Stop unfair seizures by Everett Wa.animal control

Behind me hides well over 20 terrified families... Many more stories of people who's animals were seized & most destroyed (murdered) by Everett Animal Control. They have made it a routine practice to sieze animals without DUE PROCESS as guaranteed by the 4th Amendment of the Untied States of America, not the Republic of Everett, It doesn't work that way in this country, soon you will have to let go of the dictatorship that has become Everett. So why aren't these families speaking up? They still have animals that Everett can seize & murder, they made the mistake of taking all of my animals away from me & then murdering one without notifying me or giving me due process to be able to prevent it. I have nothing left to lose, & I also have the law on my side, they can deny my motions, try to prosecute me but they can not supercede Washington State Law which is exactly what they have done, but they did it to the wrong person this time. I have included my Petition to the Superior Court so that you can see just what abuses of power they believe it is okay for them to take upon people, even people who are not citizens of the City of Everett. Even if you don't want to sign this petition, then please take the time to write or email the city to let them know that they are not above the law, as a friendly reminder that they are not Gods. It should be noted that the lady listed below is only the assistant manager, the actual manager is NOT listed anywhere that I can find & she takes great offense at being challenged for any reason, so please don't expect any warm fuzzies from her. For addtl info about our case & many others all around the country please check out our web page which s updated daily as the news stories come in.
http://taamuvcityofeverettanimalcontrol.yolasite.com/
Shannon Delgado, Assistant Manager
333 Smith Island Rd
Everett, WA 98201
T: 425-257-6000
F: 425-257-6018
E: sdelgado@ci.everett.wa.us


                                  IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
                                           IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH


BRANDIA TAAMU                                       |
      PETITIONER                                         |      COMPLAINT FOR RELEASE OFPETITIONER'S
                                                                  |      PRIVATE PROPERTY FOR VIOLATION OFDUE                           
           V                                                     |      PROCESS, PROCEDURAL ERRORS.&UNDUE
                                                                  |      HARDSHIP. EMERGENCY INJUNCTION FOR    
CITY OF EVERETT &                                  |     STAY OF EXECUTION OR TRANSFER OFPETS
CITY OF EVERETT ANIAL CONTROL          |     & A CEASE & DESIST FOR EVERETT ANIMAL  
        RESPONDENTS                                  |     CONTROL RELEASING PRIVATE INFO

PETITIONER BRANDIA TAAMU, PRO SE, RESPECTFULLY SUBMIT THIS PETITION, & MOTION IN SUPPORT OF COMPLAINT FOR RELEASE OF PETITIONERS PETS FOR VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS & UNDUE HARDSHIP. ALSO FOR AN EMERGENCY INJUCTION PREVENTING THE EUTHANISIA OF ANY MORE OF PETITIONER'S PETS OR TRANSFER OUT TO ANOTHER FACILITY.

                                           STATEMENT OF FACTS          
1) ON JANUARY 6 2011 EVERETT ANIMAL COTROL SHOWED UP WITH EVERETT POLICE DEPT WITH A WARRANT TO TAKE DOGS FROM MY VEHICLE. (SEE EXHIBIT 1,2 ,3, 4, 5, 6)  THE ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICER SHOWED ME THE WARRANT NOT THE EVERETT POLICE DEPT. I WAS NEVER READ MY RIGHTS & THE ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICER DID NOT LEAVE THE WARRANT, THE REPORT, OR ANY INFO THAT WOULD LET ME KNOW WHAT IF ANY LEGAL REMEDIES THAT I HAD AVAILABLE TO GET MY DOGS BACK IN VIOLATION OF RCW 16.52.085 (3). (SEE EXHIBIT 7) & I BELIEVE THAT BEFORE THE WARRANT I WAS NEVER CITED NOR GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO REMEDY ANY CONDITIONS ANIMAL CONTROL SEEN UNFIT. I WAS NOT EVEN A RESIDENT OF THE CITY OF EVERETT & WAS HOMELESS AT THE TIME.

2) EVERETT ANIMAL CONTROL HAS NOT ALLOWED ME TO CALL TO CHECK ON THE HEALTH & WELARE OF MY ANIMALS NOR ALLOWED ME TO VISIT THEM. I DID NOT FIND OUT THAT MY SENIOR ESKIMO WAS DEAD UNTIL THE PROSECUTING ATTORNEY TOLD ME THAT. I HAVE NOT SEEN MY DOGS OR CAT IN OVER 41 DAYS.   

3) OFFICER'S TRASK & DELGADO HAVE REFUSED TO LET ME SEE A REPORT OR THE COMPLAINT OR EVEN GIVE ME AN IDEA OF WHAT I WAS BEING CHARGED WITH. THEY ARE ALSO REFUSING TO GIVE ME MY DEAD DOGS BODY BECAUSE THEY SAY HE IS "EVIDENCE"

4) THE PERSON WHO MADE THE COMPLAINT LIED & DID THIS OUT OF MALICIOUSNESS & HAS POSTED NUMEROUS SLANDEROUS POSTS ABOUT ME ON CRAIGSLIST & SENT OUT MASS EMAILS DISCREDITING ME. SHE IS ALSO CLAIMING THAT ANIMAL CONTROL AGENTS ARE SHOWING HER ON THEIR COMPUTER THAT I HAVE DUMPED NUMEROUS DOGS ON THEM, WHEN IN FACT I USED TO PULL DOGS OUT OF THERE FOR RESCUE. SHE IS ALSO CLAIMING THEY ARE CALLING HER TO TELL HER MY DOGS HAVE GIARDIA & WORMS. HER HARASSMENT HAS GOTTEN SO BAD THAT I HAD NO CHOICE BUT TO GET AN ANTI HARASSMENT ORDER AGAINST HER AS WELL. IF IN FACT ANIMAL CONTROL IS GIVING HER PERSONAL INFORMATIION ABOUT MY ANIMALS I WOULD LIKE A CEASE & DESIST ORDER PUT IN PLACE AS THEY HAVE NO RIGHT TO DISCUSS MY CASE OR ANY OF MY INFORMATION WITH ANYONE EXCPET FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT. SHE HAS GONE SO FAR AS TO CLAIM I DON'T HAVE A BUSINESS LICENSE & THAT I AM NOT A MINISTER (SEE EXHIBITS .8.9.10.11)

5) ALL OF MY ANIMALS ARE RESCUES & HAVE SEVERE EMOTIONAL & SOME PHYSICAL ISSUES & BEING CONFINED IN AN AREA BARELY TWICE AS BIG AS MY CAR WITHOUT LOVE & COMFORT IS DETRIMENTAL TO THEIR HELATH & SAFETY. I REALIZE LIVING IN A CAR WAS NOT AN IDEAL SITUATION FOR ANY OF US BUT I WAS ACTIVELY SEARCHING FOR A NEW HOME FOR ALL OF US BUT TRYNG TO SAVE ENOUGH MONEY TO DO SO. I HAVE NOW SECURED A RESIDENCE WHERE WE CAN ALL BE TOGTHER INSIDE FROM THE ELEMENTS.

6) IT SHOULD ALSO BE NOTED THAT THE OFFICER TOLD ME SHE WAS TAKING THE ANIMALS BECAUSE THEY DID NOT HAVE 24 HOUR A DAY WATER. WHEN THEY CAME THER WAS IN FACT A WATER BOTTLE ON THE HOOD OF THE CAR. EVERETT MUNICIPAL CODE 6.04.070 STATES THE DOGS MUST HAVE CONSTANT ACCESS TO WATER 24HRS A DAY WHICH IS IN CONFLICT WITH  RCW 16.52.310 (D) THAT STATES THEY MUST HAVE ADEQUATE WATER. RCW 35.27.370 (1) & (16) CLEARLY STATE THAT ANY TOWN IS NOT ALLOWED TO PASS LAWS WHICH ARE IN CONFLICT STATE RCW'S. ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICERS TOOK PICTURES OF THE 5 BAGS OF DOG FOOD I HAD FOR THE DOGS AS WELL AS THE CASES OF WET FOOD FOR THE DOGS & THE CAT(S) & I BELIEVE THAT UNDER 16.52.207 (4) I BELIEVE I WILL BE AQUITTED OF ANY CHARGE (SEE EXHIBIT 12 & 13)

7) I AM ALSO REQUESTING THE RETURN OF ALL OF MY DOG'S MEDICATIONS, MY KENNELS, & OTHER DOG SUPPLIES THAT WERE TAKEN FROM MY CAR. (SEE EXHIBIT 14)   

8) 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. The pets were seized unlawfully as they were NOT in a life threatening condition pursuant to RCW 16.52.085. (SEE EXHIBIT 15) Property owners have the right to challenge such seizures and, if they %u201Csubstantially prevail,%u201D recover their costs and reaasonable attorney fees. RCW 69.50.505(6). (1) The following are subject to seizure and forfeiture and no property right exists in them (6) In any proceeding to forfeit property under this title, where the claimant substantially prevails, the claimant is entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees reasonably incurred by the claimant. In addition, in a court hearing between two or more claimants to the article or articles involved, the prevailing party is entitled to a judgment for costs and reasonable attorneys' fees.  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 %u201Can owner has the right to resist the taking of any of his property regardless of market value.%u201D 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. Id. 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. Id. The petitioners are the rightful owners of their dogs and cats, their property in dogs and cats is not %u201Ccontraband%u201D, statutory procedures for seizure of property have not been followed, and the seized property in pets must be returned to the petitioners. If the state argues that the pets are %u201Cderivative contraband%u201D and that petitioners 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. Pennsylvannia, 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. The State cannot confiscate property merely because it is %u201Cderivative contraband%u201D. 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 claming 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. 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. RCW 16.52.100 provides that if an animal is confined without necessary food or water for more than 36 hours, and the officer finds it extremely difficult to provide the animal with food or water, the officer may remove the animals to protective custody for that purpose. RCW 16.52.085 sets forth the method whereby an animal may be seized for protective custody for feeding and care. An animal may be seized by an officer only with a warrant UNLESS the animal is in an immediate life-threatening condition. If the officer decides that an animal is in an immediate life threatening condition to justify summary seizure of the animals, proper notice must be given to the owner of the animal by (1) posting at the place of seizure, and (2) personal service to a person residing at the place of seizure, OR by registered mail to the owner. The Notice must be written notice to the owner of the circumstances of the removal of the animals (without a warrant) and the legal remedies available under this chapter to the owner of the animal(s). The proper procedures by statute are enumerated below. Petitioners received no lawful notice and their due process rights were violated.



                                              IN SUMMARY
ON 1/6/2011 EVERETT ANIMAL CONTROL TOOK MY DOGS & CAT FROM MY VEHICLE WITHOUT GIVING ME DUE PROCESS TO FIX OR RESPOND TO ANY ISSUES. ON 1/4/2011 I HAD A RUN IN WITH OFFICER TRASK WHO WAS BEING VERY AGRUEMNTATIVE & LEFT THE PROPERTY, WHEN I REURNED EARLY ON 1/6/2011 SHE SHOWED UP WITH POLICE & AFTER THE FACT THE WOMAN LIVING AT THE RESIDENCE GAVE ME A NOTICE SHE HAD LEFT THERE SAYING I HAD TO TAKE THEM TO A VET & CALL HER BUT NO TIME FRAME WAS GIVEN. THE REPORT WAS A LIE, BUT THEY TOOK THE WOMAN'S WORD BECAUSE THEY BELIEVED THAT SHE WAS THE ONE WHO GAVE ALL THE INFO, VIDEO, & WITNESSES TO THE SNOHOMISH COUNTY PROSECUTOR TO SHUT DOWN THE RENE ROSKE PUPPY MILL & ONCE I PROVED THAT IT WAS IN FACT ME WHO PROVIDED ALL OF THE EVIDENCE CHARGES WERE FILED AGAINST ME. IT ALSO SAYS IN MY CHARGING PAPERS THAT I AM GUILTY OF ABOUT 6 DIFFERENT THINGS. WHEN THE OFFICERS ARRIVED I WAS ASLEEP IN MY CAR WITH MY ANIMALS WHICH IS WHERE I ALWAYS SLEPT SO I COULD TURN ON THE CAR WHEN WE NEEDED HEAT & SO THEY DIDN'T GET COLD, THE OFFICERS TOOK PICTURES OF THE BAGS OF FOOD & THE CANNED FOOD, I HAVE WELL OVER 42LBS OF VET PAPERS PERTAINING TO MOST OF THE DOGS YOU HAVE IN CUSTODY TO PROVE THEY WERE GETTIN VET CARE, THAT MY ANIMALS HAVE ALWAYS RECIEVED TIMELY VET CARE. MY SENIOR ESKIMO THAT WAS KILED HAS LYMPHOMA, IT WAS TERMINAL, THERE WAS NO TREATMENT & IT HAS BEEN THE EXPERIENCE OF THE VETS & MYSELF THAT THE TREATMENT USUALLY KILLS THEM FASTER, SO OUR PLAN WAS TO KEEP HIM WITH ME UNTIL IT SEEMED HE WAS IN PAIN OR WAS SUFFERING, HE WAS ACTUALLY IN PRETTY GOOD SHAPE EXCEPT FOR CHRONIC CONJUNCTIVITIS, BUT SINCE I HAVE NO WAY OF KNOWING HOW BEING TAKEN FROM ME AFFECTED HIM EMOTIONALLY OR PHYSICALLY I DON'T KNOW WHAT HIS TRUE CONDITION WAS WHEN HE WAS MURDERED. NONE OF THE DOGS HAD ANY LIFE THREATENING CONDITIONS NONE WERE MALNOURISHED OR DEHYDRATED, NONE WERE INJURED, ALL WHO HAD PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS HAD MEDICATIONS FOR THEM LIKE LIBBY HAD HOT SPOTS, SHE HAD MEDS, HOKI HAS SEIZURES, HE HAS MEDS, SOFFIE HAD CHRONIC BLADDER INFECTIONS WHICH I WAS TOLD BY ONE VET IN SHELTON WAS BLADDER CANCER BUT ANOTHER VET IN SEATTLE SAID SHE WAS JUST FAT, SINCE SHE HAD BEEN BRED 11 TIMES BY THE TIME I GOT HER AT ALMOST 6 YRS OLD, HE SAID IT WAS LIKELY THAT SHE HAD ALOT OF INTERNAL DAMAGE AS WELL, SHE DID HAVE A HERNIA THAT REQUIRED EMERGENCY SURGERY FROM BEING OVERBRED SOME 4 YRS AGO AS WELL. I KNOW LIVING IN A CAR WAS NOT IDEAL BUT THEY WERE NEVER UNPROTECTED FROM THE ELEMENTS, & I ONLY FEED MY DOGS QUALITY HIGH END FOODS, WHICH WERE PRESENT IN THE CAR. I NOW HAVE A HOME FOR THEM TO BE, & STILL HAVE ALL OF THEIR FOOD, TOYS & SUPPLIES. IF YOU WILL NOT ORDER THE RETURN OF MY ANIMALS I WANT AN ORDER ALLOWING ME TO SEE THEM TO CHECK ON THEM DAILY SO THAT I CAN KNOW HOW THEY ARE DOING & TO PREVENT FURTHER EMOTIONAL DAMAGE TO THEM OR MYSELF. I AM OPEN TO CONDITIONS OF RELEASE WHICH WOULD BE FEASIBLE TO MY LIVING & ECONOMIC SITUATION, AS THIS IS CAUSING UNDUE HARDSHIP FOR ME EMOTIONALLY & ECONOMICALLY AS WELL. I AM NOT ABLE TO OBTAIN EMPLOYMENT UNTIL THIS MATTER IS SETTLED IN CASE I AM NEEDED AT COURT & BECAUSE I AM POOR SO I AM HAVING TO DO ALL OF THE RESEARCH FOR MY OWN CASE. ALMOST EVERY DAY I PARK ACROSS THE RIVER HOPING TO CATCH A GLIMPSE OF MY DOGS & NEVER HAVE SEEN THEM SO THEY ARE NOT BEING BROUGHT OUTSIDE FOR EXERSIZE & ARE BEING KEPT IN A PLACE BARELY TWICE AS BIG AS MY CAR, WITH THEIR KENNELS BEING HOSED DOWN ONCE A DAY UNTIL WHICH THEY ARE FORCED OT STAND OR SIT IN THEIR OWN WASTE, THEY ARE BEING HOUSED SEPERATELY & HAVE BEEN USED TO BEING TOGETHER, THERE IS ALSO THE ISSUE OF COMMUNICABLE DISEASES WHICH THEY COULD BE BEING EXPOSED TO ON A DAILY BASIS, WHICH IS ENDANGERING THEM DAILY. I KNOW EXACTLY WHERE THEY ARE BEING KEPT & WHAT THE HOLDING CELLS LOOK LIKE BECAUSE I USED TO RESCUE DOGS FROM EVERETT ANIMAL SERVICES WHICH THEY PROBABLY WON'T ADMIT BUT I HAVE THE PAPERWORK & VET RECORDS TO PROVE IT. I AM REQUESTING THE IMMEDIATE RETURN OF MY DOGS, & OTHER PROPERTY. I REALIZE IN A COURT OF LAW THAT ANIMALS ARE PROPERTY, BUT THEY ARE SENTIENT BEINGS, WITH FEELINGS, THAT FEEL PAIN, DEPRESSION SADNESS, JOY, ELATION, LOVE, LOYALTY, BETRAYAL, & ANY OTHER HOST OF EMOTIONS THE SAME AS YOU OR I WOULD FEEL, KEEPING THEM AWAY FROM ME & EACHOTHER IS NOTHING SHORT OF CRUEL & UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT FOR A CRIME I HAVE NOT EVEN BEEN CONVICTED OF & DUE IN NO PART TO ANY WRONG DOING FROM THEM. THEY ARE INNOCENT.

               RESPECTFULLY
      BRANDIA TAAMU
      (425) 319-3298
      FINALLYHOMERESCUE@YAHOO.COM