Thurston Prosecutor Coaches/Tampers w/Witness

In the following courtroom audio clip from Thurston County District Court case #AH11-0208 (a civil anti-harassment petition brought by Dotson), juvenile probation officer Sara Dotson can be heard swearing, under oath, to the fact Thurston Deputy Prosecutor Jennifer Lord and Detective Weiss (by reference therein) coached, influenced, and tampered with the State’s complaining witness in a private civil action in order to setup their agenda in a concocted Thurston Superior Court criminal proceeding: #11-1-01711-1

Despite the fact Lord was the State’s attorney, not Dotson’s, and Weiss was the State’s investigator, not Dotson’s, they engaged in the barratry of urging  the State’s complaining witness to act against her own interests at the expense of the defendant, at least according to Dotson’s sworn statement, the core of which can be heard 35 seconds into the audio stream.

This is an apparently typical MO of Thurston County prosecutors and how they ‘develop’ witnesses. In this instance, Dotson was not even the one who initially contacted the Sheriff’s office, it was Tim Morgan, a long time  nemesis of the defendant’s. All defendants in Thurston County should be warned of this kind of corruption/conflict of interest in that County Prosecutor’s office.

Click HERE to listen to Sara Dotson’s admission she had been influenced, coached, and advised on what to say/do.

District Court AH11-0208 audio of alleged witness tampering in sworn statement

About admin

Opposed to politicians who equivocate about air quality & BioMassacre
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

26 Responses to Thurston Prosecutor Coaches/Tampers w/Witness

  1. w47107d says:

    I need to tell you of a new terrorist organization who are or are about to prey on your parents. These criminals will get a complaint from your enemies and come into your parents’ home, scarring the daylights out of old people. They call their “gang” APS or adult protective services. They will show up at your parents’ home claiming that your parents have no food or heat. They will intimidate your parents into invading their home without court order or due process. All the time presenting the threat they will haul them off or “make life difficult” for them. Welcome to Nazi America where we have “old people”. Teach your parents my friends; teach them to beware when the government wants to take them away. Remind them we are still in America. Instruct them that anyone shows up at their door, no matter what Nazi/government credentials they present must have a court order to come into your home. Invite and instruct these terrorists to leave and not come back without that court order. I was unaware of these criminals until yesterday when they showed up right there 7 miles out of Tenino at my 80 year old mother’s house, claiming she was 88 and had no food or heat. This woman was a child of the depression she has a years’ worth of food. She has the nicest of gas fireplace for heat. These APS gangs think they can just do an illegal search and seizure at will on “old” people. When we were young we had to fear the CPSNAZI now at middle age we must fear the APSNAZI soon enough we will be 80 and if don’t protect our parents how can we hope to be protected?
    RCW 74.34.053
    Failure to report — False reports — Penalties.
    (1) A person who is required to make a report under this chapter and who knowingly fails to make the report is guilty of a gross misdemeanor.

    (2) A person who intentionally, maliciously, or in bad faith makes a false report of alleged abandonment, abuse, financial exploitation, or neglect of a vulnerable adult is guilty of a misdemeanor.
    RCW 74.15.080
    Access to agencies, records.
    All agencies subject to chapter 74.15 RCW and RCW 74.13.031 shall accord the department of social and health services, the secretary of health, the chief of the Washington state patrol, and the director of fire protection, or their designees, the right of entrance and the privilege of access to and inspection of records for the purpose of determining whether or not there is compliance with the provisions of chapter 74.15 RCW and RCW 74.13.031 and the requirements adopted thereunder.

  2. admin says:

    I don’t believe the Thurston Co. Prosecutor or his deputies prosecutes public officials suspected of wrong doing. Not long ago, a Thurston narcotics detective was allegedly involved in Domestic Violence, reportedly threatening his wife with a gun. Naturally, no charges were filed against him–but try that as a civilian and watch where you end up.
    Remonstrating with a lying juvenile probation officer in a public hallway over the requirement to accommodate a disabled young mother results in criminal trespass charges by the same Thurston prosecutor’s office. Yet when thugs from a sister agency like the APS arrive to bully their way into a private home, search the refrigerator and elderly woman’s bedroom, nothing will ever be done. Welcome to the world of lying officials, witness tampering, and corruption. Technically the prosecutor is part of the executive, but is too often treated as part of the judicial branch of government.

  3. w47107d says:

    The economic concept of private property refers to the rights owners have to the exclusive use and disposal of a physical object. Property is not a table, a chair, or an acre of land. It is the bundle of rights which the owner is entitled to employ those objects. The alternative (collectivist) view is that private property consists merely of a legal deed to an object with the use and disposal of the object subject to the whims and mercies of the state. Under this latter view, the state retains ownership and may at any time regulate or even repossess the property it temporarily cedes to individuals.

    The Founding Fathers upheld the economic view of property. They believed that private property ownership, as defined under common law, pre-existed government. The state and federal governments were the mere contractual agents of the people, not sovereign lords over them. All rights, not specifically delegated to the government, remained with the people–including the common-law provisions of private property. Consequently, the constitutional rights regarding free speech, freedom of religion, the right of assembly, and private property rights are all claims that individuals may hold and exercise against the government itself. In brief, private property refers to the rights of owners to use their possessions which are enforceable against all nonowners–even the government.

    • admin says:

      Yeah…what he said. I wish I’d said that. Now I won’t have to.

      • w47107d says:

        Glad to be of assistance.
        I recommend that noone pay another penny of taxes in Thurston County. They don’t respect the people that payed for 30 years. What chance do you have? Sue for peace!

        • admin says:

          “The monarchists will hide in the judiciary.” -Ben Franklin-

          • w47107d says:

            Trust the government for they told me to uh… to say that they were sorry, but that you had become… unreliable.
            http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0070723/quotes?qt=qt0380962

            And we all know how that one ended (Spoiler alert)
            http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0070723/quotes?qt=qt0380964

            This info is brought to you by Soylent red and Soylent yellow, high energy vegetable concentrates, and new, delicious, Soylent green. The miracle food of high-energy plankton gathered from the oceans of the world.
            http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0070723/quotes?qt=qt0380968

          • w47107d says:

            If the prosecuting attorney and their staff are incompetent and refuse to help little old ladies get protection, Should we just hire a lawyer to do their job and bill the county for the services?
            Someone broke RCW 74.34.053(b). The law protects the government but we have 1 of only 2 possible conditions:

            1) Someone filed a report full of lies in violation of RCW 74.34.053(b)
            2) The APS went off halfcocked on a proper complaint.
            Either way it is the duty, responsibility, requirement and obligation of the prosecuting attorney to obtain a proper report under RCW 74.15.080.

            Such a report must exist under RCW 74.34.035(8+).
            (8) Each report, oral or written, must contain as much as possible of the following information:

            (a) The name and address of the person making the report;

            (b) The name and address of the vulnerable adult and the name of the facility or agency providing care for the vulnerable adult;

            (c) The name and address of the legal guardian or alternate decision maker;

            (d) The nature and extent of the abandonment, abuse, financial exploitation, neglect, or self-neglect;

            (e) Any history of previous abandonment, abuse, financial exploitation, neglect, or self-neglect;

            (f) The identity of the alleged perpetrator, if known; and

            (g) Other information that may be helpful in establishing the extent of abandonment, abuse, financial exploitation, neglect, or the cause of death of the deceased vulnerable adult.

            US constitution: the rights to see the charges against you and face your accusers.

          • admin says:

            RCW 74.34.035(9) says:
            Unless there is a judicial proceeding or the person consents, the identity of the person making the report under this section is confidential.

            I doubt a prosecutor is going to file charges. You won’t be allowed to speak to the prosecutor. You will be required to file a police report. The police will decide whether they believe there’s sufficient information to file the case with the prosecutor. So far, I have not seen a copy of the ‘report’, and it’s likely you haven’t either. You claim there are ‘lies’, but that’s hearsay–you’re only repeating what someone said someone said. You can’t know what’s in the actual ‘report’ because APS won’t give it to you. You haven’t cited authority that would serve as a basis to make them give it to you. You could sue and try to acquire it through Discovery, but I doubt you’re going to go to that expense including depositions, interrogatories, etc. The race goes not to the swift, but the strong.

  4. w47107d says:

    So if a citizen of Thurston County Pays!! taxes for 60 years to that county they are given no considerations for this extortion?
    What of basic constitutional rights?

    You have the right to face your accusers? Not in Thurston county.
    You have the right to see the charges against you, not here.
    You are free from “search”… Move to Russia they have those rights not Thurston county.
    Thurston county can’t protect their “old” customers?

  5. admin says:

    Thurston appears equally corrupt in all 3 branches of government. I hope to further expose the depth and breadth of it.

  6. w47107d says:

    I guess in short, an 81 year old woman who paid the county for 60 years got shook down. What is the county going to do to please one of its best customers????????????????????????????

    • admin says:

      I’d give odds: Nothing!
      Government agencies almost never go after one another. Bank on it.

      • w47107d says:

        I am sorry. You are correct. 60 year olds have had civil rights and constitutional protection for 60 years.
        Screw that. After they finishing wiping out the 80 year old there will 13 acres in Thurston County to set up the new
        ancient-American internment is the relocation and internment by the United States government in 2012 of all persons over the age of 59 who lived along the Pacific coast of the United States to camps called “Age Relocation Camps,” in the wake of the new millennium The internment of old Americans needs to be applied equally throughout the United States. All who live on the West Coast of the United States will be interned in Thurston county where they do not care for old people, while in Hawaii, Arizona, and Florida where the 150,000-plus aging Americans compose over one-half of the population, require internment, 99% were ( until age 60) American citizens.

  7. w47107d says:

    In thurston county these rights have been stripped from anyone over the age of 60.

    Due process is the legal requirement that the state must respect all of the legal rights that are owed to a person. Due process balances the power of law of the land and protects individual persons from it. When a government harms a person without following the exact course of the law, this constitutes a due-process violation, which offends against the rule of law.
    Due process has also been frequently interpreted as limiting laws and legal proceedings (see substantive due process), so that judges – instead of legislators – may define and guarantee fundamental fairness, justice, and liberty. This interpretation has proven controversial, and is analogous to the concepts of natural justice, and procedural justice used in various other A US Citizen has the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him/her…. it is not sufficient to set forth the offense in the words of the statute, unless those words of themselves fully, directly, and expressly, without any uncertainty or ambiguity, set forth all the elements necessary to constitute …

    The Confrontation Clause relates to the common law rule preventing the admission of hearsay, that is to say, testimony by one witness as to the statements and observations of another person to prove that the statement or observation was accurate. The rationale was that the defendant had no opportunity to challenge the credibility of and cross-examine the person making the statements. Certain exceptions to the hearsay rule have been permitted; for instance, admissions by the defendant are admissible, as are dying declarations.[10] Nevertheless, in California v. Green, 399 U.S. 149 (1970), the Supreme Court has held that the hearsay rule is not the same as the Confrontation Clause. Hearsay is admissible under certain circumstances. For example, in Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (1968), the Supreme Court ruled that while a defendant’s out of court statements were admissible in proving that defendant’s guilt, they were inadmissible hearsay against another defendant. Hearsay may, in some circumstances, be admitted though it is not covered by one of the long-recognized exceptions. For example, prior testimony may sometimes be admitted if the witness is unavailable. However, in Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004), the Supreme Court increased the scope of the Confrontation Clause by ruling that “testimonial” out-of-court statements are inadmissible if the accused did not have the opportunity to cross-examine that accuser and that accuser is unavailable at trial. In Davis v. Washington 547 U.S. 813 (2006), the Court ruled that “testimonial” refers to any statement that an objectively reasonable person in the declarant’s situation would believe likely to be used in court. In Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. ___ (2009), and Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 564 U.S. ___ (2011), the Court ruled that admitting a lab chemist’s analysis in to evidence, without having him testify, violated the Confrontation Clause.[11][12] In Michigan v. Bryant, 562 U.S. ___ (2011), the Court ruled that the “primary purpose” of a shooting victim’s statement as to who shot him, and the police’s reason for questioning him, each had to be objectively determined. If the “primary purpose” was for dealing with an “ongoing emergency”, then any such statement was not testimonial and so the Confrontation Clause would not require the person making that statement to testify in order for that statement to be admitted into evidence.
    jurisdictions. This interpretation of due process is sometimes expressed as a command that the government must not be unfair to the people or abuse them physically.
    Due process is not used in contemporary English law, though two similar concepts are natural justice (which generally applies only to decisions of administrative agencies and some types of private bodies like trade unions) and the British constitutional concept of the rule of law as articulated by A. V. Dicey and others.[1] However, neither concept lines up perfectly with the American conception of due process, which, as explained below, presently contains many implied rights not found in the ancient or modern concepts of due process in England.[2]
    Due process developed from clause 39 of the Magna Carta in England. When English and American law gradually diverged, due process was not upheld in England, but did become incorporated in the Constitution of the United States.

  8. admin says:

    Your elderly mother voluntarily admitted the APS agents. You cannot demonstrate actual or substantive ‘harm’. No charges were filed, no one was arrested. No property was seized. No person was seized. No person was detained. A welfare check was conducted. Their acts were odious, but something more must be show for it to be ‘illegal’ and the burden is on you to prove that it was. You do not have a ‘false’ report in your hands. You only have hearsay within hearsay. The reporting party may have been well intentioned and misunderstood his/her reporting duties. It sounds like the bare assertions (as you understand them) were not false. An elderly mother had a dd child left with her while you and the child’s mother went out for a Sunday restaurant meal. That much, you admit, is true. The reporting party expressed concern this was improper or dangerous to either the child, the elderly mother, or both. The APS investigated and found insufficient evidence to file an action. They contacted you by mail and informed you of their activities. I see nothing actionable in this litany. I do see typical government excess.

    Our State legislature routinely modifies what the boundaries of due process are in Washington. Cutting and pasting boilerplate case law/cites doesn’t clarify the issue.

    The ‘confrontation clause’ is embodied in our 6th Amendment and the corresponding clause in our State’s Constitution. It provides you the right to confront your accusers once formal action is taken against you. None was. In this instance, because no legal proceedings were initiated, you cannot discover the identity of the ‘informant’ because the statute protects their confidentiality. You also do not have a copy of the ‘report’. Essentially, you have nothing but your suspicions and the fact the APS visited your elderly mother.

    No violation of the 4th Amendment occurred because your elderly mother has not been found by a court of law to be incompetent and she voluntarily admitted the APS agents.

    Hearsay is typically admissible in administrative hearings, although may be deemed less reliable. In a judicial proceeding, rules of evidence establish some important restrictions on the admissibility of hearsay but the exceptions are numerous, nuanced, and complex. Here, no judicial proceeding exists or took place.

    Digest what you read, don’t just do a core dump of cut & paste, then come back to discuss what you understand that’s material, relevant, and on point.

    • w47107d says:

      Material, relevant, and on point. The State government scared the living hell out of an 80 year old lady 2 days before her 81st birthday. noone gives a F&^$ because she is old. It ain’t right.
      When anyone reading this hits 60 and goes to the “Age Relocation Camps,” I told you so.

  9. admin says:

    It isn’t that no one cares. They do. It’s more like, who will bell the cat? Most citizens can do little to counter the brute police power of the state or abuse of process. The best we can manage is to inform each other…that and make it clear how we feel about the abuse. For the more courageous, you can develop skills to try and fight for our rights, but it’s a thankless task. In my own case, I successfully fought for the right to accommodate a disabled person in a public area of the courthouse and to take photographs. After winning a seldom granted change of venue motion, the state dropped all charges. But despite my many invitations to the community to appear in solidarity, only the disabled mother came to the hearings–because I had not abandoned her, she refused to abandon me.

    It’s one thing to declaim the injustice, it’s another to do so much as accompany a friend or neighbor into the belly of the beast in a show of solidarity. I believe I’ve seen the enemy–and it is US! It isn’t even so much that the system is corrupt, it’s the ennui we demonstrate when it eats its children…and ours.

  10. w47107d says:

    Since you are older, save me a nice corner at the new Thurston county Auschwitz Concentration Camp.
    First they came for the communists,
    and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a communist.

    Then they came for the trade unionists,
    and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a trade unionist.

    Then they came for the Jews,
    and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a Jew.

    Then they came for me
    and there was no one left to speak out for me.

    pastor Martin Niemöller (1892–1984)

    (Sorry about the cut and paste, but it has happened before)

  11. admin says:

    You might want to read RCW 9.94A.411

  12. w47107d says:

    most of all the government does not understand “Go away” and certainly won’t tell another branch the same. But if you want to help a friend at the courthouse they would be happy to tell you to go away and press “charges”.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.