God Bless our #GoodPolice but the #BadCops Have 2 Go!
#NoMorePoliceSexualAbuse
@LivingProof2017ANY POLICE SEX ON DUTY "IN CUSTODY" OR NOT! ALL COP/SEX on the TAXPAYER DIME! MUST BE ILLEGAL⚖PERIOD! END OF SUBJECT! NO COP SEX ON TAXPAYER DIME OR TIME.
Thank You @MarkTreyger718 @chuckschumer @NYGovCuomo @DetKenLang @NYPDnewsFinally There Will Be An End To #PoliceSexualAbuse
WA State @Q13FOX @BillWixey HAS IGNORED @AdamGehrke @gottogetoutof @PattyMurray @ACLU @JayInslee @ACLU_WA @CNN @maddow @Lawrence
'No Fear of Being Caught’ - Many police officials and experts express optimism that the prevalence of cameras will reduce police lying. As officers begin to accept that digital evidence of an encounter will emerge, lying will be perceived as too risky — or so the thinking goes.
“Basically it’s harder for a cop to lie today,” the Police Department’s top legal official, Lawrence Byrne, said last year at a New York City Bar Association event, noting that there were millions of cellphones on the streets of New York, each with a camera. “There is virtually no enforcement encounter where there isn’t immediate video of what the officers are doing.”
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....
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.
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..."
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
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 groundofficer franklin badge # 220stood 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
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.
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
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.
"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....
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.
http://missbrenslaw.blogspot.com/
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