Is eyewitness testimony going to be “true” in the pending criminal allegation case facing ASHLEY NICOLE MILLER, in Killeen, Texas?
Often the Gospel of John has been interpreted as having only spiritual truths that are not anchored in history, in time and place. It is also thought to be a strictly theological document hence this proves that an eye witnesses word is not always true.
By Dean A. Ayers
Lead Investigative Reporter
http://NationalDogPress.us/ ©
Article 4 of an ongoing series
13 Jan 12
BACKGROUND HISTORY OF INCIDENT INVOLVING ASHLEY NICOLE MILLER AND HER DOGS
The saga began in Killeen, Texas in the year (2011). Animal Control Authorities never notified Ashley N. Miller of the impoundment of her pets. They knew that the person who surrendered her pets to animal control authorities was not the owner and they also knew who the dogs belonged to.
In turn, Killeen, TX Animal Control told Ashley N. Miller that she could not get her pets back without paying $2,400 and Animal Control Authorities in Killeen, TX also increased the rate on her dogs daily and did not offer a payment plan. They did this without a hearing, and without legally obtaining custody through a judge for Ashley N. Miller’s dogs. No form of constitutional "Due Process" was given in regards to Ashley N. Miller’s dogs which are considered property under the law.
Killeen, TX Animal Control Authorities then sent Ashley's dogs to four known rescue organizations that are refusing to return them to her. Ashley N. Miller is working on filing a petition against the city of Killeen, TX as well as suing the four rescues involved who have allegedly STOLEN her dogs without legal “Due Process.” Ashley N. Miller has stated that the demand letters for the rescues to return her dogs have been sent from her attorney's office and received by the four separate rescues. Ashley sincerely wants to help pass "Apollo's Law" through Congress to help prosecute those who wrongfully steal another person's property. Ashley N. Miller states, “Every person who is arrested is entitled to "due process" and a protection of life, liberty and property as listed in the U.S. Constitution.” “If anything, the rights to what we are entitled to federally need to be defended freely and at no charge.” These governmental entities and rescue organizations need to be held accountable for their alleged illegal, illicit, and immoral dog and animal seizure actions without proper and legal “Due Process” of case precedent law just as anyone else would expect in justice. Yet, Ashley N. Miller still continues to fight for her dogs allegedly “STOLEN” by Animal Control Authorities and various Animal (So-Called) Rescues without any proper and legal “due process.”
This is the “fourth” article in the ongoing series of articles by this Lead Investigative Reporter in following the plight of Ashley N. Miller, from Killeen, TX in her desperate struggle to be re-united with her beloved dogs, pets and animals, allegedly STOLEN from her by government Animal Control Authorities, and subsequently allegedly RAVISHED in THEFT by several Texas rescue facilities without proper and legal “due process” of case precedent law.
As this incident is still on-going, this Investigative Reporter will “digress” to the subject of what people “do” in events involving law enforcement or animal control authorities.
Witness Testimony for the prosecution in a criminal case can be shaped by culture, stereotypes, past experience, or their personal prejudice
A new article by Judith Redman is that even if the gospels do record eyewitness testimony that is no guarantee of their accuracy ("How Accurate Are Eyewitnesses? Bauckham and the Eyewitnesses in the Light of Psychological Research,” Journal of Biblical Literature [Spring 2010]: 177-97).
Redman says that eyewitness memory is typically called autobiographical memory in the psychological literature. She writes:
Autobiographical memory has three major components: verbal narrative, imagery, and emotions.
Autobiographical memories are often recalled as stories told to others. The images associated with them lead to the specific, concrete details that make them seem more accurate and believable, while the emotions associated with them can have profound effects on how effectively people can retrieve autobiographical memories. Remembering involves a three-stage process of acquisition (encoding), retention (storage), and retrieval. Changes in content can be introduced at all of these stages, and there are significant numbers of different factors that can cause these changes.
First, Redman deals with aspects of memory acquisition or encoding. This is how the eyewitness experiences the initial event and there are at least five variables that impact his or her ability to perceive the event accurately.
1. Expectations. What witnesses expect to see or hear can affect the way they perceive an event. Expectations can be shaped by culture, stereotypes, past experience, or personal prejudice. . . .
2. Type of fact. People tend to find it more difficult to remember things that they need to estimate such as height, weight, distance, numbers of people in large groups, and duration of activities or events. . . .
3. Event significance and detail salience or prominence. In order to remember something, a person needs to attend to it, and, since it is impossible for an individual to attend to all the stimuli in his or her environment at any given time, s/he selects those things to which s/he will attend, often unconsciously.
4. The personality and interests of the witness. Both of these factors affect how significant and salient particular events and the details of those events are to a particular eyewitness. All people are better at remembering some things than others, but the strengths and weaknesses vary from person to person. . . . The personalities and interests of eyewitnesses will determine what each finds interesting, surprising, potentially important, and therefore more memorable . . . . Material pleasing to the witness is likely to be elaborated on while displeasing material is likely to be distorted . . . . Events that are very surprising and have a high level of importance or emotional arousal give rise to "flashbulb memories" that are especially vivid and appear to be frozen in time, as though in a photograph. People may have flashbulb memories of where they were and what they were doing when they heard about public events like 9/11 or the first moon landing, as well as similarly significant but more private events like the birth of a baby or the tragic death of a loved one. Eyewitnesses to Jesus' miracles and to his post resurrection appearances would be expected to have formed flashbulb memories of these events. Flashbulb memories are often considered to be exceptionally accurate, yet research indicates that, like other memories, they deteriorate over time and are not always as accurate as the person remembering thinks they are. Indeed, recent evidence suggests that flashbulb memories actually develop over the first week after the event, taking into consideration what is learned from discussion with others.
5. Observational point of view and perceptual adequacy, or how well the observer can see and hear what is happening.
All of the above 5 points are important in understanding the potential problems with eyewitness testimony and how inaccuracies can develop but #4 if of particular significance. Many apologists would maintain that the resurrection appearances would have been so unique and unexpected that the disciples would have retained vivid and precise memories of the events for their entire lives. But as Redman indicates, studies have shown that even these "flashbulb memories" can be unreliable in the details.
Witness testimony can be exacerbated by the frequent telling and retelling of these memories
Flashbulb memories are influenced by the consolidation that takes place during the first week or so after the flashbulb event. . . . Flashbulb memories are subject to the same laws as other episodic memories. People assume that memories are not fully formed initially but take time to consolidate. During this consolidation processes, memories are especially malleable.
Information can be added to the memories
Even more likely, details can be lost. . . . As specific details are forgotten, they might be replaced with schema-consistent details. This would be exacerbated by the frequent telling and retelling of these memories.
How do witnesses contribute to wrongful prosecutions or convictions involving their memory?
Eyewitness errors are involved in a very high proportion of wrongful convictions. There are several factors contributing to the impact of such errors, one obvious factor is insufficient knowledge about the fallibility of human perception and memory among both witnesses and the chief players in the judicial system. Decisions based on erroneous psychological folklore pose a threat to criminal justice. To evaluate this question we are carrying out a series of large-scale surveys, probing the knowledge and beliefs about memory in general and about eyewitness testimony in particular, among judges, jurors and potential jurors, and psychologists and psychiatrists, and compare the lay beliefs with well-established memory science.
Factors affecting the perceived credibility of eyewitnesses in a criminal case
Extensive research has documented that judgments of witness credibility are unreliable, and that it is almost impossible to discriminate between lying and truth-telling witnesses based on witness behavior. Credibility judgments are never the less part of the social judgments in everyday life and in court. Research on implicit social cognition shows that social stereotypes influence social judgments despite explicit denial of such stereotypes.
A disconcerting trend is sweeping America in a lack of “due process” in Animal Laws
The Disconcerting TREND…Costly and destructive animal laws and ordinances being constructed solely by the Animal Rightists with their “lobbied” legislators at all levels of government. The reason stems from an all-out effort by Animal Rightist organizations, shelters, and rescues to lobby every single law maker or prosecuting attorney, or justice enforcer, to include the judicial judges and attorneys in every locale, township, county, city, and state in the U.S.A., Canada and even worldwide. These Animal Rights Activists are searching out lawmakers and animal law enforcers to exploit and further their twisted and “perverted” agenda to destroy any authority or ability for a private property owner to legally retain and defend their pets and animals as their extended family.
It's hard to comprehend, but the leadership of the largest and most profitable "non-profit" lobbying Animal Rights organizations worldwide has an ambitious goal in mind: Destroying all usage and ownership of domestic animals. That includes, but is not limited to, abolishing pet ownership in every aspect of our society worldwide.
How Does Due Process Apply to Dog Confiscation, Seizure and Euthanasia Cases by Animal Control Authorities?
The following legal brief is a synopsis of the evidence of alleged illegal, illicit and immoral actions taken by Killeen, TX Animal Control Authorities and possibly their Law Enforcement Authorities Assisting, in Killeen, TX governmental “WRONGFUL TAKING AND THEFT” of Ashley N. Miller’s dogs, pets, and animals WITHOUT LEGAL “DUE PROCESS” as established by Case Precedent in the Law (detailed below).
Ashley N. Miller’s dogs are still considered property in all legal jurisdictions today, due process, whether rooted in the federal or state constitutions, extends to life, liberty, or property. The more complicated issue, however, is how much process is due Ashley N. Miller?
The Supreme Court has promulgated a four prong test to determine this. In each situation, a court must weigh
A. the private interest affected by the official action
B. the risk of an erroneous deprivation of that interest through the procedures used,
C. the probable value of additional procedural safeguards, and
D. the government interest involved.
Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335 (1976).
Due process requires the opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.
Rabon v. City of Seattle (Rabon II), 107 Wash.App. 734, 743 (2001) (citing Mathews, 424 U.S. at 333). Thus, when individuals can show they will suffer irreparable harm from a post-deprivation hearing, courts has recognized that a pre-deprivation hearing is necessary. In the case of orders to euthanize pets, many courts have considered the loss to the pet owner as irreparable.
Before the Hearing: Filing a Petition for a Preliminary Injunction
Dog owners should file a petition for an injunction to delay the killing of the dog until they have had the chance to be heard in court (For an actual example, see Petition for Preliminary and Permanent Injunction in the case of Wilson v. City of St. Louis (1990), which involved a Pit Bull named “Max” who was impounded and classified as dangerous because he allegedly killed the neighbor’s dog. The Circuit Court found that the plaintiff would suffer irreparable harm if the preliminary injunction was not granted and enjoined the city from killing or otherwise harming Max. The court ordered the city to release Max and change his dangerous designation to potentially dangerous.)
Overriding the Decision - Petition for a Writ of Mandamus
Due process includes more than just going through the motions of a hearing. In fact, even after hearings have been granted, decisions can be challenged as a prejudicial abuse of discretion that is not based on findings of fact or law. (This is what the owners of Boo, a bull mastiff who allegedly bit a child, argued in Williams v. Orange County Animal Control (1996)). In this case, owners should file a Petition for a Writ of Mandamus, a judicial remedy issued by a superior court to compel a government officer to do or forbear from doing a specific act, to delay the euthanasia order until the appeal can be heard. This writ of mandamus applies in any situation in which the euthanasia should be stayed, including scenarios in which an original hearing was never given.
Minimum Standards of Due Process for the Hearing
It is now also clear that hearings must meet certain minimum standards. Informal reviews that animal control agencies frequently provide upon the dog owners request often do not fulfill these requirements, because the decision-maker may not be qualified to render the judgment or may not be impartial if he also made the original decision to euthanize the dog. For example, in Phillips v San Luis Obispo County Dept., 228 Cal.Rptr. 101 Cal.App. (2 Dist., 1986), the owners of Missy, a black lab known to have a bad habit of biting children, contested the city’s decision to euthanize her. The amicus brief filed by Joyce Tischler of the Animal Legal Defense Fund pointed out the Municipal Codes at issue did not provide for the Animal Regulation Directors orders to be reviewed by the Chief Sanitarian of the County Health Department or the supervising environmental health officer, the two individuals who presided over the first and second hearings.
Challenges to the Ordinance Itself
In fact, many city ordinances are flawed in that they fail to specify that owners are entitled to hearings before their pets are euthanized. These municipal codes can be challenged as unconstitutional and, even if the city already granted hearings that met minimum due process standards, the decision to euthanize the pet would still have to be overturned. Otherwise, whether dog owners generally would receive due process would be at the whim of the animal control agency, and the city could avoid having to correct its municipal codes simply by voluntarily giving all dog owners a hearing. The court of appeals in Missy’s case agreed, concluding that the ordinances here are unconstitutional for failure to provide for notice and a hearing either before or after the seizure of an uncontrollable biting or vicious dog.
Most recently, in a landmark case, the court of appeals in Mansour v. King County, 128 P.3d 1241 (Wash.App. Div. 1, 2006) held that due process required even more than offering owners a hearing, ordering that an agency seeking to enforce a removal order must prove both the violation and the remedy it has imposed by a preponderance of the evidence. This is the same standard of proof imposed on the government when it attempts to temporarily remove a child from the custody of his parents. By instituting a burden of proof on the city, the court was essentially finding that the dog must be presumed innocent until the city can prove otherwise. Previously, there had been no standard of proof, and reviewing courts would only look to see if Animal Control had acted arbitrarily or capriciously. Thus, even the most minimal evidence that a dog should be removed would suffice, and owners would bear the burden of proving their pets innocent. Moreover, the court found that due process attached not only for orders to euthanize an animal, but also for orders of removal outside the county (Peter Mansour had been ordered to remove his dog from the county or turn his dog over to the city to be euthanized after his dog was accused of killing a cat).
Finally, the court held that due process required Mansour to have the ability to subpoena records and witnesses in his defense, and that the Notice and Order of Violation had to specify exactly what code provisions had been violated. Merely issuing a brief and concise description of the conditions for finding the violation is insufficient. Mansour was entitled to know ahead of time exactly what the County needed to prove at the Board hearing. If in fact it could not prove that Maxine violated a code provision that supported the removal order, he [Mansour] was entitled to know that in time to move for a dismissal at the Board level. Source Reference: Animal Legal and Historical Center.
What exactly is the end result of surfacing “questionable” witness accuracy and “surfacing” alleged witness collusion on Facebook Pages to allegedly alter the truth in Killeen, Texas animal law cases?
It involves the “Power to Control We the People” and to CONTROL the outcome of the “CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM” thru our dogs, pets, and animals and alleged BIAS' of witnesses colluding in their testimonies.
Thus ensuing corruption contained within the intent to “pervert” influence in the animal laws and animal ordinances aids Animal Rights Activists in the accumulation of wielding more power over the people and to establish a “war chest” of financial wealth thru the very destruction of dog, cat, and pet ownership in animal law thru fees, fines, confiscations, seizures and criminal citations. Using and exploiting lawmakers wherever they deem necessary, the Animal Rightist goal of achieving power and wealth at public animal owner expense is in full force.
Even when lawmakers pursue their own agendas, where animal ordinances are concerned, the lawmaker is still a pawn of these Animal Rightist lobbyists. Allegedly by means of having lawmakers being “bought and paid for” thru major financial contributions and donations or other “perks” to get the law makers to make animal laws, according to the agendas of the Animal Rightists.
Fighting Animal Rightist Ideology and helping County, City or State Councils to Properly Reform our “perverted” Animal Rightist Law Agendas, is The Moral of This Story: The lesson to be learned by We the People is that by the time Animal Rightists have taken our counties, municipalities and states hostage and “their” perverted animal laws and ordinances pass, no one knows what has hit them until it is way too late to react with any authority to act.
TO BE CONTINUED – The Saga of alleged Animal Control "THEFT" and Rescue "UNLAWFUL TAKING" of dogs from Ashley N. Miller without “DUE PROCESS” of Law, in Killeen, Texas continues.
Ashley N. Miller is a war veteran whose dogs were wrongfully taken from her and “We the People” are fighting to get her dogs back home! Please follow the series of articles on Ashley N. Miller and feel free to share this article with everyone world-wide and on the Internet. Read Ashley's story and help these dogs come home. Thank you and God Bless to each of you who help get the word out.
STAY TUNED FOR PART 5 in this article series published originally at http://NationalDogPress.us/
"The truth is rarely pure and never simple." ~ Dean A. Ayers
###
Dean A. Ayers is a prior United States Air Force Special Agent for the AFOSI. His duties included that of law enforcement specialist, criminal, fraud, and counter-intelligence. He was assigned to felony crimes in federal government, fraud, waste and abuse investigations of the military branches of service, and counter-intelligence in overseas locations. Dean was also a former Texas State Commissioned Alamo State Park Armed Ranger.
Dean is currently Director, Animals C.L.U.B.- Freedom National Organization Incorporated (Nonprofit) and Dean is also a Lead Investigative Reporter for the NationalDogPress.us © and AnimalsClubFreedom.us news press services.
Animals C.L.U.B.- Freedom National Organization Incorporated (Non-Profit)
"The truth is rarely pure and never simple."
PLEASE DONATE to Animals C.L.U.B.- Freedom National Organization Incorporated (Non-Profit) BY CLICKING ON THE PAYPAL LINK BELOW:
https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=6721925
Fair Use Notice: Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C. 107, other copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, research, critical comment, or debate without profit or payment. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for your own purposes beyond the 'fair use' exception, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
Legal Disclaimer: The information, articles, or links (posted, embedded or otherwise) to the above postings are provided to give readers more information on general dog-related or associated subjects and are not intended as legal advice. All individuals are urged to contact licensed attorneys in their states regarding specific legal issues.
Copyright © 2006-2012, Animals C.L.U.B.- Freedom National Organization Incorporated (Non-Profit) Iowa 2009, NationalDogPress.us News, All Rights Reserved. Copying and Re-posting is only approved if the entire article and its embedded links are kept intact.
Animal Rights and The Humane Society Animal Control Authorities - It's a Terrible Scam (VIDEO)
Dean A. Ayers, Lead Investigative Reporter, NationalDogPress.us Giving a Detailed History Commentary Interview on Animal Rights, HSUS, Humane Society, PETA, and Animal Laws.
ADVERTISEMENT
ATHENA SOFIA J. MARTIN, Star Model, National Dog Press
Posted by Dogpressorg on 04/12/2012 at 01:48 AM in Animal Law, Animal Rights, Animal Rights Humane Society - It's a Terrible Scam (VIDEO), Articles by Dean A. Ayers, ATHENA, ATHENA - SEXY, Athena Sofia J. Martin, Athena Sofia J. Martin – Star Model, HOT Pics of the Day! National Dog Press, Athena Sofia J. Martin, is an OMG Sexual Goddess, Unleashed!, Athena Sofia J. Martin, Star Model, National Dog Press, The Hottest Girl on the Planet!, Athena Sofia J. Martin, star model; a pretty girl naked, worth a million statues, commentary information, Current Affairs, Dog Law, Dog Licensing Is An Outrage Your Pet Belongs to You, Not the Government, Dog ordinance 'number limits' in Animal Laws are not logical or valid – Will You Help Fight This Animal Control Tyranny?, Dog Owner “due process” is not contained in current Animal Law, Dog Owner “due process” is not contained in current Animal Law – The Questions and Answers, Dogs, Film | Permalink
Digg This | Save to del.icio.us