February 20, 2017, 06:57:45 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: NEW CHILD BOARD CREATED IN THE POLITICAL SECTION FOR THE 2016 ELECTION
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Witch Hunt in Wenatchee, WA - Lane Lawless' Old Stomping Ground  (Read 35230 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
lonemonkey
Monkey Junky Jr.
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 991



« Reply #20 on: June 19, 2009, 12:19:48 AM »

Snipped:
http://www.rickross.com/reference/false_memories/fsm47.html

Former witness settles lawsuit in Wenatchee sex abuse case
Seattle Post-Intelligencer/February 27, 2001

Wenatchee -- A young woman who said authorities pressured her to accuse her parents of sexual abuse has settled her lawsuit against a former Wenatchee police detective and a former state social worker.

Sarah Marie Doggett, 22, who now lives in California, will receive $52,500 from the state and $25,000 from the city of Wenatchee under the settlement, said Gary Larson, a spokesman for the state attorney general's office.

"It was settled for an amount that we think was fair to both sides," he said. The city and state admitted no wrongdoing in the settlement, and documents dismissing Doggett's lawsuit were filed last week in Chelan County Superior Court.

Doggett is the daughter of Carol and Mark Doggett, whose child sexual abuse convictions were overturned on appeal in 1997. They were two of 43 adults arrested in the now largely discredited 1994-95 Wenatchee child sex abuse investigations led by former police Detective Bob Perez.

The 18 people sent to prison in the cases all have been released, either because their convictions were overturned on appeal, or because they accepted post-conviction agreements to plead guilty to lesser charges while their cases were on appeal.

Doggett sued in 1997, accusing Perez and former state Child Protective Service social worker Pat Boggess of removing her from a home in California in 1995 and flying her, without proper court order, back to Wenatchee.

From there, Doggett said, she was forcibly taken to a mental hospital in Idaho where she contends she was given drugs and pressured to accuse her parents of molesting her. She has said repeatedly that her parents never committed any abuse.

State and city officials contended Doggett was suicidal, suffering from an eating disorder and agreed to the commitment.

Carol Doggett, who now lives with her husband in the Everett area, said they supported their daughter's decision to settle. "I think she was relieved to have it over with," Carol Doggett said. "She's happy taking care of her family and wants to put it all behind her."

Logged
doubledecker
Monkey Junky
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 4534


WWW
« Reply #21 on: June 19, 2009, 12:21:02 AM »

Name: Laura R Holt
Address: 512 S Mission Av, Wenatchee, Washington 98801-0901 (1993) ]


SALLISAW, OK
WENATCHEE, WA

Possible Relatives:

HOLT, SELID W (Age 49)  so these two are related.

there are several people at this address, the only other name which is familiar is CURRY.
CURRY, RUDY W (Age 54)

(Edit to change color red (used by admin/mods) to navy.  MuffyBee)
« Last Edit: August 09, 2010, 08:55:40 AM by MuffyBee » Logged

To find me:
click the globe to the left, under my name
doubledecker
Monkey Junky
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 4534


WWW
« Reply #22 on: June 19, 2009, 12:24:05 AM »

Name: Selid W Holt
Birth Date: 1959
Address: 512 S Mission Av, Wenatchee, Washington 98801-0901 (1993)


same address as laura rebecca holt above

(Edit to change color from red (used by admin/mods) to navy.  MuffyBee)
« Last Edit: August 09, 2010, 08:57:12 AM by MuffyBee » Logged

To find me:
click the globe to the left, under my name
doubledecker
Monkey Junky
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 4534


WWW
« Reply #23 on: June 19, 2009, 12:26:08 AM »

Name: Selid Holt
Address: 512 S Mission St  
City: Wenatchee  
State: Washington  
Zip Code: 98801-3048
Phone Number: 509-XXX-XXXXEdit- no ph. #'s   MB
Residence Years: 1993 1994 1995  

at the above phone #
Possible Employment / Business Associations:

CLARKE, DAY AND PARSONS, INC
 (509) 662-9040  (Edit to change color from red (used by admin/mods to navy MuffyBee)

 BRIDGEPORT, WA
WENATCHEE, WA

Possible Relatives:

PARSONS, MARLYS D (Age 77)



 SALLISAW, OK
WENATCHEE, WA

Possible Relatives:

HOLT, SELID W (Age 49)
 E WENATCHEE, WA
EAST WENATCHEE, WA
WENATCHEE, WA
BRIDGEPORT, WA

 Possible Relatives:

PARSONS, BEN H (Age 28)

(509) xxx-xxxx Edit- no ph. #'s  MB
 WENATCHEE, WA
EAST WENATCHEE, WA
E WENATCHEE, WA

Possible Relatives:

FUNSTON, R
FUNSTON, DIANA S (Age 48)
FUNSTON, R
FUNSTON, RACHEL  
« Last Edit: March 08, 2011, 06:15:15 PM by MuffyBee » Logged

To find me:
click the globe to the left, under my name
doubledecker
Monkey Junky
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 4534


WWW
« Reply #24 on: June 19, 2009, 12:28:17 AM »

here is wilma holt who married richard birdette lawless

1920 United States Federal Census
about Wilma G Holt
Name: Wilma G Holt
[Wilma G Holtz] 
Home in 1920: Pateros, Okanogan, Washington
Age: 5 years 
Estimated Birth Year: abt 1915
Birthplace: Washington
Relation to Head of House: Daughter 
Father's Name: William M
Father's Birth Place: North Dakota 
Mother's Name: Emily
Mother's Birth Place: Indiana 
Marital Status: Single 
Race: White
Sex: Female
Image: 365 
Neighbors: View others on page 
Household Members: Name Age
William M Holt 30 
Emily Holt 25 
Dennie J Holt 6 
Wilma G Holt 5 
 
 
Logged

To find me:
click the globe to the left, under my name
lonemonkey
Monkey Junky Jr.
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 991



« Reply #25 on: June 19, 2009, 12:28:54 AM »

Snipped:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/innocence/etc/other.html

Wenatchee, Washington 1995      
One of the biggest, and most recent, child sexual abuse cases occurred in Wenatchee, Washington, in 1995. Unlike most of the other cases reviewed here, it did not center around a full-time day care center. However, the case shares many characteristics with the day care cases.

Wenatchee is a town of 55,000 and is 150 miles east of Seattle. Pastor Robert Roberson, a lay minister, ran the East Wenatchee Pentecostal Church of God House of Prayer. He and his wife Connie were arrested on 22 counts of allegedly raping and molesting children at their house and at during Bible classes at the Church.

The arrests were part of the prosecution of what police and district attorneys believed to be a huge sex ring in Wenatchee comprising dozens of pedophiles who preyed on innocent children, forcing them to participate in group sex with adults and each other, and in exchanging their own children for sex. In addition to the Robersons, 26 others were charged, including the bus driver for the church.

By the end of a series of trials, nineteen were sent to prison: the 14 who pleaded guilty and five who were convicted. Three others were acquitted, and charges were dropped or greatly reduced against five more.

It started in the spring of 1994 when a 9 year-old girl was placed in foster care with Luci and Bob Perez. Bob was the city's chief sex-crimes investigator. He was currently investigating a series of sexual abuse cases which he initially thought were unrelated. The Perez's foster girl had come from a poor household; her father was illiterate, and her mother had an IQ of 58. She had previously testified in a trial resulting in the conviction of a friend of the family who had molested her.

In the fall of 1995, she told Perez that her parents had molested her and her siblings. The story was confirmed by some of the siblings, and the mother confessed. She and her husband pled guilty and were sentenced to prison. Soon after they were imprisoned, the girl made further accusations about other members of the community. She told Perez of child swapping orgies where adults had abused children in various locations around Wenatchee, including the Robersons' church, from 1988 to 1994. She said adults would take children six at a time to a room and took turns having sex with them.

Investigators and the media began to refer to the sex ring as 'The Circle." It allegedly consisted of two dozen adults who routinely abused 50 children. Eventually, as the charges mounted, The Circle was said to have over 100 members, who were accused of literally thousands of counts of abuse.

At trial, the case against the Robersons was based on the testimony of Bob Perez's foster daughter, a 13 year-old friend of hers, and a 35 year-old woman who had been a member of the Robersons church. The woman told prosecutors that she had participated in the sex ring activities at the church, but later recanted, telling a Spokane television station that she had been pressured into the confession by Perez and his investigative team.

On December 11, 1995, the Robersons were acquitted on all 14 counts of abuse. They had been in jail for nine months. Nineteen of the other defendants remained in jail, however.

The town, which had been deeply shaken, attempted to recover. However, in June 1996, Perez's foster daughter, by then 13, recanted her testimony. She ran away from her current foster home to her grandmother's house, where she called Pastor Roberson and apologized for the accusations she had made against him. She then called a local TV station and in a 1 1/2 hour videotaped statement officially recanted her earlier stories of abuse, saying that she had been pressured by Perez. She denied ever having been sexually abused or witnessing any buse of anyone else.

Some of the defendants filed appeals based on her recantation. Many of those acquitted or with charges dismissed filed civil suits for wrongful prosecution against Perez and other investigative officials.
Logged
doubledecker
Monkey Junky
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 4534


WWW
« Reply #26 on: June 19, 2009, 12:28:59 AM »

10 years later a new boy in the household

1930 United States Federal Census
about Wilma G Holt
Name: Wilma G Holt
Home in 1930: Pateros, Okanogan, Washington
View Map
Age: 15
Estimated Birth Year: abt 1915 
Relation to Head of House: Daughter 
Father's Name: William M
Mother's Name: Emily
Race: White
Occupation:

Education:

Military service:

Rent/home value:

Age at first marriage:

Parents' birthplace: View image
Neighbors: View others on page 
Household Members: Name Age
William M Holt 41 
Emily Holt 36 
Dennie J Holt 17 
Wilma G Holt 15 
Leroy E Holt 8 
 
 
Logged

To find me:
click the globe to the left, under my name
lonemonkey
Monkey Junky Jr.
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 991



« Reply #27 on: June 19, 2009, 12:35:31 AM »

Snipped:
http://www.seattlepi.com/local/wena162.shtml


Reduced plea frees man convicted in Wenatchee sex case

Thursday, March 16, 2000

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

WENATCHEE -- Another defendant in the Wenatchee child sex rings cases has been released from prison after entering a modified guilty plea to one count of first-degree child molestation.

As part of the post-conviction plea agreement, Chelan County Prosecutor Gary Riesen agreed to the dismissal of Selid "Sid" Holt's original conviction in 1994 on three counts of child rape.

THE POWER TO HARM

THE AFTERMATH

Read the P-I's February 1998 investigation into civil rights violations during the Wenatchee sex ring prosecutions.

Some key followups.
An investigation was begun in 1994 when two sisters made allegations to Wenatchee police Detective Bob Perez about a child sex ring operating out of an East Wenatchee Pentecostal church.

It and subsequent investigations have been largely discredited at least in part because of Perez's interviewing techniques and a conflict of interest -- the two sisters were his foster children.

In February 1998, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer published The Power to Harm, a series of articles that documented overzealous -- even abusive -- actions by Perez and social service caseworkers, civil rights violations by judges and prosecutors as well as sloppy work by public defenders. The series included the Holt case.

Of the 20 other people convicted of felonies in the cases, five remain in prison. Four have appeals pending. Six people served out their sentences or received suspended sentences.

A division of the state Court of Appeals in Spokane so far has overturned nine convictions.

Holt had appealed his original conviction, but it was dropped as part of the plea agreement.

Riesen said yesterday it was difficult to predict what the appeals court might have done with Holt's case.

"We felt it was better to maintain a conviction against Mr. Holt. It was a case of weighing the risk vs. the reward," Riesen said.

Tuesday in Whitman County Superior Court, Holt entered an Alford plea, in which he does not admit guilt but acknowledges there is enough evidence for a likely conviction.

He had been serving a 14-year, two-month sentence.

In a jail interview earlier this week, Holt denied abusing his own children and said he accepted the plea agreement because he wants to move to Iowa and start over.

Holt, 39, will have to register as a sex offender.

His wife, Laura Holt, was released from prison in October after accepting a similar plea agreement. She had been serving a 40-year prison term after being convicted of child rape in 1994. She has filed for divorce.

Sid Holt's lawyer, Karen Klein of Seattle, said she believes her client would have prevailed had the appeal gone forward.

"My client has admitted no wrongdoing," Klein said. "He's lost his family. He wants to get on with his life."

© 2000 The Associated Press.
All rights reserved.
Logged
lonemonkey
Monkey Junky Jr.
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 991



« Reply #28 on: June 19, 2009, 12:37:07 AM »

here is wilma holt who married richard birdette lawless

1920 United States Federal Census
about Wilma G Holt
Name: Wilma G Holt
[Wilma G Holtz] 
Home in 1920: Pateros, Okanogan, Washington
Age: 5 years 
Estimated Birth Year: abt 1915
Birthplace: Washington
Relation to Head of House: Daughter 
Father's Name: William M
Father's Birth Place: North Dakota 
Mother's Name: Emily
Mother's Birth Place: Indiana 
Marital Status: Single 
Race: White
Sex: Female
Image: 365 
Neighbors: View others on page 
Household Members: Name Age
William M Holt 30 
Emily Holt 25 
Dennie J Holt 6 
Wilma G Holt 5 
 

Isn't Richard the father of Gerald that Luanne married?
Logged
lonemonkey
Monkey Junky Jr.
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 991



« Reply #29 on: June 19, 2009, 12:55:10 AM »

Snipped:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=wa&vol=438123maj&searchval&invol=1


Court of Appeals Division I
                               State of Washington

                            Opinion Information Sheet

Docket Number:       43812-3-I
Title of Case:       Robert Roberson, Et. ux., Et. al., Appellants
                     v.
                     Robert Perez, Et. ux., Et. al., Respondents
File Date:           02/22/2000



                                SOURCE OF APPEAL
                                ----------------
Appeal from Superior Court of King County
Docket No:      98-2-07404-3
Judgment or order under review
Date filed:     12/07/1998
Judge signing:  Hon. Michael E. Donohue


                                     JUDGES
                                     ------
Authored by H. Joseph Coleman
Concurring: Mary K. Becker
            Marlin J Appelwick


                                COUNSEL OF RECORD
                                -----------------
Counsel for Appellant(s)
            James M. Beecher
            Hackett Beecher & Hart
            2200 Westlake Center
            1601 Fifth Avenue
            Seattle, WA  98101-1625

            Robert C. Van Siclen
            Van Siclen & Stocks
            4508 Auburn Way N #a100
            Auburn, WA  98002-1381

            John Stocks
            Van Siclen Stocks & Firkins
            Ste A100
            4508 Auburn Way N
            Auburn, WA  98002-1381

Counsel for Defendant(s)
            William L. Holder
            Reed McClure
            Two Union Square
            601 Union St Ste 4800
            Seattle, WA  98101-3900

            Gregory B. Curwen
            Gierke Curwen Metzler & Erie
            Bldg D Suite 400
            2102 N Pearl St
            Tacoma, WA  98406-2550

            Thomas W. Merrill
            806 27th Ave
            Milton, WA  98354-9322

            Jefffrey A. Freimund
            Ofc of Atty Gen Torts Div
            P.O. Box 40126
            Olympia, WA  98504-0126

            Mara Vinnedge
            610 3rd Ave Ste 1507
            11411 NE 124th St
            Seattle, WA  98104-1886

Counsel for Respondent(s)
            Stanley A. Bastian
            Jeffers Danielson Sonn & Aylward
            317 North Mission
            P.O. Box 1688
            Wenatchee, WA  98807

            Patrick G. McMahon
            P.O. Box 2965
            Wenatchee, WA  98807


IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

DONNA RODRIGUEZ, a single person;                )
DONNA RODRIGUEZ, as Guardian ad Litem            )
for her minor child, KIMBERLY ALLBEE,            )
                                                 )
Appellants,                                      )
                                                 )
SUSAN EVERETT, a single person; KAREN            )
LOPEZ a single person,                           )
                                                 )
Plaintiffs,                                      )
                                                 )
ROBERT ROBERSON and CONNIE                       ) NO. 43812-3-I
ROBERSON, husband and wife; ROBERT               )
ROBERSON as Guardian ad Litem for his            ) DIVISION ONE
minor child, REBEKAH ROBERSON;                   )
JONATHAN SIMS and HONNAH SIMS,                   )
husband and wife; and JONATHAN SIMS as           )
Guardian ad Litem for his minor child,           )
DANIEL SIMS,                                     )
Appellants,                                      )
v.                                               ) )
                                                 )
ROBERT PEREZ,                                    )
Respondent,                                      ) Published Opinion
                                                 )
TIMOTHY ABBEY, LAURIE ALEXANDER,                 )
CONNIE SARACINO, DEAN REIMAN, KATE               ) Filed:
CARROW,                                          )
                                                 )
                    Defendants,                  )
                                                 )
KENNETH BADGLEY; CITY OF                         )
WENATCHEE, a municipality in the State of        )
Washington,                                      )
                    Respondents,                 )
                                                 )
CHELAN COUNTY, a corporate body in the           )
STATE OF WASHINGTON;                             )
                                                 )
                    Defendant,                   )
                                                 )
DOUGLAS COUNTY, a corporate body in the          )
State of Washington,                             )
          Respondent,                            )
                                                 )
STATE OF WASHINGTON, by and through its          )
political subdivision Department of Social and   )
Health Services,                                 )
Defendant,                                       )
                                                 )
ROBIN WAGG, DAVE HELVEY,                         )
DAN LaROCHE,                                     )
                                                 )
Respondents,                                     )
                                                 )
CINDY ANDREWS and DONNA ANDERSON,                )
                                                 )
                    Defendants.                  )
                                                 )

     COLEMAN, J. -- This case arises out of the investigation of an alleged
'sex ring' operating in Wenatchee, Washington
The appellants, comprised
of parents and their children who were allegedly involved in the sex ring,
brought suit against numerous governmental entities and the individual
investigators responsible for investigating the alleged abuse.  Their
claims of negligent investigation and negligent supervision against the law
enforcement agencies and their officers were dismissed under CR 12(b)(6),
and they appeal.  We reverse the dismissal of the negligent investigation
claim.  By imposing a duty of investigation on the part of law enforcement
agencies, RCW 26.44 allows members of the protected class to bring an
action for negligent investigation.


FACTS
     According to the appellants' allegations,1 law enforcement officers,
in the scope of their employment and working in concert with state
caseworkers, negligently conducted interviews when investigating
allegations of a possible sex ring involving children.  The City of
Wenatchee, Douglas and Chelan counties, and DSHS allegedly sanctioned their
interviewing techniques.
     The appellants allege that Detective Robert Perez conducted the
interviews using tactics such as threatening the interviewees with prison
terms, criminal charges, and permanent family separation.  Children were
interviewed in the presence of other children.  Perez yelled at a child and
called her a liar until she fabricated stories of abuse in an attempt to
appease him.  Kimberly Allbee, Donna Rodriguez's daughter, was interviewed
at her school for five hours, and Perez threatened that her mother would be
arrested unless Allbee disclosed sexual abuse.  She eventually disclosed
incriminating information.  Perez also withheld exculpatory evidence from
law enforcement officials, investigators, prosecutors, and defense counsel.
The appellants further allege that two of the primary child witnesses were
foster children living with Perez and that he coerced them into making
disclosures with gifts or by physical abuse.
    The Robersons, Honnah Sims, and Donna Rodriguez were arrested on
charges of child sexual abuse, and their children were removed from their
homes.  Later, all were acquitted or the charges against them were dropped.
They and their children then filed suit against the individual
investigators, the City of Wenatchee, Chelan and Douglas counties, and DSHS
alleging negligent investigation, negligent supervision, false arrest,
false imprisonment, outrage, malicious prosecution, and tortious
interference with the parent-child relationship.

     Before trial, the trial court dismissed the plaintiffs' claims of
negligent investigation and negligent supervision and/or training, as they
pertained to the law enforcement officers and agencies.  The case went to
trial on the remaining theories, and the jury returned a verdict for the
defendants.  The appellants now appeal the dismissal of their negligent
investigation and supervision claims.


DISCUSSION
     A dismissal based on failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted is reviewed de novo.  Hoffer v. State, 110 Wn.2d 415, 421, 755 P.2d
781 (1988).  Motions under CR 12(b)(6) should be granted ''only in the
unusual case in which the plaintiff includes allegations that show on the
face of the complaint that there is some insuperable bar to relief.'"
Tenore v. AT & T Wireless Services, 136 Wn.2d 322, 330, 962 P.2d 104 (1998)
(quoting Hoffer, 110 Wn.2d at 420), cert. denied, 119 S. Ct. 1096 (1999).
If a plaintiff can prove any set of facts consistent with the complaint
that would entitle him or her to relief, including hypothetical facts not
in the formal record, then the claim should not be dismissed.  Hoffer, 110
Wn.2d at 421.  For purposes of analysis under CR 12(b)(6), the facts
alleged in the complaint are presumed to be true.  Tenore, 136 Wn.2d at
330.
     The respondents argue that Washington does not recognize a cause of
action for negligent criminal investigation.  They further claim that
causes of action for negligent investigation and negligent supervision are
encompassed by the claims already presented to and decided by the jury.
The elements of negligence differ from the elements of the claims
previously tried, and failure to prove those claims does not preclude
proving negligence.  Because of the different standard of conduct in a
negligence claim, we will undertake an analysis of the cognizability of the
claims of negligent investigation and supervision against the law
enforcement officers and their employers.

Negligent Investigation
     Whether an investigation of child abuse can support a cause of action
in negligence against the investigating law enforcement agency is an issue
which has not been directly addressed in Washington.  The resolution of
that question is guided, however, by principles already well established in
this state.
     In all negligence actions the plaintiff must prove the defendant owed
the plaintiff a duty of care.  Thus, in general, a claim for negligent
investigation does not exist under the common law because there is no duty
owed to a particular class of persons.  In the area of law enforcement
investigation, the duty owed is typically owed to the public.  For example,
the duty of police officers to investigate crimes is a duty owed to the
public at large and is therefore not a proper basis for an individual's
negligence claim.  Chambers-Castanes v. King County, 100 Wn.2d 275, 284,
669 P.2d 451, 39 A.L.R.4th 671 (1983) (holding that the duty to arrest and
keep the peace are a duty owed to the public at large and unenforceable as
to individuals).
     The Legislature, however, has created a limited exception in the area
of child abuse investigations by imposing a duty to investigate for the
protection of a specified class.  See Babcock v. State, 116 Wn.2d 596, 809
P.2d 143 (1991); Corbally v. Kennewick Sch. Dist., 94 Wn. App. 736, 740,
973 P.2d 1074; Lesley v. Department of Social & Health Servs., 83 Wn. App.
263, 921 P.2d 1066 (1996).  RCW 26.44.050 requires a law enforcement agency
or DSHS to investigate possible occurrences of child abuse or neglect.
That duty derives from the paramount importance that is placed on the
welfare of the child.
     Protecting the welfare of the child includes avoiding unnecessary
disruption of the parent-child relationship.  The Legislature has
emphasized the importance of protecting the relationship between parent and
child and interfering with that relationship only when the child's health
and safety are endangered.
The bond between a child and his or her parent . . . is of paramount
importance, and any intervention into the life of a child is also an
intervention into the life of the parent{.}

RCW 26.44.010.
The legislature reaffirms that all citizens, including parents, shall be
afforded due process, that protection of children remains the priority of
the legislature, and that this protection includes protecting the family
unit from unnecessary disruption.

RCW 26.44.100.
     When a duty is owed to a specific individual or class of individuals,
that person or persons may bring an action in negligence for breach of that
duty.  See Hartley v. State, 103 Wn.2d 768, 781-82, 698 P.2d 77 (1985);
Chambers-Castanes, 100 Wn.2d at 284-85.  'It is well established that a
statute which creates a governmental duty to protect particular individuals
can be the basis for a negligence action where the statute is violated and
the injured party was one of the persons designed to be protected.'  Yonker
v. Department of Social & Health Servs., 85 Wn. App. 71, 78, 930 P.2d 958
(1997) (quoting Donaldson v. City of Seattle, 65 Wn. App. 661, 666-67, 831
P.2d 1098 (1992)).  See also Lesley, 83 Wn. App at 273.
     By specifically including parents, custodians, and guardians of
children 'within the class of persons who are foreseeably harmed by a
negligent investigation into allegations of child abuse{,}' the Legislature
has recognized a duty to the parent as well as the child in conducting
child abuse investigations.  Tyner v. Department of Social & Health Servs.,
92 Wn. App. 504, 512, 963 P.2d 215 (1998), review granted, 137 Wn.2d 1020
(1999).  Thus, both the children who are suspected of being abused and
their parents comprise a protected class under RCW 26.44 and may bring
action for negligent investigation under that statute.
     The respondents contend that unlike DSHS, which is held to a
negligence standard in investigating child abuse, law enforcement agencies
are not subject to negligence actions because they do not owe individual
plaintiffs a duty of care.  The respondents' assertion is premised upon
criminal cases involving investigations of crimes other than alleged child
abuse.  Fondren v. Klickitat County, 79 Wn. App. 850, 853, 863, 905 P.2d
928 (1995) (no cause of action for negligent murder investigation); Dever
v. Fowler, 63 Wn. App. 35, 38, 45, 816 P.2d 1237, 824 P.2d 1237 (1991)
(holding no cause of action for negligent investigation of arson and
manslaughter).
     But as we have already discussed, the typical criminal investigation
is premised on a duty that is owed to the public at large.  The question
before us concerns a duty that is owed to a specific class of individuals.
Thus, we cannot rely upon other investigation contexts, which demonstrate
the general rule, to provide the answer to the question raised here.
     The rationale in permitting negligent investigation claims against
DSHS is based on DSHS's statutory duty to investigate child abuse and the
protected status of the parents and children bringing the claims.  Those
considerations apply equally to claims against law enforcement officers
when those officers are conducting investigations pursuant to the statutory
directives set forth in RCW 26.44.  RCW 26.44.050 requires the appropriate
law enforcement agency or DSHS to investigate a report of alleged child
abuse. It is clear that the inclusion of law enforcement was intentional.2
     That this case involves a criminal investigation rather than an
investigation conducted solely by DSHS does not affect our analysis.  If
both entities have received reports and responded by initiating an
investigation, RCW 26.44.035 requires the agencies to 'coordinate the
investigation and keep each other apprised of progress.'  It makes little
sense to conclude that one agency owes a duty of care and the other does
not when both are conducting investigations required by the statute.
Moreover, the appellants allege that Detective Perez and CPS investigator
Katie Carrow, working as a team, conducted the investigations.  If, as
appellants allege, they conducted interviews together and their
interviewing techniques constituted negligence, then it would be
incongruous to hold each co-investigator to a different standard of
conduct.
     The respondents contend that any investigative duty owed by law
enforcement under the statute is limited to responding to a possible
occurrence of abuse and transmitting a report to protective services in
accordance with RCW 74.13.  That duty, they conclude, does not include
conducting a generalized investigation.  They rely on Donaldson, 65 Wn.
App. 661 for their position that the duty of law enforcement agencies is
not construed beyond the confines of the governing statute.
     Donaldson addressed whether police were negligent in not following up
with investigation after a victim reported a domestic violence assault but
the perpetrator was not on the premises when the police arrived.  The
police left, and the perpetrator murdered the victim the following day.
The administratrix of the victim's estate brought suit, and the City
claimed it was immune from liability.  At issue was the scope of the
agency's duty under the Domestic Violence Prevention Act (DVPA), which
requires an officer responding to a domestic violence call to arrest the
alleged perpetrator if the officer has probable cause to believe that a
felonious assault has occurred within the previous four hours.
     When a peace officer responds to a domestic violence call and has
probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed, the peace
officer shall exercise arrest powers with reference to the criteria in RCW
10.31.100.

RCW 10.99.030(6)(a).

     (2)  A police officer shall arrest and take into custody, pending
release on bail, personal recognizance, or court order, a person without a
warrant when the officer has probable cause to believe that:
      . . . .
     (b)  The person is sixteen years or older and within the preceding
four hours has assaulted a family or household member as defined in RCW
10.99.020{.}

RCW 10.31.100(2)(b).  The Donaldson court recognized that the statute
imposed a mandatory duty to arrest under certain circumstances, when the
perpetrator is on the premises.  But based upon the statutory language, the
court held that the statute did not impose a duty to conduct follow-up
investigation or to arrest after the four-hour period.  Donaldson, 65 Wn.
App. at 671, 673.  Because the perpetrator had left the premises, the court
concluded that no duty had been breached.
     Nevertheless, the Donaldson court recognized that a breach of a
statutory duty is actionable, basing its reasoning upon the same principles
that govern this case.
     In all negligence actions the plaintiff must prove the defendant owed
the plaintiff a duty of care.  'Whether the defendant is a governmental
entity or a private person, to be actionable, the duty must be one owed to
the injured plaintiff, and not one owed to the public in general.'  Taylor
v. Stevens Cy., 111 Wn.2d 159, 163, 759 P.2d 447 (1988).  When the
defendant is a public official this negligence principle is called the
'public duty doctrine'.  Generally, no liability will attach for a public
official's negligent conduct unless the plaintiff can show that the duty
was owed to her rather than to the general public.
     It is well established that a statute which creates a governmental
duty to protect particular individuals can be the basis for a negligence
action where the statute is violated and the injured party was one of the
persons designed to be protected.  If the legislation evidences a clear
intent to identify a particular and circumscribed class of persons, such
persons may bring an action in tort for violation of the statute.
     . . . .
     This statute {DVPA} does not create new laws prohibiting domestic
violence, but requires the police and other law enforcement bodies to
better enforce the current laws in order to protect the victims of domestic
violence.  The law identifies the particular class of individuals to be
protected and defines the specific duties of the police in this regard.
The City's claim that the public duty doctrine bars any liability is
accordingly rejected.

Donaldson, 65 Wn. App. at 666-67 (footnotes omitted).

     Under the statute at issue in Donaldson, when the law enforcement
officers arrived and determined that the perpetrator had left, their
specific statutory duties were completed.  RCW 26.44.050, however, does not
similarly limit the officer's required response to certain specified acts
or time periods, but provides a general mandatory duty to investigate.
     Upon the receipt of a report concerning the possible occurrence of
abuse or neglect, it shall be the duty of the law enforcement agency or the
department of social and health services to investigate and provide the
protective services section with a report in accordance with the provision
of chapter 74.13 RCW, and where necessary to refer such report to the
court.

RCW 26.44.050 (italics ours).  That statutory language is broad.  Moreover,
the duties of a law enforcement agency involve more than merely forwarding
to protective services a response to a report of abuse, as respondents
contend.3  Because no limitation is placed on the duty to investigate and
there is a particular class of persons to whom the duty is owed, breach of
that duty gives rise to a cause of action in negligence.
     The respondents additionally argue that police investigation of child
abuse allegations should be governed solely by the standard of probable
cause.  They base their argument upon the second paragraph in RCW 26.44.050
that allows a law enforcement officer to take a child into custody without
a court order if 'there is probable cause to believe that the child is
abused or neglected{.}'  That provision specifies, however, only what is
required in order to take a child into custody and does not address the
general investigative responsibility.
     Applying only a standard of probable cause does not fulfill the
legislative purpose of protecting children and their parents from
unnecessary disruption in their relation to one another.  An investigation
can be conducted negligently and yield false information which may then be
used to support a finding of probable cause.  By ensuring that the
investigation is conducted in a nonnegligent manner, the balance between
the protection of the child and the parent-child relationship is
maintained.  Moreover, permitting negligence actions against law
enforcement officials does not leave them without statutory and common law
qualified immunity.
     Finally, the respondents assert that allowing a negligent
investigation claim against law enforcement agencies would lead to the
'absurd' result that prosecutors would also be liable for negligent
investigation contrary to their prosecutorial immunity because they are
included in the definition of 'law enforcement agency.'
     This contention, however, is not supported by RCW 26.44.  When the
chapter is read as a whole, it differentiates between the traditional
functions of a law enforcement agency and those of a prosecutor.  For
example, RCW 26.44.030(5) requires a law enforcement agency that receives a
report of child abuse to 'report such incident . . . to the proper county
prosecutor or city attorney for appropriate action' when investigation
reveals that a crime may have been committed.  That clearly refers to a
prosecutorial function.
     In short, whether the prosecuting attorney is entitled to immunity for
acts taken pursuant to RCW 26.44 is resolved by traditional immunity
analysis.  Under this analysis, only when a prosecutor engages in functions
outside the scope of prosecutorial duties do his or her actions result in
exposure to the same liability as other persons performing those same
functions:
There is a difference between the advocate's role in evaluating evidence
and interviewing witnesses as he prepares for trial, on the one hand, and
the detective's role in searching for the clues and corroboration that
might give him probable cause to recommend that a suspect be arrested, on
the other hand.  When a prosecutor performs the investigative functions
normally performed by a detective or police officer, it is "neither
appropriate nor justifiable that, for the same act, immunity should protect
the one and not the other.'

Gilliam v. Department of Social & Health Servs., 89 Wn. App. 569, 583, 950
P.2d 20 (1998) (quoting Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259, 273, 113 S.
Ct. 2606, 125 L. Ed. 2d 209 (1993).  Thus, neither RCW 26.44 nor our
holding restricts prosecutorial immunity.
     Holding law enforcement agencies to a standard of negligence in child
abuse investigations should not have the effect of chilling those
investigations.  Rather, such a standard will encourage careful, thorough
investigations, which support the public policy of protecting children from
child abuse while at the same time preventing unwarranted interference in
the parent-child relationship.
Negligent Supervision-Training
     The appellants also allege that the police officers were negligently
supervised and trained.  Negligent supervision creates a limited duty to
control an employee for the protection of a third person, even when the
employee is acting outside the scope of employment.  Niece v. Elmview Group
Home, 131 Wn.2d 39, 48, 929 P.2d 420 (1997).  If an employee conducts
negligent acts outside the scope of employment, the employer may be liable
for negligent supervision.  Niece, 131 Wn.2d at 51; Gilliam, at 584-85.
     Although the issue of whether conduct was inside or outside the scope
of employment is typically a jury question, here the respondents have not
alleged that any conduct occurred outside the scope of employment.  On the
contrary, their argument rests on the theory that their employees acted
according to their assigned duties.  The appellants rely upon the same
evidence to prove negligent supervision as they do to prove negligent
investigation.  But because the individual employees as well as their
employers had a statutory duty to investigate properly, any negligence on
the part of the individual officers is attributable to their employers.
Consequently, if the police officers are found to be negligent in their
investigation, then their employers may be held vicariously liable.  If the
appellants fail to prove negligence, then the employers cannot be held
liable even if their supervision was negligent.  Based upon the facts
presented here, no additional cause of action for negligent supervision is
necessary.  See Gilliam, 89 Wn. App. at 584-85.
Conclusion
     In conclusion, we hold that a negligent investigation claim against
the respondents is cognizable under RCW 26.44.  Accordingly, the trial
court's dismissal is reversed and the claim of negligent investigation is
remanded for further proceedings.

WE CONCUR:

1Because this is a CR 12(b)(6) motion, we summarize the allegations as if
they had been established.
2Our conclusion is strengthened in that the original statute imposed the
duty to investigate only upon law enforcement agencies.  In 1969, the
Legislature added 'department of public assistance,' which was later
rewritten to read 'department of social and health services.'  RCWA
26.44.050.  Thus, it is clear that DSHS's duties under the statute are to
apply equally to law enforcement agencies.
3The agency receiving the report must investigate and notify DSHS of all
reports received and its disposition of them.  RCW 26.44.030(5).
Additionally, a law enforcement agency must report the results of an
investigation to the prosecutor if the investigation reveals that a crime
may have been committed (RCW 26.44.030(5)), may interview children (RCW
26.44.030(10)), and must take the child into custody if there is reason to
believe a child's welfare is in danger (RCW 26.44.056(2)).
Logged
doubledecker
Monkey Junky
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 4534


WWW
« Reply #30 on: June 20, 2009, 09:02:30 PM »

here is wilma holt who married richard birdette lawless

1920 United States Federal Census
about Wilma G Holt
Name: Wilma G Holt
[Wilma G Holtz] 
Home in 1920: Pateros, Okanogan, Washington
Age: 5 years 
Estimated Birth Year: abt 1915
Birthplace: Washington
Relation to Head of House: Daughter 
Father's Name: William M
Father's Birth Place: North Dakota 
Mother's Name: Emily
Mother's Birth Place: Indiana 
Marital Status: Single 
Race: White
Sex: Female
Image: 365 
Neighbors: View others on page 
Household Members: Name Age
William M Holt 30 
Emily Holt 25 
Dennie J Holt 6 
Wilma G Holt 5 
 

Isn't Richard the father of Gerald that Luanne married?

yes richard birdette lawless is the father of gerald D lawless aka jerry lawless who married luanne.

I am TOLD gerald's middle name is DEE, but I have not confirmed that.
Logged

To find me:
click the globe to the left, under my name
Sister
Monkey All Star Jr.
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8645



« Reply #31 on: June 20, 2009, 11:06:22 PM »

Dee (for a man) is a family name.
Interesting, is it not, Clifford is not a family name.
Logged


lonemonkey
Monkey Junky Jr.
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 991



« Reply #32 on: June 23, 2009, 01:28:06 PM »

Monkeys
I'm curious...
How many of you are familiar with the McMartin Daycare case in Southern California?
And if you are familiar, do you have an opinion?
Logged
Sister
Monkey All Star Jr.
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8645



« Reply #33 on: June 23, 2009, 03:12:29 PM »

I don't know about this case.
Logged


Tracygirl
Monkey All Star Jr.
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6539



« Reply #34 on: June 23, 2009, 04:09:24 PM »

I am familiar with the case in the respect I onced worked at the abuse center that interviewed the children. It has a good reputation. I was concerned when the children were said to have been swayed, I knew the interviewers and psychologists and know they would never do that.
Tell us about your thoughts.
Logged
Sister
Monkey All Star Jr.
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8645



« Reply #35 on: June 23, 2009, 04:17:58 PM »

Is this the Tracy 60?  If so, I'll go to that thread and read it.
Logged


Tracygirl
Monkey All Star Jr.
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6539



« Reply #36 on: June 23, 2009, 04:45:24 PM »

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/Ftrials/mcmartin/mcmartin.html

I didn't read completely through this link but I am sure it will give you some idea of the details
Logged
lonemonkey
Monkey Junky Jr.
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 991



« Reply #37 on: June 24, 2009, 01:22:36 PM »

I am familiar with the case in the respect I onced worked at the abuse center that interviewed the children. It has a good reputation. I was concerned when the children were said to have been swayed, I knew the interviewers and psychologists and know they would never do that.
Tell us about your thoughts.

Tracy
WOW!!!
I studied this case back when I was in college...
My professor had been on the the Defense Team and helped them select the jury.  I felt like the case was being presented from an obviously biased point of view, so I decided to do some independent research.  What I found horrified me and I have always, always wondered about the the validity of the verdict in this case.

If the McMartin Daycare case was not False Memory Syndrome, etc....
What, if anything could that mean for the Wenatchee Witch Hunt.

Also, in the late 1980's the Presidio in San Francisco, faced a similar situation within their child care center...

This article discusses ALL of these issues...
 www.endritualabuse.org


Opinion Piece Submitted to the San Diego Union-Tribune,
by Ellen Lacter, Ph.D. on 9-29-2000


Mark Sauer's 9-24-00 article, "A Web of Intrigue", in the San Diego Union-Tribune is his most recent in a series of articles misrepresenting the facts on the subject of child ritual abuse and attacking advocates for ritual abuse victims. His articles have, over the past 10 years, contributed to convincing a good portion of the San Diego community that ritual abuse does not exist. This has had a devastating impact on victimized children and adults, resulting in their not being believed and reduced protection by law enforcement and the courts.

Sauer's factual misrepresentations of 9-24-00 are as follows:

1. Sauer claims the debate over satanic ritual abuse ended in the mid-1990's when it was "discredited by mental-health experts and the courts". The truth is that psychological and legal evidence of the existence of satanic ritual abuse is substantial and that the debate is alive and well.

A review of the empirical evidence of ritual abuse can be found in a book by James Randall Noblitt and Pamela Sue Perskin (Cult and Ritual Abuse, 2000, Chapter 6). One national survey of 2709 clinical psychologists showed that 30% claimed to have seen at least one case of "ritualistic or religion-based abuse" and 93% of these psychologists believed the harm actually occurred (Reference: Goodman, Qin, Bottoms, and Shaver, 1994, "Characteristics and Sources of Allegations of Ritualistic Child Abuse: Final Report to the National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect").

The American Psychiatric Press published a text in 1997 explaining the importance of correct assessment and treatment of ritualistic abuse survivors (The Dilemma of Ritual Abuse: Cautions and Guides for Therapists, edited by G.A. Fraser).

Numerous court decisions (criminal, family, juvenile, and civil) have been based on findings of ritual abuse. For example, on February 27, 1999, the Honorable Warren K. Urbom, Senior United States District Judge, Omaha, Nebraska, awarded a million dollar civil judgement to Paul Bonacci against Larry King (not the well-known talk-show host, Larry King), based on King's sexual abuse (including pornography and orgies) and false imprisonment, of Bonacci as a child, in the infamous Franklin satanic cult/sex/drug ring case. Further information on this case can be found in the book, "The Franklin Cover-Up", by John De Camp, and on the Internet at: http://www.stansolomon.com/gundrsn02.htm

The court finding list is archived, periodically updated, and published on the world-wide web by "Karen Curio Jones". Under this pseudonym, "Jones" has devoted herself to raising public awareness of child ritual abuse on the Internet for the past five years. Sauer claims to expose "Jones'" identity in his 9-24-00 article.

Sauer globally denies the existence of satanic ritual abuse while our recent history is marred with undeniable cases of mass suicide/homicide by other kinds of cults and underground groups. This past summer, almost 1000 people were found murdered by an underground cult in Uganda, "Movement for the Restoration of the Ten Commandments of God". Last year, in Rancho Sante Fe, 39 people suicided from the cult, "Heaven's Gate". In Jonestown, 22 years ago, more than 900 people mass-suicided and were murdered of "The People's Temple". Devastating world events originate in underground groups, such as the Third Reich and Ku Klux Klan. High school students are taught to remember the Nazi death camps lest such atrocities repeat themselves. Given these examples, why does Sauer turn a blind eye to the evidence of satanic cult abuse?

2. Sauer cites the McMartin Pre-school acquittals as evidence that ritual abuse does not exist. He omits any mention of the post-trial geological survey under the school's foundation that yielded convincing corroboration of the children's reports of being taken through underground tunnels (See "The Dark Tunnels of McMartin", by Summit, R.C., 1994, The Journal of Psychohistory, 21(4), 397-416.)

3. Sauer cites the "10-year investigation" by Special FBI Agent Ken Lanning that concluded that satanic ritual abuse does not exist. Sauer fails to mention that Lanning is a very controversial figure. Noblitt and Perskin (2000, see above) state: "In reality, there is no such study... my office contacted the FBI and requested a copy of the alleged study. The bureau responded in writing indicating that no such study existed." (See page 179 of their book).

4. Sauer refers to the 1991-1992 San Diego County Grand Jury "that blasted the child protection system after investigating wide-ranging allegations of zealous social workers removing children from their homes without cause". Sauer has widely publicized the findings of that Grand Jury over the years. Sauer fails to mention the 1992-1993 San Diego County Grand Jury Report that strongly criticized the 1991-1992 report as not being "in the best interest of threatened children", as misrepresenting facts, and as having caused a dramatic decline in the number of children removed from abusive and neglectful homes in San Diego County, while these numbers climbed in other California counties. The latter report also cites preliminary evidence of an increase in infants' and children's deaths caused by abuse and neglect in San Diego County following the former Grand Jury report, although the numbers were too small for statistical analysis. Sauer has failed to draw media attention to the second Grand Jury report over the years. Such is an unconscionable omission.

5. Sauer sympathetically portrays Carol Hopkins, one of the leaders of the 1991-1992 Grand Jury. Sauer fails to mention that Hopkins was a member and central figure of that Grand Jury, denounced by the 1992-1993 Grand Jury for increasing the risk to children and misrepresenting the facts on child abuse.

Carol Hopkins created what she called "the Justice Committee". Under these vague auspices, Hopkins interjected herself into the Wenatchee, Washington sex ring case to organize multiple protests on behalf of parents convicted of sex crimes against their own and other children, including an apple boycott of Washington in 1995 and a candlelight vigil in Salem, Massachusetts in 1997.

After the apple boycott, Hopkins obtained guardianship in her San Diego home of "Sam" Doggett, teen-age daughter of Mark and Carol Doggett, both convicted at trial in the Wenatchee case. Moving a child from Washington to the San Diego home of someone attempting to overturn the parents' convictions is a dangerous conflict of interest. Sauer documented in a San Diego Union-Tribune article on 6-18-96 that once "Sam" Doggett resided with Hopkins, 17-year-old Doggett joined Hopkins, Akiki and others in multiple media events, claiming her parents were innocent and touting the positions of Hopkins' "Justice Committee". The convictions of Mark and Carol Doggett were later successfully overturned.

6. Sauer also glorifies Elizabeth Loftus as "an internationally known expert on the workings of memory". Sauer writes that Loftus "has testified for the defense in many trials (including the Akiki case), explaining how memories - especially those of young children - can be manipulated, even by well-meaning people". Sauer neglects to explain that Loftus and the "False Memory Syndrome Foundation", with which she has been affiliated, have come under serious attack from numerous psychologists and organizations. A formal complaint was lodged with the American Psychological Association (APA) in December, 1995, against Loftus alleging that she deliberately misrepresented facts in her published statements about two legal cases involving delayed memories, a serious breach of professional ethics. Loftus resigned from the APA a month later, claiming her resignation was unrelated to the complaint.

7. Sauer writes that "Loftus said she recently was invited to deliver the keynote address at a convention of the New Zealand Psychology Society and arrived to find herself the center of controversy. Accusations that she conspires to protect child molesters, many fueled by Curio's ["Jones'"] Internet postings, led to a story in the Wellington Evening Post and stoked the talk-show fires." Sauer is attempting to paint "Jones", a small player, as the source of high-profile Loftus' long-term high-profile problems. Essentially all specialists in child abuse and memory research are aware of the controversy surrounding Elizabeth Loftus.

8. Sauer portrays Michael Aquino as an innocent victim of "Karen Curio Jones". Michael Aquino founded the "Temple of Set", which Sauer characterizes as "a quasi-religious institution that many consider satanic". This clearly evades the truth. In the Winter of 1989-1990, the California Office of Criminal Justice Planning, under Governor Pete Wilson, published a Research Update (Volume 1, Number 6) which states: "Founded in 1975 by a dissident member of the Church of Satan, Michael Aquino, the Temple of Set is the second largest of all contemporary organized Satanic churches. The Temple of Set is a religious society dedicated to Set, the ancient Egyptian god believed by some to be the model for the Christian Satan. Aquino's many writings, especially The Book of Coming Forth by Night, develops a sophisticated form of Satanism far beyond that of LaVey's Church. Among its teachings is the belief that Judeo-Christian religions have established Satan as a "straw man" to justify their guilt for man's ejection from the Garden of Eden. Not much more is known about Setians as the society is secret and most of its writings are not available to the public at large" (p. 17).

Sauer writes, "In the late 1980s, Aquino was investigated in a McMartin/Akiki-type case centering on allegations of satanic abuse at a day-care center at San Francisco's Presidio military base" and "Aquino, who was a lieutenant colonel, was questioned because of his satanic beliefs". To dismiss the Presidio case as unfounded, Sauer places it in the same category of the two other cases he already discredited. He then expresses sympathy for Aquino because his satanic beliefs may have raised the suspicions of the investigators. Sauer ignores that satanic practices have been found to be an element in many cases of convicted child abuse.

Sauer omits important evidence of Aquino's involvement in the Presidio case. The United States Army Criminal Investigation Command (CID) stated that Michael Aquino was the subject of an investigation for sexual child abuse and related crimes in the Presidio case (www.illusions.com/opf/aquino02.htm). Aquino brought an action against Secretary Michael Stone of the Army to remove his name from the title block of that investigation. The 1991 Appellate decision of the United States District Court allowed the title block to stand, finding that: "The facts in the administrative record support the conclusion that the CID decision not to remove plaintiff's [Aquino's] name from the title block was not arbitrary or capricious. There was sufficient evidence from which the Army decision maker could determine that probable cause existed to believe that the plaintiff committed the offenses". (reference: Aquino vs. Stone 768 F.Supp. 529).

Sauer includes a quote by Aquino portraying him as a concerned husband/father threatened by the Internet postings of "Karen Curio Jones"; "My basic interest was to identify an anonymous person who, because of his/her obsessions and delusions, might pose a threat to the safety of myself and my family."

What is the likelihood that Aquino, a man who has publicly exposed himself as a Satanist, considers "Jones" a threat to his safety and family vs. Aquino being motivated to silence "Jones" through a law suit? Sauer omits reference to Aquino's highly publicized law suit against an Internet service provider (www5.electriciti.com/curious/) that threatens first amendment freedom of speech. Why does Sauer align himself with this well-known satanist?

9. Sauer paints "Jones" as a dangerous "cyberstalker", yet quotes Detective Susan McCrary about "Jones": "She hasn't made any physical threats. Everything's been done in a public forum" (San Diego State Police Department (SDSU). Sauer paints Loftus, Hopkins, Aquino, and others as "Jones'" innocent victims. Yet, one need not dig very deeply into Sauer's article to discover otherwise.

Michelle Devereaux is a woman who Sauer claims believed she was abused by a satanic cult for eight or nine years, until 1999. Sauer's article extols Devereaux's high-tech "cybersleuth" efforts to track down "Jones". This included Devereaux rigging her computer to monitor the Internet to page her every time "Jones" posted, tracking "Jones" from San Francisco to San Diego, and the use of a lap-top computer with a hidden camera, a telephoto lens, and long-range monocular, to catch "Jones" posting at SDSU. Sauer is also non-critical of Devereaux's plan to "spook" "Jones" to get her to run to her car from the library to photograph her license plate.

Why does Sauer laud these stalking-like tactics of Devereaux? Devereaux is not law enforcement. Why does he side-step Devereaux's encroachment of "Jones'" constitutional rights to privacy and free speech? Sauer has availed himself for 10 years of these first amendment rights in his effort to discredit abused children and adult survivors.

10. Sauer writes that Jones ignored his requests to interview her for his article and that "whatever motivates her remains pretty much a secret".

It is no surprise that "Jones" refused an interview with Sauer. I would too. Anyone with knowledge of Sauer's slanted reporting on child abuse issues will refuse an interview with him. His articles have always aimed to discredit advocates of ritual abuse victims rather than to represent both sides of the story.

11. Sauer refers to quotes by Aquino and Hopkins in an effort to portray "Jones" as deluded. Sauer writes that Aquino said; "Now that this person has been identified, that 'faceless' threat no longer exists. She is now just another woman with 'satanic ritual-abuse' sexual fantasies." Sauer writes that Hopkins likens "Jones" to "the mythical Japanese soldier stumbling out of the jungle still fighting World War II." Sauer's representation of "Jones" in this manner and reliance on these suspect sources for his psychological opinions of "Jones" raises important questions about his motives.

Under the guise of objective reporting, Sauer has used his 9-24-00 article to launch a personal assault on "Karen Curio Jones" and her advocacy for victims of ritual abuse. He writes; "Who is Curio and why is she saying such nasty things about us [emphasis added] on the Internet?" "Us" represents Sauer, Hopkins, Loftus, and Aquino. An 8-20-98 San Diego Reader article, "The Memory Wars" describes a social relationship between Sauer, Hopkins, and Loftus. Should Sauer publish an ostensibly objective newspaper article when he feels personally attacked by one of the players and is on a friendly basis with her opponents? He abuses his power as a reporter in doing so.

Why hasn't there been a community uproar about Sauer's long-term misrepresentations of the facts?

It is my opinion that the media campaign of Sauer and Jim Okerblom, a previous Union-Tribune writer who also wrote a number of articles discrediting victims of ritual abuse, and the related media campaign of the "False Memory Syndrome Foundation", have succeeded in intimidating and silencing most local medical and mental health providers treating ritual abuse victims, public agencies designated to protect children, protective parents of child victims, and adult survivors. I base this opinion on my long-term affiliation with professionals working with abused children, including law enforcement, mental health practitioners, child protection workers, and attorneys. These professionals have anticipated media attacks from Sauer and Okerblom and lawsuits by the "False Memory Syndrome Foundation" whenever they speak on the existence of ritual abuse or pursue legal remedies on behalf of its victims.

This letter is likely to result in Sauer publishing an attack on my professionalism in the San Diego Union-Tribune, threatening my credibility, safety, license to practice, and livelihood. Civil suits of libel against me by Mark Sauer or the "False Memory Syndrome Foundation" are also very likely. Most practitioners do not want to expose themselves to these risks. Practitioners who have come under attack have stopped treating ritual abuse victims, changed fields, or retired early. As a consequence, victims of ritual abuse have great difficulty finding therapists to help them.

It is my opinion that the local media campaign of the past 10 years, driven largely by Sauer and Okerblom, has contributed to turning much public opinion against the plight of abused children in San Diego. Also affected are professionals who have relied on Sauer and Okerblom as a reliable source of objective information without researching the literature in their fields. I also believe there has been reduced reporting of child ritual abuse to law enforcement and child protection by health and mental health professionals due to fear of law suits and complaints to licensing boards. This has had a devastating impact, including reduced protection of abused children by law enforcement, social services, and the courts.

Adult victims and protective parents of ritually abused children tend not to view law enforcement as a resource based on a fear of not being taken seriously or being seen as delusional, and feeling vulnerable to retaliation by abusers without protection by the police or courts. Family law attorneys counsel parents to not even raise allegations of ritual abuse in Family Court based on the expectation of an incredulous or hostile response by the court. District attorneys attempt to omit evidence of ritual abuse in child abuse cases for fear that the issue will destroy their case.

Although victims of ritual abuse are the hardest hit, victims of non-ritualistic child abuse have also been discredited in San Diego by Sauer's media campaign and by the campaign of the "False Memory Syndrome Foundation" nationally. At the same time, "Believe the Children", an organization that advocated for abused children, was sued into nonexistence. What should we tell our children to do if they are abused? Who will believe them?

Why am I willing to take this public position? A number of victims of ritual abuse have come through my office door. I have been touched by their trauma more deeply than anything I have ever encountered. Therapists maintain objectivity in making treatment decisions. But therapists also genuinely care about the suffering of their clients and of people in general. My commitment is fueled by their suffering. I can not and will not turn my back on these victims.

Ellen P. Lacter, Ph.D., Clinical Psychologist, California

Mark Sauer's Article of 9-24-2000 is on the Internet at:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/
Click on Archives, then search for "A Web of Intrigue".
Click on "A Web of Intrigue" to read his article. 
Logged
lonemonkey
Monkey Junky Jr.
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 991



« Reply #38 on: June 24, 2009, 02:46:47 PM »

Monkeys...
Have any of you heard of a cult called "The People"???...Washington is a very active state for them apparently.

This is a detailed article from the perspective of a Survivor:
http://ritualabuse.us/ritualabuse/survivor-stories/story-of-survivor-of-multi-generational-cult/

Snippet:
I estimate through experience that some law enforcement authorities are very well aware of some cult murders.  Some of my best friends were police.  How do I know all of these things?  Experience.  Way too much of it, but I’m just not threatened anymore.  What can those in private or public power do to to me?  Jail, torture, death.  I’m fifty-five years old now and my wife of twenty years died twenty-six months ago.  She was all that I protected.

All enclaves of the people whether large or small, have underground “hidey-holes” to use if the need arises.  My older brother who lives in north-central Washington State was arrested several years ago for growing marijuana.  Where did they find it growing?  In a railroad box car that was buried on the property with access to his home via an underground culvert.  His oldest daughter turned him in to the cops, but since she runs crazy as a badly fragmented dissociative on the streets of Seattle, more power to her. She would tell a story very similar to my own, if she were able to.

A rundown on my family.  Mom and dad are in a care center.  My older sister has migraines five days a week and remains in the people.  My younger brother was in a hospital for five years in the sexual psychopath program, but has never been in trouble in the past twenty years and is no longer a member of the people.  My older brother has eight children from two live-in wives and remains in the people.  Most of my aunts and uncles are dead, but their children remain in the people from Washington State to Minnesota.
Logged
lonemonkey
Monkey Junky Jr.
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 991



« Reply #39 on: June 24, 2009, 03:00:23 PM »

here is wilma holt who married richard birdette lawless

1920 United States Federal Census
about Wilma G Holt
Name: Wilma G Holt
[Wilma G Holtz] 
Home in 1920: Pateros, Okanogan, Washington
Age: 5 years 
Estimated Birth Year: abt 1915
Birthplace: Washington
Relation to Head of House: Daughter 
Father's Name: William M
Father's Birth Place: North Dakota 
Mother's Name: Emily
Mother's Birth Place: Indiana 
Marital Status: Single 
Race: White
Sex: Female
Image: 365 
Neighbors: View others on page 
Household Members: Name Age
William M Holt 30 
Emily Holt 25 
Dennie J Holt 6 
Wilma G Holt 5 
 

Isn't Richard the father of Gerald that Luanne married?

yes richard birdette lawless is the father of gerald D lawless aka jerry lawless who married luanne.

I am TOLD gerald's middle name is DEE, but I have not confirmed that.
Well I am not sure if these are separate or not...This dude is Richard Ray Lawless..and you are talking of Birdette.  BUT with all of the alias'...
Who knows?
This dude was convicted of child rape in 1986 in Washington, right?

I think there is a news article which refers to either richard birdette lawless or his son richard allen lawless, as "dick".  it is most likely somewhere in the HUGE thread, towards the first half, I think it is from one of the news articles posted by probably northernrose. 

i think this is Dick...Richard Ray Lawless
  ID
MT02592410    Name
Lawless, Richard Ray    Designation
   Offender Type
Sexual
Level
Non-Designated    Birth Date
Aug 5 1948



Physical Description

Physical Description Updated
03/22/2007    Race
Caucasian    Gender
Male    Age
60
Skin Tone
   Hair
Brown    Eyes
Hazel    Height
5'11
Weight
150    Scars/Marks/Tattoos

Last Known Address

Last Known Address Reported
   Address
742 Old West Mullen Trail    City
Elliston    State
MT
ZIP Code
59728    County
Powell

Offense

Sentence Date
09/24/1986    Montana Statute
Washington Rape Of A Child    Non-Montana Statute
Washington Rape Of A Child    Counts
1
Victims Sex
   Victims Age Range

Registration Agency

Registering Agency
Powell County Sheriff    Registering Agency Phone
(406) 846-2711    Registration Information Updated
05/12/2009 09:45:45 AM    Source
Montana Sexual or Violent Offender Registry
Logged
Pages: « 1 2 3 »   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Use of this web site in any manner signifies unconditional acceptance, without exception, of our terms of use.
Powered by SMF 1.1.13 | SMF © 2006-2011, Simple Machines LLC
 
Page created in 0.492 seconds with 20 queries.