Make your own free website on Tripod.com
 


Procedural errors committed by Investigator Rosie Anderson:

This of course is a detailed breakdown of the errors and confirmatory bias that Ms. Anderson displayed when illicitly performing her investigation. Which leaned heavily on the side of the manipulative petitioner.

Click on any of the RCW's listed to review the laws as provided by the Washington State legislation.

Page 1 (background information)

    Ms. Anderson states as fact that The Petitioner became pregnant on our first date. This is perhaps one of the most ignorant statements ever recorded on a supposedly unbiased investigation since there is no possible way Ms. Anderson, The Petitioner, or a doctor could know or confirm this. Especially since I donít recall Ms. Anderson ever being present during my first or any of the subsequent dates with The Petitioner. Therefore Ms. Anderson has no business making this stating this as fact. This alone makes Ms. Anderson guilty of tampering with physical evidence pursuant to RCW 9A.72.150(1)(a)(b), filing a false report pursuant to RCW 42.20.040, willfully disobeying a provision of law regulating official conduct pursuant to RCW 42.20.080, failure of duty pursuant to RCW 42.20.100, and official misconduct pursuant to RCW 9A.80.010

(Protection Order: See petitioners narrative in the file)

Petitioner:

      Ms. Andersonís report states that The Petitioner claims there is verbal abuse toward the child by calling him a ďdumb bastardĒ because he is deaf. Let's take a moment to examine this. First if we were to assume this to be true we still cannot call this abuse since the child is 1) DEAF and 2) under the age of 5 years old thereby making him incapable of knowing that anything is being said at all since he cannot read lips. Second the idea that a deaf child can be verbally abused is absurd. Third considering all the things that the father has done for his son, its only common sense to think that if the father really wanted to abuse his son he would have signed and not spoken it to him. The statement shows The Petitionerís highly distorted sense of reality, and Ms. Andersonís complete lack of common sense, stupidity, and bias. Which shows her failure of duty pursuant to RCW 42.20.100, willfully disobeying a provision of law regulating official conduct pursuant to RCW 42.20.080, and official misconduct pursuant to RCW 9A.80.010.

       The report states that The Petitioner claims The Respondent lifted up a part of a sectional couch and threw it against the wall. Then goes on claiming to have a hole in the wall and the ceiling. This too has to be viewed as an inconsistent statements pursuant to RCW 9A.72.050 since the couch would have had to fall up instead of down to create the hole in the ceiling by this account. Showing Ms. Andersonís complete lack of common sense, bias, willingness to tamper with physical evidence pursuant to RCW 9A.72.150(1)(a)(b), willfully disobeying a provision of law regulating official conduct pursuant to RCW 42.20.080, failure of duty pursuant to RCW 42.20.100, and official misconduct pursuant to RCW 9A.80.010.

       The report also states that The Petitioner met Her lover two years ago (1998) and they had a relationship together  while she and the respondent were separated. Yet at the top of page one under background information it is clearly stated that The Petitioner and respondent met in 1995 and were not separated until 11/10/2000. Also Ms. Anderson states that the petitioner admitted to the respondent that she had stronger feeling for her lover and that this was a contentious issue in their relationship. Hello Ms. Anderson, is anyone home in that head of yours? Why would the petitioner wait to move the lover in? Especially since she was very clear that they only had a relationship after she and the respondent broke up.  Oh yes, because she had been lying to the respondent in order to set up this entire fabrication! DUH! This is what we would call two very  major inconsistencies pursuant to RCW 9A.72.050. Ms. Anderson intentionally misleads the court by stating in her assessment that the lover whom we know had a committed relationship with the petitioner was merely a friend. A friend who moves in the very same night the respondent is removed from the home, the same friend who the petitioner married less than 10 months later. Now that is what I call a GOOD friend. Hmmm makes a person wonder just how long the petitioner and her friend had been planning this.  This makes Ms. Anderson is guilty of Unprofessional conduct pursuant to RCW 18.130.180(1)(8)(b)(13)(22), filing a false report pursuant to RCW 42.20.040, tampered with physical evidence pursuant to RCW 9A.72.150(1)(a)(b), making her guilty of failure of duty pursuant to RCW 42.20.100, willfully disobeying a provision of law regulating official conduct pursuant to RCW 42.20.080, and official misconduct pursuant to RCW 9A.80.010.

   Ms. Andersonís report states that the Petitioner,  went into the bedroom to check on messages and she heard someone come up behind her. The Petitioner states the father hit her on the back of the head causing her chin to hit the phone. But in the original statement given to the police the alleged assault took place while the petitioner was kneeling in the kitchen. Also the police report states that the arguing continued after the alleged assault, but the petitioners accomplice states that the respondent left the room. These statements more major inconsistencies pursuant to RCW 9A.72.050.  Again showing Ms. Anderson's failure of duty pursuant to RCW 42.20.100, willfully disobeying a provision of law regulating official conduct pursuant to RCW 42.20.080, and official misconduct pursuant to RCW 9A.80.010.

 Ms. Anderson attempts to use instances of spanking (without leaving marks) and a sleeping child to make The Respondent look like a bad or abusive parent. These instances are either greatly distorted in nature or completely false. For example you  cannot wake a deaf child vocally, To assume you can is just plain stupid. To assume that a sleeping child sucking his thumb is unnatural is also quite idiotic. These instances cannot be used against the Respondent pursuant to RCW 9A.16.100. As Ms. Anderson is attempting to do here. This also shows her willingness to tamper with physical evidence pursuant to RCW 9A.72.150(1)(a)(b), making her guilty of failure of duty pursuant to RCW 42.20.100, willfully disobeying a provision of law regulating official conduct pursuant to RCW 42.20.080, and official misconduct pursuant to RCW 9A.80.010.

  Ms. Anderson uses the statement of the paternal uncle. Which is directly refuted by a person who was present during the conversation, and never included or even mentioned by Ms. Anderson in any of the several conversations or  numerous attempts to collect copies of her report before the court date by the respondent. As well the family court services file information policy clearly states in section (D) ďfamily court services will notify the appropriate law enforcement agency if threats have been made against any party.Ē Ms. Anderson did not do this either, when she received the supposed threat. Showing that she must have felt the statement was perjured as defined by RCW 9A.60.010(1)(a)(b)(2). Making the uncle guilty of false swearing pursuant to RCW 9A.72.040. Ms. Anderson again shows her willingness to tamper with physical evidence pursuant to RCW 9A.72.150(1)(a)(b), Making her guilty of Knowingly receiving fraudulent conveyance pursuant to RCW 9.45.090, failure of duty pursuant to RCW 42.20.100, willfully disobeying a provision of law regulating official conduct pursuant to RCW 42.20.080, and official misconduct pursuant to RCW 9A.80.010.

(Protection Order)

Respondent:

Ms. Anderson makes a specific note to refer to the petitioners file but makes no such note to refer to The Respondents file. Clearly showing her willful attempt to misdirect the court. Making her guilty of tampering with physical evidence pursuant to RCW 9A.72.150(1)(a)(b), willfully disobeying a provision of law regulating official conduct pursuant to RCW 42.20.080, failure of duty pursuant to RCW 42.20.100, and official misconduct pursuant to RCW 9A.80.010.

Report based on the following information:

 Ms. Andersonís provides inconsistent statements pursuant to RCW 9A.72.050(1), and tampers with physical evidence pursuant to RCW 9A.72.150(1)(a)(b). Shown in points  (3) Review of references submitted on behalf of parents--- (2) for mother (2) for father: Where Ms. Anderson shows the respondents references were submitted to her but never included in her report. Nor were the references even contacted by Ms. Anderson  (6) Collateral contacts. Show that Ms. Anderson never contacted anyone on behalf of the respondent. Yet all of The Petitionerís were contacted and statements of each contact is presented in this section. Including ones that have no bearing on the case whatsoever. As with the visits for common ground. Where she neglects to mention that they had a one to four month wait to get in and that it would be more like four months so the respondent would not have been able to see his child regardless. Also the price of the  would cost $235 per visit. Making her guilty of failure of duty pursuant to RCW 42.20.100, willfully disobeying a provision of law regulating official conduct pursuant to RCW 42.20.080, and official misconduct pursuant to RCW 9A.80.010.

 As well with the personnel from the birth to 3 program who would have been required pursuant to RCW 5.60.030 to turn over any documentation that would be pertinent to the case. With the neighbor who clearly states how she will do anything to help The Petitioner, and whom we know has already provided a false statements pursuant to RCW 9A.72.040, and inconsistencies pursuant to RCW 9A.72.040 when comparing dates with the petitioners statement. The accomplice who offers more inconsistencies pursuant to RCW 9A.72.040 when compared to The Petitionerís original statements and the police report. Where he claims that the respondent answered the phone even though The Petitioner claims she did, and that the domestic violence instant occurred in the bedroom. Although both The Petitionerís original statement and the police report show that it was in the kitchen. 

Concerns:

Ms. Anderson claims that there is a pattern of violence and that The Petitionerís friends, brother, and neighbors have witnessed this. Yet there is no account of this in the statements themselves. Again showing her willingness to provide inconsistent statements pursuant to RCW 9A.72.050(1), tamper with physical evidence pursuant to RCW 9A.72.150(1)(a)(b), failure of duty pursuant to RCW 42.20.100, willfully disobeying a provision of law regulating official conduct pursuant to RCW 42.20.080, and official misconduct pursuant to RCW 9A.80.010.

Ms. Anderson also claims that the respondent recently lost his job and attempts to use this as a factor against him. First this has no bearing on the case whatsoever and second records clearly show the respondent was gainfully employed and had been for quite some time. Once again showing her willingness to provide inconsistent statements pursuant to RCW 9A.72.050(1), tamper with physical evidence pursuant to RCW 9A.72.150(1)(a)(b), unprofessional conduct pursuant to RCW 18.130.180, willfully disobeying a provision of law regulating official conduct pursuant to RCW 42.20.080, failure of duty pursuant to RCW 42.20.100, and official misconduct pursuant to RCW 9A.80.010.

Ms. Anderson does not allow anytime to prepare a defense for her report, as clearly shown in her submission date just one day before the court date. The report is not recieved by the respondent until only 20 minutes before court begins its session on the 17th. Ms. Anderson also attempts to state that relevant convictions for domestic violence include a small handful of simple traffic infractions. Ms. Anderson shows a huge amount of bias and stupidity with this attempt. 

NOTE:

Not once in Ms. Andersonís report does she include anything that might be damaging to The Petitioner. Such as; The Petitionerís disciplinary tactics, abusive nature regarding sign language, or the instance of the child's black eye. Which she was well aware as reported to her by the respondent and documented through the school and the daycare provider. Which shows her willingness to tamper with physical evidence pursuant to RCW 9A.72.150(1)(a)(b), her failure of duty pursuant to RCW 42.20.100, unprofessional conduct pursuant to RCW 18.130.180(1)(8)(b)(13)(22), willfully disobeying a provision of law regulating official conduct pursuant to RCW 42.20.080, and official misconduct pursuant to RCW 9A.80.010.

This Page Created by AAAdvanced Engineering Concepts

Send Questions or Comments to: spolnac@yahoo.com 

Copyright © 2003