God Bless our #GoodPolice but the #BadCops Have 2 Go!

SNOHOMISH COUNTY SHERIFF LIED TO ME: Nowhere has the Legislature indicated that the sheriff's powers and duties are limited to the unincorporated areas of the county. Nor is there any statutory language from which such a limitation might be inferred. We note, in addition, that the sheriff at common law was the chief law enforcement officer of the county, and that the office of sheriff retains its common law powers and duties unless modified by the constitution or statutes. Sheriffs, Police, and Constables § 2 (1987); seeState ex rel. Johnston v. Melton, 192 Wash. 379, 388-89, 73 P.2d 1334 (1937); AGO 51-53 No. 322 at 2. We thus conclude that the sheriff has a general duty to enforce state law in both unincorporated and incorporated areas of the county. "the jurisdiction of the sheriff in law enforcement matters normally extends throughout his county including the incorporated areas thereof." [The sheriff's] authority is county wide. He is not restricted by municipal limits. For better protection and for the enforcement of local ordinance[s] the [[Orig. Op. Page 4]] cities and towns have their police departments or their town marshals. Even the state has its highway patrol. Still the authority of the sheriff with his correlative duty remains.

Friday, November 29, 2013

Not that we do not still need you Men because we do! Nothing can "Replace" you!


Not that we do not still need you Men because we do! Nothing can "Replace" you, Women just want 2 make sure we can do it for ourselves. We will always "Need" you Men we just don't show it much anymore, but we still do. And just btw- It's still ok to open the door for us & to kill the bugs 





MAKERS: Women Who Make America tells the remarkable story of the most sweeping social revolution in American history, as women have asserted their rights to a full and fair share of political power, economic opportunity, and personal autonomy.


It’s a revolution that has unfolded in public and private, in courts and Congress, in the boardroom and the bedroom, changing not only what the world expects from women, but what women expect from themselves....

Saturday, November 23, 2013

RAPISTS WITH BADGES-Officers were accused of sexual assault at a rate of 79 per 100,000 law enforcement personnel.

Just because there is a badge & uniform does NOT mean they are NOT a SEXUAL PREDATOR!


THIS IS WHAT I FEEL NEEDS TO BE DONE IN WAS STATE NOW! AND I HAVE MADE THIS VERY CLEAR TO WA STATE~


ANY WA State Police Officer caught having sex on duty- sex w/a minor-Lies and Abuses, commits crimes to have sex on duty.. NO SECOND CHANCES! Gone! Period! End of subject GONE! Turn in your badge, turn in your weapon- GONE! In writing in EVERY WA State Police Department Policies and Procedures Manual. One gets fired the next doesn't. One resigned, the next doesn't-One gets "punished" the next doesn't.



RAPISTS WITH BADGES




According to the 3rd Quarter Report of The National Police Misconduct Statistics and Reporting Project, police officers were accused of sexual assault at a rate of 79 per 100,000 law enforcement personal. The rate of accusations for the general public is 28.7 per 100,000 general public.  When corrected for gender these numbers tell us that there are 1.5 times more accusations of sexual assault among  male law enforcement officers than among the general male population.  The fact that rapists seem to be concentrated among a group of armed individuals who have the purported authority to detain and arrest other individuals should be more than a little alarming for even the most prolific police bootlicker. In just the last month, several stories of officers committing disgusting crimes have been in the news.

NO EXCEPTIONS EVERETT POLICE DEPARTMENT!


The comment below is NOT MINE. It was left by "H S" attached to the article written by Eric Stevick, writer/reporter for the Everett Herald, about my abuser (X-Now, Praise the Lord) Officer Robert W Franklin Badge #220. My question is... If "Many folks have knows about" Franklin's actions/abuses of our innocent citizens, including his abuse of me, and prior- Why/How is it that  NOBODY did ANYTHING to stop him years ago?? 


Had my ZERO TOLERANCE already been in law prior, this would NOT even be an issue. NOBODY would even know my name except for as a PROSECUTING ATTY for WA State. I still have NO Regrets- 
Not One!


"MANY folks have known about this Officer for years,,,,and 
they all have been saying .."It is just a matter of time",,,,well it finally became time..."

  
  

"City spokeswoman Kate Reardon said police weren't able to fully investigate all of the allegations in the 2010 case because the witness was uncooperative. In an interview Friday, the woman said she wouldn't agree to a taped interview without an attorney present"


THE EVERETT POLICE DEPARTMENT LIED! BOLD FACED LIED TO THE MEDIA! I DID NOT REFUSE TO COOPERATE WITH THE EPD! THEY REFUSED TO COOPERATE WITH ME! HUGE POLICE COVER-UP BUT NOT FOR LONG! HOW DARE THEY BLAME ME FOR FRANKLIN KEEPING HIS JOB! FLAT OUT LIE! 







AvatarH S 

MANY folks have known about this Officer for years,,,,and they all have been saying .."It is just a matter of time",,,,well it finally became time...

Everett officer resigns after 3rd inquiry


EVERETT -- A veteran Everett police officer resigned last month after a third internal investigation since 2000 resulted in findings of dishonesty and misconduct.
Officer Robert Franklin quit April 16 after being informed of the Everett Police Department's plan to fire him.
The latest internal investigation began in October after a man filed a complaint alleging Franklin was engaging in an inappropriate relationship with the man's wife.
Both the woman and Franklin denied having a sexual relationship.
The Herald obtained a copy of the 199-page internal investigation through a public records request. The documents were released Friday.
While there was no evidence of an affair, Everett Police Chief Kathy Atwood concluded that Franklin had been untruthful during the investigation. She also found that he conducted personal business while on duty and failed to perform a full day's work for a full day's pay.
Franklin was suspended and demoted in June 2000 after an internal investigation concluded he had an extramarital relationship.
He was again suspended and demoted in 2012 after acknowledging another romantic relationship. That woman told police that Franklin said he was divorced and that they had sex while he was on duty. He denied having sex on duty.
Investigators said that a voice mail he left the woman "gives credence" to her story.

Former police Chief Jim Scharf wrote at the time: "Your convenient lack of recollection regarding the event that prompted you to leave the voice mail is improbable and your denial of a sexual encounter with (the woman) while on duty is implausible."
City spokeswoman Kate Reardon said police weren't able to fully investigate all of the allegations in the 2010 case because the witness was uncooperative. In an interview Friday, the woman said she wouldn't agree to a taped interview without an attorney present.
In a hand-delivered letter April 8, Atwood informed Franklin that she was planning to fire him.
She wrote that the latest investigation "revealed disturbing evidence of a lack of honesty on your part as the investigation unfolded."
"Your actions in this investigation were particularly troubling because of the pattern of dishonesty," she wrote.
The internal investigation also documented more than seven hours of telephone calls between Franklin and the woman in a one-month period while he was on duty.
Franklin has been a police officer for 27 years.
The city will refer the case to the Washington State Criminal Justice Training Commission, which will consider decertifying Franklin as a police officer, Reardon said.
Eric Stevick: 425-339-3446, stevick@heraldnet.com

Story tags »  • Everett • Police







THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 2010

the assualt and misuse of atuhority

during a welfare check- in i was treated like a criminal i was forced down my stairs and handcuffed i told the officer of my left hand being injured and to be careful cause already i cannot feel my thumb they kept asking me the same questions and i was giving the same answer. all i wanted to do was go into my house and watch TV i was not on any illegal drugs or under the influence of alcohol. i felt like standing to watch the one officer lock my door but the one officer insisted i sit i was already hand cuffed by them the officer grabbed ahold of my left hand that was injured and twisted it until i was on the ground while on the ground officer franklin badge # 220 stood on my left elbow. i was handcuffed and laying face down i asked for the officer to get off my elbow and the one officer stated no one was on my elbow and i screamed franklin get of my elbow.. is this force. necessary for a welfare check in i was transported to providence medical where i was cuffed to the hospital bed using the left hand again i was able to see how tight they administered the cuffs. i was bloody and scrapped up as the marched me into the hospital like i had murdered some one everyone is looking at my like i was a hideous criminal i was released out of the emergency room to have to walk home. now it the next day and my body is sore from he abuse i was administered by the police during a welfare check for some reason i have talked to other people who have delt with the Everett police dept. . who has been victim of abuse at the hands of he police.

here one answer i got I am Inspector Pete Grassi with the Office of Professional Standards with the Everett Police Department. 

Your complaint has been forwarded to my office. My office handles all the complaints against officers. I need some information from you so I can look into your complaint. I will need your full name, address where the incident took place if different from your home address. The date and time of the incident.We have received the complaint you made regarding the accident your friend was involved in and your treatment by the officers. You will be receiving a letter explaining the process. In your case since there are charges pending we wait until the court case is adjudicated before we start our investigation. If for some reason your case gets rescheduled for a later date then we might go ahead and start the investigation depending how far out it was rescheduled to.

Your 2nd complaint will be looked into right away. You will also receive a letter about that complaint giving you the complaint number. It will be different from your first complaint.

Peter Grassi

5 comments:

  1. Hey Tom.. have my own blog page now.. would really like to speak with you about what happened and has happened w/u the EPD/Franklin/Grassi situation. You may be interested in what I have to tell you as well.

    http://missbrenslaw.blogspot.com/



    1. sorry i have not checked this blog in a long time

  2. https://www.facebook.com/LegallyBrunetteBren
  3. FRANKLIN IS GONE TOM... THE EPD FINALLY FIRED HIS ASS.. BUT GUESS WHAT- THEY ARE TRYING DAMN HARD TO KEEP ME QUIET. TO THIS DAY TOM~

    http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20130510/NEWS01/705109816

    Published: Friday, May 10, 2013, 5:50 p.m.
    EMAIL ARTICLE | PRINT | JUMP TO COMMENTS
    Everett officer resigns after 3rd inquiry
    advertisement | your ad here

    By Eric Stevick, Herald Writer
  4. Tom Dear- We NEED TO TALK! Please Please Please check my blog. Scroll down to the third post from the top! I've been sharing your link all over the state of WA! Franklin is GONE. Beating the crap out of you dear, was NOT his only abuse (s) I hope you hired a Lawyer three years ago. We Need To Talk-





THE EVERETT POLICE DEPARTMENT LIED! BOLD FACED LIED TO THE MEDIA! I DID NOT REFUSE TO COOPERATE WITH THE EPD! THEY REFUSED TO COOPERATE WITH ME! HUGE POLICE COVER-UP BUT NOT FOR LONG! HOW DARE THEY BLAME ME FOR FRANKLIN KEEPING HIS JOB! FLAT OUT LIE! 


An Everett police officer, who was facing termination, has quit after being accused of inappropriate behavior on duty for the third time in 13 years.
Officer Robert W. Franklin submitted his resignation last month, but details of the investigation only came to light after a records request Friday by KING 5.
Everett police began their investigation last year when the spouse of an employee at a QFC store in complained that Franklin was “courting a relationship” with his wife. Officer Franklin provided uniformed security at the QFC for a number of years.
Franklin and the woman denied they had a sexual relationship. Franklin also denied that they had much of a personal relationship. But phone records showed Franklin spoke with the woman at least 84 times on his cell phone over the course of a couple of months.
“The officer was found to have made untruthful statements during the investigation and that violates the public trust. The officer no longer works for our department,” said Everett city spokeswoman Kate Reardon.
Investigators said they could not prove that the pair had sex while Franklin was on duty, but they did determine he was untruthful in his description of the relationship to internal affairs.
“These actions are unacceptable and violate the public’s trust,” Chief Kathy Atwood added about the 27-year veteran’s behavior.
Franklin was suspended and demoted in June of 2000 for allegedly having sex on duty and lying about it. In 2010, the department launched another investigation when a separate woman accused him of having sex with her on duty. Investigators say he also lied about the facts in that case, and again he was suspended and demoted.
Documents indicate that the 2010 case did not proceed any further because the complaining witness became “uncooperative.”
Franklin declined to comment when KING 5 reached him at his Everett home.

Thursday, November 7, 2013

"Can't deny the TRUTH Cuz I'm the Living Proof" We Need A ZERO TOLERANCE for Any and ALL Police Sexual Misconducts In WA State- ALL States- All Countries!

"It's gonna be a long long journey- It's gonna be an uphill climb-
It's gonna be a tough fight- It's gonna be some lonely nights-
But I'm ready to carry on!"
"I'm so glad the worst is over cuz it almost 
took me out!"

No More Police Sexual Misconducts! This ends NOW- 
Or I will DIE fighting to make it end & with NO regrets- Not One.... 
HB 1825 Spring Legislation WA State 2014

History of the Bill

as of Thursday, November 14, 2013 8:46 AM
Sponsors: Representatives ParkerGoodmanHawkinsKretzKagiFaganWarnick
Companion Bill: SB 5668 Senators PaddenBaumgartner

REGULAR SESSION: Feb 11 Referred to Labor & Workforce   Development. (View Original Bill)
May 13 2013 1ST SPECIAL SESSION By resolution, reintroduced and retained in present status.



Companion Bill:HB 1825
H-1157.2 HOUSE BILL 1825______State of Washington 63rd Legislature 2013 Regular Session By Representatives Parker, Goodman, Hawkins, Kretz, Kagi, Fagan, and Warnick Read first time 02/11/13. Referred to Committee on Labor & Workforce Development. 

1 AN ACT Relating to the removal and discharge of peace officers; 
2 amending RCW 41.12.080, 41.14.110, and 43.43.070; and adding a new 
3 section to chapter 43.101 RCW. 
4 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON: 
5 Sec. 1. RCW 41.12.080 and 2007 c 218 s 13 are each amended to read 
6 as follows: 
7 (1) The tenure of everyone holding an office, place, position or 
8 employment under the provisions of this chapter shall be only during 
9 good behavior, and except as provided in subsection (2) of this 
10 section, any such person may be removed or discharged, suspended 
11 without pay, demoted, or reduced in rank, or deprived of vacation 
12 privileges or other special privileges for any of the following 
13 reasons: 
14 (((1))) (a) Incompetency, inefficiency or inattention to or 
15 dereliction of duty; 
16 (((2))) (b) Dishonesty, intemperance, immoral conduct, 
17 insubordination, discourteous treatment of the public, or a fellow 
18 employee, or any other act of omission or commission tending to injure 
19 the public service; or any other willful failure on the part of the 
p. 1 HB 1825 
1 employee to properly conduct himself or herself; or any willful 
2 violation of the provisions of this chapter or the rules and regulation 
3 to be adopted hereunder; 
4 (((3))) (c) Mental or physical unfitness for the position which the 
5 employee holds; 
6 (((4))) (d) Dishonest, disgraceful, immoral or prejudicial conduct; 
7 (((5))) (e) Drunkenness or use of intoxicating liquors, narcotics, 
8 or any other habit forming drug, liquid or preparation to such extent 
9 that the use thereof interferes with the efficiency or mental or 
10 physical fitness of the employee, or which precludes the employee from 
11 properly performing the function and duties of any position under civil 
12 service; 
13 (((6))) (f) Conviction of a felony, or a misdemeanor, involving 
14 moral turpitude; 
15 (((7))) (g) Any other act or failure to act which in the judgment 
16 of the civil service commissioners is sufficient to show the offender 
17 to be an unsuitable and unfit person to be employed in the public 
18 service. 
19 (2) If an employer removes or discharges a person who holds an 
20 office, place, position, or employment under this chapter for 
21 committing an illegal act or an act of dishonesty or untruthfulness, 
22 and an arbitrator finds that the employer established that the person 
23 engaged in the act or acts by clear and convincing evidence, the 
24 employer is deemed to have had just cause for the removal or discharge, 
25 and the arbitrator may not overturn the removal or discharge. 
26 (3) For purposes of this section, "illegal act" and an "act of 
27 dishonesty or untruthfulness" mean the same as defined in section 4 of 
28 this act. 
29 Sec. 2. RCW 41.14.110 and 2012 c 117 s 14 are each amended to read 
30 as follows: 
31 (1) The tenure of every person holding an office, place, position, 
32 or employment under the provisions of this chapter shall be only during 
33 good behavior, and except as provided in subsection (2) of this 
34 section, any such person may be removed or discharged, suspended 
35 without pay, demoted, or reduced in rank, or deprived of vacation 
36 privileges or other special privileges for any of the following 
37 reasons: 
HB 1825 p. 2 
1 (((1))) (a) Incompetency, inefficiency, or inattention to, or 
2 dereliction of duty; 
3 (((2))) (b) Dishonesty, intemperance, immoral conduct, 
4 insubordination, discourteous treatment of the public, or a fellow 
5 employee, or any other act of omission or commission tending to injure 
6 the public service; or any other willful failure on the part of the 
7 employee to properly conduct himself or herself; or any willful 
8 violation of the provisions of this chapter or the rules and 
9 regulations to be adopted hereunder; 
10 (((3))) (c) Mental or physical unfitness for the position which the 
11 employee holds; 
12 (((4))) (d) Dishonest, disgraceful, or prejudicial conduct; 
13 (((5))) (e) Drunkenness or use of intoxicating liquors, narcotics, 
14 or any other habit forming drug, liquid, or preparation to such extent 
15 that the use thereof interferes with the efficiency or mental or 
16 physical fitness of the employee, or which precludes the employee from 
17 properly performing the function and duties of any position under civil 
18 service; 
19 (((6))) (f) Conviction of a felony, or a misdemeanor involving 
20 moral turpitude; 
21 (((7))) (g) Any other act or failure to act which in the judgment 
22 of the civil service commission is sufficient to show the offender to 
23 be an unsuitable and unfit person to be employed in the public service. 
24 (2) If an employer removes or discharges a person who holds an 
25 office, place, position, or employment under this chapter for 
26 committing an illegal act or an act of dishonesty or untruthfulness, 
27 and an arbitrator finds that the employer established that the person 
28 engaged in the act or acts by clear and convincing evidence, the 
29 employer is deemed to have had just cause for the removal or discharge, 
30 and the arbitrator may not overturn the removal or discharge. 
31 (3) For purposes of this section, "illegal act" and an "act of 
32 dishonesty or untruthfulness" mean the same as defined in section 4 of 
33 this act. 
34 Sec. 3. RCW 43.43.070 and 1984 c 141 s 2 are each amended to read 
35 as follows: 
36 (1) Discharge of any officer with probationary status and 
37 discharge, demotion, or suspension of any officer with nonprobationary 
p. 3 HB 1825 
1 status shall be only for cause, which shall be clearly stated in a 
2 written complaint, sworn to by the person preferring the charges, and 
3 served upon the officer complained of. 
4 (2) Removal or discharge of any officer for committing an illegal 
5 act or an act of dishonesty or untruthfulness established by clear and 
6 convincing evidence shall be deemed to satisfy the reasonableness and 
7 lawfulness standard set forth in RCW 43.43.100. 
8 (3) Upon being ((so)) served with a written complaint, any such 
9 officer shall be entitled to a public hearing before a trial board 
10 consisting of two Washington state patrol officers of the rank of 
11 captain, and one officer of equal rank with the officer complained of, 
12 who shall be selected by the chief of the Washington state patrol by 
13 lot from the roster of the patrol. In the case of complaint by an 
14 officer, such officer shall not be a member of the trial board. 
15 (4) For purposes of this section, "illegal act" and an "act of 
16 dishonesty or untruthfulness" mean the same as defined in section 4 of 
17 this act. 
18 NEW SECTION. Sec. 4. A new section is added to chapter 43.101 RCW 
19 to read as follows: 
20 (1) If an employer removes or discharges a person who holds an 
21 office, place, position, or employment under this chapter for 
22 committing an illegal act or an act of dishonesty or untruthfulness, 
23 and an arbitrator finds that the employer established that the person 
24 engaged in the act or acts by clear and convincing evidence, the 
25 employer is deemed to have had just cause for the removal or discharge, 
26 and the arbitrator may not overturn the removal or discharge. 
27 (2) For purposes of this section, the following terms have the 
28 following meanings: 
29 (a) "Illegal act" means the commission of a crime involving moral 
30 turpitude in the discharge of the person's official duties, including 
31 but not limited to: A violent offense, as defined in RCW 9.94A.030; a 
32 sex offense, as defined in RCW 9.94A.030; theft, as defined in RCW 
33 9A.56.030 through 9A.56.050; fraud under chapter 9A.60 RCW; malicious 
34 mischief, as defined in RCW 9A.48.070 through 9A.48.090; and indecent 
35 exposure, as defined in RCW 9A.88.010. 
36 (b) "An act of dishonesty or untruthfulness" means intentionally 
HB 1825 p. 4 
1 making a false statement in response to a direct question in an 
2 official investigation or disciplinary process or intentionally making 
3 a false statement in an official public document. 
4 NEW SECTION. Sec. 5. If any provision of this act or its 
5 application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the 
6 remainder of the act or the application of the provision to other 
7 persons or circumstances is not affected.