Demand for the return of my dogs, cat & property

Here is yet another petition the courts are ignoring… I have filed informal complaints against everyone so tonight I will be working on the paper copies as well as getting copies of the court recordings. I can’t figure out why a woman sleeping in a car merits such time & energy, all I can think is what I have been told, they are not used to people fighting back or standing up to them. They should’ve just given me my dogs & cat back & left me alone, then I wouldn’t have so much TIME to learn how to fight them, & every motion the prosecutor files teaches me more & more.

CITY OF EVERETT———————–( DEMAND FOR IMMEDIATE

V ————————————————- ( RETURN OF MY SEIZED

BRANDIA TAAMU ———————–( ANIMALS & PROPERTY

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

1) I have tried petitions, I have tried motions, & yet the City of Everett, refuses to return property & animals which clearly belongs to me amounting to criminal theft.

2) The court made statements in a criminal court hearing that were absolutely inappropriate during a hearing to place my dogs outside of the Everett Animal Shelter to the effect of “you abused your dogs so I think that the shelter knows what is better for them” When I asked if the court had already indicted me, there was a refusal to answer but it was crystal clear from the statement that the courts had already done so. The statement was indictive in intent.

3) In my Motion for dismissal which the courts said “made me look bad” I have also cited the various laws. At the cost of “looking bad”, I have begged the courts, petitioned the courts, now I am demanding that my animals & property be returned to me including my dead dog’s body so he can have a customary blessing & proper burial. At the cost of “looking bad” I am demanding my rights as a citizen of the United States of America, & Washington state.

4) My due process & civil rights have been violated & I am citing the laws to you in regards to this matter in case you are not aware of it

A) I was never given notice of my legal remedies as REQUIRED by state law under RCW 16.52.085. Notice requirements after removal of personal property by authorities is provided in paragraph (3). After removal of animals, notice must be provided by posting, personal service or certified mail and the owner must be provided written notice of the reasons for removal in this notice and legal remedies available to the owner.

B) My animals are NOT subject to forfeiture pursuant to RCW 69.50.505 Washington state’s civil forfeiture act was adopted to protect people from having their property wrongfully seized by the government. In Guillen v. Contreras (Sup. Ct. En Banc. No. 82531-9 (9/2010), amicus notes that “an owner has the right to resist the taking of any of his property regardless of market value.” Amicus Br. At 8, cf Guillen v. Contreras, Sup. Ct. En Banc, No. 82531-9 (9/9/2010). A citizen has the right to object to seizure, even if temporary, of his personal property no matter the market value. Forfeitures of personal and real property are not favored in the law and very specific procedures must be followed.by government officials and its agents when seizing property, including animals. If statutory procedures are not followed, the property was illegally seized and a person is lawfully entitled to possession thereof. Unless the seized property is needed for evidence, the petitioners are not the rightful owners, the property is contraband, or the property is subject to forfeiture pursuant to statute, the seized property must be returned.

C) Everett Animal Control has already gleaned all the “evidence” they needed from blood work, lab testing & photographs, my animals are not contraband: derivative, or otherwise & they are not subject to forfeiture under statute. They have not been used in the commission of a felony, they have not been used in any drug transaction & in case it has been forgotten by the courts I have not been criminally convicted my court case has not even commenced yet. Furthermore The State cannot confiscate property merely because it is “derivative contraband”. Instead it must forfeit it using property forfeiture procedures. Washington has a statutory forfeiture procedure. . . RCW 69.50.505(a)(2). Notice must be given within 15 days of seizure. RCW 69.50.505(c). If the property is personal property, one claiming an interest in it then has 45 days to respond, and if a response is made, a hearing must be held. RCW 69.50.505(d), (e). Washington State’s forfeiture statutes are exclusive. Unless statutory procedure are followed, a Washington court cannot order forfeiture and must release the petitioners’ property. A court does not have inherent authority to forfeit property. See, State v. Alaway, 64 Wn. App. 796, 828 P.2d 591, p. 3 (4/2/92). The government gave no notice, so petitioners are not bound by any time frame to reclaim their property which is still in impound in Everett Wa. Additionally, the practice of seizing the personal property of owners without following statutory notice requirements, as occurred in this case, is a denial of procedural due process. No proper notice procedures have been followed by the City of Everett/animal care and control authorities under animal seizure statutes, or property forfeiture statutes, to the owners of the pets setting forth the reason for the seizure and the process whereby the petitioners may reacquire possession of their property in their pets. Petitioners have been denied procedural due process by the City of Everett and/or (AC) authorities.

D) The pets were seized unlawfully as they were NOT in a life threatening condition pursuant to RCW 16.52.085. I am the rightful owners of these dogs and cats, my property in dogs and cats is not “contraband”, statutory procedures for seizure of property have not been followed, and the seized property in pets must be returned to the me. If the state argues that the pets are “derivative contraband” and that I am are somehow guilty of a crime, the government must follow property forfeiture procedures to divest petitioners of their interest in their property in dogs and cats. One 1958 Plymouth Sedan v. Pennsylvania, 380 U.S. At 699; Cooper, 904 F.2d at 305; Farrell, 606 F. 2d at 1344; David v. Fowler, 504 F. Supp. At 505, cf from State v. Alaway, 64 Wn. App. 796, 828 P.2d 591, p. 3 (4/2/92). Washington courts often look to federal law to determine lawful forfeiture procedures. Washington State’s forfeiture statutes are exclusive. Unless statutory procedure are followed, a Washington court cannot order forfeiture and must release the petitioners’ property. A court does not have inherent authority to forfeit property. See, State v. Alaway, 64 Wn. App. 796, 828 P.2d 591, p. 3 (4/2/92). The government gave no notice, so petitioners are not bound by any time frame to reclaim their property which is still in impound in Everett Wa. In the case of the seizure of an owner’s property in pets for feeding and care, as in this matter, the seizure and forfeiture provisions in RCW 16.52.085 appear to track Washington State’s civil forfeiture statute RCW 69.50 et seq. and federal law notice procedures. The proper procedures by statute are enumerated above. Petitioners received no lawful notice and their due process rights were violated.

E) In regards to the euthanasia of George amounting to permanent deprivation of property & the continued impound of my animals/property my due process rights have been blatantly trampled on. There is no question that I have a protected property interest in the ownership of these animals, and the seizure and impoundment of these dogs triggers due process, Pasco v. Reihl, 635 So.2d 17 (S.Ct. 1994). “In the instant case, the petitioner’s private property was subject to, among other things, physical confinement, and muzzling. In the aggregate, these restrictions are a deprivation of property and before such restrictions are imposed, a property owner must be afforded an opportunity to be heard. I have suffered a deprivation of property without benefit of a hearing, and such violation was a violation of my procedural due process rights.” Id. at 19. See also, Mansour v. King, 131 Wash. App. 255 (Wash. App.2006) and Philips v. San Luis Obispo County Dept. of Animal Regulation, 183 Ca. App. 3d 372 (Cal. App. 1986). The deprivation here is unquestionably more severe than Pasco, as this case involves destruction; a total, complete and final deprivation of my property rights. Where the property was forfeited without constitutionally adequate notice to the claimant, the courts must provide relief, either by vacating the default judgment, or by allowing a collateral suit. See Seguin v Eide, 720 F2d 1046 (9th Cir. 1983), on remand after judgment vacated, 462 U.S.1101,103 S. Ct. 2446 (1983); Wiren v Eide, 542 F2d 757 (9th Cir. 1976). Menkarell v. Bureau of Narcotics, 463 F2d 88 (3rd Cir. 1972); Jaekel v United States, 304 F Supp. 993 (S.D.N.Y 1969); Glup v United States, 523 F2d 557, 560 (8th Cir. 1975). (See FED. R. CIV. P. Supplemental Admiralty or Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions Rule A(1)(B) (making rules applicable to forfeiture actions in rem arising from a federal statute) Where a person has been deprived of property in a manner contrary to the most basic tenets of due process, “it is no answer to say that in his particular case due process of law would have led to the same result because he had no adequate defense upon the merits.” Coe v. Armour Fertilizer Works, 237 U.S. 413, 35 S. Ct. 625, 629, 59 L. Ed. 1027 (1915). As we observed in Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545, 552 (1965), only “wip[ing] the slate clean … would have restored the petitioner to the position he would have occupied had due process of law been accorded to him in the first place.” The Due Process Clause demands no less in this case. Peralta, supra, 108 U.S. at 898-99, 900.

F) I have an affirmative defense, which is required as in Federal Forfeiture laws & in Washington state law. Affirmative defenses must be raised in the answer, Fed. R. Civ. P and Sup. Ct. R. Civil Rule 8(c), but the answer may be amended even at the time of trial to conform with the evidence. Fed. R. Civ. P and Sup. Ct. R.-Civil Rule 15(b). Also in Washington state RCW 16.52.207 (4) In any prosecution of animal cruelty in the second degree under subsection (1) or (2)(a) of this section, it shall be an affirmative defense, if established by the defendant by a preponderance of the evidence, that the defendant’s failure was due to economic distress beyond the defendant’s control.

G) This whole situation seems to be falling into the “Color of Law” In the words of Supreme Court Judge, Mr. Justice Rutledge He who acts under “color” of law may be a federal officer or a state officer. He may act under “color” of federal law or of state law. The statute does not come into play merely because the federal law or the state law under which the officer purports to act is violated. It is applicable when and only when someone is deprived of a federal right by that action. The fact that it is also a violation of state law does not make it any the less a federal offense punishable as such. Nor does its punishment by federal authority encroach on state authority or relieve the state from its responsibility for punishing state offenses. Screws v. United States, 325 US 91, 108 (1945). This section was before us in United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299, 326, where we said: “Misuse of power, possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because the wrongdoer is clothed with the authority of state law, is action taken `under color of’ state law.” Screws v. United States, 325 US 91, 109 (1945). For it was abuse of basic civil and political rights, by states and their officials, that the Amendment and the enforcing legislation were adopted to uproot. The danger was not merely legislative or judicial. Nor was it threatened only from the state’s highest officials. It was abuse by whatever agency the state might invest with its power capable of inflicting the deprivation. In all its flux, time makes some things axiomatic. One has been that state officials who violate their oaths of office and flout 117*117 the fundamental law are answerable to it when their misconduct brings upon them the penalty it authorizes and Congress has provided. Screws v. United States, 325 US 91, 116-7 (1945) Mr. Justice Rutledge, concurring in the result. “It is not open to question that this statute is constitutional. . . [It] dealt with Federal rights and with all Federal rights, and protected them in the lump . . .” United States v. Mosley, 238 U.S. 383, 386, 387. Screws v. United States, 325 US 91, 119 (1945) Mr. Justice Rutledge, concurring in the result. Separately, and often together in application, §§ 19 and 20 have been woven into our fundamental and statutory law. They have place among our more permanent legal achievements. They have safeguarded many rights and privileges apart from political ones. Among those buttressed, either by direct application or through the general conspiracy statute, § 37 (18 U.S.C. § 88),[24] are the rights to a fair trial, including freedom from sham trials [including sham Collection Due Process Hearings] ; to be free from arrest and detention by methods constitutionally forbidden and from extortion of property [by threat of levy, lien, or lockdown letters] by such methods; from extortion of confessions; from mob action incited or shared by state officers; from failure to furnish police protection on proper occasion and demand; from interference with the free exercise of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of speech and assembly;[25] and 127*127 the necessary import of the decisions is that the right to be free from deprivation of life itself, without due process of law, that is, through abuse of state power by state officials, is as fully protected as other rights so secured. Screws v. United States, 325 US 91, 126-7 (1945) Mr. Justice Rutledge, concurring in the result. They simply misconceived that the victim had no federal rights and that what they had done was not a crime within the federal power to penalize.[30] That kind of error relieves no one from penalty. Screws v. United States, 325 US 91, 128 (1945) Mr. Justice Rutledge, concurring in the result.

I am the owner of these animals, I was never given proper notice of my rights & all of my constitutional rights have been violated, from the the 4th, 5th, 8th & 14th amendments at least. Not to mention I have suffered cruel & unusual punishment, as have my animals more so than myself. It has been 108 DAYS since I have seen MY dogs & cat, not yours, not the City of Everett’s, not the Everett Animal Shelter’s, but MY dogs & cat. I am not even sure WHY Everett is continuing in the case against me, unless they have this much money to waste on a woman sleeping in a car, which is absolutely entirely ridiculous & I am sure the people of the city would love to know that their tax dollars are hard at work trying to prosecute MISDEMEANOR cases that have an affirmative defense. I realize that these statements may be taken as contempt, they are NOT, they are common sense, which has up til now not prevailed. Because of your bias, law says you should step down anyway, it is recorded, these are statements you have made in an open court that have been recorded & will soon be transcribed. I am completely flabbergasted with the lack of regard or respect for Washington state law, & Constitutional law, I would submit that is the courts who are in contempt of me, not I, who are in contempt. In your statement that the “Washington State Supreme Court believes I have the right to represent myself, but you in Snohomish County don’t think so” further illustrates my point. In every appeal docket I have read, when Snohomish or Everett seizes property the appellate always wins, so this is a pattern in this district, the arbitrary taking of a persons property is prohibited, but beyond the law, the permanent deprivation of the last days of life with George, & the past 108 days without my animals are reprehensible & the courts have made themselves a willing party to this with just the statements that have been made. I now ask for the relief sought, or another quick dismissal so that I can move forward with this action to other administrative agencies as well as the governing court authority of the state of Washington. I am not a lawyer, I am sick & tired, & broken-hearted, you have summarily dismissed my Petition for the return of my animals & property, the Petition to represent myself Pro Se, my Petition for Dismissal, & my request to leave my animals where they were so that I would know where they are at. It is absolutely insane that I have to learn the law & cite law to anyone in the courts. I want my animals & property back, I am entitled by law to have them returned, no matter what the court’s “opinion” is of me, the law is the law which you have sworn to uphold.

Respectfully Submitted,

Brandia Taamu

April,23rd, 2011