THE BULLCRAP BUSTERS 
We Take The Bullying By The Horns




























HOW TO FIGHT BACK AGAINST PHYSICAL BULLYING
By Elana Laham © 2013 Elana Laham

HOW TO STOP PHYSICAL BULLYING
TAKE LEGAL ACTION

     Physical bullying victimizes the victim with physical abuse. Physical abuse is defined as that which does damage to the victim by causing harm to the victim’s body such as battery, rape, or murder. It also includes inflicting financial damage upon the victim’s personal property by way of arson, vandalism, or theft. Physical bullying commences in childhood. For instance, the playground bully tends to physically target the population of children who are attending preschool, kindergarten, elementary school, middle school, and high school. It is preposterous to expect a child who is being physical beaten up to be able to fight back since 1) the bully is most probably bigger than the victim and 2) the bully is most likely ganging up on the victim and 3) the bully more often than not has social clout or financial leverage that permits him to get away with being a bully. What is a victim supposed to do? You are to use the legal system to give the physical bully back his own medicine.  

  Though I am not a lawyer, so I cannot give legal advice, what I can do is share with the readers of the BullCrap Busters Website the knowledge that I have gleaned about the LAW from my having to resort to the legal system in order to gain justice against physical bullying. Now before you tell me that it is too much of a hassle to use the mallet of the law upon the sorry head of the physical bully, ask yourself this: Is it more important not to be inconvenienced by having to prepare yourself for legal battle? Or, is your dignity – self-respect, self-esteem, and self worth – more important? Don’t be a victim. People who have been victimized by physical bullying become psychologically scarred for the rest of their lives. So don’t let anyone, including yourself, make you believe that you do not have to pursue legal action against the physical bully who injures you. NO ONE IS GOING TO STAND UP FOR YOU BUT YOU!!! 

  It is always an uphill battle for any victim to get justice against the physical bully thanks to yours truly, the Bully Culture establishment, and to all of those before us who refused to pursue legal action against the physical bully, and thereby did not unite together as a force to be reckoned with to overthrow the Bully Culture regime. However, as long as you file a lawsuit against the physical bully, whether you win or lose your legal dispute, the physical bully is not going to get away with being a bully. If the physical bully shows up in court, you will be exposing the physical bully thereby humiliating him before his network of people. Having gotten “caught” by the legal system, the physical bully will be at risk for having his reputation tarnished as a so-called “decent” human being. This will make it harder for the physical bully to get away with being a bully. If the physical bully does not show up in court, and you can prove your legal case to be valid, the judge will rule the verdict in your favor, and the physical bully will be liable for your claimed monetary damages. I had a lawsuit once against a landlord who refused to come to court and so the judge rendered the verdict in my favor for my entire monetary judgment without even hearing my legal case. Judges do not take kindly to being snubbed. [See the Bull Crap Busters Website segment entitled “The Landlord/Tenant Saga” under the section called “Newport Crossing” for further details].  

  No matter how small your monetary damages may be or how insignificant your legitimate grievance against the physical bully may seem, if you pursue legal action against the physical bully you will discourage the physical bully from ever making you into a bully target again. In addition, by taking legal action against the physical bully you will be setting a precedent for other victims of physical bullying to make the physical bully pay in one way or the other for the uncalled for damage that the physical bully forces upon innocent victims. That will put a nice damper on the bully epidemic. If just a small percentage of the population would take legal action against the physical bully, the physical bully could no longer afford his physical bullying addiction.  

KNOW THE LAW

  The first step in taking legal action against physical bullying is in KNOWING WHAT YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS ARE. In the United States of America, England and other countries that were once upon a time under British rule, such as Canada, Australia, Israel, and India, a citizen’s legal rights come from the following types and levels of law: Constitutional, Statutory, and Common law, at the Federal, State, and Local levels.  

  CONSTITUTIONAL LAW defines the underlying philosophy or fundamental laws of a government. Constitutional Law also defines the basic units of the Government, such as a legislature (e.g., Congress, Parliament) to make laws, an executive (e.g. President, Governor) to enforce laws, and a court system to interpret laws. Some of these laws describe some of your civil rights and criminal rights.  

  STATUTORY LAW is decided upon by the government’s legislature. Therefore it varies from state to state, or province to province, or from city to city. So you will have to find out what laws in the state or province or city that you reside in have to do with your lawsuit. Typically, the legislative branch of the government consists of an assembly of persons to represent the people and this assembly decides on laws and votes on them. In many governments the executive, such as a President or Governor or Prime Minister, signs into law what the legislature agrees to. All of the laws passed by the legislature make up the Statutory Laws for that government for country, province, or state. Within this embodiment of Statutory Laws are civil rights, consumer rights, landlord/tenant rights, and laws of commerce.  

  COMMON LAW is the interpretation of both constitutional and statutory law by the government’s court system. Thusly, you will have to look up previous court cases that are similar to your legal dispute in order to find those that are related to your lawsuit. These interpretations come from court cases involving a legal dispute, either between two private parties or between a citizen and his/her government. Judges write these interpretations based upon what they believe are the intent of Statutory Laws, the philosophy underlying Constitutional Law, and basic doctrines of English Common Law, such as Respondeat Superior, which literally means “Let the Master Answer”. Typically, the courts, whether or not they are Supreme, Appellate, Superior, District, or Criminal, interpret the law in a manner consistent with similar cases of past ruling. This is known as Stare Decisis, which gives you the assurance that, if you have a legal case that is similar to someone’s in the past, the judge will rule upon your legal case in a similar way. When judges decide on new Common Law, they write an opinion that documents their reasoning and that defines what the Common Law says.  

  Each of these three types of laws, at least in the United States of America, exists on three levels of government: Federal, State, and Local. FEDERAL Law comes from the national government, and it consists of laws and rights defined in the nation’s constitution, in statutory laws passed by its Congress, Parliament, or other legislative body, and common law as the Federal courts interpret these federal constitutional and these statutory laws. Some of these laws describe some of your civil rights and criminal rights.  

  STATE laws come from the government unique to each state or province. Therefore they vary from state to state. So you will have to find out what laws in the state that you reside in have to do with your lawsuit. Within the embodiment of State laws are various civil rights, consumer rights, landlord/tenant rights, and laws of commerce unique to that state or province.  

  Finally, LOCAL laws come from the government of a city or a county and are unique to that city or county. Therefore they vary from city to city and county to county. So, just like with state laws, you have to find out what unique laws, if any, in the city or county that you reside in have to do with your lawsuit. Within the embodiment of local laws are various special civil rights, consumer rights, landlord/tenant rights, and laws of commerce that the city or county has chosen to implement, over and above those of the state in which the city or county exists.  

  Together all three types of law – Constitutional, Statutory, and Common – at all three levels - Federal, State, and Local – define what all of one’s legal rights are. Get familiar with them. They will protect you from all manner of physical bullying. For instance, the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution has to do with your Miranda Rights and your right to be notified of your Miranda Rights. Your Miranda Rights are the right to remain silent as anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. An enforcer bully police officer will pay no attention to one’s Miranda Rights if the citizen in custody is unfamiliar with the Fifth Amendment. Such ignorance can very well mean the difference between being convicted of a crime that you did not commit, and not being arrested for a law that you did not break.  

  The second step in taking legal action against physical bullying is KNOWING WHICH LAWS PERTAIN TO YOUR LAWSUIT. You must know what laws represent your lawsuit in order to file a lawsuit. Does your lawsuit involve Constitutional Law? For example, have your civil rights – Freedom of Speech (the first amendment of the United States Constitution) been infringed upon? Does your lawsuit involve Federal Law? For example, have your consumer rights – The Automobile Information Disclosure Act (AIDA) – been discarded? Does your lawsuit involve State Law? For example, have your tenant rights – landlord refusal to refund Security Deposit – been disregarded? Does your lawsuit involve Common Law? For example, have your legal rights – Malicious Vicious Police Prosecution – been violated? 

  The third step in taking legal action against physical bullying is KNOWING WHO TO FILE YOUR LAWSUIT AGAINST. In order to take legal action against the physical bully you have to be prepared to go after whoever is overall responsible for the physical bully’s unwarranted actions. The legal doctrine that makes whoever is accountable for the physical bully’s untoward behaviors is called RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR. So for instance, you will sue the legal guardian of the child who bullied your child, not the bully child, or the owner of the company, not the clerk in the store, who harassed you, or the landlord, not the management of a housing complex, who retaliated against you, and so on and so forth.  

RESEARCH AND DEVELOP YOUR LAWSUIT

  The fourth step in taking legal action against physical bullying is GATHERING THE EVIDENCE NECESSARY FOR YOUR LAWSUIT. Without evidence you cannot make the physical bully pay for what he did to you. Evidence refers to the actual factual proof that you have that substantiates your claim that the physical bully has damaged you. It is the most important component in the development of your legal case against the physical bully, since having it or not having it will determine whether or not you will win your legal case against the physical bully.

  There are four main kinds of actual factual proof that serve to incriminate the physical bully: They are 1) a visual tape recording and 2) an audio tape recording, and 3) a written document, and 4) credible eye and/or ear witnesses.  

  A visual tape recording refers to a video camera that has captured the physical bully’s uncalled for actions in its lens. For instance, a tape from the camera on a school bus will automatically show the entire event of the playground bully pulverizing your son or daughter. If the educational institution refuses to give you a copy of the tape for your court case, know that you have the legal right to have a lawyer subpoena the school bus camera tape as admissible evidence in a court of law against the perpetrator.  

  An audio tape recording can be a voice mail or a tape recorder. For instance, if the perpetrator leaves a threatening message directed at you on your telephone answering machine, you can use it as admissible evidence in a court of law. Since the perpetrator has voluntarily left a message on your voice mail, he has already given you permission to use his recorded message as admissible evidence in a court of law, and so you may do so. In some areas, such as the State of California, it is illegal to use a tape recorder as admissible evidence in a court of law unless the perpetrator gives you permission to do so. This is unlikely, since the perpetrator’s agenda is to get away with whatever he is doing, not get caught on tape for doing it! So be sure to check if it is legal for you to use a tape recorder as evidence against the physical bully in the place where you live.  

  A credible witness(s) is a neutral bystander, which is defined as an unbiased observer of the bullying incident who objectively reports what he saw and what he heard, such as a stranger. An unviable witness is defined as a biased observer of the bullying incident who subjectively reports “hear say”, what he was told happened or out and out lies about what happened, such as a friend, relative, spouse, neighbor, or employee of the physical bully. Unfortunately, many people today are willing to bare false witness and thereby commit perjury in a court of law rendering the resource of a witness’s testimony nearly obsolete for the one who seeks justice.  

  Written documents come in many forms. Some examples are contracts, e-mails, facsimiles, and letters that the physical bully has sent to the victim. To prove that they come from the physical bully they have to be a) on the perpetrator’s letterhead or b) in the perpetrator’s handwriting or c) signed with the perpetrator’s signature. Such are admissible evidence in a court of law.  

  Another type of written documentation is a daily log. It documents the date, time, and place of the physical bullying event(s) that happened. It, by itself, is not actual factual proof, but it can be used as supportive evidence to the substantial evidence that you present in a court of law against the physical bully. For instance, be sure to document on a regular basis, in a log, journal, or diary, the dates, times, and places that you or your loved one are being been beaten up by the playground bully. Include as many details as possible. Use your detailed documentation to reveal the pattern by which the physical bullying takes place. Don’t worry! The bully always has a pattern for victimizing innocent others because bullying is an addictive behavior. Once you feel confident that you can take an educated guess as to the most likely day, time, and place, when the physical bully will strike again, come armed and ready with a video camera. Take precautions to conceal yourself from the physical bully and your child so that neither one can notice that you are there. Even if the physical bully does not show up you can always try again. If you are persistent you will succeed in catching the perpetrator in action without the bully ever knowing what you are up to. Once you have captured the physical bully beating up your child on videotape you will have acquired evidence to be reckoned with in a court of law.  

  Resist the urge to beat the crap out of the child bully who is harassing your loved one. You don’t want to be the one going to jail and/or paying for monetary damages from a lawsuit against you! Of course, if the playground bully is beating your child senseless you will have to step in and intervene to stop him by restraining him if he is not too big or too strong for you to handle while you call emergency 911 and the local police to report the incident while it is still progress with your video taping as the star witness. It is not illegal to restrain a violent child from being violent to others. Restraining a child means positioning yourself behind the child and holding the child’s limbs against his body so that he cannot hit or kick or bite you or others. Preferably, if you can lean up against something solid such as a wall of a building, you can pin the bully child’s arms behind his back with your arms and wrap your legs around his legs rendering him immobile but unharmed while you wait for the authorities to arrive at the scene of the crime. What restraining a child does not mean is hitting, kicking, or biting the bully child or putting him in a submissive wrestling move such as a headlock while choking him into unconsciousness. By restraining the bully child you make certain that he does not run away as well. Chances are great that the authorities will appear on the scene to observe the bully child as the guilty party. If your child reports to you that the bully is bigger and stronger than one single adult then you can bring family members, or neighbors, or friends along to overwhelm the physical bully with your sheer numbers. If the child tells you that he is being victimized by a gang of bullies, then your best bet is to catch them all on videotape while your family members, or neighbors, or friends confront them as you let your fingers do the walking through your cell phone key pad to alert an emergency dispatcher.  

  Another type of written documentation is a police report. It by itself is not factual proof, but it too can be used as supportive evidence to any substantial evidence that you present in a court of law against the perpetrator. Don’t ever hesitate to file a police report against the physical bully. Also, do so as often as is necessary, which is whenever and wherever the bully attacks you or your loved ones. Also, do so, even if the physical bullying has only caused miniscule damage, and even if no one, not even you, witnessed the incident. You, legally have the right to obtain a copy of the police report that you filed for a nominal fee from the police department. It usually takes one to two weeks for the police bureaucracy to process it. Use the system! Your tax dollars are paying for it!  

  The definition of Libel is FALSE negative WRITTEN statements made about the victim by the physical bully that are accessible to the public. The definition of slander is FALSE negative ORAL statements made about the victim by the physical bully that are accessible to the public. The best way to prove that the physical bully has committed libel against the victim is by presenting in a court of law written documentation that the perpetrator has distributed to the public about the victim. The best way to prove that the physical bully has committed slander against the victim is by bringing forth witnesses in a court of law that are willing to testify that the perpetrator generated rumors to the public about the victim. Libel and slander are categorized as physical bullying IF they result in damage to the victim’s physical body, material property, financial status, or emotional wellbeing. You can sue the physical bully for monetary damages, if you can prove in a court of law that the libel and/or slander resulted in you being physically violated. For example you had to pay medical bills for being hospitalized as a result of having been sexually raped. Libel and slander are also categorized as physical bullying IF they result in the defamation of one’s character. One type of defamation of character causes one’s financial reputation to be tarnished by making one lose one’s job. You can sue the physical bully for monetary damages if you can prove in a court of law that the libel and/or slander is directly related to the loss of your income. Another kind of defamation of character causes one’s environment to be unsafe to live in due to the physical bully spreading untrue derogatory libel and/or false slander about the victim within the community. You can sue the physical bully for monetary damages if you can prove in a court of law that due to physical harm, property damage, or financial ruin caused by libel and/or slander you suffered emotional duress. For instance, you have to pay for counseling services for your child who is coming home from school on a regular basis having been physically tortured and/or emotionally tormented and/or mentally traumatized on a regular basis by the rumors that are being spread about him by the physical bully.

ABOUT LAWYERS

  There are attorneys who will for a retainer fee help you prepare your legal case. A retainer fee is an amount of money you pay the lawyer before he will assist you with your lawsuit. There are also attorneys that take legal cases based upon contingency. Contingency means that you do not have to pay the lawyer any money unless and until he wins your lawsuit for you. If you can find an attorney who will represent you to his utmost ability, hire him! My personal life experience has shown me otherwise. Some lawyers are bullies, themselves. He either sides with the defendant, even though the attorney is being paid to represent the plaintiff, or he takes the plaintiff’s retainer fee but refuses to do the work required to make a worthy legal case for the plaintiff against the defendant. If you don’t already know, the plaintiff is the accuser (the party who initiates the law suit) and the defendant is the accused (the party whom legal action is being taken against). If your lawsuit is in small claim’s court you can opt for being your own “research and development” legal advisor. Don’t be too worried about doing so. Just remember, you have the truth on your side. Laws are based upon that. I have started from scratch knowing nothing about law but it has worked out really well for me. I save lots of money not hiring corrupt lawyers, and my lawsuits are legally rock solid ones. If your lawsuit goes to big claim’s court you may have to monitor the lawyer that you hire to represent your lawsuit to make sure that he does all of the steps we are talking about here to maximize your chances of winning your legal battle.  

FILING YOUR LAWSUIT

  The fifth step in taking legal action against physical bullying is WRITING THE LETTER OF DEMAND. The letter of demand is your demand to the physical bully to pay for the monetary damages that he caused you. The letter of demand will include a) the amount of money owed to you and b) the logical explanation as to how you derived at that amount and c) a statement describing each item of proof that the physical bully caused you monetary damage and d) a citation of the laws that the physical bully violated that (1) resulted in monetary loss to you and (2) show that the physical bully’s behavior broke the law. Be sure to send your letter of demand by certified mail so that you have proof that you sent it and proof that the physical bully received it.  

  The sixth step in taking legal action against physical bullying is WAITING A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF TIME FOR A REPLY from the physical bully. Doing this will show the judge that you did your utmost to avoid a lawsuit and settle the matter yourself. A reasonable period of time to wait for a reply from the physical bully is two weeks. If the physical bully does reply, try to negotiate a settlement between you and him. If the physical bully does not reply file your lawsuit. Before you go to court to file your lawsuit, be prepared to summarize in a couple of sentences the damage done to you, the plaintiff, and the law(s) the defendant violated. The file your lawsuit form will require that you state such on it.  

  The seventh step in taking legal action against physical bullying is KNOWING WHICH COURT TO FILE YOUR LAWSUIT IN. You can press legal charges against a physical bully. The police will initiate your legal complaint but it is up to the district attorney, not you, if it gets addressed in a criminal court of law. Unless you are the defendant you will have nothing to do with criminal court. For the most part, you will be the plaintiff and so your legal cases will get addressed in civil court. You can sue the physical bully for monetary damages in civil court that pertain to physical harassment such as assault – verbal threats to endanger the victim, or battery – bodily harm - beatings, rape, murder, or vandalism or theft of the victim’s personal property, and emotional duress caused by libel and/or slander, or as a result of the emotional stress caused by the physical harassment. If your lawsuit involves monetary damages from $1.00 to $5,000.00 you will take your legal complaint to what is called the Small Claim’s Court. Small Claim’s Court does not involve any lawyer representation. However, you can hire an attorney to help you put together your legal case before your day in court. If your lawsuit involves monetary damages from $5,000.00 and beyond you will take your legal complaint to what is called Civil Court. Superior Court involves attorney representation. If you wish to appeal a verdict that the civil court judge has rendered against you, you go to Appellate Court for both civil and criminal court cases. If you desire to re-appeal a verdict that the appellate judge has rendered not in your favor, you go to Supreme Court for both civil and criminal cases.  

  The eighth step in taking legal action against physical bullying is KNOWING UPON WHOM TO SERVE THE SUMMONS. A summons is the official notification to the defendant (the one being sued) that he is being sued and that either he or his designated agent must appear in such and such court at such and such place and such and such time. The best way to serve a summons is with the Sheriff of the courthouse that your lawsuit is going to be in. The Sheriff is a neutral third party who is capable of forcing the defendant to accept the summons. To ensure that you have proof that your summons got served, get a sworn statement from the party you hired to serve the summons. The Sheriff of the courthouse knows how to do this, and will give you an affidavit swearing that your summons was delivered, the person to whom it was delivered, and the date and time and place where the service of summons occurred. If you are suing a business that is in the state in which you live, look up the statutory law that defines which person(s) within that business are legally obligated to accept a summons. If you are suing a business that is out of the state in which you live, you will have the party you hired serve your summons to the business’s registered agent within your state. You find out who the registered agent is by contacting your state’s department of corporations. If the summons is served upon the wrong party, then it becomes invalid, and the judge who presides over your lawsuit will throw your lawsuit out. So be sure to have your summons served correctly.  

PRESENTING YOUR LAWSUIT IN A COURT OF LAW

  The ninth step in taking legal action against physical bullying is BEING PREPARED FOR YOUR DAY IN COURT. You are only going to be given a few minutes at your court hearing to present your legal case before the judge. So be prepared. A well-prepared lawsuit communicates what your legal complaint is all about in a short, to the point, and organized manner. It will consist of an ORAL ARGUMENT, which explains why you believe you have been monetarily damaged and summarizes what your monetary damages are. It will include COURT EXHIBITS, which are your documented proofs that your claim is legitimate. They are to be presented in chronological order. It will contain questions that the judge might ask you that you are prepared to answer.  

If the reader is interested in viewing samples of well researched, well developed, and well-prepared oral presentations of a lawsuit, please go to any one of the following hyperlinks at www.bullcrapbusters.com:  

hyperlink Oral Presentation - Lawsuit Against City of Irvine  
hyperlink Oral Presentation - Lawsuit Against Robert J. Koretoff  
hyperlink Oral Presentation - Lawsuit Against Newport Crossing  
hyperlink Oral Presentation - Lawsuit Against Kia of Puyallup  

OTHER LEGAL CONDITIONS TO KNOW ABOUT

JOINT AND SEVERAL

  JOINT means that, in some cases, there is more than one defendant involved in a legal dispute.  SEVERAL means that any of the parties involved in the lawsuit can get stuck with paying the entire monetary judgment. In such a circumstance as joint and several you can opt to sue all the parties who gave authorization to the physical bully to monetarily damage you. By law the school is responsible for the safety and well being of your child during the periods that your child is in attendance. This means that if the bullying incident happens on school grounds during school hours you will be able to sue both the school and the child bully’s family. But if the bullying incident occurs before or after school hours, even if it happens on school grounds, you will only be able to sue the child bully’s family. If your legal case is joint and several, it is advisable for you to sue all parties involved. This way you make certain that you collect on all the monetary judgment owed to you. So for instance, in the event that the child bully’s parents do not have the money to pay for your monetary damages, since educational institutions get funding, the school will.  

COUNTER LAWSUITS

  A COUNTER lawsuit is when the party that you are suing for monetary damages sues you in return for monetary damages that he claims you owe him. Anyone can file a counter lawsuit. However, all too often people file counter lawsuits out of revenge for having already been taken to court for a legitimate reason. Thusly, all too often, people, out of concern that they will risk having a counter lawsuit filed against them, do NOT file their legitimate lawsuit. Don’t be intimidated and manipulated by the “counter lawsuit” bully. For as with any lawsuit, all counter lawsuits must be proven in order to have any legal merit. Hence, if the counter lawsuit is not based upon any substantial proof, the judge will throw it out of court as an invalid claim. Unless, that is, the physical bully decides to bribe the judge to win his counter lawsuit. It is one thing to buy off a judge to win a lawsuit in order to avoid paying what is owed to the victim. But, it is quite another to pay off the judge to win a bogus counter lawsuit since the physical bully did not lose any money. Therefore, all the physical bully will end up doing is losing his money to the judge. This is why, unless the physical bully is a dolt, he will not use bribery to win a bogus counter lawsuit.  

THE ALAMO

    There is a historical event called “THE ALAMO”. “The battle of the Alamo (February 23, 1836 – March 6, 1836) was a pivotal event in the Texas Revolution. Following a thirteen day siege, Mexican troops under President General Antonio Lopez de Santa Ana launched an assault on the Alamo Mission near San Antonio de Bexar (modern day San Antonio, Texas). All but two of the Texan defenders were killed. Santa Ana’s perceived cruelty during the battle inspired many Texans – both Texas settlers and adventurers – from the United States – to join the Texan Army. Buoyed by a desire for revenge, the Texans defeated the Mexican Army at the Battle of San Jacinto, on April 21, 1836 ending the revolution...between 182 and 257 Texans dead, while...400 – 600 Mexicans were killed or wounded.

​   The Alamo is a true story about how a small group of fighters sacrificed their lives in order to inflict a large number of casualties on a large army. Originally the Lone Star state of Texas was part of Mexico. American settlers came to Texas to make it their home. A movement began amongst the settlers to make Texas independent of Mexico. The Mexican government was opposed to this. So it sent its soldiers to crush the settlers’ rebellion in order to make sure that the land of Texas remained part of Mexico. A war broke out between Mexico and a band of settlers who left their families and farms to fight for the independence of Texas. One famous battle of this war was an abandoned Spanish Mission called “The Alamo”, which was along the path that the Mexican army was going to take in order to squash the rebellion. A small band of Texas settlers used the Alamo as a base of operations to launch attacks against the Mexican army. Nearly all of the men in the Alamo were killed fighting the much larger Mexican army. However the Mexican army was so crippled by their conquest of the Alamo that they were no longer able to defeat the bulk of the settlers of Texas who were rebelling against Mexico. The result was that the remaining settlers were able to win victory against Mexico’s professionally trained, well organized, and well-equipped army and claim Texas as their own. [See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Alamo ].

​   What the physical bully may do in order to intimidate and/or manipulate you out of filing your legitimate lawsuit is to BRIBE JUSTICE. This means that the physical bully will pay off the judge presiding over your legal case so that the judge will render the verdict in the physical bully’s favor. So, never mind that you have an open and shut case – overwhelming indisputable evidence that without a shadow of a doubt PROVES that the physical bully is in the WRONG, and you the victim – are in the RIGHT. You will lose your legal battle against the physical bully, anyway. For the corrupt bought off judge who is presiding over your legal dispute will simply IGNORE the facts. In other words, the paid off judge’s motto is, “Don’t confuse me with the facts”. The physical bully who undeservedly gets a verdict ruled in his favor has the social clout – people connections – and the monetary leverage – money – to buy off the justice system. This is especially true if the lawsuit in question involves a lot of money. 

​   Bribery works like this: The chances of you winning your open and shut lawsuit are highest if your monetary claim is a small amount, and lowest if your monetary claim is a large amount. In other words, the more money that is at stake, the greater the odds are that the physical bully will bribe the judge to unjustly rule in his favor.  

SMALL CLAIMS COURT


    If your lawsuit goes to small claim’s court monetary damages and “court” filing fees will be involved. This means that if the physical bully mutates into the “bribery” bully, the victim will not be able to collect the monetary damages and “court” filing fees owed to him.  

    The best chance the victim has of beating out the bribery physical bully is for the victim to file the LAWSUIT in small claims court. Because the monetary amount will be relatively low, it will most likely not be worth it for the physical bully to pay off a corrupt judge to win the verdict in his favor since the lawsuit itself will more than likely cost less than the bribe.

BIG CLAIMS COURT 

    If your lawsuit goes to big claims’ court not only is the monetary claim for damages higher but attorney representation will also be involved. This means that if the physical bully mutates into the “bribery” bully, the victim will not only not be able to collect on the monetary damages and court filing fees owed to him, but he will also have to pay for the bribery bully’s attorney fees. 

    The best chance that the victim has of beating out the bribery physical bully in big claim’s court is for the victim to file a CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT. A class action lawsuit is when many victims who have been victimized by the same physical bully, together, file a lawsuit against the perpetrator for the damages that were done to them. What is advantageous about filing a class action lawsuit is that, if the physical bully wins, all that each victim has to pay is a portion of the physical bully’s attorney fees and court filing fees. However, if the victims win, the physical bully has to pay for all of the monetary damages that he caused all of the victims as well as their lawyer fees and court filing fees. A class action lawsuit automatically makes any one victim’s legal complaint more credible since so many people are making the same legal complaint against the physical bully. It also makes it easier to amass proof against the physical bully because together as a cohesive group each can research and develop and prepare their lawsuit. Of course, as with any lawsuit, a class action lawsuit must have the hard evidence necessary to secure a favorable verdict. The class action lawsuit makes it more difficult for the physical bully to resort to foul play. This is because a corrupt judge will demand a much more hefty bribe as he will be putting his own career at higher risk since everything the judge says and does in big claim’s court at the trial becomes a permanent public record for any random citizen to witness. Therefore, if the judge makes an unfair ruling he risks becoming unpopular with the community who will not re-elect the judge to the bench. In addition, a class action lawsuit thwarts the physical bully from retaliating by filing a bogus counter lawsuit against the victims, as he will not appear credible to the jury by falsely claiming that all of the people who are suing him did this or that to him. Class action lawsuits are not always won due to bribery. But imagine how much money the defendant (physical bully), who is legally in the wrong, has to pay off a judge in order to win a verdict against a class action lawsuit that has enough evidence to show that the plaintiffs (victims) are legally in the right. Sometimes bought off judges dismiss class action lawsuits. This means that the judge presiding over the legal case does not permit the lawsuit to go to trial in a court of law. But imagine how much money the physical bully has to pay off a judge who decides to dismiss a class action lawsuit who has no legal explanation as to why he did so.  

​   So what can the victim do about the bribery physical bully? The victim can do what is called the “ALAMO”. It is worth your while to take the risk of pursuing legal action against the physical bully who morphs into the bribery bully. For as long as you file your lawsuit the bribery physical bully is not going to get away with BRIBING JUSTICE. Instead the bribery physical bully is going to lose the money that he owes you ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. Doing the Alamo means that never mind that you lose your lawsuit, you win your legal case by making the physical bully pay the judge the money he stole from you.

The following are the reasons why:

​   In the United States of America and many other countries that abide by English Common law the justices have immunity. Therefore corrupt judges are not punished for perverting justice. However, the rotten judge puts his reputation on the line as a reputable justice every time he intentionally misrules a verdict. If he is an elected judge he can be voted of off the bench as a judge at the next election. If he is an appointed judge he may get removed through impeachment from the bench. Thereby the corrupt judge is going to make sure that the bribery physical bully pays the price for the occupational risk that the judge has to take in order to accept dirty blood money. Buying justice is not cheap. Whether or not the judge gets paid off in cash or favors it still boils down to financial loss for the bribery physical bully. This is because “favors” require the giving of either a product or a service to the judge and that costs money. 

    Moreover, the wayward judge has his price too. So, the higher the monetary claim of your lawsuit, and the more well put together your lawsuit is, the more money the bribery bully will have to remove out of his pocket and give to the judge presiding over your court case in order to escape from paying what he owes you. This is the silver lining to the foreboding cloud of injustice. So, sue the bribery physical bully, anyway. By doing so, you will force the bribery physical bully to have to either pay off the judge, or to have to pay you off for causing you monetary damage. Either way, he loses his money. 

    Furthermore, if you sue the bribery physical bully you will make it less likely that he will buy off justice in the future. This is because the more people there are who pursue legal action against the bribery physical bully, the more costly it is going to be for the bribery physical bully to buy off justice. 

 [READERS NOTE: There is one more thing for you to know. The judge has to answer to the public regarding his reputation. A commissioner only has to answer to the judge regarding his reputation. By law you have the right to demand that a judge not a commissioner preside over your legal case (This may vary so check if this law applies where you live).  By doing so you will cost the bribery physical bully more money having to pay the judge’s bought off justice price versus the commissioner’s bought off justice price].

***

  The following is a real life scenario entitled, “KICKING ONE’S OWN BUTT IN WITH ONE’S OWN BOOT” that illustrates how “The Alamo” works:

  On 12/7/10, we bought a brand new 2011 KIA Forte Ex 5 Door for $20,839.00 from the KIA OF PUYALLUP otherwise known as KOP located at 111 Valley Avenue North East, Puyallup, WA 98371, phone 253-286-8000, fax 253-286-8004. Shortly afterwards, we filed a lawsuit against KIA for engaging in unethical business practices by defrauding us.  

If the reader is interested in viewing the KIA Sales Contract dated 12/7/10, and the Cashier’s Check dated 12/4/10 given to KIA then please go to hyperlink KIA Sales Contract & Cashier's Check at www.bullcrapbusters.com.

  [READER’S NOTE: KIA DEMANDED THAT WE GIVE THEM A CASHIER’S CHECK FOR THE DOWN PAYMENT OF OUR CAR. NO OTHER CAR DEALERSHIP THAT WE WENT TO AND WE WENT TO MANY MADE SUCH A REQUEST. WHY DID KIA INSIST ON GETTING A CASHIER’S CHECK? ONE, A CASHIER’S CHECK TAKES THE CONSUMER’S POWER AWAY TO CANCEL OR PUT A STOP PAYMENT ON THEIR CHECK IN THE EVENT THAT KIA HAS STOLEN THEIR MONEY. TWO, GIVING KIA A CASHIER’S CHECK DENIES THE CONSUMER THE INFORMATION NECESSARY TO DISCOVER WHAT KIA’S BANK AND BANK ACCOUNT NUMBER ARE IN ORDER TO COLLECT ON ANY DEBT KIA OWES THE CONSUMER IN THE EVENT THAT THE CONSUMER WINS A LAWSUIT AGAINST KIA FOR MONETARY DAMAGES.]  

LOCATING THE OWNER OF THE BUSINESS

  In order for us to be able to sue KIA we had to address our lawsuit against the owner of the business not the business itself, since the owner of a business is the one who is accountable for what goes on in his business. This legal doctrine is known as Respondent Superior.  

  On 2/1/11, we went to the website of the County Assessor http://epip.co.pierce.wa.us/CFApps/atr/ePIP/searchResults.cfm. They are in charge of collecting residential and business property taxes on an annual basis. We entered the address of KIA of Puyallup, which is 111 Valley Avenue NE, Puyallup, WA. The above website gave us the following PROPERTY PARCEL NUMBER: 2009254500. We clicked on that property parcel number link and it showed us a parcel summary which contained within it the physical address of KIA of Puyallup as well as the name and mailing address of the owner of KIA of Puyallup who is the SAWYER CORPORATE GROUP INCORPORATED located at 1400 River Road, Puyallup, WA 98371-3847. The owner is the one who pays the property taxes. This let us know that the Sawyer Corporate Group Incorporated is doing business as (DBA) KIA of Puyallup (KOP).  

If the reader is interested in viewing KIA’s Property Parcel then please go to the following hyperlinks at www.bullcrapbusters.com:

hyperlink 02A KIA Property Parcel
hyperlink 02B KIA Property Parcel

  Our next step was to obtain an official copy of the owner’s ANNUAL REPORT, which has to be filed with an organization within the department of state of the state in which the business operates. In the State of Washington the Corporation’s Division under the Washington Secretary of State is in charge of maintaining annual reports of corporations doing business in that state. So we found the following website of the Corporations Division of the Washington Department of State: http://www.sos.wa.gov/corps/search_detail.aspx?ubi=602029155.  

If the reader is interested in viewing the above website for Sawyer Corporate Group Incorporated then please go to hyperlink Website for Sawyer at www.bullcrapbusters.com.

  On this website we found unofficial details of the Sawyer Corporate Group Incorporated – the State of Washington does not warrant the accuracy of this information. But it did give us directions on how to order a certified copy of a corporation’s annual report, which contains reliable information on its address and officers on whom to serve a legal summons. So we used its UBI number, which stands for unified business identification number, to order a certified copy of the annual report of the Sawyer Corporate Group Incorporated. Then we followed the directions on this website for how to purchase a certified copy of the above annual report.  

  On 2/10/11 we requested a certified copy of the Sawyer Corporate Group Incorporated annual report via certified mail by enclosing a fee of $15.00 and mailing it to Washington Secretary of State Corporations Division, P.O. Box 40234, Olympia WA 98504-0234.  

If the reader is interested in viewing the letter of request for a certified copy of Sawyer Corporate Group Incorporated Annual Report dated 2/10/11 then please go to hyperlink Letter of Request for Certified Copy Sawyer Annual Report at www.bullcrapbusters.com.

  On 3/6/11 we received our certified copy of the annual report of the Sawyer Corporate Group Incorporated from the Corporations Division of the Washington Secretary of State.  

If the reader is interested in viewing the certified copy of Sawyer Corporate Group Incorporated Annual Report dated 2/17/11 then please go to hyperlink Certified Copy of Sawyer Annual Report at www.bullcrapbusters.com.

  With the official annual report of the Sawyer Corporate Group Incorporated and the unofficial details of the Sawyer Corporate Group Incorporated we were now able to locate who the party was to a) send our Letter of Demand to and b) send a Summons to in order to pursue legal action against the owner of the KIA of Puyallup car dealership.  

  With regards to the Sawyer Corporate Group Incorporated doing business as KIA of Puyallup the party to whom we have to send our Letter of Demand to was a Registered Agent. A Registered Agent is a legally designated point of contact for any legal matters pertaining to a business. The Registered Agent for the Sawyer Corporate Group Incorporated, doing business as KIA of Puyallup, was an attorney named JAMES A. KRUEGER located at 1201 Pacific Avenue, Suite #1900, Tacoma, WA 98402-4391.  

THE LETTER OF DEMAND

  On 3/29/11 we sent our Letter of Demand to the owner of KIA of Puyallup, KERRY S. BIVENS, President of Sawyer Corporate Group Incorporated located at 1400 River Road, Puyallup, WA 98371, phone 253-286-6000, fax 253-286-6001, which is doing business as KIA of Puyallup. We also sent our letter of demand to RICK LANE, the General Sales Manager of KIA of Puyallup.  

  The following is an excerpt of the above letter:

  “As owners of KIA of Puyallup automotive dealership, The Sawyer Corporation Group Incorporated, owes us $2,240.55 due to an UNLAWFUL pricing of the KIA 2011 Forte Ex 5 Door vehicle that we purchased from KIA of Puyallup on 12/7/10. The Manufacturer’s Suggested Retail Price (MSRP) on the sticker of the vehicle is $18,840.00 However, the cash price that KIA of Puyallup wrote on its sales invoice, and charged us when we purchased the vehicle, is $20,839.00.  

  If we do not receive payment...you will be forcing us to pursue legal action on the matter.”

If the reader is interested in viewing our letter of demand dated 3/29/11 to Sawyer Corporate Group Incorporated then please go to hyperlink 1st Letter of Demand to Sawyer at www.bullcrapbusters.com.

  On 4/7/11 we received the following reply letter from GREG BACKSTROM, Chief Financial Officer of KIA of Puyallup.  

  The following is an excerpt of the above letter:

A “It is clear to me that you do not understand the LAWS that you cited, the purpose for which they were enacted, or their application to automobile sales.  

  The “sticker” on the vehicle that you are referring to is commonly known as the ‘Monroney’ Label’. It is named for the Monroney Act, also known as the Automobile Information Disclosure Act, 15 U.S.C & 1231-1233. This law requires the manufacturer to post...a selling price on each new vehicle. This selling price is the Manufacturer’s Suggested Retail Price (or ‘MSRP’). Automobile dealers are not required by any state or federal law to sell their vehicles for MSRP”.

  “FURTHERMORE, THE VEHICLE YOU PURCHASED WAS NEVER DISPLAYED ON OUR LOT FOR SALE AT ANY PRICE.”

  [READER’S NOTE: THE ABOVE SENTENCE IN BOLD BECAME THE CORNER STONE OF OUR LAWSUIT AGAINST KIA FOR IT PROVED THAT KIA WAS ADMITTING IN WRITING, ON ITS OWN LETTERHEAD, BY ITS OWN EMPLOYEE, WHO SIGNED IT, THAT KIA HAD BROKE FEDERAL LAW BY ILLEGALLY REMOVING THE FEDERALLY MANDATED MONRONEY STICKER LABEL FROM THE BRAND NEW CAR THAT WE HAD BOUGHT FROM KIA. IN SO DOING, KIA ALSO BROKE STATE LAW BY ENGAGING IN DECEPTIVE BUSINESS PRACTICES WITH REGARD TO COMMERCE TRADE].  

  KIA of Puyallup did not engage in an ‘unlawful pricing’ of the vehicle that you purchased – we charged you only the amount that you agreed to pay.”

If the reader is interested in viewing KIA’s reply to our letter of demand dated 4/7/11 then please go to hyperlink KIA's Reply to Letter of Demand at www.bullcrapbusters.com.

  On 5/4/11 we sent the following letter of reply to Greg Backstrom, Chief Financial Officer of KIA of Puyallup. We also sent it to Rick Lane, the General Sales Manager of KIA of Puyallup. We also sent it to Kerry S. Bivens, President of Sawyer Corporate Group Incorporated doing business as KIA of Puyallup.  

  The following is an excerpt of the above letter:

  “It is obvious to us that it is you who have misconstrued the laws(s) that you cited in your letter to us dated 4/7/11.  

  KIA of Puyallup deceived us regarding the price of the new car that we bought from KIA of Puyallup on 12/7/10.  

  Per your letter to us dated 4/7/11, paragraph III, you state, ‘the vehicle you purchased was never displayed on our lot for sale at ANY price’. What you are admitting to verbatim in that letter is that the new car that we purchased from your lot had NO sales price on it whatsoever. It did not even have the (Monroney) sticker price, which is the Manufacturer’s Suggested Retail Price.

  In good faith we trusted that KIA of Puyallup was a reputable car dealership so we had NO reason NOT to believe KIA of Puyallup about the price that KIA of Puyallup had quoted us for the new car. Yet, when we asked KIA of Puyallup what the price of the new car was, KIA of Puyallup DECEIVED us by telling us that it was $20,839.00 when - 

  a) The (Monroney) Sticker manufacturer’s suggested retail price (MSRP) for the new car was $18,840.00, which was NOT on the car before we ever saw the new car, during the time that we were looking at the new car, or after we agreed to buy the new car. It was only after we signed the Sales Contract in order to buy the new car that we discovered the Monroney Sticker Label amongst the rest of the paperwork that we were given for the new car.  

  b) There were NO other sales prices posted on the new car, before we ever saw the new car, during the time that we were looking at the new car, or after we agreed to buy the new car and signed the Sales Contract in order to buy the new car.  

  Since each and every automobile has different features on it, it would be totally unreasonable to expect the consumer (us) to be able to research a suitable price for the new car that we intended to buy. Thusly, not having a Monroney Sticker Manufacturer’s Suggested Retail Price, or ANY other sticker price, on the new car that you sold us renders it a DECEPTIVE business transaction because it prevented us from making an informed decision.  

  Due to the above, we never agreed to the amount of money that KIA of Puyallup charged us for the new car because we signed the Sales Contract under DECEPTIVE circumstances.  

  We have a right to sue KIA of Puyallup because, as a result of KIA of Puyallup’s DECEPTIVE ACT regarding the price of the new car that we bought from KIA of Puyallup, we were monetarily damaged.  

  Reimburse us the money you owe us, $2,240.55, as we told you in our letter to you dated 3/29/11, or you will force us to pursue legal action against you in a civil court of law. We know that we have a rock solid case. Any reasonable judge will render the verdict in our favor. So, you are going to spend at least the same amount of money, if not more money, than the money you owe us, if we don’t win our case against you.  

  Thanks to your letter to us dated 4/7/11, we became aware that Federal Law prohibits ANYONE, except for the customer who is buying a new car, from removing the MONRONEY STICKER from the new car. Therefore, if we have to file a lawsuit against you, we will also send a formal complaint to the Office of Consumer Litigation within the United States Department of Justice alerting them that KIA of Puyallup committed a Federal Offense by selling us a new car that had NO Monroney Label affixed to it.”  

If the reader is interested in viewing our follow up letter dated 5/4/11 to Sawyer Corporate Group Incorporated then please go to hyperlink Follow-Up Letter to Sawyer at www.bullcrapbusters.com.

If the reader is interested in viewing statutory federal law that mandates a manufacturer’s suggested retail price (MSRP) sticker on a new car – namely section 1232, “Label and entry requirements,” of Chapter 28, Disclosure of Automobile Information, of Title 15, “Commerce and Trade,” of the United States Code, or USC, then please go to hyperlink AIDA Section 1232 at www.bullcrapbusters.com.

If the reader is interested in viewing statutory federal law that mandates a penalty for removal of the MSRP sticker on a new car – namely section 1233, “Violations and Penalties,” of Chapter 28, Disclosure of Automobile Information, of Title 15, “Commerce and Trade,” of the United States Code, or USC, then please go to hyperlink AIDA Section 1233 at www.bullcrapbusters.com.

  KIA of Puyallup did NOT reply to our above correspondence  

FILING THE LAWSUIT

  On 6/23/11 we filed a Small Claims Lawsuit against the SAYWER GROUP CORPORATION INCORPORATED (DBA) doing business as KIA of PUYALLUP at the PIERCE COUNTRY DISTRICT COURT CIVIL DEPARTMENT located at 1902 96th Street South, Tacoma, WA 98444. Our claim as plaintiff was that KIA of Puyallup (the defendant) deceived us on the Manufacturer’s Suggested Retail Price (MSRP) of a 2011 KIA Forte EX 5 Door automobile, in violation of RCW 46.70.110 and RCW 19.86.020. Deception cost us $2,251.39.  

If the reader is interested in viewing the Notice of Small Claim dated 6/23/11 then please go to hyperlink Notice of Small Claim at www.bullcrapbusters.com.

If the reader is interested in viewing statutory law Revised Code of Washington (RCW) Section 46.70.180, “Dealers and manufacturers,” then please go to hyperlink RCW 46.70 Dealers & Manufacturers at www.bullcrapbusters.com.

If the reader is interested in viewing statutory laws Revised Code of Washington (RCW) Section 19.86.020, “Unfair competition, practices declared unlawful,” and Section 19.86.093, “Civil action – Unfair or deceptive act or practice – Claim element,” then please go to hyperlink RCW 19.86 Unfair Business Practices at www.bullcrapbusters.com.

SERVING THE SUMMONS

  RCW 4.28.080 specifies on whom a summons must be delivered, in the State of Washington. For a corporation, Section (9) of RCW 4.28.080 specifies that service of a summons must be upon the corporation’s president or registered agent. We did not know if or when the President of Sawyer Corporate Group, Incorporated, Kerry S. Bivens, would be at his office, so we thought it best to serve the summons on the registered agent – namely the legal office of James A. Krueger. Also, RCW 4.28.185 establishes that any corporation doing business in the State of Washington subjects itself, and its registered agent, to the jurisdiction of the courts of the State of Washington.  

If the reader is interested in viewing the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) Statutory Law 4.28.080 (9) and RCW 4.28.185, which respectively specify (a) on whom a summons is supposed to be served when suing a corporation in the state of Washington – namely the President of the Corporation or its Registered Agent – and (b) that any corporation doing business in the State of Washington subjects its Registered agent to the jurisdiction of its courts, then please go to hyperlink RCW 4.28 Summons at www.bullcrapbusters.com.

  On 6/23/11 we went to the PIERCE COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT located at 930 Tacoma Avenue South, Tacoma, WA 98402. We paid the $55.00 fee and requested that they serve Summons upon the Registered Agent of the Sawyer Corporate Group Incorporated doing business as KIA of Puyallup named James A Krueger located at 1201 Pacific Avenue #1900, Tacoma, WA 98402-4391.  

  On 7/1/11 we received the Return of Service on our Summons dated 6/28/11. The Summons had been served upon the WRONG PARTY! It had been sent to Ryan Sawyer, the Vice President of the Sawyer Group Corporation Incorporated and to 111 N Meridian, Puyallup, WA instead to 111 Valley Avenue NE, Puyallup, WA which is where the KIA of Puyallup car dealership is located.  

If the reader is interested in viewing the Proof of Service of Summons to the Incorrect Party dated 6/28/11 then please go to hyperlink Incorrect Service of Summons at www.bullcrapbusters.com.

  On 7/2/11 we sent the following E-Mail to SERGEANT JOHN LESTER and CRAIG S. ADAMS, Legal Advisor, Civil Unit, Pierce County Sheriff’s Department, 930 Tacoma Avenue South, First Floor, Tacoma, WA 98402, phone 253-798-7520, fax 253-798-6712.  

  The following is an excerpt of the above E-Mail:

  “On 6/23/11, we came to the office of the Civil Unit of the Pierce County Sheriff’s Department to serve summons on the Defendant. We spoke to Lorraine, and asked her to serve our Summons upon the Registered Agent of Sawyer Corporate Group Incorporated, who is James A. Krueger. We then gave Lorraine his address and telephone number.  

  On 7/1/11, we received an affidavit of service of the above Summons...dated 7/28/11. It stated that the Summons ...was served on Ryan Sawyer, Vice President of Sawyer Corporate Group, Incorporated on 7/27/11.

  Later that same day, we went back to the office of the Civil Unit of the Pierce County Sheriff’s Department. We told LORRAINE that our Summons had been served upon the incorrect party. We then requested, once again, that it be served upon James A. Krueger, the Registered Agent of Sawyer Corporate Group Incorporated. Lorraine’s reply was a) to insist that we told her to serve the Summons on Ryan Sawyer and b) that it was okay to serve the Summons upon Ryan Sawyer, Vice President of the Sawyer Corporate Group, Incorporated.  

  So we showed her the text of RCW 4.28.080 (9), which is the statutory law in the State of Washington that specifies on whom a Summons must be served for a corporation. Nowhere in RCW 4.28.080 (9), does it allow service of a Summons to go to a vice president of a corporation. Her response was to bring out an attorney named Craig S. Adams, who is the legal advisor for the Pierce County Sheriff Department.  

If the reader is interested in viewing the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) Statutory Law 4.28.080 (9) which specifies on whom a summons is supposed to be served when suing a corporation in the state of Washington – namely the President of the Corporation or its Registered Agent – then please go to hyperlink RCW 4.28 Summons at www.bullcrapbusters.com.

  Craig S. Adams reiterated that it was okay to serve Summons on a vice president of a corporation, and when we showed him the text of RCW 4.28.080 (9), he claimed that case law allows Service of Summons on a vice president of a corporation. We asked him to give us a case number so that we could look it up ourselves, to verify that what he was telling us was correct. He refused, stating that to do so would be giving us legal advice even though he already gave us legal advice when he claimed, that it was okay to serve Summons on a vice president of a corporation.  

  “We looked up the court cases in the Appellate Courts of the State of Washington and Supreme Court of the State of Washington presenting interpretation of RCW 4.28.080 (9). We used the following hyper-link to connect to a search engine for such court cases in the State of Washington: http://mrsc.org/wa/courts/index dtSWearch.html. This search engine connected us to two Appellate cases and three Supreme Court cases that rendered an interpretation of statutory law RCW 4.28.080 (9).  

  The result of all five cases ruled that the text of statutory law RCW 4.28.080 (9) is to be interpreted exactly as it reads. This makes it abundantly clear that the LAW does NOT permit Service of Summons, upon a vice president of a corporation.  

If the reader is interested in viewing the appellate court case of Crystal Ltd vs Factoria then please go to hyperlink Court Case for RCW 4.28.080 (9) Crystal Ltd vs Factoria at www.bullcrapbusters.com.

If the reader is interested in viewing the appellate court case of Janet Witt vs Port of Olympia then please go to hyperlink Court Case for RCW 4.28.080(9) Janet Witt vs Port of Olympia at www.bullcrapbusters.com.

If the reader is interested in viewing the Washington State Supreme court case of Johanson vs United Truck Lines then please go to hyperlink Court Case for RCW 4.28.080(9) Johanson vs United Truck Lines at www.bullcrapbusters.com.

If the reader is interested in viewing the Washington State Supreme court case of Lawyers Cooperative Pub Co vs Kuntz et al then please go to hyperlink Court Case for RCW 4.28.080(9) Lawyers Cooperative Pub Co vs Kuntz et al at www.bullcrapbusters.com.

If the reader is interested in viewing the Washington State Supreme court case of Weber vs Associated Surgeons PS then please go to hyperlink Court Case for RCW 4.28.080(9) Weber vs Associated Surgeons PS at www.bullcrapbusters.com.

  Therefore, to resolve this matter, we need the Civil Unit of the Pierce County Sheriff’s Department to serve our Summons again, without charging us any additional money since it is the Civil Unit of the Pierce County Sheriff’s Department who made the error. We need Civil Unit of the Pierce County Sheriff’s Department to serve Summons upon James A. Krueger, the Registered Agent for Sawyer Corporate Group, Incorporated, of Vandelberg, Johnson & Gandara, whose coordinates are: 1201 Pacific Avenue, Suite 1900 (Wells Fargo Plaza), Tacoma, WA 98402-4391.  

  If the Civil Unit of the Pierce County Sheriff’s Department is not willing to do the right thing, then we will have no choice but to pay another $125.00 to have the Civil Unit of the Pierce County Sheriff’s Department serve the Summons upon James A. Krueger.  

  The Civil Unit of the Pierce County Sheriff’s Department has a complete copy of the Summons package, which we left with Craig S. Adams when we saw him on 7/1/11.”

If the reader is interested in viewing the e-mail chain to and from the Pierce County Sheriff’s Department then please go to hyperlink E-mail Chain Pierce County Sheriff's Department at www.bullcrapbusters.com.

  On 7/13/11 the Pierce County Sheriff’s Department sent us via E-Mail the following reply:

  “Received – thank you.”

  We received the Return of Service on our Summons, which was sent to the right party, James A. Krueger, the Registered Agent for Sawyer Corporate Group, Incorporated, of Vandelberg, Johnson & Gandara, whose coordinates are: 1201 Pacific Avenue, Suite 1900 (Wells Fargo Plaza), Tacoma, WA 98402-4391 on 7/13/11.  

If the reader is interested in viewing the Proof of Service of Summons to the Correct Party dated 7/13/11 then please go to hyperlink Correct Service of Summons at www.bullcrapbusters.com.

MEDIATION

  In order to file a lawsuit with the Pierce County District Court House, one is obligated to go to Mediation to attempt to resolve one’s differences with the opposing party.  

  On 8/17/11 we attended our scheduled session for Mediation. Both Rick Lane, General Manager and Greg Backstrom, Chief Financial Officer of KIA of Puyallup showed up for the Mediation hearing. The female Mediator listened to both us (the plaintiff’), and KIA of Puyallup (the defendant). After that she flat out refused to mediate and we were all dismissed without her ever making any attempt whatsoever to mediate. Instead we were given a form that said, “Resolution of this matter cannot be reached” and the Mediator set our Trial date for 1/23/12. We received a separate correspondence via mail that was sent to us by the Pierce County District Court located at 1902 96th Street, Tacoma, WA 98444 on 8/24/11 that read, “SC TRIAL NOTICE January 23, 2012 at 1:30 p.m. Set before COURTROOM 129”.  

If the reader is interested in viewing the Mediation document dated 8/17/11 forwarding our legal case to trial, and the Trial Notice document dated 8/24/11 then please go to hyperlink Mediation Document & Trial Notice Document at www.bullcrapbusters.com.

THE TRIAL

  On 1/23/12 both parties, us the plaintiff, and Rick Lane, General Manager and Greg Backstrom, Chief Financial Officer of KIA of Puyallup, the defendant, arrived for the Court Hearing at 1:30 p.m. in Room 129. A Judge named PAT O’MALLEY presided over our Court Case. We gave Judge Pat O’Malley a copy of our exhibits and the defendant KIA a copy of our exhibits.  

  The following is the Oral Text that we presented verbatim to Judge Pat O’Malley regarding our Case # 1Z999310C – Pierce County District Court:

If the reader is interested in viewing the Text of Oral Presentation then please go to hyperlink Text of Oral Presentation at www.bullcrapbusters.com.

  “Your Honor, this case is about the defendant, Sawyer Corporate Group, Incorporated, DECEIVING us by withholding essential information regarding our purchase of a BRAND NEW car from their subsidiary, KIA of Puyallup, that by Federal Law, we had the right to know and KIA had the obligation to provide. Defendant’s deception violated RCW 46.70.180 and RCW 19.86.020. Defendant’s deception cost us $2,251.39. We are now suing the defendant per RCW 19.86.093.  
  We came to KIA to buy a brand new 2011 KIA Forte EX 5 Door car. At NO TIME was any price sticker of any sort ever placed on the BRAND NEW 2011 KIA Forte EX 5 Door car that we were interested in: not when we were looking at it, nor after we agreed to buy it, nor when we signed the Sales Contract in order to own it. The Defendant’s letter of 4/7/11 admits this. For it states, ‘(t)he vehicle you purchased was never displayed on our lot for sale at ANY price.’  

  See paragraph III exhibit I.  

If the reader is interested in viewing court exhibit I, the letter from KIA dated 4/7/11, then please go to hyperlink KIA's Reply to Letter of Demand at www.bullcrapbusters.com.

  We asked KIA what the sticker price was for the BRAND NEW 2011 KIA Forte EX 5 Door car that we desired to purchase. KIA told us it was $20,839.00. So, in good faith, on 12/7/10, we signed the paperwork and bought the BRAND NEW 2011 KIA Forte EX 5 Door for $20,839.00.  

  See exhibits II and III. Line item labeled “Cash Price” of exhibit II Sales Contract, and line 1 labeled “Vehicle Cash Price” of our exhibit III, “Retail Installment Sales Contract and Simple Finance Charge”.  

If the reader is interested in viewing court exhibit II, the Sales Contract from KIA, then please go to hyperlink KIA Sales Contract & Cashier's Check at www.bullcrapbusters.com.

If the reader is interested in viewing court exhibit III, the Retail Installment Sales Contract and Simple Finance Charge, then please go to hyperlink Retail Installment Sales Contract and Simple Finance Charge at www.bullcrapbusters.com.

  Later, when we went through our paperwork that came with our BRAND NEW 2011 KIA Forte EX 5 Door car to trade it in for another car, we discovered that the price sticker for the BRAND NEW 2011 KIA Forte EX 5 Door showed a price of $18,840.00 which is $1,999.00 less than the price we paid for the car.  

  As shown in exhibit IV Line item labeled “Total Manufacturer’s Suggested Retail Price” on the sticker for our BRAND NEW 2011 KIA Forte EX 5 Door car.

If the reader is interested in viewing court exhibit IV, the price sticker, then please go to hyperlink Monroney Price Sticker at www.bullcrapbusters.com.

  KIA had charged us $1,999.00 above the sticker price for the BRAND NEW 2011 KIA Forte EX 5 Door car that we purchased from them even though NO additional options or accessories had been installed or added to this car, as shown in exhibit V KIA of Puyallup’s “We-Owe Authorization” Form.

If the reader is interested in viewing court exhibit V, the “We Owe Authorization” Form, then please go to hyperlink We Owe Authorization Form at www.bullcrapbusters.com.

  Later, we found out that according to Federal Law, section 1232, “Label and Entry Requirements” of Chapter 28, Disclosure of Automobile Information, of Title 15, ‘Commerce and Trade’, of the United States Code, or USC:

  ‘Every manufacturer of new automobiles...shall prior to delivery of any new automobile to any dealer... securely affix to the windshield, or side window of such automobile a label on which such manufacturer shall endorse clearly, distinctly, and legibly, true and correct entries disclosing the following information concerning the automobile - ...the retail price of such automobile suggested by the manufacturer.’ [ie the manufacturer’s suggested retail price, or MSRP].’

  See exhibit VI Section 1232 of Chapter 28 of Title 15.

If the reader is interested in viewing court exhibit VI, the statutory federal law that mandates a manufacturer’s suggested retail price (MSRP) sticker on a new car – namely section 1232, “Label and entry requirements,” of Chapter 28, Disclosure of Automobile Information, of Title 15, “Commerce and Trade,” of the United States Code, or USC, then please go to hyperlink AIDA Section 1232 at www.bullcrapbusters.com.

  Also section 1233, ‘Violations & Penalties’, of Chapter 28, of Title 15, of the USC, states:

  ‘Any person who willfully removes...any label affixed to a new automobile pursuant to section 1232 of this title...prior to the time that such automobile is delivered to the actual custody and possession of the ultimate purchaser of such new automobile...shall be fined not more than $1,000.00, or imprisoned not more than one year, or both. Such removal...with respect to EACH automobile shall constitute a separate offense.’  

  See exhibit VII Section 1233 of Chapter 28 of Title 15.

If the reader is interested in viewing court exhibit VII, the statutory federal law that mandates a penalty for removal of the MSRP sticker on a new car – namely section 1233, “Violations and Penalties,” of Chapter 28, Disclosure of Automobile Information, of Title 15, “Commerce and Trade,” of the United States Code, or USC, then please go to hyperlink AIDA Section 1233 at www.bullcrapbusters.com.

  When we contacted the Office of Consumer Protection Litigation of the United States Department of Justice, they agreed with us in their letter of 9 December 2011 that every single BRAND NEW car has to have its very own price sticker, which only the purchaser may remove. This letter became our exhibit VII-A.  

If the reader is interested in viewing court exhibit VII-A, which gives an interpretation of Sections 1232 and 1233 of Chapter 28 of Title 15 of the USC from the Consumer Protection Branch of the U.S. Department of Justice, then please go to hyperlink First Letter from U.S. Department of Justice at www.bullcrapbusters.com.

  KIA DECEIVED us by arranging that there was no Federally Mandated Price Sticker on the BRAND NEW 2011 KIA Forte EX 5 Door BEFORE, DURING, or AFTER the sales transaction, thereby duping us into paying $1,999.00 more than we would have paid had there been a Federally Mandated Sticker on the car that we purchased. DECEPTION regarding the sale of a vehicle is ILLEGAL according to the following two Washington State Statutory Laws:

  RCW 46.70.180, ‘Unlawful Acts and Practices’ states that it is unlawful ‘to cause or permit to be...disseminated in any manner whatsoever, any statement or representation with regard to the sale...of a vehicle which is false, deceptive, or misleading...’

  See exhibit VIII chapter RCW 46.70.180, ‘Dealers and Manufacturers’ it states,

If the reader is interested in viewing court exhibit VIII, the statutory law Revised Code of Washington (RCW) Section 46.70.180, “Dealers and manufacturers,” then please go to hyperlink RCW 46.70 Dealers & Manufacturers at www.bullcrapbusters.com.

  And RCW 19.86.020, ‘Unfair Competition Practices Declared Unlawful’ states that ‘unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce are hereby declared unlawful.’

  RCW 19.86. 093 also states ‘Civil Action – Unfair or Deceptive Act or Practice – Claim Elements’ allows us to petition for damages from such deception by stating, ‘In a private action in which an unfair or deceptive act or practice is alleged under RCW 19.86.020, a claimant may establish that the act or practice is injurious to the public interest because it: (3) (a) Injured other persons...’

  See exhibit IX chapter RCW 19.86 ‘Unfair Business Practices Consumer Protection’

If the reader is interested in viewing court exhibit IX, he statutory laws Revised Code of Washington (RCW) Section 19.86.020, “Unfair competition, practices declared unlawful,” and Section 19.86.093, “Civil action – Unfair or deceptive act or practice – Claim element,” then please go to hyperlink RCW 19.86 Unfair Business Practices at www.bullcrapbusters.com.

  The Washington State statutory laws that we cited in RCW chapters also contain laws calling for liberal construction. “Liberal construction” is a legal term used to describe a particular way of interpreting a law. There are two elements to liberal construction. The first element is to focus on the law’s intent rather than its particular words or language. The second element declares that any practice or act contrary to the intent of the law is unlawful, whether or not that specific practice or act is actually listed as unlawful in the text of the law. In this case, the INTENT of these two chapters of the RCW is to protect the public by preventing any sort of deceptive practice, such as preventing a customer from seeing a Federally mandated Monroney sticker on a brand new car, whether or not it is discussed in the text of the law.  

If the reader is interested in viewing a more detailed explanation of the legal term “liberal construction” located on pages 15 & 16 of the Text of Oral Presentation, then please go to hyperlink Text of Oral Presentation at www.bullcrapbusters.com.  

  RCW Chapter 46.70 concludes with RCW 46.70.900, ‘Liberal Construction’ which states that ‘(a)ll provisions of this chapter shall be liberally construed to the end that deceptive practices or commission of fraud or misrepresentation in the sale...of vehicles in this state may be prohibited and prevented...’

If the reader is interested in viewing court exhibit VIII, which contains the statutory law Revised Code of Washington (RCW) Section 46.70.900, “Liberal construction,” then please go to hyperlink RCW 46.70 Dealers & Manufacturers at www.bullcrapbusters.com.  

  And RCW Chapter 19.86 concludes with RCW 19.86.920, which states that, ‘(t)he legislation hereby declares that the purpose of this act is to compliment the body of Federal Law governing...deceptive and fraudulent acts or practices in order to protect the public...To this end this act shall be liberally construed that its beneficial purposes may be served.’ 

If the reader is interested in viewing court exhibit IX, which contains the statutory laws Revised Code of Washington (RCW) Section 19.86.920, “Purpose – interpretation – liberal construction – saving,” then please go to hyperlink RCW 19.86 Unfair Business Practices at www.bullcrapbusters.com.

  The DECEPTION of KIA cost us not only the $1,999.00 difference between the price they told us orally (cash price shown in exhibits II and III) and the sticker price (exhibit IV) but it also cost us an additional $191.90 in extra sales tax we had to pay on account of the higher price (exhibits II and III, with a tax rate of 0.096 = 2,000.55 sales tax paid divided by $20, 839.00 cash price), an additional $17.96 in extra interest costs on our car loan (pro-rated interest, calculated from subtracting the amount borrowed on Line 7, ‘UNPAID BALANCE’, of exhibit II, which is $17,670.55, from the amount required to pay off the loan, shown in exhibit XV, which is $17,813.26), and an additional $42.80 in obtaining copies of Sawyer Corporate Group’s annual report (cost of obtaining exhibit XIV at $15.00) and certified mail (certified mail cost associated with (exhibit XIV) at $5.54 plus two certified mails for exhibit X at $5.54 each, plus two certified mails for exhibit XI at $5.59 each). All of these costs add up to $2,251.39.  

If the reader is interested in viewing the complete detailed breakdown of the total cost of KIA’s deception, located on pages 6 & 7 of the Text of Oral Presentation, then please go to hyperlink Text of Oral Presentation at www.bullcrapbusters.com.

If the reader is interested in viewing court exhibit II, the Sales Contract from KIA, then please go to hyperlink KIA Sales Contract & Cashier's Check at www.bullcrapbusters.com.

If the reader is interested in viewing court exhibit III, the Retail Installment Sales Contract and Siple Finance Charge, then please go to hyperlink Retail Installment Sales Contract and Simple Finance Charge at www.bullcrapbusters.com.

If the reader is interested in viewing court exhibit IV, the price sticker, then please go to hyperlink Monroney Price Sticker at www.bullcrapbusters.com.

[If the reader is interested in viewing the court exhibit XIV, the letter of request for a certified copy of Sawyer Corporate Group Incorporated Annual Report and certified copy of Sawyer Corporate Group Incorporated Annual Report, then please go to hyperlink Certified Copy of Annual Report for Sawyer Group at www.bullcrapbusters.com.]

[If the reader is interested in viewing the court exhibit XV & court exhibit XVI, the letters from Chase Auto Finance, then please go to hyperlink Letters from Chase Auto Finance at www.bullcrapbusters.com.]

  We attempted to resolve this mater with the defendant by pointing out that they charged us a price of $1,999.00 above the sticker price in our letter to the defendant dated 3/29/11. (See exhibit X). This letter also explained the total cost of $2,251.39 that KIA’s DECEPTION cost us. The defendant replied that KIA had no intention of refunding us this money in Defendant’s letter dated 4/7/11. (See exhibit I). In reply to Defendant’s letter, our letter dated 5/4/11, explained in detail how their DECEPTION regarding the sticker price of the BRAND NEW CAR was in violation of RCW 46.70.180 and RCW 19.86.020, as well as Chapter 28 of Title 15 of the USC. (See exhibit XI). We never got any reply to this last letter.  

If the reader is interested in viewing court exhibit X, our letter of demand dated 3/29/11 to Sawyer Corporate Group Incorporated, then please go to hyperlink 1st Letter of Demand to Sawyer at www.bullcrapbusters.com.

If the reader is interested in viewing court exhibit I, the letter from KIA dated 4/7/11, then please go to hyperlink KIA's Reply to Letter at www.bullcrapbusters.com.

If the reader is interested in viewing court exhibit XI, our follow-up letter dated 5/4/11 to Sawyer Corporate Group Incorporated, then please go to hyperlink Follow-Up Letter to Sawyer at www.bullcrapbusters.com.

  We have documentation substantiating all of our claims, which we have given you, Your Honor, if you want to see them.”

THE JUDGE’S VERDICT 

  On 1/26/12 we received by way of mail Judge Pat O’ Malley’s verdict. It was, “ACTION DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE”, which in lay terms means that this Judge RENDERED THE VERDICT IN KIA’S FAVOR and awarded us nothing.  

  The only explanation Judge Pat O’Malley gave us as to why he rendered such a verdict was what he had said during the trail, which was, “I BELIEVE KIA.” A judge is supposed to RENDER A VERDICT based upon the FACTS and the LAW NOT upon BELIEF. JUDGE PAT O’MALLEY RENDERED A VERDICT against the LAW and IGNORED the FACTS of our LEGAL CASE.

  This was judge Pat O’Malley’s verdict. Never mind that KIA had clearly broken both FEDERAL LAW and STATE LAW by 1) REMOVING the Monroney Sticker Label on the brand new car that they sold to us, which KIA had admitted to doing in KIA’s OWN LETTER sent to us dated 4/7/11 (exhibit I); and 2) by lying to us about what the Manufacturer’s Suggested Retail Price (MSRP) was for the brand new car that we purchased from them, as shown in KIA’s own Sales Contract (exhibit II).  

  Why did Judge Pat O’Malley render such a verdict? Due to the above observations, the one and only reasonable conclusion that the Lahams have is that Judge Pat O’Malley had taken a BRIBE. Who offered Judge Pat O’Malley the payoff? The one and only reasonable explanation that the Lahams have is the defendant – the SAWYER CORPORATE GROUP INCORPORATED doing business as (DBA) the car dealership called KIA of Puyallup (KOP).  

If the reader is interested in viewing Judge PAT O’MALLEY’S Verdict dated 1/23/12 then please go to hyperlink Judge O'Malley's Verdict at www.bullcrapbusters.com.

  WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF JUST 1% OF ALL VICTIMS SUED THE BUSINESS BULLY FOR VIOLATING THEIR CONSUMER RIGHTS? THE BUSINESS BULLY WILL GO BANKRUPT. GOOD BYE & GOOD RIDDANCE TO UNETHICAL BUISNESS PRACTICES!

  WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF JUST 1% OF ALL VICTIMS PERFORMED THE ALAMO ON THE BRIBERY BULLY FOR VIOLATING THEIR CONSUMER RIGHTS? THE BRIBERY BULLY WILL GO BANKRUPT. GOOD BYE & GOOD RIDDANCE TO JUDGES WHO TAKE BRIBES THAT RUIN PEOPLES’ LIVES!

THE OFFICE OF CONSUMER PROTECTION

  On 11/22/11 we sent a letter by way of certified mail to the Office of Consumer Protection Litigation Civil Division United States Department of Justice located in Washington D.C. 20530. We sent it on 11/12/11. The Office of Consumer Protection Litigation Civil Division United States Department of Justice signed receipt of it on 11/28/11.  

  The following is an excerpt of the above letter:

  “We write to the Office of Consumer Protection Litigation of the Civil Division of the United States Department of Justice to report that the Sawyer Group Corporation Incorporated, which owns, and operates, and does business as (DBA) KIA of Puyallup (KOP), had VIOLATED Federal Law – the Monroney Act [Section 1232, ‘Label and Entry Requirements’ of Chapter 28,’Disclosure of Automobile Information’ of Title 15, ‘Commerce and Trade’ of the United States Code].  

  [We reiterated to the Office of Consumer Protection Litigation of the Civil Division of the United Stated Department of Justice that KIA of Puyallup sold us a brand new car that had NO Monrney Sticker Label affixed to it: not when we were looking at the car, nor after we agreed to buy the car, nor when we signed the Sales Contract in order to own the car.]  

  In addition, we included a copy of KIA’s letter dated 4/7/11, in its own writing, on its own letterhead, signed by its own employee – Chief Financial Officer, Greg Backstrom which stated, “FURTHERMORE, THE VEHICLE YOU PURCHASED WAS NEVER DISPLAYED ON OUR LOT FOR SALE AT ANY PRICE.” Thusly, KIA ADMITTED that the brand car that we bought on KIA’S car lot had NO price sticker on it. Therefore, it had NO Monroney Sticker Label on it. Hence, KIA was in VIOLATION of FEDERAL LAW – the Automobile Information Disclosure Act (AIDA).  

  According to Federal Law, section 1232, Chapter 28 of Title 15 of USC it states: 

  ‘Every manufacturer of new automobiles distributed in commerce shall prior to delivery of any new automobile to any dealer...securely affix to the windshield, or side window of such automobile a label on which such manufacturer shall endorse clear, distinctly, and legibly, true and correct entries disclosing the following information concerning the automobile - ... 

  the retail price of such automobile suggested by the manufacturer.’

  According to Federal Law, section 1233, Chapter 28 of Title 15 of USC it states:

  ‘Any person who willfully removes, alters, or renders illegible any label affixed to a new automobile pursuant to section 1232 of this title...prior to the time that such automobile is delivered to the actual custody and possession of the ultimate purchaser of such new automobile...shall be fined not more than $1,000.00, or imprisoned not more than one year, or both. Such removal, alteration, or rendering illegible with respect to each automobile shall constitute a separate offense.’ ”

  We included documentation in this letter to prove our claim.]  

If the reader is interested in viewing our letter dated 11/22/11 to the Office of Consumer Protection then please go to hyperlink 1st Letter to Department of Justice at www.bullcrapbusters.com.

If the reader is interested in viewing statutory federal law that mandates a manufacturer’s suggested retail price (MSRP) sticker on a new car – namely section 1232, “Label and entry requirements,” of Chapter 28, Disclosue of Automobile Information, of Title 15, “Commerce and Trade,” of the United States Code, or USC, then please go to hyperlink AIDA Section 1232 at www.bullcrapbusters.com.

If the reader is interested in viewing statutory federal law that mandates a penalty for removal of the MSRP sticker on a new car – namely section 1233, “Violations and Penalties,” of Chapter 28, Disclosue of Automobile Information, of Title 15, “Commerce and Trade,” of the United States Code, or USC, then please go to hyperlink AIDA Section 1233 at www.bullcrapbusters.com.

  On 12/9/11 we received a letter from the United States Department of Justice, Consumer Protection Branch, Washington DC 20530 signed by a Kenneth C. Maddox, Consumer Affairs Specialist.  

  The following is an excerpt from the above letter:

  “...we are contacting your dealership regarding your allegations.”

If the reader is interested in viewing the letter to us from the U.S. Department of Justice Consumer Protection Branch dated 12/9/11 then please go to hyperlink First Letter from U.S. Department of Justice at www.bullcrapbusters.com.

  On 1/30/12 we send a letter to KENNETH C. MADDOX, Consumer Affairs Specialist Consumer Protection Branch Civil Division of the United States Department of Justice in Washington D.C. 20530. We sent it on 1/30/11. The Consumer Affairs Specialist Consumer Protection Branch Civil Division of the United States Department of Justice signed receipt of it on 2/4/12.  

  The following is an excerpt from the above letter:

  “...we wished to know what happened regarding the investigation that [you] told us [you] were going to conduct via your letter to us dated 12/9/11. Also, we are writing you now because we hope that you will base your conclusions of your investigation into this matter upon the INDISPUTABLE EVIDENCE that KOP [KIA of Puyallup] is in violation of AIDA [Automobile Information Disclosure Act] so that justice may be served.”

  [We included another copy of KIA’s letter dated 4/7/11, in its own writing, on its own letterhead, signed by its own employee – Chief Financial Officer, Greg Backstrom which stated, “FURTHERMORE, THE VEHICLE YOU PURCHASED WAS NEVER DISPLAYED ON OUR LOT FOR SALE AT ANY PRICE.” Thusly, KIA ADMITTED that the brand new car that we bought on KIA’S car lot had NO price sticker on it. Therefore, it had NO Monroney Sticker Label on it. Hence, KIA was in VIOLATION of FEDERAL LAW – the Automobile Information Disclosure Act (AIDA).]  

If the reader is interested in viewing our letter dated 1/30/12 to the Office of Consumer Protection dated then please go to hyperlink 2nd Letter to Department of Justice at www.bullcrapbusters.com.

  On 2/10/12 we received our final letter from the United States Department of Justice, Consumer Protection Branch, Washington DC 20530 signed by a Kenneth C. Maddox, Consumer Affairs Specialist.  

  The following is an excerpt from his letter to us:

  “Our contact with KOP (KIA of Puyallup), resulted in KOP maintaining the “Evaluation Vehicle” and the “Ordered Vehicle” both had the manufacturer’s ‘Monroney Label’ affixed.”

If the reader is interested in viewing the letter to us from the U.S. Department of Justice Consumer Protection Branch dated 2/10/12 then please go to hyperlink Second Letter from U.S. Department of Justice at www.bullcrapbusters.com.

  In summary, KENNETH C. MADDOX, Consumer Affairs Specialist, IGNORED the INDISPUTABLE EVIDENCE, that we had given him, which was KIA’s own letter dated 4/7/11, ADMITTING that KIA had VIOLATED FEDERAL LAW – the Automobile Information Disclosure Act (AIDA) – BY NOT having the Federally Mandated Monroney Label on the brand new car that we bought from KIA.  

  Why did Consumer Affairs Specialist Kenneth C. Maddox refuse to enfore the AIDA [Automobile Information Disclosure Act], FEDERAL LAW? Due to the above observations, the one and only reasonable conclusion that the Lahams have is that Consumer Affairs Specialist Kenneth C. Maddox had taken a BRIBE. Who offered Consumer Affairs Specialist Kennteth C. Maddox the payoff? The one and only reasonable explanation that the Lahams have is the SAWYER CORPORATE GROUP INCORPORATED doing business as (DBA) the car dealership called KIA of Puyallup (KOP).  

  On 5/29/12 we sent letters by way of CERTIFIED MAIL to Kenneth C. Maddox’s bosses alerting them of Kenneth C. Maddox REFUSAL to enforce FEDERAL LAW. They are:

KENNETH L. JOST, Deputy Director, Consumer Protection Branch, Civil Division of the United States Department of Justice, Washington D.C. 20530 signed receipt of his letter on 6/6/12

ERIC H. HOLDER JR., Attorney General, United States Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NE, Washington D.C. 20530-0001 signed receipt of his letter on 6/5/12.

BARAK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, The White House, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington D.C. 20500 signed receipt of his letter on 6/7/12.  

  We reiterated what we told Kenneth C. Maddox and enclosed documentation proving our claim and also copies of all our correspondence between us, and Kenneth C. Maddox.  

  The following is an excerpt from our letter to them:

  “Mr. Maddox IGNORED the INDISPUTABLE EVIDENCE that we had given him, which was KIA’s own letter, dated 4/7/11, written on KIA’s own letterhead, signed by KIA’s own Chief Financial Officer, Greg Backstrom. It stated, ‘FURTHERMORE, THE VEHICLE YOU PURCHASED WAS NEVER DISPLAYED ON OUR LOT FOR SALE AT ANY PRICE.’ Thusly, KIA had admitted in writing that there was NO Monroney Sticker displaying the MSRP (manufacturer’s suggested retail price) price on the brand new car that we bought from KIA. Hence, KIA is in VIOLATION of Federal Law – the AIDA – (Automobile Information Disclosure Act) – AIDA.  

  See enclosure #10, KIA of Puyallup’s letter of 4/7/11.  

  Thusly, Mr. Maddox, whose job it is to protect American Consumers REFUSED to ENFORCE Federal Law – namely AIDA.

  The reason we write to you is because you are on top of the chain of command with regard to this type of matter.

  We hope that you will do something about it.”

If the reader is interested in viewing our letters dated 5/29/12 to the President of the United States, Barak Obama, Attorney General U.S. Department of Justice, Eric H. Holder Jr., and Deputy Director Consumer Protection Branch, Kenneth L. Jost then please go to hyperlink Letters to Obama Holder & Jost at www.bullcrapbusters.com.

  As of this date neither the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, BARAK OBAMA, nor ERIC H. HOLDER JR., ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, nor KENNETH L. JOST, DEPUTY DIRECTOR CONSUMER PROTECTION BRANCH CIVIL DIVISON OF THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE have given us ANY reply to the above letter.  

  On 1/31/12 we sent the following facsimile to the following three people: Kerry S. Bivens, President of Sawyer Corporate Group Incorporated; Greg Backstrom, Chief Financial Officer, of KIA of Puyallup; and Rick Lane, Sales Manager, KIA of Puyallup:

  “YOU KICKED YOUR OWN BUTT IN WITH YOUR OWN BOOT! Look at all the money YOU lost. The money you stole from us plus your own money out of your own pocket. You had to BRIBE off officials in order to enact your motto of, ‘It’s not stealing. It’s revenue enhancement’. This is because we performed the Alamo* on you. 

  The following is your (estimated) itemized income versus expense breakdown of the illegal transactions that you performed at both the Federal and the State Level: Do you even have the guts to look at it?

KIA’s Heist Income $2,000.00

KIA’s Expenses

Paid off Sheriff ~$300.00

...BUT WE ARE COMING AROUND THE MOUNTAIN
WHEN WE COME...

[Pierce County Sheriff’s Office sent our summons to the incorrect party.  
If we did not demand they fix their error, our legal case would have been thrown
out of court on the grounds of incorrect Due Legal Process]

Had to be present at Mediation ~$90.00

[Sales Manager Rick Lane & Chief Financial Officer Greg Backstrom
[~$15.00/hour wages X 3 hours to travel & appear in court X 2 people]

Paid Off Mediator NOT to Mediate ~$100.00

Had to appear at Trial ~$135.00

[[Sales Manager Rick Lane & Chief Financial Officer Greg Backstrom
~$15.00/hour wages X 4 to travel & appear in court X 2 people plus
$15.00 parking fee]

Paid off Presiding Judge ~$1,150.00

[To ignore indisputable evidence against KIA]

Paid off Feds ~ $500.00
---------------
[To refuse to enforce AIDA]

Total Expenses for Bribe Jobs & ~$2,275.00
Court Appearances for Heist ---------------

DREADFUL SORRY CLEMENTINE!!!

Our Expenses:

Certified copy of Annual Report for Sawyer Corporate Group $15.00
Cost of certified mailings to Department of Corporations $ 5.54
Cost of certified mailings to Sawyer Corporate Group, Inc. $22.26
Cost to file lawsuit in Small Claims court $39.00
Cost to serve summons on Sawyer Corporate Group, Inc. $55.00
Cost of Court Parking $15.00
  ---------------- 
Total Expenses $151.80
---------------
There was no cost to us for mediation or court appearances 
due to paid vacation time

You had to pay ~$2,275.00 out of your own pocket to fight this legal battle.
We had to pay ~$152.00 out of our own pocket to fight this legal battle.

Congratulations! SWIFT MOVE, EX-LAX! 

 All of the above is stated as our own opinion only for our own protection. See Freedom of Speech First Amendment United States Constitution.”

If the reader is interested in viewing the faxes dated 1/31/12 that we sent to Kerry S. Bivens, President of Sawyer Corporate Group, Incorporated, Greg Backstrom, Chief Financial Officer Of KIA of Puyallup, and Rick Lane, Sales Manager of KIA of Puyallup then please go to hyperlink The Alamo Fax to Sawyer - KIA at www.bullcrapbusters.com.

  We had performed THE ALAMO on Kerry S. Bivens, President of Sawyer Corporate Group Incorporated, doing business as KIA of Puyallyp by being savvy enough to be able to pursue our lawsuit to its bloody end by maneuvering through all of the wickets of Legal Due Process and by having both the LAW – Federal and State and the FACTS – a rock solid open and shut legal case – on our side. So we made Kerry S. Bivens, President of Sawyer Corporate Group Incorporated, doing business as KIA of Puyallyp lose every bloody penny that he stole from us by having to spend it on buying off officials in order to win the verdict of our lawsuit in his favor.  

POLICE VIOLENCE

  It is nearly impossible to expose police violence that manifests itself as a covert operation as their is little if any evidence to go on to substantiate a victim’s claim that we are not watching a science fiction movie. I was not going to write about this section for although we are experiencing in our own private personal lives covert police violence, it is so unbelievable, that we, ourselves, find it hard to believe that we are. There were two reasons why I decided to. One, was the question of, where do movies get their material from to write plots about police who plant false evidence, frame for trumped up charges, or stage car accidents to arrest, incarcerate and/or murder innocent people for the blood money that the financially well to do and socially well connected individuals pay them? No doubt from the saying that, “Art imitates life.” Two, this sort of thing has happened to us before. [See the BullCrap Busters segment entitled “ The Enforcer Bully” under the section called “Who in the World are Mr. Michael Laham & Mrs. Elana Laham?” and also under the section called “The Accident” for details.]

  Next question, why woulda, shoulda, coulda anybody or anyone believe that there actually is such a thing as covert police violence and that it is really happening to us? I suppose I am a hopeless humanitarian who has faith and trust in humanity. Therefore, I believe there are others like me who have also undergone such terrorism and so they know that I speak the truth, and others who are not like me who have not gone through such terrorism but who are intelligent enough to know that such things do occur. We hope that by exposing what happened to us, Good Samaritans and Attorneys at Law, will no longer call people like us, “crazy”, but instead endeavor to find a way to save innocent, law abiding citizens from covert police violence. There is one clue we can offer the public as to how to tell if one is being subjected to covert police violence. It is a pattern of oddities that keeps happening in one’s life.  

  The following is our real life scenario entitled, “The Jason Bourne Chase/America’s Most Wanted Hunt” that illustrates how covert police violence operates:

HOME SWEET HOME

  Our home was located at 530 Burnett Avenue North, #10, Renton, Washington 98057. Our landlord’s name was NORMAN SCHULTZ. Our apartment complex was very small. It only had fourteen units. Our apartment was on the second floor right next to an alleyway. Norman Schultz often commented that we were the first tenants to pay our rent for the month and whenever he came in to repair something in our apartment he commented how clean we were. Norman Schultz also knew that our source of income came from my husband’s salary at Boeing. My husband had given Norman Schultz two paycheck stubs as part of Norman Schultz’s credit screening process. It showed that he earns way more than necessary to rent one of Norman Schultz’s apartments. During the entire period that we lived in Norman Schultz’s apartment complex we had no landlord-tenant conflicts with him, or he with us, whatsoever.  

  On 3/10/12, SIX WEEKS after our LAWSUIT was OVER against the Sawyer Corporate Group Incorporated doing business as KIA of PUYALLUP, we were washing our car in one of the parking spaces in the parking lot near the trash and recycle receptacles in the alleyway, when I suddenly saw an adult male come bounding out from behind the trash and recycling containers. He was Caucasian, about six feet tall, thin, had brown eyes, and a head full of dark brown hair that was cropped short. The man was wearing a pure white cotton short sleeved scoop necked teeshirt and denim blue jean pants. He was jogging. As he passed by the trash and recycling dumpsters, he entered the alleyway in front of our apartment complex’s neighbor’s green ivy vines, which were growing all over their silver colored steel gated fence. He stared at me. I stared back at him. His eyes grew wide and looked surprised. I wondered what he was doing here. He never took his eyes off of mine nor I off of his while he continued to jog around our car. I watched his back as he continued to jog passed our apartment unit #10, made a beeline through the south half of Norman Schultz’s apartment building along its walkway, passed the laundry room to the end of the apartment building, and veered sharply to the left disappearing somewhere down Burnett Avenue. I had never in my entire life seen such a thing before. It was a cold day but the jogger had no jacket on. He was jogging but he was not wearing any jogging outfit or clothing for running in. It was strange that he was jogging in the alleyway. For the entire two years that we had been living here the only joggers I ever saw ran along the street. Cars are what went through the alleyway. The jogging path he took was also strange. He made a loop from the backside of Norman Schultz’s apartment complex, through the backside of our apartment unit #10, into the alleyway for a few brief steps, through the front side of our apartment unit #10, through the front side of Norman Schultz’s apartment complex, and finally onto Burnett Avenue. His jogging trajectory orbited the south half of Norman Schultz’s building, where we lived. Who woulda, shoulda, coulda do such a thing??? HOW WEIRD!!!

  So, I asked my neighbor DEBBIE, whom I was having a conversation with, “Do you know who that jogger is?” Debbie was the roommate of another neighbor named Patrick Kik who lived in apartment unit #6 downstairs and directly across from us. Initially, Debbie told me, “I don’t know him”. While my spouse and I were washing our car, before the jogger came, I noticed that Debbie was standing out in front of Norman Schultz’s apartment complex on Burnett Avenue. She was staring in the direction of the Boeing parking lot on the side of Burnett Avenue opposite Norman Schultz’s apartment building for a long time. I asked Debbie if she knew where the jogger went. Debbie told me, “He got into a light silver colored truck parked in the Boeing parking lot on Burnett Avenue.” Then, Debbie volunteered, “He can’t see into peoples’ windows from there.” I asked Debbie, “Why is he here?” Debbie said, “I know why he is here but I cannot tell you.” I asked Debbie, “Why not?” Debbie replied, “Because you take drugs.” Astounded I said, “No, I don’t take drugs.” After that, Debbie said, “Well, I don’t know”. HOW WEIRD!!!

  Scared out of my wits, that very same day, I moved into the Days Inn Hotel located at 13050 48th Avenue South, Room #250, Tukwila, WA 98168 with my spouse. Later that night we moved all of our belongings out of our apartment unit #10 at Norman Schultz’s apartment building and put it into Public Storage.  

  On 5/1/10 we had officially moved into Norman Schultz’s apartment complex.  

If the reader is interested in viewing Norman Schultz’s Lease dated 5/1/10 for apartment #13 and dated apartment #10 then please go to hyperlink Norman Schultz’s Lease at www.bullcrapbusters.com.

  On 3/15/12 we issued check #1083, in the amount of $650.00 for the month of April 2012 for our final month’s rent payment, to Norman Schultz. On 3/19/12 Norman Schultz cashed our check for April’s rent.  

If the reader is interested in viewing our final month’s rent payment, check number 1083, dated 3/15/12, in the amount of $650.00 to Norman Schultz along with proof that Norman Schultz cashed this same check on 3/19/12 then please go to hyperlink Final Month’s Rent Payment at www.bullcrapbusters.com.

  According to Norman Schultz’s Lease we were obligated to keep our utilities on during our final month rental period, which was April 2012. So we did.  

If the reader is interested in viewing Norman Schultz's Lease items #11 entitled, “Utility Charges” then please go to hyperlink Norman Schultz’s Lease at www.bullcrapbusters.com.

  On 3/29/12, we officially vacated our apartment, and sent to landlord Norman Schultz via insured mail a twenty-day notice to vacate our apartment unit and terminate our month-to-month Lease with Norman Schultz as of the end of the month of April 2012 along with the two house keys and one mailbox key. On 3/30/12 Norman Schultz received it.  

If the reader is interested in viewing our Twenty Day Notice to Vacate and Return of Property Items to Norman Schultz dated 3/29/12, and Norman Schultz’s receipt of it on 3/30/12 then please go to hyperlink Twenty Day Notice to Vacate at www.bullcrapbusters.com.

  On 4/3/12 we received our full refundable Security Deposit Refund from Norman Schultz in the amount of $200.00. We had given him a total of $300.00 of which $100.00 was non-refundable.  

If the reader is interested in viewing Norman Schultz’s Lease dated 5/1/10 for apartment #10 item #3 entitled “Deposit” and item #4 entitled “ Non Refundable Charges then please go to hyperlink Norman Schultz’s Lease at www.bullcrapbusters.com.

If the reader is interested in viewing Norman Schultz’s Security Deposit Refund check to us for the refundable portion of our Security Deposit then please go to hyperlink Security Deposit Refund at www.bullcrapbusters.com.

  On 5/10/12 we received our final utility bill from Puget Sound Energy. It showed a balance of $78.95 for electricity/gas usage from 3/29/12 through 5/1/12. As of 3/30/12 we no longer physically lived in our apartment unit. HOW WEIRD!!!  

  We contacted Puget Sound Energy to find out what was going on. They told us we had to contact Norman Schultz to resolve the issue. We contacted Norman Schultz. He agreed to pay for the Puget Sound Utility bill that we did NOT generate from 3/30/12 to 5/1/12. So, on 5/10/12 we sent Puget Sound Energy our final utility bill payment, which amounted to $9.49 for the ONE-DAY USAGE of 3/29/12. We had left our apartment immaculately clean and in excellent functional condition, as we always do, which is why Norman Schultz refunded us our full refundable Security Deposit. I knew that Norman Schultz, aside from freshening up the carpet that we had left spotless, did not generate such a high electricity bill to ready our apartment for the next tenant. Nor did he have to clean our apartment. So, I called Norman Schultz and tried to find out from him if he had already rented out our apartment as of 4/1/12 to another teneant but he refused to divulge that information. 

If the reader is interested in viewing our final Puget Sound Energy utility bill dated 5/9/12 along with our payment portion of it then please go to hyperlink Puget Sound Energy Bill at www.bullcrapbusters.com.

  According to the Washington State Landlord Tenant Act, otherwise known as RCW 59.18.200, and 59.18.280, and landlord, Norman Schultz’s, own Lease, it is ILLEGAL for landlord Norman Schultz to allow another tenant to live in our unit #10 apartment that we were obligated to and had already paid $650.00 rent for per our Lease agreement.

  According to the Lease we signed with landlord, Norman Schultz, we were in a month-to-month rental agreement with him.

If the reader is interested in viewing Norman Schult’z Lease items #1 then please go to hyperlink Norman Schultz’s Lease at www.bullcrapbusters.com.

  According to the Lease we signed with landlord, Norman Schultz, we were obligated to give a twenty-day written notice to vacate the premises and terminate our month-to-month lease agreement.  

If the reader is interested in viewing Norman Schult’z Lease items #7 then please go to hyperlink Norman Schultz’s Lease at www.bullcrapbusters.com.

  RCW 59.18.200 (1) (a) states, “When premises are rented for an indefinite time, with monthly…rent reserved, such tenancy shall be construed to be a tenancy from month-to-month,…and shall be TERMINATED (ended) by written notice of twenty days or more PRECEDING (coming before) the END of any of the months…of tenancy, given by either party to the other.”  

  What “Terminated by written notice of twenty days” means is that at least twenty days must elapse from the time that the written notice was given until the tenancy ends. We gave Norman Schultz our twenty-day written notice on March 29, 2012. Twenty days after March 29, 2012 is April 18, 2012. What “End of any of the months” means is that, the tenancy must always end at the end of a month. Therefore, because twenty days after our written notice fell in the month of April 2012, our tenancy ended at the end of the month of April, which was April 30, 2012. This means that a) we were required to pay rent up until the end of April 2012, which we did, and b) we had the LEGAL right to occupy the apartment until the end of April 2012 and c) landlord Norman Schult did not have the LEGAL right to let any other person occupy the apartment until the end of April 2012. 

  RCW 59.18. 280 states, “Within fourteen days after the TERMINATION of the rental agreement VACATION of the premises…the landlord shall give a full and specific statement of the basis for retaining any of the deposit together with the payment of any refund due the tenant under the terms and conditions of the rental agreement (Lease).”  

  What this means is that, regardless of when the renter returns the landlords rental property, such as keys to the premises, the landlord cannot enter the apartment until both the tenant physically leaves (VACATES) and the tenant financially ends (TERMINATES) his obligation to pay rent. Landlord, Norman Schultz, did NOT have the legal right to prepare the apartment for tenancy (a paid renter) and/or occupancy (non-paying resident) until after April 30, 2012, which was the day our tenancy was over.  

If the reader is interested in viewing the Revised Code of Washington Residential Landlord Tenant Act, RCW Sections 59.18.200, and 59.18.280 then please go to hyperlink RCW Chapter Residential Landlord Tenant Act at www.bullcrapbusters.com.Residential Landlord Tenant Act

  During our telephone conversation Norman Schultz told me we were the best tenants he ever had, and that we were welcome to rent an apartment from him anytime. After that, Norman Schultz asked me where we were living. HOW WEIRD!!! I did not tell him. No other landlord that we ever rented from for the entire ten year period that we lived in apartments ever asked us where we were moving to after we had already officially concluded all of our move out business with the landlord, and the landlord had given us back our security deposit refund. 

  Due to the above we have reason to believe that our former landlord Norman Schultz allowed another resident to occupy our apartment unit at our expense during the month of April in the year 2012. We forfeited our right to pursue legal action against our former landlord, Norman Schultz, for stealing $650.00 from us, as a court of law requires a physical address in order to file a lawsuit. Due to our ongoing experiences with what we believe, think, and feel through our personal life observations to be covert police violence being enacted against us, we are terrified to make known and public our new physical residential address.  

  The Jogger’s, Debbie’s, and Norman Schultz’s WEIRD behaviors along with our previously STRANGE encounters with the Irvine Police Department and the Orange County Sheriff made us believe that cover police violence was once again being enacted against us. The Renton Police Department was attempting to set us up for trumped of charges of “I smell smoke” dope. To this day we cannot fathom why Norman Schultz woulda, shoulda, coulda be involved in helping the Renton Police Department get us convicted of trumped up charges of dope and thereby evicted from the apartment we were renting from landlord Norman Schultz.  

* * *

  As renters we always paid all of our rent and utilities in full and early, were always immaculately clean leaving every carpet brand new or otherwise spotless, and we were always quiet never having had any neighbors make any noise complaints about us. If there were such a thing as an Emmy Award for Exemplary Tenants we have more than earned such a reward. Our own over a decade of Credit Bureau rental history attests to it. In addition, every landlord we have ever rented from has overtly communicated either orally or in writing or by way of refunding us the entire refundable portion of our security deposit (minus final water bill and carpet refreshing charges) that we deserve such a title.  

  Yet…

  We were forced to move out of nearly all of the apartment homes that we rented in California and Washington states due to landlords that bullied us with their double standards that we had to abide by the Lease rules but they did not.  

  Before that…

  We were forced to move out of the condo that we owned on 164 Streamwood, Irvine, California due to one neighbor who was a renter named Kathryn Denise Morrell who was breaking the Home Owner Association’s rules for peace and quiet by screaming at the top of her lungs in the early hours of every weekday morning, “Vincent” the name of her son. When I asked her politely and assertively to stop the excessive noise she alienated us from the rest of the community by spreading false libel and untrue slander about us to neighbors who did not know us whom we did not know who had nothing better to do than join in and gang up on us.  

  Before that…

  We were forced to move out of our home on 2506 East Del Amo Blvd., Lakewood, California due to neighbors who had nothing better to do than harass us for painting our home a vibrant orange color. There were no CC & R’s forbidding us from decorating our house the way that we wished. Meanwhile their homes were dilapidated, which is why we called that neighborhood “flakewood” when we left it. The new owners ripped out the beautiful pine bushes that we had planted for aesthetic reasons and to buffer the traffic noise from the street. I hope they had the sense not to pull out the lime tree and lemon tree that we had planted in the backyard. 

  In all of these incidents covert police violence was involved as well. 

  Hence, as the years went by, we had to get rid of all of our belongings in order to adjust to the relentless bullying that made our victim lifestyle so mobile. Covert police violence made it unsafe for us to store them in public storage facilities, as you will read about later in this section. Thusly, we donated them to the St. Vincent de Paul and the Salvation Army charity organizations. Oh well, at least people less fortunate than our selves will glean benefit from them.  

  Amongst some of those belongings were brand new home made furnishings that consisted of solid alder wood furniture that we assembled, wood stained, and painted ourselves such as a rocking chair, a dining table with two chairs, an entertainment shelf, and an office desk and hutch. Moreover, we had to give up the creative items that I had made for our home such as macrame hanging plant holders and windowsill runners, shell mobiles, and floral vine decorations that hung in our kitchen, living room, and bathroom. We also had three “house” plants that thrived so much so in the sunlight, rich soil, and love that I devoted to them that their vines grew from ceiling to floor within a matter of months. I had to cut off their beautiful long winding rich green leafy vines in order to transport them to our next destination. Finally, due to so many moves, I donated them to a nearby nursery. Other brand new belongings that we had to give away were a Consumer Report’s highest rated brand new Samsung television set and a top of the line Sears’ washer and dryer. Some of our belongings were specialty items that we had to give up such as two basket-weaved white dressers, one basked weaved white bed chest, and one basket weaved white laundry basket that were all a matching bedroom set that we had purchased at Pier One Imports. Plus we had to say goodbye to two solid wood and pewter metal green floral decorated park benches. In addition, we had to let go of a green winter multicolored floral bedspread with matching bed shams and green pillows that are no longer sold on the consumer market. All in all, the bullying robbed us of thousands of dollars of beautiful items that we had bought or made over the years that middle-aged folk are supposed to be able to enjoy in the comfort and safety of their own home. 

  Yet we will never ever live in another house, condo, or apartment in this country again due to ongoing covert POLICE VIOLENCE that is determined to convict us of trumped up charges of one sort or another and thereby evict us from our dwelling, or stage a vehicular accident to get us killed while blaming us for our own demise. Never mind that we were American Citizens before they were in diapers, and are upstanding, law abiding, middle class, white, middle aged folk who have NO criminal record.  

  We share our trauma with you, the reader, in the hope that our tragedy will wake people up to the knowledge of how devastatingly damaging BULLYING really is so that people will actually take BULLYING seriously for their own sake if not for ours.  

* * *

O’ CANADA

  Homeless, once again, before we relocated to a new home, we decided to get away from it all by going on a road trip. For many years we were hoping to tour Canada. So on 3/29/12 we headed for Canada as our first destination. “At about 10:30 p.m. we were admitted into Canada by the CANADA BORDER SERVICES AGENCY, at CBSA Office 84, Pacific Highway District – Douglas Traffic Operations 22 Highway 99 Surrey B.C. V3S 9N7. The CBSA Border Patrol Officer at the booth asked us how long we intended to tour British Columbia Canada. We told him one month. While touring, we stayed at the Accent Inn Hotel located at 10551 St. Edwards Drive, Richmond, BC V6X 3L8 from 3/29/1 to 4/2/12. Then we stayed at the North Vancouver Hotel located at 1800 Capilano Road, North Vancouver, BC V7P 3B6 from 4/2/12 to 4/4/12. After that we checked back into the Accent Inn Hotel located at 10551 St. Edwards Drive, Richmond, BC V6X 3L8 from 4/4/12 through 4/7/12. After we toured the Canadian Province of British Columbia for one week, we realized that the $3,000.00 (we do not own credit cards or debit cards) that we brought for our trip was not sufficient.  

If the reader is interested in viewing the Accent Inn bills located in Richmond, British Columbia, Canada showing we stayed from 3/29 through 4/2/12, and the North Vancouver Hotel bill located in North Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada showing that we stayed from 4/2/12/ to 4/4/12, and the Accent Inn bills located in Richmond, British Columbia, Canada showing that we stayed from 4/4/12 through 4/6/12 then please go to hyperlink Hotel Bills in Canada at www.bullcrapbusters.com.

  On 4/6/12 at about 10:00 a.m. we left Canada, entered the American Border Patrol and returned to Washington State to replenish our funds for traveling. At 10:30 p.m. that same night we returned to the same above Canadian Border Services Agency. However, we were denied re-entry back into Canada WITHOUT BEING GIVEN ANY EXPLANATION AS TO WHY. HOW WEIRD!!! Instead two officers on duty went on a FISHING TRIP, SEIZED ALL OF OUR BELONGINGS, and REVIEWED ALL OF OUR FINANCIAL RECORDS UNNECESSARILY and WITHOUT OUR KNOWLEDGE OR PERMISSION. HOW WEIRD!!!

  The male officer asked us how long we were staying in Canada. We told him one month. After that he asked us if we had money to fund our trip. We told him we had $50,000.00 in our checking account. He then brought out our paperwork for our savings account instead of for our checking account and demanded an explanation as to where the quarter of a million dollars was that had been in it. HOW WEIRD!!! We told him it had been transferred to another savings account. For our own safety, after we returned to the United States we immediately closed out all of our monetary accounts containing our hard earned savings (we are in our 50’s) for we WERE CONCERNED THAT THE CANADIAN BORDER SERVICE AGENCY OFFICERS WERE GOING TO MAKE US VICTIMS OF IDENTITY THEFT!  

If the reader is interested in viewing the Special Servicing Request form dated 4/12/12/ that our bank processed for us to open up a new checking account as a result of our old checking account having been subjected to a security breach by the Canadian Border Services Agency then please go to hyperlink Special Servicing Form - HomeStreet Bank at www.bullcrapbusters.com.

  Besides both the male and female officers subjecting us to a verbally abusive interrogation and being unbelievably rude for nothing to us BOTH OFFICERS DISPLAYED BLATANT BIASED AGAINST US. Regarding a restraining order that we never violated, even though, upon their request, we explained why it was not warranted, both officers refused to believe us. They showed their prejudice against us by refusing to request any documentation from us substantiating our claim. In addition, they refused to tell us that we were allowed to provide them with documentation. Our documents about the restraining order were amongst the same papers that we had brought up to Canada with us, which these two officers had seized. WHY DIDN’T THE OFFICERS LOOK AT THEM? HOW WEIRD!!!

  Unbeknown to us at the time, the Canadian Border Service Agency Officers are supposed to follow a code of conduct involving admittance or denial of potential tourists into Canada. According to the “Information for Visitors to Canada” form it states “If asked you should be able to supply an immigration officer with documentary evidence of your continued residence outside of Canada...your continued employment outside of Canada...and proof of funds to support your trip. THE CANADIAN BORDER SERVICES AGENCY OFFICERS ON DUTY VIOLATED THAT PROTOCOL. HOW WEIRD!!!

If the reader is interested in viewing the Information for Visitors to Canada form then please go to hyperlink Information for Visitors to Canada Form at www.bullcrapbusters.com.

  The female officer, without requesting any documentation from us to prove otherwise, falsely claimed, “You are unemployed, without a permanent residence, and trying to escape to Canada.” My wife said, “Trying to escape from what?” To this both officers offered us nothing but dead silence. HOW WEIRD!!! The male officer, without requesting any documentation from us to prove otherwise, said, “We have decided that the best way to resolve this is for you to leave Canada.” I (my wife) said, “It’s the restraining order isn’t it?” Both officers said, “No, it isn’t.” After that the male officer told us we were forbidden from entering Canada because we had a lot of personal papers with us. Now why would that be a problem?! HOW WEIRD!!!

  After that, the male office told us that we had to sign a piece of paper dated stating that we were leaving Canada voluntarily. [We had entered the Canada Border Services Agency on 4/6/12 at around 10:30 pm. Apparently, the paper stating that we were leaving Canada was dated 4/7/12 as both officers had detained us past midnight.] We did what he requested. While we were doing so he said, “Come back to Canada after the restraining order expires”. If the restraining order was really the problem, then the two officers ought to have told us to IMMEDIATELY leave Canada instead of detaining us, harassing us, and seizing our belongings without our permission or knowledge. HOW WEIRD!!!

If the reader is interested in viewing the Allowed to Leave Canada form dated 4/7/12 then please go to hyperlink Allowed to Leave Canada Form at www.bullcrapbusters.com.

  As it stands the nature of our restraining order proves that we are NOT dangerous to anybody and NOT a threat to anyone. The restraining order was NOT the result of us committing a) assault or b) battery or c) vandalism or d) making threats. For exercising our Freedom of Speech First Amendment Right, a restraining order was imposed upon us by dermatologist Nicole Kageyama. She charged our health insurance company $130.00 for violating my wife’s patient rights by refusing to give my wife any medical treatment because my wife is allergic to steroids and so refuses to take any. She also misdiagnosed my wife’s ailment. So, my wife had to play doctor and figure out on her own that the growing and spreading rash on both of her breasts was Candidas and that she had to take Nystatin in order to get rid of it.  

  Most countries are concerned about keeping people from coming into their country that are criminals, drug traffickers, weapon bearers, or bring exotic plants or animals into it. That makes sense! If it is Canada’s policy not to let people enter Canada who have restraining orders, we are okay with that for Canada has the right to set its own visitor policies, even if they do not make any sense to us. However, what we are NOT okay with is being permitted to enter Canada and then one week later being denied re-entrance into Canada WITHOUT ANY TRUTHFUL EXPLANATION AS TO WHY NOT.

  I (the wife) then asked, “Why did your border patrol one week ago permit us to enter Canada, but one week later, even though we have the very SAME belongings with us that we had a week ago, you deny us re-entrance into Canada?” To this, both officers offered us nothing but dead silence. HOW WEIRD!!! I (the wife) in disgust blurted out, “You expect us to tell you the truth meanwhile you lie to us.” We say to you, “Rejection is God’s Protection.” The female officer’s reply to this was to say in a tone of voice dripping with sarcasm, “Bye”.  

  We presented our concern regarding the two Canadian Border Service Agency officers’ misconduct towards us to its Superintendent, Angela Chin, whose badge number is 11253 in person on 4/7/12 and again in a telephone conversation on 4/11/12.  

  Chin gave us the following nonsensical replies as to why one week we were admitted into Canada and the next week we were denied entrance into Canada: HOW WEIRD!!!

  Angela Chin insisted that the Canadian Border Service Agency’s policy is to re-evaluate anew whether or not a visitor is allowed or denied entrance into Canada every time a traveler comes into Canada. That’s fine if in each instance the traveler comes with different items and for different reasons. However, BOTH times we came with the SAME, EXACT, PRECISE belongings for the SAME, EXACT, PRECISE purpose of touring Canada.  

  Like her two subordinate officers, Angela Chin reiterated to us that we were denied re-entry because a) we had no permanent residence and b) we were unemployed and c) we had a lot of personal papers and d) all of the above and e) none of the above.  

  Angela Chin told us a lie that the reason the Canada Border Service Agency’s booth officer had permitted us to enter Canada the first time was because he was not aware that we had a restraining order. But the Canada Border Services Agency’s examining officers denied us entry the second time because they knew we had a restraining order since they had access to a different data base than the booth officer. HOW WEIRD!!! We know that Angela Chin lied to us because on 5/22/12 an American Border Service Agency’s booth officer, named McClinton, told us that both the booth and the office have access to the same data base on their computers.  

  In addition to Angela Chin’s nonsensical above explanations, Angela Chin refused to divulge the names of the two officers who dealt with us. It was only after we persisted with our request that she gave us the male officer’s badge number which she told us was 19493. But Angela Chin was unwilling to divulge the badge number of the female officer until we complied with her request to describe what she looked like. We did so as best as we were able to remember. Only then did Angela Chin finally reveal to us that the female officer’s badge number was 20467, even though this female officer was working alongside the male officer.” HOW WEIRD!!!

  On 4/7/12, we also orally expressed our legitimate grievance to the Canada Border Service Agency’s Superintendent, named Angela Chin, about having paid in advance for our reservation at the Accent Inn Hotel for the night of 4/7/12. Yet not being able to stay there due to the Canada Border Services Agency wrongfully denying us re-entry back into Canada. She refused to do anything about it.  

  On 4/7/12, we contacted the Accent Inn Hotel by phone, while back in Washington State, to ask for a refund for the last night that we were supposed to stay there but were not able to due to the Canada Border Service Agency wrongfully denying us re-entry back into Canada. We spoke to an Angela. She told us the Accent Inn Hotel would mail us a refund check for $190.25.  

  On 4/25/12, we contacted the Accent Inn Hotel again by phone, while back in Washington State, to ask for a refund for the last night that we were supposed to stay there but were not able to due to the Canada Border Service Agency wrongfully denying us re-entry back into Canada. We spoke to Meili Trung. She told us a refund check for $190.25 would be mailed to us on 5/1/12.  

  On 5/11/12 we received a refund check in the amount of $190.25 from the Accent Inn Hotel for the last night that we were not able to stay in our hotel room #358 per our prepaid reservation #27170 from 4/4/12 to 4/7/12].  

If the reader is interested in viewing the Accent Inn Hotel bill showing that we were supposed to stay there through 4/7/12 then please go to hyperlink Accent Inn Bill dated April 7, 2012 at www.bullcrapbusters.com.

  “We were curious as to whether or not our being rejected re-entry into Canada on 4/6/12 was based upon CBSA policy or the bad behavior of the two CBSA officers mentioned above. So we decided to test the results by attempting to finish our tour of Canada. On 5/13/12 at around 12:00 noon, we came back to the same Canada Border Services Agency as before. And as before, we brought all of our documentation regarding the necessary requirements to enter Canada as visitors. After professionally reviewing the paperwork we presented to him and politely asking us the necessary questions, Canada Border Services Agency officer Suelzle granted us entrance into Canada for the three weeks that we requested, as documented by the Visitor Records that he issued us.  

If the reader is interested in viewing our proof of residency that we were staying at the Econo Lodge Hotel in Tukwila, Washington then please go to hyperlink Econo Lodge Hotel Bill at www.bullcrapbusters.com.

If the reader is interested in our proof of employment with the Boeing Company then please go to hyperlink Boeing Leave of Absence at www.bullcrapbusters.com.

If the reader is interested in viewing our proof of funds for our trip reflected in the amount of $67,000.00 that we had in our checking account, then please go to hyperlink HomeStreet Bank at www.bullcrapbusters.com.

If the reader is interested in viewing the Visitor Record Canada document dated 5/13/12 then please go to hyperlink Visitor Record Canada Form at www.bullcrapbusters.com.

If the reader is interested in viewing the Accent Inn Hotel located in Victoria British Columbia Canada dated 5/13/12 through 5/15/12, the Cedarwood Inn and Suites located in Sidney British Columbia Canada dated 5/15/12 through 5/16/12, and the Accent Inn Hotel located in Victoria British Columbia Canada dated 5/16/12 through 5/22/12 that we stayed at in Canada then please go to hyperlink Hotels Stayed At in Canada at www.bullcrapbusters.com.

  On 3/29/12, we were allowed entry into Canada. On 4/6/12 we were denied entry into Canada. On 5/13/12 we were permitted entry into Canada. All three times we came with the SAME, EXACT, PRECISE belongings for the SAME, EXACT, PRECISE purpose of touring Canada. HOW WEIRD!!!  

  SO ONCE AGAIN WE ASK, WHAT WAS THE REAL REASON WE WERE DENIED ENTRY INTO CANADA BY THE TWO OFFICERS, WHOSE BADGE NUMBERS ARE 19493 AND 20467? Do to all of the above we believe that they and SUPERINTENDENT ANGELA CHIN were engaging in some sort of “FOUL PLAY”. DO THEY AND SUPERINTENDENT ANGELA CHIN TAKE BRIBES TO PUT INNOCENT PEOPLE INTO A CLASS WITH A BAD NAME? 

If the reader is interested in viewing the above faxes dated 5/29/12 we sent to Angela Chin, the Canada Border Services Agency, and the Honorable Maxime Bernier of Small Business and Tourism then please go to hyperlink Canada Complaint Letter - Canada Border Patrol at www.bullcrapbusters.com.

  NO ONE at the Border Services Agency replied to our above legitimate grievance letter.  

On 6/7/12, we received a letter from the Office of the Minister of State. The following is an excerpt from that letter:

“Your correspondence was brought to Minister of State Bernier’s attention and he appreciated being informed of your concerns.” 

If the reader is interested in viewing the letter from the Office of the Minister of State then please go to hyperlink Letter from the Office of the Minister of State at www.bullcrapbusters.com.

  The Canadian Border Services Agency’s WEIRD behavior along with our previously STRANGE encounters with the Irvine Police Department and the Orange County Sheriff made us believe that cover police violence was once again being enacted against us. Why did the Canadian Border Services Agency kick us out of Canada? Did the enforcer bully police offer a bribe to the Canadian Border Services Agency officials in order to prevent us from returning to Canada so that the enforcer bully police woulda, shoulda, coulda be able to locate our whereabouts in our own country?

  Meanwhile, on their own Canadian soil, Canada houses white collar crooks that the Canadian authorities ought to banish from their country.  

  The following is an excerpt from a fax that we sent to a Natasha A. Grof that illustrates this:

“Vellata & Company
Natasha A. Grof
931 Fort St., Suite 400
Victoria, BC V8V 3K3
Canada
Phone: 250-383-9104
Fax: 250-383-1922

To Natasha A. Grof,

  We came to you for legal guidance, which is why a lawyer is also referred to as a LEGAL COUNSELOR. Such guidance would include you inquiring about our particular situation so that you could offer us a specific approach as to how to make immigration to Canada happen. Instead you a) gave us information overload and about things that were not relevant to us and b) did not supply us with the particular website addresses necessary for us to implement our specific individual plans and c) advised us to go on the internet to find out what the process of immigration entails and gave us the general overall phrase “Citizenship and Immigration to Canada”, to plug into a search engine. The Canadian Consulate in Seattle, Washington, USA, does this for FREE and as we have already told you, “Been there, done that, no workie”.  

  As far as your suggestion that we look for information an ancestry as a way to immigrate to Canada, well none exists. WE DID NOT PAY YOU TO TELL US THINGS THAT ARE NON-FACTUAL OR MAYBE MIGHTS. Is this why you charge a $250.00 retainer fee BEFORE you see your clients instead of AFTER they have already seen you? IT IS AMORAL AND UNETHICAL FOR YOU TO TAKE MONEY FOR SERVICES THAT ARE NOT RENDERED. Thusly we will not be doing any more business with you with regard to us seeking additional legal counsel to assist us in the Canadian immigration process.”  

If the reader is interested in viewing the fax dated 5/29/12 we sent to Natasha A. Grof at Velleta & Company then please go to hyperlink FAX to Corrupt Canadian Lawyer at www.bullcrapbusters.com.

THE STATE OF MONTANA 

  On 4/18/12 we traveled to the State of Montana to a city called Missoula. We stopped in the parking lot of a Days Inn Hotel at night. We used our cell phone to call around to see what hotels were available to take cash that we could stay at. We were on our cell phone for about ten minutes before we decided to stay at the Days Inn Hotel there located at 8600 Truck Stop Road, Room #236 Missoula, Montana 59808. While my spouse was checking into the hotel I noticed a young, tall, thin Caucasian male with a military short haircut suddenly walk briskly by the passenger side of our car to a lawn in front of it. While he appeared to be talking on his cell phone, he kept staring and staring and staring at me through the windshield of our car. I stared and stared and stared right back at him. We have stayed in a lot of hotels both short term and long term over the years but we have never encountered a stranger using a cell phone who perpetually stares at us. HOW WEIRD!!!  

  After my husband checked into the hotel, we drove to the back parking lot where our room was. Meanwhile, the male on the cell phone had put it away and was walking quickly in front of us until he disappeared into a side door entrance of the hotel. We checked into our hotel room #236 at 10:07 p.m. About five minutes later, we heard a knock on our hotel room door. My husband answered it. It was a male Caucasian about six feet tall, portly in build. He had short, black, straight hair and a black moustache. He was with another male. He said to my husband, “Is Tiffany here?” My husband said, “There is no Tiffany here.” After that the men left. Why did two Caucasian males knock on our hotel room door and ask for a person who was not there when all they had to do was go to the front desk to find out if the party they were supposedly looking for was occupying our hotel room? We have stayed in a lot of hotels both short term and long term over the years but no one has ever knocked on our hotel room door asking for a person that was NOT us. HOW WEIRD!!! Immediately I told my husband, “Let’s get out of here, now!” And we left. The hotel room was supposed to be a non-smoking room but I was able to smell Nicotine all over it. I am allergic to cigarettes so we had to get out of there, anyway. Luckily, the desk attendant was nice enough to give us our money back since we only had stayed in the room five minutes and because we had not used anything in it.  

  The three males’ WEIRD behavior along with our previously STRANGE encounters with the Irvine Police Department and the Orange County Sheriff made us believe that cover police violence was once again being enacted against us. Did the enforcer bully police use signals from our cell phone to locate our whereabouts? Did the one male on the cell phone keep staring at me to identify me so that the enforcer bully police woulda, shoulda, coulda, shoulda, know that we were staying at this hotel? Did the two males knock on our second floor hotel room door and ask for a person who was not there in order to verify that we were there so that the enforcer bully police woulda, shoulda, coulda know that we were in our hotel room?  

If the reader is interested in viewing the Days Inn bill without any itemized transactions on it located in Missoula, Montana then please go to hyperlink Days Inn Missoula, Montana Bill at www.bullcrapbusters.com.

PUBLIC STORAGE

  We were loyal customers of the Public Storage facility located at 7421 South 180th Street, Kent, WA 98032 ever since we moved to Washington State. Whenever we had to store our belongings we did so at this Public Storage. The first time we patronized this Public Storage we rented storage unit #2271 to house all of our belongings in from November 2005 to December 2005. The second time we patronized this Public Storage we rented storage unit #2213 to house all of our belongings from March 2012 through April 2012.  

If the reader is interested in viewing our Public Storage Invoices from November through December 2005 and from March through April 2012 then please go to hyperlink Public Storage Bills at www.bullcrapbusters.com.

  On 4/29/12, we patronized this Public Storage yet a third time. We intended to rent storage unit #2112 for an indefinite amount of time, and put our belongings in it. Afterwards, I left the building, went over to our car, and waited for my spouse to finish putting our possessions in the storage unit we had rented. 

  A young, thin, tall, black man, who was loitering in the Public Storage parking lot crept over to my car. I looked at him. Suddenly he crouched down towards the ground directly in front of me and said, “Hello” to me. I said, “Hello” back to him. Then, he walked over to a gold colored sedan and stood very close to it while facing its door on the driver’s side so I thought he was the owner of it. The gold sedan was parked next to a patch of grass next to our car. He said and did nothing. The whole time that he was in the parking lot he did not load or unload any belongings into the Public Storage building like all of the other Public Storage patrons we have ever seen did. My spouse joined me by our car. My spouse and I stood there and looked at him. After that, he then got into an old dark blue van parked next to the gold sedan and started to drive away. But, suddenly he stopped his vehicle in the middle of the Public Storage parking lot and yelled at us, “What’s the problem?!” I said, “There is no problem.” Next, without warning, he jumped out of his van and started walking towards us and in a hostile tone of voice yelled, “Why are you staring at me?!” I said, “I’m not staring at you. You said hello to me so I said hello back to you. You were looking at me so I was looking at you.” Next, he got back into his van and angrily sped away. We have patronized this Public Storage facility several times before over the years. We have never witnessed anyone waiting around doing nothing in the Public Storage parking lot, and no one has ever accosted us in a hostile manner and without provocation tried to start a verbal and/or physical fight with us. HOW WEIRD!!! 

  Shocked and upset, we told Athena, who works as the front desk clerk for this Public Storage facility, that we did not feel safe renting a storage unit from this facility anymore due to this black man’s harassment of us. Athena’s only reply was, “He is harmless. He has been renting here for two years. He is not on the same floor as you are.” Athena did not seem the least bit alarmed about the black man’s strange behavior towards us. HOW WEIRD!!! So we emptied out our storage unit and requested that Athena close out our account with Public Storage. Although we had rented unit #2112 for only five minutes, and even though all Athena had to do was hand us back our check, she hassled us about closing our account. Only after we persisted in our request did she do so. She then told us that she reversed the charges on our bill and gave us a copy of the invoices. 

  We returned to our car. As we were starting to drive away, when the same black man in the old dark blue van recklessly pulled into and out of and back into a parking space next to ours for no apparent reason. HOW WEIRD!!!

If the reader is interested in viewing the Public Storage Invoices dated 4/29/12 showing the reversal of charges then please go to hyperlink Public Storage Bill - Reversal of Charges at www.bullcrapbusters.com.

  A few days later we received a postcard in the mail from 7421 South 180th Street, Kent, WA 98032-1046, which was the same Public Storage facility that Athena works at. It stated that we owed $23.47. It said “Public Storage Attention Collections Department.”  

If the reader is interested in viewing the Public Storage Postcard dated 4/30/12 showing the charges still owing then please go to hyperlink Public Storage Postcard - Owing Charges at www.bullcrapbusters.com.

  On 5/9/12 I called Public Storage’s Collections Department located at P.O. Box 25043, Glendale, CA 91221-5043, phone #1800-567-0759 to voice my legitimate complaint that Athena had reversed the charges on our account and then sent us a postcard declaring that we owed money on our account. I spoke to a Margaret. She told me that she would void the balance. Margaret then sent us a follow up letter showing that she had indeed resolved the matter.  

If the reader is interested in viewing the letter dated 5/9/12 sent to us from Margaret from National Collections then please go to hyperlink Letter from Public Storage - National Collections at www.bullcrapbusters.com.

  The one male and Athena’s WEIRD behavior along with our previously STRANGE encounters with the Irvine Police Department and the Orange County Sheriff made us believe that cover police violence was once again being enacted against us. Did the enforcer bully police know that we had recently moved out of Norman Schultz’s place, and therefore hacked into computer data bases that storage facilities use in order to find out if we had put our belongings in a storage facility and if so, which one? Why wasn’t the strange black man busy loading stuff in and out of his storage unit like all the other customers we had met at Public Storage did? Why instead was he bothering us as if he had nothing else in the whole world to do? Was he trying to pick a verbal and/or physical fight with us so that the enforcer bully police woulda, shoulda, coulda know to come to the Public Storage parking lot and frame us for trumped up charges of disorderly conduct or disturbing the peace? Why did Athena defend him and not be the least bit surprised or concerned about his uncalled for hostile behavior towards us?  

  On 11/2/12, out of morbid curiosity, to discern if Athena still worked for Public Storage, I called the Public Storage’s Kent facility and asked for Athena. A man answered the phone and told me, “Athena no longer works for this company.” Suddenly I got deja vu. Several months after we left Bella Sonoma one of their cabana attendants named Jeremy, just like Athena, was no longer working for his company. Jeremey, just like Athena, had been the employee who acted in an indifferent and biased manner towards me with regard to the assault and battery that was enacted against me by another tenant in the gym. [See BullCrap Busters segment entitled “The Landlord Tenant Saga” under the section called “Bella Sonoma” for further details.] The first time that we were patrons of Public Storage’s Kent facility was 11/14 05. That was when we met Athena. The last time we were patrons of Public Storage’s Kent facility was 4/29/12. That was when we saw Athena again. So as far as we knew, Athena had been working for Public Storage for atleast SEVEN YEARS. Was Athena fired from her job since she did not get us into some sort of unwarranted trouble?

BENSON PLAZA

  On 5/2/12 we went to Fred Meyers in Benson Plaza, in the southeastern section of the city of Renton in the state of Washington. We went there to buy some gym bags to transport what was left of our belongings. We figured the gym bags would be more portable than lugging around what remained of our possessions in our two large suitcases. So as with everything else, we gave our two large suitcases away to charity, and bought three duffle bags. One of the duffle bags we used to store some office supplies. Office supplies that I had been using for years to help me write up the BullCrap Busters Website. It was orange. The other two duffle bags we used to store our clothing. They were gray in color.  

  After that, we left Fred Meyer and returned to our car. As we were getting ready to pull out of the Fred Meyer parking lot we saw a Police Sport Utility Vehicle (SUV) that said “Renton Police” on it. We were not able to see into its windows as they were tinted a dark color. It slowly moved towards us. It passed our car and went around our car very slowly. Then it parked a couple of parking spaces away from us. However, no police officer exited the vehicle. While we were leaving Fred Meyer, we debated whether or not to return one of the bags that we had purchased. We did not think that it was necessary to have two bags for our clothing. After a moment or two of discussion, we decided to return one gray duffle bag. But as we pulled into another parking space on the other side of Fred Meyers we noticed that the SUV that said “Renton Police” on it was slowly following us! It passed our car and went around our car very slowly. Then it parked a couple of parking spaces away from us, again. However, no police officer exited the vehicle. We have never ever had a police vehicle follow us in such a manner. HOW WEIRD!!!  

  Suspicious, we got back into our car and exited the Benson Plaza mini mall by making a right hand turn at the signal onto the street. We saw through our rear view mirror that, again, the SUV that said “Renton Police” on it was slowly following us! HOW WEIRD!!! At this point we were certain that the Renton Police were going to pull us over for God knows what reason. As we drove away down the street we saw an olive, green colored car pull out into the street that we were traveling on. It followed a few car lengths behind us. Behind it was the SUV that said, “Renton Police” on it. We passed the next intersection. The olive, green car made a right hand turn at the intersection that we had just passed. Suddenly, the SUV that said “Renton Police” on it slowed down, and without pursuing us any further, made a right hand turn at the same intersection that the olive green car had. Then the SUV that said, “Renton Police” on it turned on its lights but not its siren. After that, the SUV that said “Renton Police” on it sped up and drove away. We have never ever witnessed a police vehicle behave in such a manner. HOW WEIRD!!!

  The Renton Police’s WEIRD behavior along with our previously STRANGE encounters with the Irvine Police Department and the Orange County Sheriff made us believe that cover police violence was once again being enacted against us. Did the enforcer bully police use the photo enforced street cameras in order to locate our whereabouts? Why was the Renton Police hanging around our car without getting out of his vehicle to approach and talk to us? Was the Renton Police waiting for us to leave our car so that he can plant drugs in it or on it and then, when we return to our car, was the Renton Police going to arrest us for illegal possession of drugs? Why was the Renton Police vehicle following us? Having no opportunity to frame us for trumped up charges of dope, did the Renton Police turn on his siren lights and speed away from us to make it seem as if the Renton Police was not after us, after all?

ECONO LODGE HOTEL

  On 6/8/12 we returned to the Econo-Lodge Sea-Tac Hotel located at 13910 Tukwila International Blvd., Room #317, Tukwila, WA 98168. After being gone for the entire month of our stay from 5/8/12 to 6/8/12, in which we paid $1,600.00 to rent there, we came back to retrieve our $100.00 deposit. My spouse went into the hotel lobby while I stayed in the car. My spouse reported to me that while John Singh, the manager/owner of the hotel, was returning our money to us he asked my spouse, “Where have you been?” My spouse told him “Here, there, and everywhere.” Then John Singh asked my spouse, “Where are you going?” My spouse told him, “I don’t know. Our plans change and the changes to the plans change.” A few moments later, I came into the hotel to use its bathroom but it was locked so I went to the lobby to get a key. There was John Singh at the front desk. He asked me, “Where have you been?” I told him “We travel a lot.” After that he asked me “Where are you going? I told him, “We are leaving the area.” We have arrived and departed from many-a-hotel on both a short term and long term basis but we have never ever had the hotel staff ask us where we have been and where we are going. HOW WEIRD!!!  

  The WEIRD behavior of the manager of the Econo Lodge hotel along with our previously STRANGE encounters with the Irvine Police Department and the Orange County Sheriff made us believe that cover police violence was once again being enacted against us. Did the enforcer bully police hack into databases that hotels use to check guests’ arrivals and departures in order to locate our whereabouts? Why did John Singh, the manager/owner of Econo Lodge, ask us where we have been and where we were going when we came to his front desk to check us out of his hotel?  

If the reader is interested in viewing the Econo-Lodge Bill dated 5/8/12 through 6/8/12 then please go to hyperlink Econo-Lodge Bill at www.bullcrapbusters.com.

  While we were going through our Jason Bourne Chase/America’s Most Wanted Hunt covert POLICE VIOLENCE ordeal, we contacted our old, criminal defense attorney, Mathew Kaestner located at 555 E. Ocean Blvd., Suite 605, Long Beach, CA 90802, phone: 562-437-0200. We were hoping that he might be able to help us in some way or advise us as to what to do about being victims of police bullying. After all, he was our criminal defense attorney for the bogus annoying phone call charges that had been brought against us by the malicious vicious prosecution of the Irvine Police Department and the City of Irvine. We paid him $5,000.00 to represent us. He got the Orange County District Attorney’s Office to drop the charges. When we called Mattew Kaestner for his assistance, he offered to represent us by working through an attorney whom he knew that was licensed to practice law in the state of Washington. However, when we agreed to this arrangement, he refused to talk to us, and flat out hung up on us without any explanation as to why!!! IN THAT MOMENT OUR FORMER CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYER MATTEW KAESTNER WENT FROM HERO TO ZERO IN OUR BOOK!!!

  The above incidents are the only ones we have been able to document that offer any clues as to whether or not we are just reading our own mystery novel or really undergoing actual terrorism in the country of our origin due to covert POLICE VIOLENCE. This write-up is dedicated to those who are living and dead who have undergone this same sort of POLICE VIOLENCE. So far, we have prevailed against the ongoing covert POLICE VIOLENCE that we have reason to believe is being enacted against us. We do not know the motive for why the enforcer bully police has targeted us for victimization. We believe it is because we exercise our human rights.
www.bullcrapbusters.com