Please join us on our new page

I have totally revamped this whole page, it will now be in chronological order so that you can see if unfold. It will be quite long this is 16 months worth of garbage & games. I am also going to be breaking it up into parts (pages) & it is still currently under construction so your patience is appreciated.

John 3:19-21 (Phi) " Everybody who does wrong hates the light and keeps away from it, for fear his deeds may be exposed. But everybody who is living by the truth will come to the light to make it plain that all he has done has been done through God." John 3:19-21                   

 So here is where it starts, you have a crazy person make up enough good lies & they write a statement. Please note the dates of 1/5/11 & 1/21/2011 for her statements. Also please note they gave this psychopath my driver's license number which she checks almost every day.

Rose Adams statement       
Okay so if I had a REAL lawyer let’s just pretend I did let’s take a look at the statement from the borderline personality narcissistic nut job here. I have written numbers on the lines so we can keep it straight, you might have to blow it up to see it, not sure how this works but here goes
Lines:

7 & 10 I never even came to Rose Adams house til the 19th & I can prove that

17 Is just a lie, I let my dogs out but left her property to do it most times because of a pit bull she has that kills other animals

19 She never spoke to her landlord she was hiding fromm him because she hadn’t paid the rent in a couple of months

20 through 22, she begged me to bring my dogs in her house with a crazy pit bull who went after another pit bull, which took 4 adults to separate them, & it also killed her own cat. Her dogs also were infested with tape worms which were crawling out of their butts & you couldn’t sit down on the couch without checking first to see if there were any on there. They were all also mostly bald on their butts from being so infested with fleas you could watch them crawling around, I had also been bitten several times by 2 of her dogs & ave the scars to prove it… Um no thanks, not bringing my dogs in there.

22 through 26 She never touched my dogs so if to pull their skin up & unless she is a vet she isn’t qualified to make these statements. I kept a pan full at all times with their food in it

26 through 30 She gave me potty pads, I had went out there for hours at a time because that was when it had snowed, she had chased Gorge out of the house & I didn’t want to listen to her whine, so I was out there with the dogs most of the time

31 & 32 Again is she a vet, how can she tell if animals she never touched were spayed or neutered, can she see shots magically through their skin? I never told her that, Taz, Hoki, Soffie, Libby were spayed, George was too old & was dying of cancer, & Libby was not yet. I have their shot records to prove they all had their shots

33 through 40 NAICS Code clearly states Animal Shelter which is what I am licensed as

40 through 43 This is comic relief here, did they move West Seattle out of King County??? Someone better tell the folks in West Seattle that LOL! Seriousy my business has never been registered in King County.

44 through 47 I absolutey did get a 500.00 donation from a dear rescue friend for a deposit to get a place because f this mess, she knows full well I am not a 501(c)3 & can write a statement proving it.

47 through 49 I never received donations for that where is her proof & documentation, I’d also like to note if I did, I am the shittiest fundraiser in the world as the only money I got was from Judith

49 & 50 I wasn’t receiving either of those things

50 through 53 If I was parked in front of her house & never left, how could I magically be running around pulling from shelters in a 3 state area, & honestly which rescue would give me a dog while I was living in a car & why in the hell would I want anymore dogs while I was living in a car???
I would also like you to take note of the handwriting… My attorney let this stand, he never challenged ANYTHING… Nothing like making sure the prosecution has a good day.

Then you have a neighbor who is actively trying to have a baby with a registered sex offender, who smokes pot daily with Rose's husband George, also write out a statement

Then you drop 6 charges against her to make sure she will testify to her lies. You might also note that she starts her campaign of lies the DAY she goes down to the city trying to get her own charges dropped. 

Then you find one fat hateful witch who has had a vendetta against me since 2000 & you get her to believe your bull crap & she goes to the judge & gets a warrant. Note this is the first time she HAS to call me a "THIN NATIVE AMERICAN WOMAN"

To date I have never received any of Ingrid Weaver's statements or Mike Zachman's statements, oddly enough neither one was ever called to testify

Then they show up with this nifty piece of paper & destroy your life, ransack your car & take pictures afterwards, & go through the pictures & take out any that won't help their case & don't give you the other photos even when you ask for them

This is the warrant inventory form... The form they are supposed to give you before they leave, the same form that they don't list my cat on nor the narcotics for my dog George but they have ALL of the other medications my dogs were taking on there. I didn't get this form until late June, 6 months after the fact.

Then they formally charge you & then change the charge &  make a recommendation

Then the AC officers do a follow up report where AGAIN I am a "THIN NATIVE AMERICAN WOMAN"

So the ONE time Ms Adams seen the dogs out of the car... I thought I ONLY let them out twice... Oh & she is now a vet because my Chihuahua "appeared" to be very dehydrated, but wait!!! I thought I was supposedly over at Rose's from the 12th of December but I was at the Wal-Mart on Christmas... She says right in her statement that she got a call from Christine that I was staying at the Wal-Mart, maybe in her alternative universe time goes backwards

Don't most dogs stop to drink from puddles? The meds were difficult to read with brown stuff smeared on them, um no there wasn't & maybe she needs reading glasses, or just to have Officer Harmer follow her around reading things for her. I don't understand the weird obsession they have with saying things were put into pockets... Anyway all of the dogs had medication which one usually gets from a vet. I am not even going to address her description of my car, it was after she ransacked it & there was no feces in my car for crying out loud. I also think it's funny that they say I said I would call my attorney E. Cromwell, I said I only knew of one attorney who could handle animal cases but think about it, homeless people can't afford someone like her.

Funny there is no record of my animals at the shelter until 4:40 p.m. so the dogs had water before we went to bed, so pretty good chance they were thirsty by then, duh. Anyway here is where they lied about my vet saying they were concerned about my animals for years when they had only been my vet for a couple of months. I also asked her if I could see my animals to make sure they were okay & if I could send a vet in to check on them, ther policy doesn't allow ANYONE in to examine the animals which is why it was so hard to get an expert witness, no one can testify to something they haven't seen, that is called perjury. I also never got any of those emails I requested for discovery

I didn't get any of these emails either but they did accidentally send me some emails from Ginger Luke which is how I knew where Rose was coming up with all of this nonsense, she's not smart enough to do this alone. This is also where she admits to assisting the vet in an exam, she is not a vet tech nor is she licensed to do so but the incompetents at the health department said it wasn't a crime when it clearly is. George could not walk because he was bleeding from his rectum when he got there... Only God knows what she did to him, she also doesn't mention that Soffie was hypothermic & bleeding from her mouth & had broken teeth & all of her vet records show she had perfect teeth, George was a a 14 yr old puppy mill dog & in order to get his teeth pulled he would've had to be anesthetized & he had lymphoma so that wasn't going to happen. They also don't mention that Hoki was in the full throws of seizures upon arrival. Dr Lisa Thompson is not authorized to do necropsies & this is where she put sticky notes all over his internal organs & desecrated his poor precious little body.

Please note that Officer Harmer can actually read, & he can even read well enough to see the names of the medication. If you look at the picture pages, you will see I didn't have any pockets, so I am not even sure why he said that I took the warrant & put it in my pocket

So they have taken my animals & charged me with a crime for sleeping in my car with my dogs, I slept with them, I did not leave them alone or to go through anything I was not also going through... I am not saying this was an ideal situation but it was the best I could do at the time. They realized from the onset that they couldn't make the charges of "cruelty" stick so they changed it to "Failure to Provide Humane Care"

Before they actually file charges I had to go to the police station to call the prosecutor when I was trying to get information about my animals, the police are so flabbergasted by the whole story they tell you to file your own police report against this woman & to get a protective order against her for my own protection

Unfortunately when you are dealing with a woman who has been manipulating the system for decades getting a protective order does very little good when she won't answer the door for service

Okay so the law states you can ask for the return of your animals if no charges are filed within 14 days of them being taken but it doesn't help when the IDIOTIC Judge sends the "Answer" to their witnesses address instead of to your home...

The next step is that you petition the courts for the return of your animals... BUT if you ask the MORONIC district court clerk she will REFUSE to let you file the motion in District court where it SPECIFICALLY states it has to be filed, & she sends you to the Superior court where you get an even more dense Court Commissioner who has NO idea what is going on & further helps the city build a case against you when she let's you incriminate yourself & give away your entire defense, meanwhile she LET'S them accuse you of crimes you are NOT guilty of & gives them continuance after continuance so they can FURTHER slander you. Then as the final insult to the injury she dismisses the case by saying you did not file something you CLEARLY did when you have ti stamped as filed from the clerk's office.Basically what you have is an idiot convention going on but you still get screwed over & it cost me the final hours of my dog's life

You file a petition in Superior Court

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


In Re: ) Cause No. CRP003735

              Brandia Taamu
Petitioner                                                                 

            City of Everett  & Animal Control
Respondents                                                 

Complaint for Emergency Injunction
Petitioner, to Stay Euthanizing or Transferring of the Pets
of Petitioners, and for Motion for Release
of the Animal Property of Petitioner


Petitioners Brandia Taamu Pro Se, respectfully submit this Petition, Motion and Memo in support of
Emergency Injunction to Stay Euthanizing of the Pets and Property of Petitioners and for Release of Property of
Petitioner.

The basis for this Petition is that the procedure used by the City of Everett Municipal
Code Chapter  6.04.090 for seizure and impound of animals fails to provide the petitioners with the
minimum level of due process to which they are entitled under the law for their property and liberty
interests in their canine property. This means that any decision/infraction issued by the City of
Everett (or animal care and control) that petitioners failed to adequately provide for their pets
under (PLEASE SEE NOTE A.) Citation Number-CRP003735 ) is constitutionally deficient.
For this reason, the petitioners request that this Court stay the euthanizing or transferring or other disposition of
petitioners' dogs and cats and release petitioners' dogs and cats immediately back into the custody of the petitioners.
NOTE A) I was never given a citation so will use the cause number
The Court of Appeals of the State of Washington has previously invalidated provisions of the King County Code for failing to provide minimally adequate procedural due process. Mansour v. King County, 131 Wn. App. 2155, 263 et seq. (2006) (relying substantially on Nguyen v. Dep't of Health. Med. Quality Assurance Comm'n, 1444 Wn.2d 516, 522-523, 29 P.3d 689 (2001). As will be shown below, the citation and actions of the City of Everett and/or animal control authorities provides even less due process protections than the provisions of the King County Code that Mansour found to be deficient.

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. Petitioners were cited for (not providing water on a  24 hour basis??? Under citation no. (PLEASE SEE NOTE A)  for their pets and her pets were summarily seized by the City of Everett- and/or AC. Petitioners' pets have been held in impound since their seizure January,6, 2011 at City of Everett Anmal shelter.
(PLEASE SEE NOTE A)
 
RCW 16.52.100 is the Washington State statute that concerns the feeding and watering of animals. The Washington State statute that provides for removal of animals for feeding and care by law enforcement or animal control authorities for improper care of animals is 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.
 
These notice requirements are similar to the notice requirements found under Washington State's forfeiture statute RCW 69.50, paragraph. When property of an owner is seized, notice must be provided by the seizing authority.

RCW 63.32.010 also provides for notice requirements when any personal property shall come into the possession of the police authorities of any city in connection with the official performance of their duties. This statute provides for a method of disposition of property after it remains unclaimed by the owners after written notice to the owner. The notice shall inform the owner of the dispostion which may be made of the property and the time that the owner has to claim the property unless the item is to be used as evidence in a criminal case or that the property has been determined to be unsafe and unable to be made safe for use by the public, or illegal to possess or used in an illegal manner.
 
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.

Property owners have the right to challenge such seizures and, if they “substantially prevail,” recover their costs and reaasonable attorney fees. RCW 69.50.505(6). 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. 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 “contraband”, 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 “derivative contraband” 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 “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 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 timeframe to reclaim their property which is still in impound in Everett Wa. I n 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 16.52.085 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
. . . .
RCW 16.52.085: Removal of animals for feeding
— Examination — Notice — Euthanasia.
(1) If a law enforcement officer or animal control officer has probable cause to believe that an owner of a domestic animal has violated this chapter and no responsible person can be found to assume the animal's care, the officer may authorize, with a warrant, the removal of the animal to a suitable place for feeding and care, or may place the animal under the custody of an animal care and control agency. In determining what is a suitable place, the officer shall consider the animal's needs, including its size and behavioral characteristics. An officer may remove an animal under this subsection without a warrant only if the animal is in an immediate life-threatening condition.
(2) If a law enforcement officer or an animal control officer has probable cause to believe a violation of this chapter has occurred, the officer may authorize an examination of a domestic animal allegedly neglected or abused in violation of this chapter by a veterinarian to determine whether the level of neglect or abuse in violation of this chapter is sufficient to require removal of the animal. This section does not condone illegal entry onto private property.
(3) Any owner whose domestic animal is removed pursuant to this chapter shall be given written notice of the circumstances of the removal and notice of legal remedies available to the owner. The notice shall be given by posting at the place of seizure, by delivery to a person residing at the place of seizure, or by registered mail if the owner is known. In making the decision to remove an animal pursuant to this chapter, the officer shall make a good faith effort to contact the animal's owner before removal.
(4) The agency having custody of the animal may euthanize the animal or may find a responsible person to adopt the animal not less than fifteen business days after the animal is taken into custody. A custodial agency may euthanize severely injured, diseased, or suffering animals at any time. An owner may prevent the animal's destruction or adoption by: (a)  Petitioning the district court of the county where the animal was seized for the animal's immediate return subject to court-imposed conditions, or (b) posting a bond or security in an
amount sufficient to provide for the animal's care for a minimum of thirty days from the seizure date. If the custodial agency still has custody of the animal when the bond or security expires, the animal shall become the agency's property unless the court orders an alternative disposition. If a court order prevents the agency from assuming ownership and the agency continues to care
for the animal, the court shall order the owner to renew a bond or security for the agency's continuing costs for the animal's care.
(5) If no criminal case is filed within fourteen business days of the animal's removal, the owner may petition the district court of the county where the animal was removed for the animal's return. The petition shall be filed with the court, with copies served to the law enforcement or animal care and control agency responsible for removing the animal and to the prosecuting attorney. If the court grants the petition, the agency which seized the
animal must deliver the animal to the owner at no cost to the owner. If a criminal action is filed after the petition is filed but before the animal is returned, the petition shall be joined with the criminal matter.
(6) In a motion or petition for the animal's return before a trial, the burden is on the owner to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the animal will not suffer future neglect or abuse and is not in need of being restored to health.



I. STATEMENT OF FACTS
On January,6,2011, petitioner's pets were seized by Everett Animal Control with a warrant. The petitioner  did not receive the warrant from the Everett Police officer nor were her rights ever read to her, the AC  officer just told her orally she had a warrant to take the dogs. The petitioner was never allowed to see
her animals or to even call to check on their welfare The animals were NEVER in a life threatening condition. No lawful notice as provided by RCW 16.52.085(3) was provided to the owners upon their seizure. No notice was posted, personally served or sent certified mail to petitioners who owned the animals. Petitioners had just lost their lease and were transitioning to a new place of residence. The pets were temporarily being contained inside and outside of the vehicle of petitioners on a friend's property. The pets had adequate food, water, ventilation, heat, shelter, and space during this transition. Petitioners were proactively seeking a new residence. Petitioners pets were being contained in the vehicle as petitioners were concerned about other dogs on the property where they were being allowed to stay temporarily. The petitioner slept outside in the vehicle at night with the  dogs in case it got too cold so se could turn the heat on & spent a good part of the day in the vehicle  with her animals as well. The petitioner has numerous bite marks all over her body from the  complainants dogs as well The other dogs of the property owner had shown signs of aggression toward petitioner so petitioner was taking no chances. The dogs were being contained in the vehicle to prevent any fighting incident or other incident where the dogs might get loose or harmed. After a dispute with the owner of the property who had allowed petitioners to temporarily take up residence on her property, the owner of the property contacted law enforcement/animal control authorities from the City of Everett.
 Petitioner's pets were impounded by Everett Animal Control in the City of Everett.
As it stands now, petitioners' pets
1) Hokie-8 yr old Kelpie dog,
2) Soffie-10 yr old mini- Schnauzer dog,
3) Misty 5yr old toy aussie dog,
4) Libby, 2yr old Pom mix dog
5) Taz are 5 yr old domestic shorthair cat
6) George, 12yr old Eskimo they put to sleep but won't return his body
contained at Everett animal shelter. They are contained in cages and never let out for more than a few minutes. They are fed once a day and their urine and feces that accumulate within the cages is hosed or brushed out once a day. Employees have stated to petitioner that this is a horrible way to keep these animals. Petitioner are concerned that this long impound and legal process will
permanently damage their pets if they are forced to remain incarcerated, as most are senior, the one who was killed was terminally ill & the impoundment caused his early demise, previously none of the petitioners animals had ever been away from her for more than a 36 hour period, most are pupp mill or feral, or shelter rescue animals.  Pets suffer emotionally similar to humans kept incarcerated for long lengths of time. Petitioners consider their pets as part of their family.
In essence, according to Everett Animal Control(law enforcement), the petitioners' pets were declared to be without water for 24 hours. The owners have not been provided lawful notice of the seizure or the reasons other than by phone after the animals were siezed , legal remedies available to them.
The owners have still not been allowed to see the original report or any other reports that have been made, & was  disallowed from getting one pets remanins & was told they are considered evidence A hearing to contest the allegations has not been held  Euthanasia or other disposition of petitioner's dogs during this time is a very real possibility, and has already been  carried out on one dog so far  & they have threatened to put down Soffie as well who is becoming depressed &  not eating well which I can not confirm because they won't the let petitioner see the dogs, nor tell the petitioner anything  about them,  the way the petitioner found out George was dead was because the prosecutor told her. At no time was  she ever notified of is impedng demise & was never given the opportunity to prevent t or to be present, or even reclaim  his body
Forcing petitioner to pay impound fees for the summary seizure of their pets by authorities without procedural  due process, is financially impossible for the petitioners to afford. Petitioners do not have the financial means to  comply with any restrictions or impound fees in order to have their petss returned to their custody. Petitioners are  fearful that if they are unable to pay these fees that their dogs will either be euthanized or otherwise disposed of by Everett Animal Control, because most would be deemed as unadoptable because  of age, health & behavorial issues.  Petitioners believe that since laws were violated in order to seize their pets that the pets should be released unconditionally back to the care, custody and control of petitioners.
Meanwhile, petitioners have secured other adequate housing for themselves and their pets and petition the Court for return of their household pets. Keeping their pets in a vehicle during the transition was never meant to be a permanent residence for their pets. However, it was the best residence petitioners could provide in the interim while searching for a new residence for all of them.

II. LAW AND ANALYSIS
a. Did the City of Everett/ animal control authorities have a constitutionaly defective notice and seizure procedure? Was the seizure unlawful under statute? RCW 16.52.100 and RCW 16.52.085 are controlling in this case as they pertain to animals being seized for feeding and care from owners. Notice requirements are set forth in these statutes and in other statutes such as RCW 69.50 et s eq. when government takes possession of personal property. The City of Everett/animal care and control authorities did not follow lawful statutory procedure when they seized petitioners' pets. The animals were not in a
life-threatening condition, had not been withheld water for 36 hours pursuant to statute. Subsequent to seizure of the petitioner's pets, proper statutory notice procedures were not followed by posting, personal service or registered mail to the owners. Since proper statutory procedures pertaining to the seizure of animals was not followed, and subsequent notice to petitioners, petitioners' animals should be released to them immediately. The Court of Appeals in Mansour v. King County, 131 Wn. App. 25 (2006) held 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.” Mansour at 266. The city of Everett/animal care and control authorities procedural due process and notice procedures are defective. The owners in this case were provided even less procedural rights than the rights provided to the owner in Mansour. The rights provided to petitioners are constitutionally defective as well.
2. Should the City of Everett/animal care and control authorities release the petitioner's pets back to their care, pending resolution of these matters?
Petitioners make assurances to this court that the pets will now be in a secure place of abode.
Petitioners did not allow their pets to reside in a situation that they believed was life-threatening however, it was the best temporary residence that they could provide to their pets while they were transitioning to a new place of residence after losing their lease. They have now secured that new residence and a safe place of abode for their pets.
3. Should the city of Everett/animal control authorities be restrained from euthanizing petitioner's pets or otherwise transferring or disposing of them?
Petitioners are requesting a restraining order be granted to keep their household pets, dogs and cats, from being euthanized or otherwise transferred or disposed of by authorities who have impounded the animals. The seizure, impound, and notice was unlawful and defective. If no restraining order is served on animal control authorities or law enforcement, petitioners are fearful that their pets will be euthanized as petitioners could not hope to comply financially with paying all of the impound fees for their care during the past 39 days after they were seized.

III. CONCLUSION
Because the Cityof Everett/animal control authorities have clearly violated the law and notice requirements pertaining to seizure of animals and personal property of the petitioners in their pets, and the procedural rights of the petitioners are constitutionally defective, petitioners request that the euthanizing of petitioner's pets be stayed by means of an emergency restraining order.
Because the petitioner's pets would be irreparably harmed by remaining in the custody of the city of Everett/animal care authorites pending resolution of this matter, and petitioners can and will at this time provide a safe and secure home for the pets, this court should order the city of Everett/animal care and control to release the pets of the petitioners forthwith. It is the right thing to do.
The petitioner is being charged with not providing water on a 24 hour basis when the Animal Control  officer arrived with the Everett Police there was in fact a water container sitting on the car & still about  1/8 cup of water in their water bowl, The reason they have given petitioner for removing her animals & the charge is very specifically not providing water on a 24 hour basis under Everett Municipal Code which  is in clear conflict with the Revised Code of Washington in two matters

1) Everett Municipal Code

6.04.070 Prohibited conduct.

C.    Offenses Relating to Cruelty. It shall be unlawful for any person to:

2.    Under circumstances not amounting to first degree animal cruelty as defined in RCW 16.52.205,  fail to provide an animal with sufficient good and wholesome food and a constant source of clear  potable water, proper shelter and protection from the weather, veterinary care when needed to prevent suffering, and with humane care and treatment;

Revised Code of Washington

RCW 16.52.310
Dog breeding — Limit on the number of dogs — Required conditions — Penalty —
Limitation of section — Definitions.

(d) Provide dogs with easy and convenient access to adequate amounts of clean food and water.
Food and water receptacles must be regularly cleaned and sanitized. All enclosures must contain
potable water that is not frozen, is substantially free from debris, and is readily accessible to all
dogs in the enclosure at all times.

The Everett Minicipal Code is in direct conflict wth the Revised Code of Washington

West's Revised Code of Washington Annotated Currentness.
Title 35. Cities and Towns.
Chapter 35.27. Towns. 35.27.370. Specific powers enumerated

Citation: WA ST 35.27.370

Citation: West's RCWA 35.27.370

Last Checked by Web Center Staff: 09/2010

Summary:  

This Washington statute provides that the council of said town shall have power to pass ordinances
not in conflict with the Constitution and laws of this state, or of the United States.  Specifically, the
council may regulate, restrain, or prohibit the running at large of any and all domestic animals within
the city limits, or any part or parts thereof, and to regulate the keeping of such animals within any part
of the city; to establish, maintain and regulate a common pound for estrays, and to appoint a
poundkeeper, who shall be paid out of the fines and fees imposed on, and collected from, the owners
of any impounded stock.


Statute in Full:

The council of said town shall have power:

(1) To pass ordinances not in conflict with the Constitution and laws of this state, or of the
United States;

(7) To impose and collect an annual license on every dog within the limits of the town, to
prohibit dogs running at large, and to provide for the killing of all dogs found at large and
not duly licensed;

(14) To impose fines, penalties and forfeitures for any and all violations of ordinances, and
for any breach or violation of any ordinance, to fix the penalty by fine or imprisonment, or
both; but no such fine shall exceed five thousand dollars, nor the term of imprisonment exceed
one year, except that the punishment for any criminal ordinance shall be the same as the
punishment provided in state law for the same crime; or to provide that violations of ordinances
constitute a civil violation subject to a monetary penalty, but no act which is a state crime may
be made a civil violation;

(16) To make all such ordinances, bylaws, rules, regulations and resolutions not inconsistent
with the Constitution and laws of the state of Washington, as may be deemed expedient to
maintain the peace, good government and welfare of the town and its trade, commerce and
manufacturers, and to do and perform any and all other acts and things necessary or proper
to carry out the provisions of this chapter.

CREDIT(S)

[2008 c 129 § 3, eff. June 12, 2008; 1993 c 83 § 7; 1986 c 278 § 6; 1984 c 258 § 805; 1977
ex.s. c 316 § 25; 1965 ex.s. c 116 § 15; 1965 c 127 § 1; 1965 c 7 § 35.27.370.
Prior: 1955 c 378 § 4; 1949 c 151 § 1; 1945 c 214 § 1; 1941 c 74 § 1; 1927 c 207 § 1; 1925
ex.s. c 159 § 1; 1895 c 32 § 1; 1890 p 201 § 154; Rem. Supp. 1949 § 9175.]

2) 16.52.207 Animal cruelty in the second degree.

(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.

Respectfully Submitted this 15th day of February, 2011.
By: Brandia Taamu, Petitioner Pro Se

DECLARATION
Pursuant to GR 13, I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of Washington that I am
competent to testify and that the claims in the Statement of Facts above are true and correct.

Signed at Everett, Washington this 15th day of February, 2011.


_______________________________________
By: Brandia Taamu, Petitioner Pro Se


Then they say the above motion isn't sufficient & make you file a whole other motion

Then the city responds & accuses you of crimes you are not being charged with, making statements of facts not in evidence & slandering you... but please note it  is NOT the prosecuting attorney who makes the statement it is the City Attorney, it was at this point they realized they screwed up so they have to bring in the bigger guns

Here is where they accuse me of keeping George around to garner donations, which is a crime of dishonesty, & they said I fancied myself a dog rescuer when I had a valid Washington State Master Business License as an "Animal Shelter" they released many dogs to me from their shelter so at some point they ALSO fancied me as some sort of a dog rescuer. At this point they had already talked to my vets so they knew the dogs were getting vet care, & they had all of their medications in their possession.

The following documents are their exhibits in response to my accusations that the Municipal Codes were unconstitutional to show the courts that they were NOT accountable  to the constitution according tot he prosecutors statements in an open court.

Well after the prosecutor spends THOUSANDS of hours going over your blog & web pages he files a "Motion of Limine" that is ridiculous at best... & when you point out that according to court rules if he includes part of an instrument that they must include ALL of it: Then they just leave it alone & stalk your page & blog for the next 17 months

Please note the last sentence, I had already given them my witness list of 23 people, but the prosecutor thinks that if we don't bring in the 169 people who offered to testify for me & parade them in front of the Judge that it would unduly burdensome, wasteful of time & cumulative. So wait let me see if I have this right, we can bring in my 23 witnesses, or we can bring 169 of my friends, & my 23 would be MORE work then 169??? In which universe does this work?

Then the Prosecutor does a Prosecutorial Offer of Diversion after you file the Tort Claim against the city for all the screw up they have done so far but you have made them so nervous that the city attorney is the one who actually writes up the POD & then they fail to give you most of the pages so you don't really know what you would be agreeing to...

I filed my Tort Claim, the clerk took the wrong copy so it wasn’t signed so I have to refile it which is fine with me, just shows what a bunch of games they play, but I wanted to share it with those of you who may someday need it. Keep in mind this is only my Tort CLAIM as opposed to my Tort Brief for Superior Court, that is where the beauty unfolds, this dirty corrupt prejudiced town has forced me to learn things I would never have conceived, once I get the the brief finished I will post it too. These are very long, & there is a reason: If I were to lose then I have everything set up & entered into the court as a basis for appeal, preservation of ALL of the facts is sometimes the ONLY way you will win & seriously, look at my chances, I am fighting in the same town that has so far denied & laughed in the face of 1/2 of the United States Constitution, the Washington state constitution & over SIXTY different laws, not suggestions- but LAWS.

Here is my claim with a portion of the laws they have broken as well as some of my basis for claims:

Please note the date & time stamp above... I finally checked to see what they were doing with my tort claim a year later, & they tried to tell me that it was not filed because I did not hand in a signed copy, but thankfully because of this web page & my weird obsession with having everything stamped I copied & pasted this portion of it & sent it to the clerk... So now as of 8/27/2012 they are working on it.

Prosecutorial offer of diversion... In other words the "Plea Deal" they are trying to give me to get out of going to court &/or getting the crap sued out of them. I have no idea why they believe they are so much more so superior in intellect than I am, or why they continue to believe that I am just stupid. Maybe they don't realize that I am the one who wrote out all of my briefs, I have a good grasp of the law, but an even better grasp of all the double talk & BS they spew all over the place, I also have their handy dandy little procedure packet so I know how they operate & every step they will take. We will go to court unless THEY DROP ALL OF THE CHARGES, EXPUNGE MY RECORD, & FIND MY DOGS BODY & GIVE HIM BACK TO ME ALONG WITH THE REST OF MY ANIMALS.

There: that is my "Plea Deal" & my "Screw you". You broke the law, you trampled on my constitutional rights & instead of making it right once you realized you were WRONG you didn't drop it & give me back my animals, you continued to try to bully me. First off they gave me a POD that was 8 pages long but only gave me 4 pages of it, & it is so full of pitfalls only a fool would even consider it, seriously:

This is also my PROOF that I filed the Tort Claim or else they wouldn't have brought it up in a POD.

I only have 4 of the 8 pages but will post the other 4 when I get them.

Why do they want me to proceed without an attorney???

Where is the separate document? 

Why is section 1.B. even in there?

Why does it say that photos, reports & documents are attached to the agreement when there are none & they have already admitted those into evidence at discovery?

Kind of funny that I have been trying to proceed pro se for 8 months but once they have stripped me of my rights or ability to defend myself it is okay for me to proceed pro se?

What 3. A. & B. are saying is that they can allege at any time I had a violation of law & rescind the agreement 

What 3. C. says is that I can not object to any evidence they present if they go ahead & charge me. it also states I lose my rights to a jury trial, & I have to trust that crooked judge who should've recused himself from my trial a LONG time ago, to give me a fair ruling when he has already stated in open court that I am guilty? No thank you.

What 3. D. Is saying is that I have a right to object... No one will listen but I have a right

3. E. Is vague in that I don't know what other court hearings they are referring to... Isn't 24 court hearings enough for them?

PAY SPECIAL ATTENTION TO 3.F. IT IS THE ONLY THING THAT IS IN BOLD LETTERS, IT IS CONTINUED ON THE NEXT PAGE.

LOOK AT THE TOP OF THE PAGE... It is the only thing that is in bold letters, it is telling me that in order to get my animals back I have to drop my tort claim against the city of everett. If my Tort Claim had no merit why would it even be brought up here? How appropriate is this?

3.G. The city agrees to drop the charges, to dismiss with prejudice... isn't that mighty nice of them?

4. A. Means they can take as long as they want to do anything they want to do.

4. B. Why would they ask me waive my constitutional rights when they have been ignoring them for 8 months, now it's an issue? Signing this would almost be an acknowledgement that they hadn't trampled all over my constitutional rights in the first place... How strange is that?

4.C. Just another way of saying again they can take as long as they feel like to do whatever they want.

4. D. Signing away my rights to a jury trial leaving myself at the mercy of the judge??? NOT GOING TO HAPPEN!


5.A. Now they're just being jerk offs, but pay close attention, it is the one thing that will screw me. Okay I have always provided vet care for my animals, they have all of my records now to prove it. it is "Defendant will comply with all animal welfare laws in the jurisdiction in which she resides" Okay I have 4 dogs, & 1 cat, that everett is holding, the limit here is 3 animals, nevermind that 2 are my dogs, 1 is my cat & 2 dogs are fosters, but: they won't give them back to me by saying I am over the limit for Snohomish County & I will need to get a kennel license before I get them back & Snohomish is not going to give me a kennel license for here because it is not zoned for that. So I will never get my animals back

Now here is where it gets insulting & ridiculous.

5. B. So I have to trust the same prejudice woman that took my animals in the first place

or

one of her co-workers who have laughed in my face when I cried when I found out that my dog had died

or

the one who LIED about what my vet said,

to approve my house? I don't believe that will ever happen so I don't for one second think I have a chance in hell at getting back my animals, ever.

6. A. Why should I pay attorney fees for something I shouldn't have been charged with in the first place?

6. B. Why should I pay them anything for stealing my animals, slaughtering & LOSING one of them's body, & traumatizing them for life? Are you all on some kind of drugs or are you all supposed to be on some kind of drugs that you're NOT taking? Now as far as my Schanuzer's surgery I have no issue with paying the same price my vet would've charged me if he would've caught her bladder stone, that would've been 380.00 total

7. This confuses me, all of a sudden they are only going to charge me with one thing instead of all of it, but again I won't get a fair trial so of course the judge will prosecute me to the fullest extent possible since I have filed a complaint with the Judicial Commission against him. DUH!

8. Well of course the judge will impose the maximum... but now they are stating I can have a defense, but the stipulation requires me to have no defense & proceed pro se. Really?

9. The evidence has already been admitted into discovery & that crap I can tear to shreds at a real trial with a real judge, with a real jury,so really who gives a care

I don't have pages, 5, 6 7, or 8 so I don't know what they say.

When all else fails the prosecutor encourages his witnesses to threaten, harass & intimidate me & file FALSE police reports against me

OH DRAT!!! The false report didn't work so now the prosecutor is calling Snohomish County Animal Control LYING to them & telling them I had 30 dogs in feces encrusted cages in my ONE BEDROOM apartment! This just goes to show what a bunch of morons are leading the city...

 
Make a Free Website with Yola.