of victims because of the person's perception of the victim's or victims' race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, or mental, physical, or sensory handicap if the person commits one of the following acts:***This subsection only applies to the creation of a reasonable inference for evidentiary purposes.This subsection does not restrict the state's ability to prosecute a person under subsection (1) of this section when the facts of a particular case do not fall within (a) or (b) of this subsection.(3) It is not a defense that the accused was mistaken that the victim was a member of a certain race,color, religion, ancestry, national origin, gender, or sexual orientation, or had a mental, physical, or sensory handicap.(4) Evidence of expressions or associations of the accused may not be introduced as substantiveevidence at trial unless the evidence specifically relates to the crime charged. Nothing in this chapter shall affect the rules of evidence governing impeachment of a witness.(b) "Threat" means to communicate, directly or indirectly, the intent to:(i) Cause bodily injury immediately or in the future to the person threatened or to any other person; or (ii) Cause physical damage immediately or in the future to the property of a person threatened or that of any other person.(7) Malicious harassment is a class C felony.



(8) The penalties provided in this section for malicious harassment do not preclude the victims from seeking any other remedies otherwise available under law.

3. Disclosure. Pursuant to RCW 42.17.310(1)(e), information revealing the identity of persons who

file complaints with investigative agencies other than the public disclosure commission, may indicate adesire for disclosure or nondisclosure if the complainant believes that disclosure would endanger his or

her life, physical safety or property. The desires of the complainant govern disclosure. Please indicate

your desire for disclosure or nondisclosure by checking the appropriate box and initialing.

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

4. Attestation. I declare that the foregoing information is true and accurate to the best of my

knowledge.

Your Signature:

Your Printed Name:

Address:

Daytime Phone:Date: _____________________________________

Please return this completed form to:Executive Ethics Board *

2425 Bristol Ct SW PO Box 40149 * Olympia, WA 98504-0149

If you have questions about this form, or would like to request the form in an alternate format for thevisually impaired, contact the Executive Ethics Board at (360) 664-0871 or write us at the above

address. We will take reasonable steps to accommodate your needs.



[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];


[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]

Brandia Ta’amu came to stay at a friend’s home 32 days ago. She NEVER once let her animals out of her car the whole time she stayed there, even though she was asked over and over again to let the

animals get out and exercise, and to come into the house. Brandia’s car stinks badly of cat urine, dog

urine, and feces!! There are worms in her car all over, because her animals need to be treated, and theyhad Giardia too! When animal control came with several police cars there was NO WATER OR FOODAVAILABLE FOR THE ANIMALS!!! Brandia claims you can not give them an endless supply of

water, because they will pee all over her car. Animal Control of Everett recieved NUMEROUS

COMPLAINTS. AC came with a search warrant, and took all her animals. Also, animal control

displayed on their computer that Brandia has actually dumped off dogs at the Everett Animal

Control. The last time which was two dogs, a Husky mix, and the other one said “Golden

Lab/Retriever.

=====================================================================

From: [email protected]

To: [email protected]; [email protected];

[email protected]; [email protected];[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];



[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];

[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];

[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];



[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];

[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]: 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 asearch warrant for Brandia Taamu’s car, and took her animals that were extremely dehydrated! By the

way, they WERE NOT here for my animals, and I offered to let them look at my animals, but they were

not interested they said there sole interest was in Brandia’s car, because of the NUMEROUS

COMPLAINTS REGARDING BRANDIA TAAMU. Two days earlier, Animal Control was here to seeBrandia, and Brandia REFUSED to let them see the animals in her car, which DID NOT have water

then either, and as the woman was writing down Brandia’s plated number, Brandia floored it backwards

down my long driveway almost running the AC officer down, and almost hitting my neighbors fence!My driveway curves, and is very long.

Brandia is lying to everyone saying she came to stay at my house…… on Christmas Day, and that is a

lie. There are NUMEROUS witnesses that she has been here since December 12th, 2010 after she was

evicted from her house. She refused to take her animals out of the car even when Sadie was not here for days on end, and was with my son at his dad’s. Those animals that Brandia had were suffering. Everett



Animal Control had to call me the other day to tell me I have to take all my animals in to be

checked, because Brandia’s animals all had Giardia & Worms. The dogs Brandia took to

Christine’s (the Eskies) all had Giardia too! She took those dogs to Christine BEFORE she ever came

to my house. Animal Control aslo said that the animal garbage which Brandia shoved under our car trailer, and has NEVER cleaned up, along with the blankets that were in her car, AND NOW ON OUR

GROUND, that are covered in her dogs & cats urine & feces is CONTAMINATED WITH

GIARDIA!!! I can not let my dogs in the front yard at all, because thanks to Brandia our ground iscontaminated! Brandia has sent out numerous postings lying to everyone about WHY her animals were

taken. They were not taken because she was homeless, which really is not true, because she has been

with us since December 12th, when one of your fosters asked me to take her in. Her dogs and cats weretaken because she NEVER IN 3 PLUS WEEKS LET THEM OUT OF HER CAR, AND THEY HAD

NO WATER WHEN ANIMAL CONTROL SHOWED UP!!!

Also, remember that Animal Control DOES NOT take someone’s animals without evidence that they

are abused or neglected! Brandia is facing criminal charges, for many reasons. BRANDIA TAAMU NEEDS TO TELL THE TRUTH!!!

Rose

ethics complaint against lori trask

Documents