Center Valley Animal Rescue followed through on this intent nearly 2 years later (now). MARCH 2021. I ALLEGE Criminal Theft with premeditated intent and massive Civil rights violations. STAY TUNED this STORY WILL GET VERY BIG once I have All my Homework done.

To me, in my opinion, this Thread shows malicious intent on the part of Center Valley Animal Rescue and other parties.  As of March 12, 2021 in an Evidentiary Hearing at the Jefferson County Courthouse in Port Townsend I learned that Center Valley Animal Rescue has approx. $11,000 in Liens against Michaels "property", his dog, Moses, his Family and Emotional Support Animal. As I see it this was done to STEAL the dog. 

Here are a Few of the Comments from the 253 Comments on the Center Valley Animal Rescue Facebook Page. 

For Full Facebook Thread with Malicious Intent to STEAL a man's property, defame and cause intentional harm, click here

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1J-jbU0Nkg90G0P8KmqIqKYVbQQLlzPwH/view

NOTE that Michael's, the Owner, the Victim's side was deleted, just like with the Port Townsend Community Page did.

First Up we see Jasmine Glaze talking to Sara,

the CVAR director and suggesting the placing of a lien.

Animal Attorney Adam Karp joins the Lynch Mob and offers up a Statute.

Let's take a Look at RCW 60.56.025

RCW 60.56.025

Lien created for care of animal seized by law enforcement officer.

If a law enforcement officer authorizes removal of an animal pursuant to chapter 16.52 RCW, the person or entity receiving the animal and aiding in its care or restoration to health shall have a lien upon the animal for the cost of feeding, pasturing, and caring otherwise for the animal. The lien attaches on the date such costs are due and payable but are unpaid. Any such person is authorized to retain possession of the animal until such costs are paid or the lien expires, whichever first occurs.

Source

https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=60.56.025

Have a Vet File a Lien, oh ya we just happen to have one of those. 

Hold his "property" aKa THEFT and with proven criminal intent, in my opinion.   

So, is this tampering with evidence in a criminal case? What came first CVAR's agenda or the Criminal Case? 

Was the dog Evidence in that prior Criminal Case? 

Sounds kind of like a premeditated set up to me, and at the unjust enrichment of all parties, especially Center Valley Animal Rescue. 

INTENT TO STEAL A MAN'S PROPERTY?

SURE LOOKS THAT WAY TO ME. 

So Hold the property (dog) until you can set him up for criminal charges?

"WHAT DO WE HAVE TO DO TO STOP THIS?"

"DO WE NEED TO BREAK THE LAW"

LET'S DO IT

Did CVAR follow the stray dog laws? Did the Sheriff?

Why did Moses not go to HSJC, the Humane Society?

Why NOW in the Current Criminal Case, was Moses picked up on November 23, 2020, by NOON on November 24th 2020, CVAR already had possession of Moses per the thread above of Michelle Sanchez's Conversation with the "Pound". 

Was the Stray Hold at HSJC laws or rules broke in the current case. Barely one night and off to 

Center Valley Animal Rescue, knowing who the dog's owner was? I call this THEFT with malicious intent to harm an innocent man.

So Helpful to Research how to Steal a Dog, a man's property and emotionally torment him.  WOW !!!

ANIMAL ATTORNEY ADAM P. KARP

HEY WANNA STEAL THAT GUYS DOG AND DRIVE HIM TO SUICIDE?

 OR JUST WANT

TO STEAL HIS PERSONAL PROPERTY?
   

"I CAN HELP" 


HERE'S A WASHINGTO LAW, DO THIS.  YA AND THEN OVER THE NEXT YEAR THEY SET UP MICHAEL ALLMAIN AND THEN I ALLEGE UNCLIPPED MOSES FROM HIS LEAD, THEN CALLED THE COPS, THEN CONVIENTLY KNEW MOSES HAD BEEN AT LARGE AND PICKED UP BY THE "POUND" BY THE VERY NEXT MORNING.   

WOWEEE !!!

OK SO NOW WAIT WHO DID WHAT?

 So HSJC is not animal control, that is JCSO (last time) (this time it is the City of Port Townsend March 18, 2021 now as I type this from an animal at large as of November 23, 2020.

JCSO MADE THE MISTAKE?

CVAR DID NOT CALL THE SHERIFF FOR PROPER HOLD TIMES?

SAY WHAT ?

WERE THE STRAY ANIMAL LAWS FOLLOWED THIS CURRENT ANIMAL AT LARGE HOLD TIME 4 MONTHS LATER.  

THEY STOLE THIS DOG 4 MONTHS AND COUNTING. 

I WILL ABSOLUTELY ADOPT THIS DOG AND PAY FOR ITS MEDICAL CARE? 

HMMM BUT NOT IF THE HOMELESS GUY KEEPS IT? 

 SOMETHING FISHY THERE TOO. 

GET A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER LIEN FOR VET FEES?

UMMM THEY CLEARLY STOLE THE DOG WITH INTENT.

OK SO THEY PLANNED FOR OVER A YEAR TO PLACE A LIEN ON THIS MAN'S PROPERTY.  THEY SET THIS MAN UP, AND I ALLEGE LET HIS DOG LOSE THEN CALLED THE COPS.  THEN THEY TOOK THEIR STOLEN PROPERTY TO AN UNDISCLOSED LOCATION OF WHICH THE OWNER WAS NOT ALLOWED TO KNOW BUT ALL THE CLATTERING LYNCH MOB HAD ACCESS TO THAT INFORMATION. 

THEN THEY RACK UP $11,600 IN BILLS FOR AN ANIMAL, PROPERTY, THEY STOLE AND THE OWNER CAN'T HAVE THIS PROPERTY UNLESS THEY PAY THE SEEMING BLACK MAIL MONEY?

SO THAN MICHAEL IS GUILTY OF ANIMAL ABUSE UNLESS HE CAN PAY $2500 TO THE CITY, AND $11,600 TO THE UNJUST ENRICHMENT OF CVAR, AND THEN MAGICALLY HE IS NOT AN ABUSER?    SAY WHAT?

THEN THEY PRESS CRIMINAL CHARGES IN 2021 AND USE EVIDENCE FROM 2019 BASED ON HEARSAY AND NO PRIOR CONVICTION. OTHERWISE KNOWN AS, THEY PREJUDICED MICHAEL ALLMAN BY BRINGIN IN IRRELEVANT PAST EVENTS AND HEARSAY WITH NO CONVICTION. 

KEEP CALLING THE PROSECUTORS OFFICE?

IS THAT WHAT HAPPENED? THEY GOT SO MANY CALLS THEY DECIDED TO SACRIFICE MICHAEL ALLMAIN, HIS FAMILY, HIS PROPERTY, HIS BEST FRIEND TO SILENCE ALL THOSE CALLS?

Email the Humane Society to get their Attention at friends@HSJCWA.org they say.  Why do so 

many seem to have rights and resources in all this except NOT the dog's owner? Discrimination perhaps? Yep, going with YES on that. 

More to This Story at 

https://MichaelandMoses.blogspot.com/

Living in Vehicles: How Homestead Rights Affect Municipal Impounds

 "On October 12, 2016, the City of Seattle impounded a 2000 GMC 2500 Sierra truck owned by Steven Long from an unused gravel lot owned by the city. The truck was inoperable, had been on the lot for approximately three months, and had previously been tagged for violating Seattle’s prohibition on parking on city property or right-of-way in the same spot for more than 72 hours (SMC 11.72.440(B)).

Mr. Long lived in his truck and testified that he lived outside during the time his truck was impounded. He contested the impound at a hearing before a magistrate and explained that the vehicle was his home. The magistrate upheld the ticket and impound, since the vehicle had been parked in violation of city ordinances, but waived the ticket fee and reduced the impound fee from $946.61 to $547.12. Mr. Long did not have the money so he entered into a payment plan so that he could get his truck back. Had he not done so the truck would have been sold at auction.

On appeal to King County Superior Court, the court ruled that Washington’s Homestead Act (“Act”) (chapter 6.13 RCW) applies to vehicles that are used as residences. The court found that homestead status attaches to a vehicle from the time an owner starts using it as a residence and that filing a “declaration of homestead” is not required to invoke homestead protections. The court therefore struck down the impound charges and the resulting payment plan because they operated as a lien on Mr. Long’s residence. On June 29, 2020, the Washington Court of Appeals affirmed this aspect of the decision in the published decision of City of Seattle v. Long.

What are Homestead Rights? How Do They Apply to Vehicles?

Homestead is an important protection in Washington law, but it does not frequently intersect with municipal law. The purpose of the Act is to place qualifying homes, or portions of them, beyond the reach of judgments and creditors to prevent families from experiencing destitution and to promote the stability and welfare of the state. The origins of the Act are in the Washington Constitution, which provides (Article 19, Section 1): “The legislature shall protect by law from forced sale a certain portion of the homestead and other property of all heads of families.” The Act implements this directive and RCW 6.13.070 provides that real or personal property used as a residence “is exempt from attachment and from execution or forced sale for the debts of the owner up to the amount specified in RCW 6.13.030.”

Both sides in the Long case agreed that a vehicle could be subject to homestead protection. The disagreement was whether filing a declaration of homestead under RCW 6.13.040 is necessary to invoke that protection. The Court of Appeals concluded that homestead protections attached to Mr. Long’s truck automatically. Although the Act is ambiguous on this question, the Court of Appeals noted that: (1) homesteads are favored under Washington law and courts construe the Act liberally to protect family homes; and (2) the legislative history of 1993 amendments to the Act disclosed an intent for the automatic homestead protections to apply to people residing in their vehicles.

The Court of Appeals also found that the lien resulting from the impoundment pursuant to RCW 46.55.140(1) never attached to Mr. Long’s truck and that the sale (or threat of sale) of unclaimed vehicles at auction constitutes a “forced sale:”

While the City did not ultimately forcibly sell Long’s truck, it did withhold his truck under the threat of such a sale unless he agreed to pay the impoundment costs. Liberally construing the Act to achieve its purpose of protecting homes, we determine that this violated the Homestead Act. The City had no legal authority to make the threat to induce Long to enter a payment plan. Thus, we conclude the payment plan is void.

One thing to remember about the Long case is that it only addresses the disposition of vehicles after impound:

Our decision does not affect the City’s authority to tow and impound an illegally parked vehicle. Nor does it prohibit the City from charging a vehicle owner for costs associated with the towing and impounding of a vehicle. But if that vehicle serves as the owner’s principal residence, the City may not withhold the vehicle from the owner under the threat of forced sale.

This result creates a dilemma for municipalities. Under Long it appears that a municipality may hold a vehicle owner responsible for impoundment fees and costs, but the city (and by extension the tow company) can’t recoup those costs by selling a homestead vehicle. If a municipality can impound homestead vehicles but may not sell unclaimed vehicles, what should be done with those vehicles? There are no clear answers, but municipalities should evaluate their impound procedures in light of Long.

Municipalities Should Review their Impound Procedures

Municipalities should consider adopting policies that ensure that vehicles with homestead protections are not sold as part of the impound process. I reached out to some municipalities to find out how they are responding to Long. Here is what I found out:

• Municipalities are impounding less, in part because of the COVID-19 emergency. Long provides additional reasons for municipalities to consider the circumstances under which vehicles should be impounded.
• One jurisdiction indicated it would impound homestead vehicles to city property instead of the tow operator’s yard to ensure the vehicle is not sold at auction. The jurisdiction also indicated that it would return the vehicle without charging the impound fee if the owner was not able to pay. Municipalities may want to train their enforcement officers to notice if there are indications that a vehicle is used for habitation and treat those vehicles differently from other impounds.
• One city representative indicated that the city would consider paying the impound fees if a homestead vehicle is impounded to a towing facility. That expense might be justifiable if it avoids a claim that the vehicle was sold in violation of the owner’s homestead rights.

Another issue for a jurisdiction to consider is what to do with vehicles that are inoperable or not claimed by their owners. Once a municipality is in possession of a homestead vehicle, it may be difficult to dispose of if the owner is not willing or able to drive it away. Additionally, there may be circumstances under which it is difficult to determine whether a vehicle is a homestead. That raises the possibility that a municipality may inadvertently sell a homestead vehicle if the owner does not promptly seek to redeem the vehicle.

Conclusion

Homestead rights are important, because for many people experiencing homelessness, the alternative to sleeping in a vehicle is sleeping outside. However, from a practical standpoint, Long creates a lot of uncertainty with respect to municipal impound practices.

Long is, in my opinion, part of a trend in which courts are taking the pervasiveness of homelessness into account in their decisions. Examples of other cases include Martin v. City of Boise (Ninth Circuit, restricting enforcement of certain types of anti-camping and sit-lie ordinances), City of Lakewood v. Willis (Washington Supreme Court, striking down ordinance restricting solicitation of aid); State v. Pippin (Washington Court of Appeals, finding that law enforcement needs a warrant to search an unauthorized encampment on public property); and Desertrain v. City of Los Angeles (Ninth Circuit, striking down ordinance prohibiting use of vehicles for habitation in city right-of-way). This trend should be considered when adopting legislation or policies that will impact people experiencing homelessness."

Source

http://mrsc.org/Home/Stay-Informed/MRSC-Insight/August-2020-1/Living-in-Vehicles-Homestead-Rights.aspx

Appeals Court Expands Homestead Act to Include Towing Payment Plans for Vehicles Used as Principal Residence

 “

May 5, 2020

On May 5, 2020, the Washington Court of Appeals issued a decision that expands the scope of the state's Homestead Act by applying it, for the first time, to local government efforts to tow vehicles in which homeless people reside. If this decision stands, it will have significant implications for local jurisdictions responsible for parking enforcement, potentially limiting the ability of cities and counties to recover towing costs and enforce parking ordinances.

In City of Seattle v. Long, Division I of the Court of Appeals ruled that the City of Seattle violated the Homestead Act when it towed a homeless person's truck and withheld that truck subject to auction unless he paid the impoundment costs or agreed to a payment plan. Steven Long had argued that the City's actions violated the Homestead Act as well as the state and federal constitutions. Division I of the Court of Appeals rejected Long's constitutional arguments but agreed that the City's actions had violated the Homestead Act and ruled that the City's payment plan was void.

Division I rejected the City's argument that, to protect a truck as a "homestead" under the Homestead Act, Long needed to file a declaration of homestead under RCW 6.13.040. Division I also rejected the City's argument that its payment plan was not the same as a "forced sale," reasoning that "state statute, not the registered owner, authorizes the sale of the vehicle." While the Court specifically stated that its decision does not prohibit the City from charging a vehicle owner costs associated with towing and impoundment, it said that if the vehicle is the owner’s principal residence, then the City may not withhold the vehicle under the threat of a forced sale. It appears that this limitation will apply regardless of whether the local jurisdiction was aware that the owner was living in the vehicle at the time of the tow.”

https://www.vnf.com/appeals-court-expands-homestead-act-to-include-towing-payment-plans-for-vehicles-used-as-principal-residence#:~:text=On%20May%205%2C%202020%2C%20the,in%20which%20homeless%20people%20reside

Below is a Video Showing that Deputy Prosecutor Melissa Pleimann Flat Out Maliciously lied in court to a Judge, I ALLEGE, to criminally defame Michael Allmain and maliciously harm him, and conspire with other to steal his personal property, and family, his Wolf Hybrid Dog Moses.

Jefferson County Deputy Prosecutor Melissa Pleimann deliberately, knowingly, maliciously LIED in a Court of Law as she Claimed that Michael Allmain made no attempt to get his dog and therefore time has run out so Center Valley Animal Rescue get's to keep the dog, the County keeps the dog, and they all do as they please with a private party's, private property, his family member his dog Moses. 

The Judge seemed to be reminding her that she did not represent CVAR, and she herself stated that CVAR had no representation there on that day.

HOWEVER, they did have an $11,000 lien in the way of Michael getting his dog back, all so convoluted, at best, Criminal I Allege, as they deliberately and maliciously, knowingly with premeditated intent set Michael up to lose his dog, otherwise known as to heartlessly, ruthlessly, maliciously steal a man's property and put him under massive extreme mental torment with total disregard for his life in any way.

The video below shows two emails that I ALLEGE prove Jefferson County Deputy Prosecutor Melissa Pleimann deliberately, knowingly, maliciously LIED and with intent to deliberately knowingly harm Michael Allmain.

There will be other communications discussed, uncovered and reported on coming soon. 

Plus he contacted the Port Townsend police over and over and was directed to Officer Wendy Davis who IGNORED him and I allege violated his rights further.  

Lets Take a Look.

Prejudiced AS A MATTER OF LAW

I ALLEGE that Jefferson County Washington Deputy Prosecutor Melissa Pleimann has Prejudiced Defendant Michael Allmain as a matter of law.

Meaning, she, they, are using evidence, implications and hearsay from a prior case (WITH NO CONVICTION) as a “weapon”, as evidence or implied evidence to prejudice a defendant in a current criminal case, 2 years later, of which he has paid severe consequences and is looking at even more severe actions against him by these same people, government entities, and a local non-profit.

I Allege that the City of Port Townsend and Deputy Prosecutor Melissa Pleimann have Prejudiced Defendant Michael Allmain as a matter of LAW.

As they are clearly using evidence, hearsay, and information from a past event of which Michael Allmain was NOT convicted, as Evidence against him in a current case for an animal at large, with a chronic ear and skin issue as he has explained over and over.

However, as you see on the CVAR Facebook thread I showed, they have NO interest in the Owner, Michael’s side. He spent hours answering every allegation and CVAR simply deleted his side of the story, his defense, his truth.  

When you use evidence from a prior offense of which there was no conviction, it is my understanding, that this “prejudices” the defendant in the new case as a matter of law.

Thoughts on Michael Allmain Evidentiary Hearing and Deputy Prosecutor Melissa Pleimann saying how LUCKY Michael is because CVAR has healed Moses and now he don't have to. 

Story of How the City of Port Townsend Took a Homeless Man's Dog, and seems like some sort of racket (CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT THE CRIME OF THEFT I ALLEGE), to extort the homeless FOR the unjust enrichment of Center Valley Animal Rescue seemingly in civil conspiracy with, the Prominent People, the Do Gooders, The City of Port Townsend, and Jefferson County, private parties and government agencies.

Full Story at Link Below

MichaelandMoses.blogspot.com

Post Written on the Knowledge, Belief, and Experience of Reverend Crystal Cox.

Center Valley Animal Rescue, I ALLEGE, based on my personal knowledge, belief and experience has committed Civil and Criminal Intent to steal a man's property, to defame and slander a man, and create a vicious violent lynch mob based on hearsay, of which caused REAL Damage to Real People.

I, Reverend Crystal Cox, ALLEGE (in my opinion and experience) that  Center Valley Animal Rescue, Private Individuals, the Jefferson County Human Society, Officer Wendy Davis, the City of Port Townsend, Chris Ashcraft and Melissa Pleimann of the Jefferson County Prosecutors office, possibly individual police and or sheriffs, and other John and Jane Doe's were involved in a Criminal and Civil Conspiracy to steal the private property of Michael Allman, as proven in the video thread and PDF below, to me INTENT is Clear. 

PDF of 253 comments on CVAR Facebook Page. ALL of Michael's Side has been deleted.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1J-jbU0Nkg90G0P8KmqIqKYVbQQLlzPwH/view

The crime, in my opinion, is the premeditated crime to steal a man's personal private property, with premeditated INTENT. 

Hearsay Mob Mentality Lynch Mob

The civil case here, I allege, is the conspiring of all  parties TO THE ENRICHMENT OF THE CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND AND THE UNJUST ENRICHMENT OF CENTER VALLEY ANIMAL RESCUE. And with malicious intent, as there was pre-meditation as proven by the videos and pdf in this blog post. And that this action caused massive life threatening hardship to Michael Allmain and his child, as I can prove. 

Keep in mind that the PDF and Video Commentary are from a blog post on  Center Valley Animal Rescue from May of 2019, and comments of how to place a lien on Michael Allmain's property (his dog) those comments are around a year old. 

THEN in November of 2020 someone let Michael's dog Moses off his lead from a yard in the City of Port Townsend, the police were called, the Dog, Moses was taken to the Jefferson County Human Society, then, Moses was taken to  Center Valley Animal Rescue.  

The Officer and others involved knew whose dog Moses was, they had malicious intent, I Allege. They deliberate kept the dog away, and I believe violated Michael Allmain's rights at every level of the process. 

Michael has tried since Nov. to locate his dog, his family Moses, and was ignored, they kept his dog from him, now we know Moses was at  Center Valley Animal Rescue, the issue? Sounds like teeth and skin condition.   Center Valley Animal Rescue has placed an approx. $11,000 lean on Michael Allmains "property" his dog Moses, this on top of the City of Port Townsend saying Michael can get Moses if he pays $2500, all this in the full blog post linked below. 

The PDF and Video of the Facebook Page Thread from  Center Valley Animal Rescue, a Jefferson County Non-Profit Facebook Page

shows that all parties planned a lien on this man's property and to violate his rights, for quite some time. 

They are shown to maliciously, violently slander Michael Allmain and incite a lynch mob based on hearsay, while at the same time (shown in the Thread) ignoring first hand accounts.  This thread shows that, to them, Michael Allmain was GUILTY before proven INNOCENT, to them Michael is a POS and Scum, a Bastard and other evil violent words and threats.  All based on hearsay. 

Also on this Facebook thread, the private, personal information of Michael Allmain was given to the public at large with no regard for privacy rights, by who? Was it the Jefferson County Humane Society, Officer Wendy Davis, the Prosecutor Melissa Pleimann,  Center Valley Animal Rescue ? Is there a HIPPAA Violation? What rights does Michael and other homeless men or women have in these clearly violent discrimination issues?

Why was Michael Allmain's Property, his Family, his Dog Moses at  Center Valley Animal Rescue? 

What is the relationship between Jefferson County, the City of Port Townsend and  Center Valley Animal Rescue?  Jefferson County Deputy Prosecutor Melissa Pleimann and all parties?

Have a Tip Regarding anything on this Page? email me at ReverendCrystalCox@gmail.com .  I will post what you send at my discretion and if you send hate I will post that as well. 

VIDEO Playlist: Center Valley Animal Rescue Thread May 2019 INTENT to Place Lien Against Michael Allmain’s Property. Commentary Playlist by Reverend Crystal Cox, Goddess Church Port Townsend.

https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLAm1zfJkpiXblXrkESNrYkiR1OfJ42twk Center Valley Animal Rescue Thread from May of 2019 Proving Intent to Place a Lien Against Michael Allmain’s ‘

Property’, his Dog, Moses. A few Photos of the Thread on this

Exact Topic. 

https://photos.app.goo.gl/fX4TReJinMzcucPd6  

NEW BLOG ON THIS STORY

MichaelandMoses.blogspot.com

Center Valley Animal Rescue followed through on this intent nearly 2 years later (now).  MARCH 2021.  I ALLEGE Criminal Theft with premeditated intent and massive Civil rights violations. STAY TUNED this STORY WILL GET VERY BIG once I have All my Homework done.

Reverend Crystal Cox, Goddess Church Port Townsend Blog Post with Full Story

http://olycapporttownsend.blogspot.com/2021/02/chimacum-center-valley-vet-city-of-port.html 

If you have Questions or a Tip, eMail me 

at ReverendCrystalCox@gMail.com  

I, Reverend Crystal Cox, ALLEGE that Center Valley Animal Rescue had INTENT to place a Lien on Michael Allmain's "Property", his Dog Moses, long before Moses was let off his lead and taken by the Port Townsend Police, and then somehow turned over to Center Valley Animal Rescue.

 Center Valley Animal Rescue Facebook Page Thread from May of 2019 Proving Intent to Place a Lien Against Michael Allmain’s ‘Property’, his Dog, Moses. In my opinion, knowledge, belief and experience.

Center Valley Animal Rescue followed through on this intent nearly 2 years later (now).  MARCH 2021

To me, in my opinion, this Thread shows malicious intent on the part of Center Valley Animal Rescue and other parties.  As of March 12, 2021 in an Evidentiary Hearing at the Jefferson County Courthouse in Port Townsend I learned that Center Valley Animal Rescue has approx. $11,000 in Liens against Michaels "property", his dog, Moses, his Family and Emotional Support Animal. As I see it this was done to STEAL the dog. 

The owner, Michael had no idea where the dog was, no one would tell him or his attorney. Meanwhile CVAR were and are racking up high priced bills to place a lien on Moses, of which this Thread clearly shows they had intent to do long before Moses "got of his lead" in Port Townsend in November of 2020.

MICHAEL ALLMAIN

Center Valley Animal Rescue Thread from May of 2019 that shows INTENT to Place a Lien against Michael Allmain’s “property” his dog. 

https://www.facebook.com/centervalleyanimalrescue/posts/2542934505739134 

A FEW PHOTOS OF COMMENTS

Jasmine Brewster Fletcher Glaze

Mary Noyes

Adam Karp, Tami Vornbrock, Susan Willis

Adam Karp, Animal Law Offices of Adam P. Karp

IF THE THREAD IS DELETED;  Here is a PDF of the Center Valley Animal Rescue Thread (46 pages)

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TIwVMqLaqb6yOhYsyaGfI7GPGN2Syg6a/view?usp=sharing 

MICHAEL AND MOSES

VIDEO Playlist:  Center Valley Animal Rescue Thread May 2019 INTENT to Place Lien Against Michael Allmain’s Property. Commentary Playlist by Reverend Crystal Cox, Goddess Church Port Townsend. Six Parts

https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLAm1zfJkpiXblXrkESNrYkiR1OfJ42twk

BABY MOSES

Center Valley Animal Rescue Thread from May of 2019 Proving Intent to Place a Lien Against Michael Allmain’s ‘Property’, his Dog, Moses. A few Photos of the Thread on this Exact Topic. 

https://photos.app.goo.gl/fX4TReJinMzcucPd6  

Reverend Crystal Cox Interviewing
Michael Allmain  December 14, 2020

Playlist of Part ONE and Part TWO of this Interview / Visit

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLAm1zfJkpiXYY0b6XKIPuZnaAQ6ig27mm

Reverend Crystal Cox, Goddess Church Port Townsend Blog Post with Full Story

http://olycapporttownsend.blogspot.com/2021/02/chimacum-center-valley-vet-city-of-port.html 

UPDATE MARCH 12 2021, Michael Allmain Port Townsend and his dog Moses of which the City of Port Townsend took (seemingly Civil matter) and with Moses held as Evidence the county is prosecuting for Neglect and Abuse (Criminal matter) via Melissa Pleimann  Deputy Prosecuting Attorney

Evidentiary Hearing Judge Cindy Walker Today. 

MAY 12 2021 UPDATE VIDEO BY REVEREND CRYSTAL COX

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMO6-dKo4NI&t=851s

Got a Tip regarding Melissa Pleimann Jefferson County Deputy Prosecuting Attorney ? eMail me at ReverendCrystalCox@gMail.com  

Got a Tip regarding Center Valley Animal Rescue (Jefferson County Non-Profit) ? eMail me at ReverendCrystalCox@gMail.com 

If you have Questions, eMail me 

at ReverendCrystalCox@gMail.com  

Port Townsend Community Page Wade Ranson

 Port Townsend Community Page, the Michael Allmain and Moses story. The Lynch Mob that inspired the City of Port Townsend to take a homeless man's dog and the criminal case by Jefferson County along with it.

https://photos.app.goo.gl/qiTSNhfh6ytrLsqv8

PORT TOWNSEND Conversations Facebook Page regarding Michael Allmain and his dog Moses.

 https://photos.app.goo.gl/s8JaJe59wmkNHg4V7

Washington Ruling, Your TENT is YOUR HOME. Your Vehicle is Your Home. You have RIGHTS.

 "Steven Long returned from his job cleaning up CenturyLink Field after a Seattle Sounders’ game when he discovered that home was gone.

He had been living in his 2000 GMC pickup, parked on a side street, but the city of Seattle towed it because Long had violated a city rule that requires vehicles be moved every 72 hours.

That impound set up an unusual court ruling Friday that advocates for homeless people and the city both say could have broad implications on the crisis of homelessness.

King County Superior Court Judge Catherine Shaffer ruled that the city’s impoundment of Long’s truck violated the state’s homestead act — a frontier-era law that protects properties from forced sale — because he was using it as a home. Long’s vehicle was slated to be sold had he not entered into a monthly payment plan with the city.

Shaffer also ruled the fees the city required Long, 58, to pay to retrieve the truck were too high, violating constitutional protections against excessive fines.

“We believe this case has a lot of implications for other people using their vehicles as homes,” said Ali Bilow, one of Long’s attorneys with Columbia Legal Services.

“I think Seattle municipal judges should follow this ruling and take a hard look when homeless individuals, who are living in their vehicles, are charged these really excessive fees.”

The decision could impact how cities across the state enforce parking regulations when people are living in cars. It also speaks to the complications people living in vehicles pose for the city as it deals with a growing homelessness crisis.

More than 2,300 people were living in their vehicles on the night of King County’s 2017 homeless point-in-time count — 20 percent of the county’s homeless population.

Police and parking-enforcement officers could now find themselves in a bind if they can’t definitively determine whether a vehicle is simply abandoned or is someone’s home, said Assistant City Attorney Michael Ryan.

By following the logic of Long’s legal team, Ryan argued in court Friday, “Someone could park right here in front of the court house on Fifth Avenue, and we couldn’t tow them, or if we did tow them, we couldn’t put them in impound.

“We’d have to put them somewhere else and we couldn’t charge them at all for it, because if we did, we’d violate the constitution if they were living in that vehicle.”

The city attorney’s office is weighing whether to appeal the case.

Long had been homeless since March 2014, when he was evicted from his apartment after the rent got too high and he missed payments. He said he had previously lived out of a camper in the 1980s, traveling through five different states, so he thought he’d try sleeping in his truck.

Long said it seemed safer than a shelter, where he feared his personal items could be stolen. And a truck is warmer than sleeping outside, he said.

In court on Friday, Judge Shaffer called Long “a poster child … for a lot of other people who are in this situation.”

“We are increasingly seeing a crisis of people who are unable to afford not just low-income but middle-income housing, and a shrinkage of the supply of middle-income and low-income housing,” Shaffer said before issuing her ruling.

“So people like Mr. Long, who are now finding that they cannot make rental payments and that they cannot find alternative housing, are unfortunately a growing group in our city and our county generally.”

In fall 2016, when Long was doing cleanups for the Sounders, he had parked his truck in the 900 block of Poplar Place, near the Interstate 90 and Interstate 5 interchange. “It was out of the way,” Long said.

According to Friday’s court hearing, officers approached him with reports of a man with a knife in the area. When officers saw the truck, which was not operable, they called a city parking enforcement officer, who tagged it and told Long he had to move it within 72 hours.

Long claimed he told the officers he was living in the truck; Shaffer said it was unclear if the officers knew it was his home. Nonetheless, Long tore off the impound sticker, Judge Shaffer said Friday, and left the truck in place.

The parking officer waited at least four days before having the vehicle towed, giving Long extra time to buy a part needed to get it running. When the enforcement officer returned Oct. 12, the truck was still there but Long was not, and the vehicle was towed.

At the impound hearing, Long said the truck was his residence. The city waived the $44 ticket and reduced the towing and impound fees from more than $900 to $557.

But his attorneys said this still hurt Long in a number of ways: he had no home for a time; he lost income because work tools he used for daily labor jobs were in the truck, and he struggled to pay the fines because he makes between $300 and $600 a month.

Long sued the city but lost in Seattle Municipal Court in May 2017. He filed an appeal, which Judge Shaffer heard on Friday, and she ordered the city to refund Long the money he has so far paid.

This is at least the second instance in recent months in which a court ruling has acknowledged the housing rights of homeless people.

In October, the Washington Court of Appeals heard a case in which a Vancouver police officer looked inside a man’s tent in an unsanctioned tent camp and saw a bag of methamphetamine.

The man, William Pippin, was charged with possession of a controlled substance, but appealed. The appeals court ruled that the search, which did not involve a warrant, violated the man’s constitutional right to privacy because the tent was his home.

The ruling in Long’s case sends a clear message about vehicle enforcement laws, which can have a disproportionate impact on the poor and the homeless, said Sara Rankin, of the Homeless Rights Advocacy Project at Seattle University School of Law.

The decision also spotlights the city’s haphazard way of addressing the large number of homeless people sleeping in their vehicles.

There is only one remaining vehicle safe zone in Seattle, at Second Avenue South and South Spokane Street, which the city hopes to shut down by April 30, although that date is not definite. Parking enforcement officials work with the Interfaith Task Force on Homelessness to help verify that people like Long actually live in their vehicles, so they don’t face hefty fines.

But it is a patchwork approach, Rankin said, that “just hurts people and creates greater resistance to recovering from poverty and homelessness.”

Source and Full Article

https://www.chronline.com/stories/judge-rules-seattle-homeless-mans-truck-is-a-home,18996

UPDATE: on the Michael Allmain and his Dog Moses Story, NO GOOD NEWS.

 “ However, it is Clear who the City of Port Townsend is, this last year has shown us full on that PT is NOT a people person, does not care about small businesses, or the rights of individuals and selectively prosecutes people they deem less then them while letting other who do commit crimes, simply walk away.  

Anyway what can be done? NOTHING until ALL the people stand up and Fight Back against our tyrannical Jefferson County / PT governing body.. they are Selfish and about tourist money, grants, greed and the big guy, and not about what really matters to the little guys and gals who pay their wages.  anyway if interested watch my update.

Warning it is syndical a bit and way sad.    oh and it may get sadder.  the positive note is .. well, I Trust that God / Goddess has a Plan. “ ~ Reverend Crystal Cox  

FULL STORY CLICK BELOW

http://porttownsendnews.blogspot.com/2020/12/the-city-of-port-townsend-took-michaels.html