Justice for Perri, the victim exposing cruel veterinary scheme. Court hear cases!

0 have signed. Let’s get to 1,500!

Photo evidence, that proves fraud, posted on Facebook includes sex scandal at veterinary practice

Legal System practices Catholic "Dangerous Psychology" is Demonic Part 4

Judges practice Catholic Social Action in Court is illegal! Part 3

Judges practice their Catholic upbringing in Court: A Cruel Trap Part 2

Justices and Judges practicing their Catholic upbringing in Court is Outrageous Part 1

Abusive sex culture at Contra Costa County Judicial System

Patch letter to District Attorney Mark Peterson

Click here for Perri's website

I received harassing/threatening emails from my attorney Jane Elliot in April 2016 while waiting for my final court "paperwork".  The judge changed my guilty plea to not guilty and dismissed the case, but that is not enough!  The criminal case was a set-up to shut me up about the  corrupt government judicial system and veterinary practice.  I spent almost a year in jail which included about 3 months at Napa State Hospital.  I was put on a dangerous drug, Olanzapine, for paranoid schizophrenia which I do not have. I have PTSD and the U.S. government keeps triggering my condition.  I lost my two beloved dogs, my home, my business, my part-time job, my vehicle, my credit cards, etc... - I was left destitute. While I was out on bail the Concord police would enter my home, deactivating my ADT home alarm system, on several occasions.  The local police and sheriff's deputies would follow me as I drove to and from work, as if hunting me.  While I was researching my civil case against the veterinary practice law enforcement drove by me with their rifles pointing in the air.  One time I was driving down a main street in Concord, CA, it was dark out, and I heard a "bang", like a gun shot, there was a car to the right, all of a sudden there was a collision (perhaps a rear-end).  I called the police to report it. Both cases are court scams! because the law enforcement, judicial system and government are debauched.

On June 21, 2011, Ms. Perri Mink was arrested by the Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Department under Penal Code Section 76(a), (Threatening a judge), and jailed.  Bail was set at $250,000.00. 

On June 17, 2011, Ms. Mink sent a letter she wrote to Judge Barbara Zuniga who was the judge that ruled on Ms. Mink’s civil case, Mink v. Encina Veterinary Clinic, Inc., (dba Encina Veterinary Hospital), et al, Case Number MSC08-00931, that she filed in April 2006(Correction: April 4, 2008), complaining that she had been defrauded almost $20,000 by a veterinary practice, that emphasized the severe trauma, malicious use of drugs, intentional destruction that included the veterinarian running a dog lab (using Ms. Mink’s dog as a science project), and secret sexual deviance (false pretenses) perpetrated on Ms. Mink and her beloved Chinese Pug dog, Elvira. Judge Zuniga instructed law enforcement to arrest Ms. Mink claiming that the letter was a threat to her life because Ms. Mink was violent.  The 4 page, numbered letter, included on page 1, “Re:” (meaning, regarding or reference to) and listed the civil case, a Writ of Mandate (filed June 26, 2009), and 2 appeals, and that the case had not been taken seriously, and as such, the case was dismissed.  Within the “Re:”, Ms. Mink wrote a hypothetical case that emphasized the destructive and heinous nature of her civil case using creative writing and specifically stating, “…the government practices this way (sex obsession, stealing tax payer’s money, ruining innocent people’s lives through bullying and club mentality).”  “government practices” refers to the judicial system including the judges.   Page 2 begins with a salutation, “Dear Hon. Judge Barbara Zuniga,”.  Ms. Mink quotes from the Judicial Profile about Judge Zuniga’s status as a Catholic man, and states how Ms. Mink early withdrew her retirement account to support herself during the representation of the civil case, and lists Ms. Mink’s credible history of fighting against white-collar crime throughout the years that continues to page 3, and Ms. Mink’s final paragraph to the judge includes, “Humble yourself, appreciate what you have, and be honest within yourself, and about yourself.  …”  This is a tough love message to the judge.  Ms. Mink’s signature is on page 4 and a list of 10 “Cc:”, including the Commission on Judicial Performance, The State Bar, California Veterinary Medical Board, District Attorney, Deputy District Attorney, Walnut Creek Police Chief, and the attorney offices representing the defendants in Ms. Mink’s civil case. 

Concurrently, Ms. Mink sent a letter to the Mayor of Concord, Laura Hoffmeister, explaining her disturbances about the government complaint process, yet no one contacted Ms. Mink.  Law enforcement, the District Attorney, and the appointed attorney for Ms. Mink only wants pages 1 and 4 admitted into evidence for the trial.  Based on pages 1 and 4 of the letter sent to Judge Barbara Zuniga, not pages 1, 2, 3, and 4, the judicial system has already deemed Ms. Mink insane and incredible, by opinion of the appointed attorney, Public Defender, District Attorney and judges hearing the criminal case, and they have spent tax payer’s money to hire 2 psychologist expert witnesses, and used the Forensic Mental Health Unit (CONREP), recommending hospital treatment with the administering of medication based on the appointed attorney, and my reports to them of Encina Veterinary Hospital’s fraud scheme on consumers and their pets and my intention to report to the FBI. 

The court has never addressed the emotional trauma, mental anguish and torture of the animals and pet-owners who have been swindled by the veterinary practice. Case Number 1-154562-3, People v. Mink (June 2011).

I am a covenanted Christian, and a U.S. Navy veteran, Honorable discharge 1983, Rate: Illustrator Draftsman.  I graduated from The Academy of Art College in San Francisco, 1987, and I have a certificate in accounting from Mt. Diablo Adult Education, 2000.  I am a past community volunteer for a woman’s shelter, serving food to the homeless, food banks, and women’s Christian fellowship groups, for example.  I am a registered voter, voter, and tax payer.  My credit score at the time I was defrauded by the veterinary practice was over 800 (eight hundred) that I earned on my own, and I lived with my 1 to 3 pets.  I am a single woman, never married, and platonic.  I suffer from chronic migraines, a bad back since about age 24, I’ve been diagnosed with osteopina at age 37, I have a weak nervous system since I was a child that includes faintish and dizzy spells, I have a low stamina condition, and I was born with a hereditary eye disorder called, lazy eye or crossed eyes, that creates double vision, very limited vision in the weak eye, and no depth perception resulting in walking into walls and glass doors, and reading and watching TV were difficult as a child.  My eye sight has worsened with age and tires easily and becomes painful when reading.  I also had a speech impediment until about age 12 that was corrected by elementary school speech therapy classes.  I am multi-racial; half Japanese (first generation) which influenced my voice intonations, language, and English grammar.  Both my eye condition and speech has been the subject of mocking, ridicule and physical harm as a child and as an adult.  

Elvira was my first dog as an adult.  Elvira was over 5 years of age when she came to me with the chronic conditions of dry eye, which made her blind in one eye, and an ear infection.  Both conditions required regular veterinary check-ups, and, as I was told by veterinarians, regular treatments.  Elvira was such a gentle dog, and she loved people and children.  She also got along well with dogs of all sizes and cats too.  Elvira had anxieties that needed TLC.  So I changed my lifestyle so that we could spend as much time together as possible.  Elvira was certified as a therapy pet for a very short time allowing us to visit patients at local nursing homes.  Elvira was my friend and child, and I love her.  

My story must include details because the California judicial system is attempting to cover-up, omit evidence and destroy witnesses.  In a recent news article, Contra Costa Scandal, Prosecutor rape case closed, (about Deputy District Attorney Michael Gressett and a female “deputy district attorney”) in referencing the “…seedy culture where inappropriate talk in the workplace was rampant.” (by Fraley and Vordenbrueggen, Contra Costa Times, February 15, 2012).  And, as discovered by Ms. Mink, during the research for the second appeal, filed on August 10, 2010, (first appeal filed December 4, 2009 and Writ of Mandate for an automatic disqualification of judge (Judge Zuniga) as the judge did not answer in 10 days as required by law, yet, the law was not heeded to.), “The inquiry exposed an office sexual culture so highly charged…”, “A Troubled Rape Case”, by John Geluardi, East Bay Express, October 28, 2009.   The article also explains that the Gressett case prosecution was a politically motivated witch hunt where they assigned the investigation to a lawyer who had bad blood with Gressett.   Similarly, the court’s cruel and inhumane tactics are documented in Ms. Mink’s case; however, Ms. Mink did and does not know any of the court staff, judicial officers, judges or attorneys.  In fact, in March of 2007, the California Veterinary Medical Board issued Ms. Mink a right to sue letter stating:  “The Veterinary Board is in receipt of your letter dated March 12, 2007.  After review of your letter, it was determined that you need to contact your local court regarding your fee dispute.”  The following is what happened to Elvira and me by veterinarians in 2006:    

A client of eight years, Ms. Mink brought Elvira, her rescued dog-child-friend, to the PCP (primary care physician) in April 2006 from a veterinarian that had performed a blood test, x-rays, and ultra sound, in March 2006, and recommended a biopsy, as evidenced in the medical records, for a tumor (lump) or possible fatty tissue on Elvira’s intestine.  Naturally doubtful and panicked, Ms. Mink trusted the PCP because the Dr. had already known her wishes that she did not want drugs for Elvira as evidenced in the medical records, as well as her fears of anesthetizing her pug which is evidenced.  The veterinary practice told Ms. Mink that the way to help her dog was with surgery and spent one-and-a-half hours in the initial consultation to get her to agree with the service as evidenced by the medical records, estimate, and credit card receipt dated April 12, 2006.  The surgery was to be performed by a contracted surgeon who never spoke with Ms. Mink during the initial consultation as evidenced.  After the surgery, Ms. Mink took Elvira home and her condition worsened as evidenced.  The veterinary practice told her to “come in”, as evidenced.  Ms. Mink finally took her back to the veterinarian because Elvira’s condition continued to rapidly worsen as evidenced.  Through another several weeks of the veterinarian testing, more testing, another surgery for a leak, and wanting to give drugs and administering more drugs, and more and more services, that caused Ms. Mink hyperventilating, severe crying, helplessness, nightmare suffering, night sweats, heart palpitations, emaciation and severe sciatica because Ms. Mink tended to Elvira’s limp and helpless body by lying on the floor with her, without any instructions or clarity from the veterinary practice which is evidenced in the medical records, as well as Ms. Mink’s doctor report for her injuries.  At one point the veterinary staff put Ms. Mink into an exam room before allowing her to visit with Elvira.  Ms. Mink came across a lay book behind several magazines that explained about a vaccine issue that alarmed Ms. Mink to write a letter to the PCP about Elvira’s recent vaccination as evidenced, however, the PCP did not think the book to be reputable and never mentioned Elvira’s vaccination.  Ms. Mink was extremely disturbed and desperate for the safety of Elvira, that when the PCP said with the technician present, “What do you want to do?”, without telling Ms. Mink Elvira’s true condition, Ms. Mink said she was taking Elvira home.  On May 25, 2006, Elvira smelled of rot and she was put to sleep on May 26, 2006.

The severe trauma Ms. Mink sustained from the defiant medical treatments that tortured Elvira by prolonging unnecessary services for the gain of money and personal benefits to the veterinary practice continued for 8 months which included breathing difficulty.  Ms. Mink also sought a physical therapy regimen to heal the severe sciatica.  Ms. Mink was never able to grieve for Elvira properly and continues to have bouts of PTSD regarding the medical torture of her beloved companion. 

Ms. Mink refused to pay the remainder of the veterinary bill, which was over $3,700, and within 30 days asked for a full refund because of the alarming vaccine issue that was not discussed by the PCP.  In a letter dated June 27, 2006, from the PCP, “In all of my experience, vaccinations have not been a limiting factor in the potential success of life-saving surgical procedures.”  The PCP has been in business since 1977. 

In August of 2006, Ms. Mink filed a complaint with the California Veterinary Medical Board (VMB). 

In December of 2006, Ms. Mink received the first determination letter from Susan M. Geranen, Executive Officer of the VMB stating that, “The Board is aware of the unfortunate circumstances that occurred during the medical treatment of your pet and your complaint was thoroughly reviewed with these circumstances in mind.”  “This case is being closed and no further action is anticipated.”  That letter caused additional physical and mental anguish to Ms. Mink. 

Ms. Mink received notice in January 2007 from Encina Veterinary Hospital (Encina) to pay the remainder of the bill.  Ms. Mink requested specific questions about Elvira to be answered by the PCP, and Elvira’s medical records.  In a letter dated, January 9, 2007, Encina’s response was, “Dr….received your letter requesting copies of Elvira’s medical record and answers to 6 questions.  I have enclosed a copy of the medical record; in its entirety.”  “Dr….believes that the answers to your questions are within the medical record, …” Ms. Mink received over 100 pages of medical records that created additional trauma to her system where she could not look at the medical information about her loved one.

Encina sent the remaining balance to collections which Ms. Mink disputed.  In a letter from the collection agency dated March 6, 2007, was included the original letter from Encina that stated, “Ms. Mink and Dr…. spoke at each step in the treatment of Elvira regarding her prognosis and the options for treatment.”  At several points in Elvira’s treatment, Dr….advised against further treatment due to poor prognosis, however, Ms. Mink opted to continue treatment and advanced diagnostics.”  “No services were rendered without her prior approval to Dr…”, personally."[Emphasis added] 

Ms. Mink called the Walnut Creek police because she was terrified at the aggressive and destructive behavior of Encina, and she was afraid that the Dr. or a staff member might use drugs on her in an altercation of their greed to get money.  The first responding police officer kept talking over Ms. Mink and she was being kept from reporting, Ms. Mink began crying incessantly.  Ms. Mink requested to speak with another police officer and was transferred to the first officer’s supervisor who kept her on the phone for about 40 minutes, but did not want Ms. Mink to bring the evidence to the police station nor did the officer take specific information about the veterinary practice.  Ms. Mink still has not received a copy of the report; Walnut Creek Police, Case # 07-5434, March 9, 2007, Officer Duggan, and Supervisor Sgt. Keith Cashion, 925-943-5844.   

Contrary to the Dr.’s statement is evidence in Elvira’s medical records, billing statements and credit card receipts as following:

1.     Prior medical entry reflects owner’s wishes of no drugs for Elvira.

2.     Recommended biopsy from the other veterinary practice.

3.     Owner reported tumor (lump) on Elvira’s intestine.

4.     PCP, Drs., and long-time Dr. assistant intentionally withheld planned chemo and other plans from owner.

5.     Estimate range is from $4,060 to $4,873 with itemized list that does not include future medical plans or options.

6.     Surgeon’s client instructions provided to Ms. Mink after the surgery, states service is “emergency” and “exploring”

7.     Owner refuses drugs, declines services, “No…”, and stops treatment, stated throughout Elvira’s medical records.

8.     Medical records reveal Elvira’s trauma resulting from medical torture, i.e.; vomiting, choking, respiratory distress, food coming out of nose, caged, eyes rolling back in head, shaking, fever…

9.     Ultra sound report for Elvira: kidney disease.  Encina trained owner and administered the drug, Amikacin, a drug not to be used on senior patients per veterinary expert witness.  Medical records: kidney failure.

10.  Approximately 20 different drugs were used on Elvira. 

11.  Billing statements include dollar amounts for no services rendered.

12.  Encina conspired lab work with the other veterinary practice.

13.  Encina performed blood work on the day of euthanasia medical entry as “euth”.  

In fact, in the year 2000, the PCP told Ms. Mink to put her cat to sleep in a week without any testing recommended by the Dr. or requested by Ms. Mink because the cat had intestinal cancer as she was told by the Dr.  Ms. Mink put her cat to sleep within the week.

The PCP veterinarian hugged and kissed Ms. Mink in the exam room while she cried over Elvira’s ill condition of an adverse reaction to the antibiotic, Orbax, in the initial consultation with the Dr.’s assistant present. Ms. Mink filed her civil case as a self-represented litigant.  After the complaint was served, the surgeon moved out of the area and then left the country.  

Through the course of the civil case Ms. Mink discovered that part of the veterinary scheme was a secret sex endeavor by the PCP veterinarian on his client.  In the case, Fluharty v. Johnson, (filed May 9, 2008), Case Number WSC08-0393, Walnut Creek Superior Court, Small Claims Division, Mr. Fluharty sued Dr. Johnson demanding that the over $11,000 be refunded after Dr. Johnson reneged on an attorney generated, court documented contract to refund him.  The contract also included that Encina and Johnson committed no wrongdoing.  In Mr. Fluharty’s letter dated, July 13, 2007, “Given that you have admitted to taking advantage of my wife during a time of extreme stress and grief due to a dieing pet.”  “This included phone sex and having unprotected sex with my wife in my home.”  “And given that your unethical behavior has resulted in my pending divorce, I am asking for the following;”  Fluharty asked for a full refund and punitive damages.   In the above case the court ordered restraining orders (permanent injunction).  Dr. Johnson obtained attorney representation by Daniel O’Malley who is the husband of Mary Ann O’Malley who was the Presiding Judge (PJ) during Ms. Mink’s civil case, and the case was well known by Commissioner Judith Sanders (judge who heard Johnson’s injunction stipulation) who was the judge who heard Ms. Mink’s one-party civil issues, such as her fee waiver for indigents. 

Ms. Mink wrote formal complaints to PJ O’Malley, Deputy District Attorney Steve Bolen, and the Commission on Judicial Performance.  Their letter responses were senseless.  And now, without question, reveals the insidious and intentional thwarting and cover-up of the veterinary scam and sex scandal.  For example, they referred to Ms. Mink as Mr. Mink knowing all along of Dr. Johnson's secret sex motives.      

In the case Weeks v. Johnson, Encina Veterinary Clinic, Inc., (filed July 16, 2009), Case Number WSC09-0564, Walnut Creek Superior Court, Small Claims Division.  Ms. Weeks was told that her dog had kidney disease and was treated for kidney disease.  Weeks was not treated well by the Encina veterinarian and changed to another veterinarian at the practice, Dr. Johnson.  He ordered another expensive test, out-of-state, and then she was told that her dog did not have kidney disease but liver disease.  Upon her suspicion and disturbance, she requested the medical records when the veterinarian called her and said that they needed to put her dog to sleep.  She said, “What would you do?”, and the veterinarian’s response was to put the dog to sleep and so the dog was put to sleep.  The medical records revealed that the veterinarians knew all along from the initial consultation that the dog had liver disease but did not treat the dog for liver disease.  The court changed judges 3 times.  The hearings were postponed for various reasons without awards for Weeks.  In a letter dated, January 18, 2010, Encina refers to Weeks as inflexible based on her comments to the court.  In chambers on April 21, 2010, Ms. Weeks signed a gag order of any wrongdoing and settled for $4,000.

Ms. Mink’s civil case went before eight judges.  They never awarded costs to Ms. Mink for her investigative research, and brief writing, nor any damages award for wrongful acts of the defendants who violated penal and business and professions codes, instead the judicial system thwarted her civil efforts by twisting words, misrepresenting law, playing shenanigans, and Judge Barry Baskin implied that Ms. Mink was a vexatious litigant.  And, they intimidated Ms. Mink from lodging incriminating evidence against the veterinarians even though Ms. Mink had a character reference from a retired judge from another state. 

Not one animal rescue or advocacy group provided any assistance to Ms. Mink.  They included IDA, ALDF, ARF and HSUS and the ASPCA gave referrals that did not pan-out.  Pet-owners believe that these animal rescue and advocacy groups care about people and animals and that is why they donate large sums of money to protect the animals.  Disturbingly, that is not the case for clients and their pets who patronize veterinary practices.

Ms. Weeks had knowledge of another client of Encina who was told that her pet had cancer and her pet was treated for cancer.  Through another veterinarian, she found out that her pet did not have cancer.  Ms. Weeks brought that case to the attention of the VMB and Weeks was told that the client had to file the complaint.  According to the law, a report can launch an investigation even though the report is not from the victim.  The client Weeks spoke of was so disturbed by Encina’s treatment to her and her pet she was not able to follow through with a complaint to the VMB.

Filed on August 5, 2009, Encina Veterinary Hospital v. Tarcher, Case Number WSC09-0609, Walnut Creek Superior Court, Small Claims Division.  Ms. Mink observed the hearing noting that Encina did not cooperate when asked if either party would agree to arbitration.  Tarcher agreed to arbitration even though he stated that the treatments were unethical.  Tarcher explained his financial hardship.  The judge would not heed to Mr. Tarcher’s testimony.  Encina had continued “life-support” treatments at their hospital at $1,000 per day.  Mr.  Tarcher, an engineer, relied on medical professional knowledge regarding the medical condition of his dog.  Not knowing what to do, his son had to intervene to stop the inhumane treatments.

The above cases are the tip of the iceberg of the potential discovery of cruel and inhumane treatments on consumers and their pets.   During Ms. Mink’s civil case, Judge Zuniga scheduled a “hearing on status review” calendared on February 26, 2009, for a settlement offer with no money amount disclosed and an apology letter from the Dr. that Ms. Mink’s dog died that Judge Zuniga would not allow her to read.  There was no rationale behind that settlement offer and Ms. Mink declined. On the following Saturday, Ms. Mink received a letter from Judge Zuniga’s clerk dated the day before the “hearing on status review”, that Ms. Mink’s letter dated, February 9, 2009, requesting the return of original evidence that was lodged with the court on December 29, 2008, went unread by the judge because the letter was considered unethical and considered it ex parte (one-party) even though the defendant’s attorney had previously written a one-party letter to the judge and that letter was read and entered into the case file.  The court never returned Ms. Mink’s lodged original evidence. 

Ms. Mink then filed, what is called, a peremptory challenge, on March 2, 2009, and another on March 17th because of the misleading answer filed by Judge Zuniga on March 12, 2009.  The case was sent to Judge Herrick of Lake County Superior Court who referred to Judge Zuniga’s decisions as a “bad idea” in his decision filed on April 9, 2009. 

Ms. Mink then filed a statement of disqualification of judge on April 20, 2009 that included another case: Ferrara v. Encina Veterinary Clinic, Inc., (filed May 10, 1996), Case Number MSC96-01955, Contra Costa County Superior Court, Unlimited Jurisdiction.  In May of 1995, Ferrara was riding his bicycle when his front tire caught on a clear wire trap placed on Johnson’s property where Encina Veterinary Hospital is located causing a head injury.  Johnson admitted to Ferrara that the wire had been placed there intentionally by him with the intent to “trip kids who skateboarded or rode their bikes through that area” and that if kids were injured by the wire “it would teach them a lesson.”  The result was a court supervised settlement for Ferrara.

Ms. Mink filed a pre-argument letter brief in preparation of the oral argument for the appeal in August 2010.  The letter brief revealed the practice of dog labs in veterinary schools and that the students had an opt-out option and many schools no longer practice dog labs because of the trauma and cruelty involved.  Ms. Mink also reported to the judges, judicial officers and others in the judicial system of the evidence that Encina was running a dog lab which is against the Animal Welfare Act (AWA), and is a federal offense.     

Ms. Mink was taken into custody and booked into the detention facility where she spent ten days in jail.  All of which caused physical deterioration to her that was reported to the appointed attorney, the Public Defender, Robin Lipetzky, the District Attorney, the judges hearing the criminal case, one of which is, Judge Clare Maier, and a number of other government officials. 

Since Ms. Mink’s release from jail, (while out on bail), the Concord police had entered her home without a search warrant.  In addition, Ms. Jane Elliot, who was appointed by the Criminal Conflict Panel via the Public Defender’s Office, hasn’t provided written documents to protect Ms. Mink’s rights, rather, the attorney surprises Ms. Mink with decisions to fool and terrorize her. 

The judicial system is violating Ms. Mink’s civil liberty and Constitutional rights of expression and choice of medical treatments based on religion (eternal life through spiritual/faith and life-after-death beliefs), moral beliefs for a gentle, humane, least invasive and non-invasive medical care, and right to knowledge of financial medical costs for consumers and pet-owners. 

Ms. Mink has a right to represent herself in civil litigation if no attorney is available and will continue to fight for civil justice.  

By signing this petition you will be expressing your opposition to health care provider’s misrepresentations for personal gain, medical experimentation and dependency by prolonging unnecessary services, and drugs on patients and their families.  Stop Encina and other veterinary practices from running dog and cat labs by using pet-owner’s pets for personal gain.  It is outright sadistic. 

In California, current laws provide for legal health care decisions on behalf of the patient who is incapable of communication where the hospital is required to contact the family member or other person who has the authority to make health care decisions on behalf of the patient are under the Uniform Health Care Decisions Act, Section 4717.  The health care instructions may be oral or written pursuant to the Uniform Health Care Decisions Act, Section 4670.  Both laws apply to pets.  Pets are legally patients under California Veterinary laws and clients are in a client/patient relationship with the veterinarian(s).     

Please sign my petition to stop the court’s cruel and inhumane decisions. 

(10/30/16 Update: There are no more hearings scheduled at this time in the criminal case.) The next hearing is scheduled for July 3, 2012, People v Mink. 

This petition is a demand to drop the charge (PC 76(a)), dismiss the case (Threat to judge by Ms. Mink), and terminate the action (stop the court’s diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia and incredible determination of Ms. Mink), by changing venue, appointing a judge from another county or by any other means because the letter addressed to Judge Barbara Zuniga dated; June 17, 2011, is not a threat.  Hear the civil case Mink v. Encina Veterinary Clinic, Inc. et al, because Ms. Mink is the prevailing party.

(04/28/18 Update: Indict and convict the judges, justices, doctors, VA employees, veterinarians, veterinary personnel, and anyone else who has conspired and participated in Destruction of a Witness(of Perri Mink), Obstruction of Justice, Witness and Evidence Tampering, Perjury, Conspiracy, and Treason, and to the full extent of the laws.)  Censuring the justices and judges.

I am demanding that the veterinarians licenses be revoked. (04/28/18 Update: Build a Peacefully Coexisting and Memorial Park) Build a peaceful memorial site in memory of all the medically tortured animals at the hands of Encina Veterinary Hospital so that people can grieve for their loved ones and to remind the government to do their job and not allow this to happen again.                                  

Today: Perri is counting on you

Perri Mink needs your help with “Presiding Judge Jill Fannin: Justice for Perri, the victim exposing cruel veterinary scheme. Court hear cases!”. Join Perri and 1,003 supporters today.