You can get the details here (graphic pictures attached). According to the web site of Minutemen American Defense (a group affiliated with the Minuteman Project), Shawna Forde, MAD's Director, was beaten and raped in her Everett home on December 29. Just one week earlier, her husband was shot three times, also at their home.
The MAD web site seems to imply the attacks might have something to do with her work investigating drug cartel operations. So far there's no official word on where the investigations might be headed. The Everett Police have released a sketch of the shooting suspect.
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
Posted by pudge at January 02, 2009 01:26 PM | Email ThisAs citizens, we have a responsibility to make sure criminal elements do not run our society. There are millions of us and only a handful of them. Let's all do our part to keep crime down by following their example.
My thoughts and prayers to the family as well.
Posted by: Jonathan Gardner on January 2, 2009 01:46 PMIt is unlikely that you will read this for various reasons one could make an educated guess why not. Nonetheless, enjoy knowing that law enforcement has your DNA. Until the end of your life, you be hunted down and legally liable for the injuries you have caused. Look forward to a little "eye for an eye" in prison, in a slightly less convenient fashion by fellow inmates.
Best of wishes to my neighbors Mr. and Mrs. Forde.
Posted by: Boxxerace on January 2, 2009 02:12 PM..and WOW- it looks like they omitted some MAJOR details.
This was no boating accident. Thanks MSM for covering up for the drug cartels- we wouldn't want American's to think there was a problem or anything.
Posted by: Andy on January 2, 2009 03:19 PMAs someone who lives near Everett. I'll ask my medics for more info that is missing?
So were the bad guys mad about border crossing or what?
damn so little info.
Thanks Pudge.
Posted by: Medic/Vet on January 2, 2009 05:25 PMSuspect calls ambush an orderPosted by: Rick D. on January 2, 2009 07:28 PMSarah Black allegedly told police she was told to lure a rival gang member outside as a target in a drive-by shooting.
By Diana Hefley Herald Writer EVERETT -- A north Everett woman who police believe is a recruiter for a violent street gang allegedly told investigators she was just following orders when she lured a rival gang member outside to be shot.Sarah Black, 30, was charged earlier this week with first- degree assault in a June 11 drive-by shooting in south Everett. A boy, 16, was struck twice by gunfire. He likely will suffer long-term nerve damage to his arm, prosecutors said.
Black is accused of helping plan the ambush and driving the car. She allegedly sent the teen a message on his MySpace account, posing under the fictitious name "Lady Killer," to lure him outside, court documents show.
On Friday, Black told a judge she was not guilty.
She appeared in Snohomish County Superior Court from jail via video camera. The tattoos on her face were barely visible on the television screen.
Black has an "M" and an "S" tattooed on the sides of her mouth. A "13" is inked below her lips. Police believe the tattoo is a tribute to MS-13, a notorious international gang known for extreme violence.
Snohomish County Superior Court Judge David Kurtz ordered Black held on $100,000 bail. She also was ordered not to have any contact with known MS-13 members or to leave the state.
Black has ties to California and El Salvador, both places known to be home to numerous MS-13 members, prosecutors said. The gang was started by refugees from El Salvador who fled to the U.S. to escape the country's civil war.
Investigators recovered letters from Black's north Everett home showing ongoing communication with an MS-13 leader incarcerated in the Washington State Penitentiary in Walla Walla, court documents show.
The gunfire in Everett likely was retaliation for a shooting at the Northgate Mall in Seattle in February, prosecutors wrote. An alleged MS-13 member was struck by rival gunfire in the parking lot. An Everett teen is accused of pulling the trigger.
The victim in the drive-by shooting in south Everett was with the shooter during the Seattle incident, according to court documents.
Black has spoken with investigators at least three times since her arrest. She allegedly told them she is a recruiter for the gang, saying, "I run MS in Washington," prosecutors wrote.
Black has spent time in prison for a 2003 drive-by shooting in Eastern Washington. The shooting was believed to be the work of MS-13 members who had a dispute with another group of people, court records show.
Black allegedly told investigators three gang members came up from California last month. The men, nicknamed "Panterra," "Dopey" and "Droopy," directed her to get her "homies" together for a meeting at her north Everett house. In the hours before the drive-by shooting, a dozen people gathered to talk about problems with other gangs in the area and the shooting outside the Northgate Mall, court documents show.
An MS-13 member named "Snoopy" had given the direction to target the Everett teenager, prosecutors wrote.
"I just do what I'm told," Black reportedly told detectives.
Black allegedly said "Droopy" was in the front seat when they drove up to the teenager. Black told detectives "Droopy" shot the teenager, according to police.
The gunman hasn't been arrested. Two Seattle area teens also were arrested in connection with the shooting. Ronald A. Gomez, 16, and Armando Lopez, 17, also are charged with first-degree assault. They are believed to have been in the back seat of the car.
On Tuesday, an Auburn teenager was sentenced to 19 years in prison for a 2006 gang-related shooting in the same neighborhood. The victim, Dennis Riojas, 19, was shot in the back as he tried to scale a fence near his home.
Hopefully the police are very active in their investigation and will be bringing someone in on this very disturbing case. This is one of the most dangerous street gangs out there. Godspeed to the Fords on their recovery and the police on getting these pieces of fecal matter either deported or jailed....or dead!
In Mexico, it's very common for drug cartels to use violence to silence journalists who report on their industry. If the Fordes were providing information on cartel members to law enforcement, or posting information online, they could've become targets that way. Pudge is right though, we just don't know enough yet to know what's really going on.
Posted by: thehim on January 3, 2009 09:51 AMhttp://heraldnet.com/article/20090103/NEWS01/701039902
Handy background for faking bruises with makeup ...
Posted by: cat on January 3, 2009 11:23 AMDespite the best efforts of the ACLU and other libtard groups we still live in the USA and not the Northern Mexician Territory Once Known as Washington.
Posted by: Rich on January 3, 2009 01:55 PMHowever, i have to agree the pictures "look" fake. I'm not an expert, but after reading comments here -especially about the lack of swelling & deep wounds -something isn't right here. Take another look at these photo's. By faking it, she has just lost any credibility & probably broke another law.
Did her own hate & anger over her husbands shooting provoke her to fake this?
Why would 3 guys beat her, rape her, cat scratch her with a knife, no actual wounds, fill the bathtub with water & leave her alive? It doesn't make sense. I suppose it could be they got spooked & abruptly left before finishing the deed.
I don't know. After viewing her website: http://www.minutemenamericandefense.us/ and the exact opposite of her website: http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?pid=1522 ---i have to come to the conclusion that hate only attracts hate, and i am sure we haven't heard the last of Shawna Forde.
Posted by: cme on January 3, 2009 02:07 PMAs a former BPA, I have no qualms with Shawna Forde's methods. Last time I checked, defending the Constitution didn't rise to the level of a "hate crime" as indicated by some that have no idea what they're talking about.
Actually, if this country followed the lead of groups like the ACLU and ended the drug war
@ 21 thehim/ HA Lee~
Interesting take Lee. Did you realize that the ACLU defended a child molester in MA pro bono, i.e. Free of charge?
Posted by: Rick D. on January 3, 2009 02:24 PMThey defended someone even more heinous once, Rush Limbaugh. The ACLU takes on cases pro bono in order to ensure that all people's civil liberties are protected. That's a noble cause, whether you understand it or not.
I'm proud to be a supporter of the ACLU and very proud of the system our founding fathers set up for ensuring that everyone in this country is innocent until proven guilty.
Posted by: thehim on January 3, 2009 02:47 PMThanks Lee. I couldn't make a case for your insanity any more convincing than your statement above.
Posted by: Rick D. on January 3, 2009 02:52 PMApologies to Pudge for the off topic subject matter.
The family of Jeffrey Curley, of Cambridge, Mass., claims that NAMBLA, through its website, incited the molestation and murder of the youngster in 1997.Using the First Amendment's guarantees of freedom of speech and freedom of association as their legal justification, the Massachusetts chapter of the ACLU said it will defend NAMBLA.
"Under the First Amendment, there are no illegal ideas," the ACLU said in a statement defending their decision. "Those who commit illegal acts can be punished for wrongful conduct, but the expression of even offensive ideas is protected by our Constitution."
One of two men convicted in the murder, Charles Jaynes, 25, allegedly viewed the NAMBLA site shortly before he murdered Jeffrey Curley. He also possessed NAMBLA publications. (Also convicted of murder was 24-year-old Salvatore Sicari.)
These men were sexually obsessed with young Jeffrey. They lured him from his neighborhood by promising him a new bike. They then smothered him with a gasoline-soaked rag when he resisted their sexual advances. Jaynes allegedly molested the boy after he was dead. They then stuffed the boy into a concrete-filled container, which they dumped into a river.
Lawrence Frisoli, the Curley's attorney, said, "The commission of crimes is not constitutionally protected by the First Amendment. They participate. That's the allegation of the lawsuit, that the organization is participating in the rape of children."
Mr. Frisoli says that NAMBLA assists its members in raping children by educating them on how to locate victims, how to gain their trust and how to avoid law enforcement so they won't get caught.
While NAMBLA says it "speaks out against societal oppression and celebrates the joys of men and boys in love," the fact is that their information appears to have been utilized by one of the two killers just prior to the commission of their unspeakable crime.
According to the Associated Press, ACLU officials said that NAMBLA argues for changes in society's views about consensual sex between adults and minors and a lowering of the age-of-consent. Harvey Silverglate, an ACLU board member, told AP that NAMBLA does not advocate illegal acts and, even if it did, that, too, would be protected by the First Amendment -- even though it is illegal in Massachusetts to have sex with a child under 16.
While I do not discount that fakery is possible -- we can all recall examples of such things -- it is beneath contempt to state categorically, without serious evidence, that she has faked anything.
Being skeptical is a good and healthy thing, but none us knows what actually happened, and none of us has any serious evidence of anything.
So many jurisdictions are addicted to the money tree of fighting this so called war on drugs. They could be much smaller and much less of a tax burden if you take drugs out of the equation.
Posted by: Joe Band Member on January 3, 2009 05:09 PMI'll never tell you that the ACLU is perfect, or that I agree with everything they do, but I'm glad to have people like them at the front lines of protecting our basic rights.
Posted by: thehim on January 3, 2009 05:30 PMUm. Since the Herald didn't cover their missing child, you therefore determine it must be a hoax?
What is wrong with you?
Posted by: pudge on January 3, 2009 11:13 PMAgain: being skeptical is fine. Drawing conclusions based on incomplete information and cynical guesswork just makes you look unserious, at best.
um yeah, Ruth Bader Ginsburg (former ACLU attorney) really protected our basic rights in the Kelo vs. New London decision, right Lee?
I've worked with enough crime victims over the years to know that they don't call the local newspaper seeking coverage of their story -- especially if they truly fear for their life.
Your reasoning is specious. Consider the victim in this case: taking the story at face value, her whole purpose here is to uncover and expose these people. She already knew her life was at risk due to the nature of her activities, and she continued anyway.
I also find the photos to be suspect; there appears to be no swelling and there should be if she received the kind of beating she claims.
I completely disagree that there appears to be no swelling.
If this story is true, it is tragic.
Tragic, compounded by the specious claims of you and others, about what victims "don't" do and about what they think they see or don't see in photos.
This person was also convicted of shoplifting a couple of years ago. The papers misreported the story, IMO, so I didn't get a good read. But, she did plead guilty.
Posted by: swatter on January 5, 2009 08:03 AMI'm willing to let this play out before I lock and load.
As should always be the case.
This person was also convicted of shoplifting a couple of years ago. The papers misreported the story, IMO, so I didn't get a good read. But, she did plead guilty.
Her story is plausible: IIRC, she says she put them in her pocket while she was shopping, she ran out to say Hi to a friend, she pled guilty because she wanted to get beyond it because she has been out of state a lot, in Arizona.
The fact that you, without any evidence of any kind, accuse her of attempted murder means you have nothing actually interesting to say.
After first posting, I saw the photos. I suppose the geniuses commenting on the authenticity of the photos have some backup and cred so I can judge they know what they are talking about?
I have nothing to judge them by. I just hope Shawna takes care of herself and doesn't get wasted by whackos or the terrorists for exposing the corruption regarding illegals.
Posted by: swatter on January 6, 2009 06:50 AMIt was a Massachussetts case, acid brain, but you're right they defended not an individual child molester, but an organization that actively supports child molestation, i.e. North American Man/Boy Love Association which implies multiple child molesters...
Which makes it even more heinous when you throw in the Pro Bono work the ACLU did for them on the case.
Posted by: Rick D. on January 6, 2009 09:50 PMClick Here> to hear her recount exactly what went down, when three or four unknown assailants shot her husband multiple times, and then merely a week later, audaciously returned to beat and rape her while he remains hospitalized.
Scroll down at NoCompromise Radio (via blogtalkradio) and select Play, or Download, and listen carefully to the entire interview.
Please leave your insightful comments as to what you think actually may have happened in this case. Did Shawna clear things up for you - or, do you have more questions?
Click here> to go to NoCompromise's website, and add your commentary!
-ThoughtRogue
Posted by: ThoughtRogue on January 7, 2009 09:41 AM