Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Demand for Unconditional Return of seized Car

Expand Messages
  • legalbear
    In the 34th District Court of Michigan, in the republic state of Michigan, a state of the Union and party to the Constitution of the United States of America,
    Message 1 of 1 , Feb 27, 2003
      In the 34th District Court of Michigan,
      in the republic state of Michigan,
      a state of the Union and party to the Constitution of the United States of
      America,
      as amended 1820

      STATE OF MICHIGAN,
      Defendant
      v.
      Brad Lee Barnhill,
      A man, Petitioner Case# 25-8009-2002

      In Re: 1989 Oldsmobile Regency 98, VIN# 1G3CX54C8K4314212

      PETITION FOR UNCONDITIONAL RELEASE OF PRIVATE PROPERTY
      PETITION FOR UNCONDITIONAL
      RELEASE OF PRIVATE PROPERY
      Comes now the Petitioner, In Propria Persona, Sui Juris, to demand a hearing
      under the authority of MCL 257.252a(5) and MCL 257.252f to determine if the
      property in question was improperly designated as abandoned, whether the
      proper procedure prescribed was followed, and that the property should be
      released unconditionally to the owner.
      JUDICIAL NOTICE
      All officers of this Court are hereby placed on notice under authority of
      the supremacy and equal protection clauses of the United States Constitution
      and the common law authorities of Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519-421
      (non-attorney litigants are held to less stringent standards than bar
      licensed attorneys); Platsky v. C.I.A., 953 F.2d. 26 (2nd Cir. 1991) (court
      errs if court dismisses the pleadings of a non-attorney litigant without
      instruction of how pleadings are deficient and how to repair pleadings); and
      Anastasoff v. United States, 233 F.3rd. 898 (8th Cir. 2000) (All litigants
      have a constitutionally-secured right to have their claims adjudicated
      according to the rule of precedent).
      FACTS
      1. On December 20th of 2002, at or about 10:00 pm, the Petitioner was
      traveling northbound upon the right of way designated Interstate-275 (I-275)
      near the Eureka Road exit.
      2. The Petitioner responded to an emergency signal by a purported
      Michigan State Trooper, later identified as one Kim Lawton, badge# 712, by
      exiting the right of way and proceeding to a safe well-lit location, namely
      the Shell gas station situated on the northeast corner of the intersection
      of I-275 and Eureka Road.
      3. After an exchange of pleasantries between Lawton and the Petitioner,
      a representative of one J&T Crova Towing removed the private property from
      the area of the Shell gas station, without the consent of or the direction
      of the Petitioner.
      4. The Petitioner was not issued a proper citation at that time.
      5. The Petitioner was not issued any receipt for his property at that
      time.
      6. The property of the Petitioner was in proper working order.
      7. The property of the Petitioner was not in such a condition that the
      continued operation of the vehicle upon the highway would constitute an
      immediate hazard to the public.
      8. The property of the Petitioner was not parked or standing upon the
      highway in such a manner as to create an immediate public hazard or an
      obstruction of traffic.
      9. The property of the Petitioner is parked in a posted tow away zone.
      10. There was no mention by anyone that there was reasonable cause to
      believe that the property of the Petitioner or any part of it was stolen.
      11. There was no mention by anyone that the property of the Petitioner
      was being seized to preserve evidence of a crime, or that there is
      reasonable cause to believe that the property of the Petitioner was used in
      the commission of a crime.
      12. Removal was not necessary in the interest of public safety because
      of fire, flood, storm, snow, natural or man-made disaster, or other
      emergency.
      13. The property of Petitioner was not hampering the use of private
      property by the owner or person in charge of that property or is parked in a
      manner that impedes the movement of another vehicle.
      14. The property of Petitioner was not stopped, standing, or parked in a
      space designated as parking for persons with disabilities.
      15. The property of Petitioner was not located in a clearly identified
      access aisle or access lane immediately adjacent to a space designated as
      parking for persons with disabilities.
      16. The property of Petitioner was not interfering with the use of a
      ramp or a curb-cut by persons with disabilities.
      17. The Petitioner attempted to reclaim the car on Saturday, December
      21st at or about 10:00 am by speaking personally with a woman who was
      dispatching for J&T Crova Towing, known only to the Petitioner as "Kris," at
      their Belleville, Michigan location situated at 590 E. Huron River Drive.
      18. The Petitioner showed to this woman identification issued by the
      church of the Petitioner, a copy of proof of insurance issued by GEICO for
      the car, and told the woman that the Bill of Sale proving ownership of the
      car was inside the car.
      19. The woman told the Petitioner that there was nothing that she could
      do, and that the Petitioner should speak to the owner. The Petitioner asked
      her to please call the owner and she did so.
      20. At or about 11:00 am, the Petitioner met personally with a man who
      was identified as the owner of J&T Crova Towing, who was known at that time
      to the Petitioner only as "John."
      21. During this meeting with John, the Petitioner showed to him
      identification issued by the church of the Petitioner, told him that the
      Bill of Sale evidencing the ownership of the car was inside the car, let him
      know that he had already shown the insurance information to his female
      dispatcher and offered to pay the towing and one day's storage for a total
      of one hundred thirty-eight dollars.
      22. At this time, John refused the tender of payment and refused to
      release the car
      23. On December 27th of 2002, at or about 1:30 pm, one Catherine Nicole
      Donkers, operating upon limited power of attorney from the Petitioner, went
      to reclaim the personal property of the Petitioner and of Donkers from the
      car, located on the premises of J&T Crova Towing in Romulus at 36573 Grant
      Street. Donkers can testify that on December 27th, there was no Written
      Notice as specified by MCL 257.252a affixed to the car.
      24. On January 27th of 2003, the Petitioner received a notice
      purportedly from the Michigan State Police alleging that the car had been
      taken into custody on December 20th of 2002. The notice had been sent to
      the ex-wife of the Petitioner in Virginia, and she had forwarded the notice
      to the Petitioner.
      25. The date of the notice is December 27th of 2002, but the envelope in
      which the notice was posted is postmarked January 10th of 2003.
      26. This Petition is timely filed within 20 days of the "issuance" of
      the notice, being the date it was postmarked.
      LEGAL CLAIMS
      27. The starting point in every case involving construction of a statute
      is the language of the statute itself.\/
      It is elementary that the meaning of a statute must, in the
      first instance, be sought in the language in which the act is framed, and if
      that is plain, and if the law is within the constitutional authority of the
      law-making body which passed it, the sole function of the court is to
      enforce it according to its terms. Lake County v. Rollins, 130 U.S. 662,
      670, 671; Bate Refrigerating Co. v. Sulzberger, 157 U.S. 1, 33; United
      States v. Lexington Mill and Elevator Co., 232 U.S. 399, 409; United States
      v. Bank, 234 U.S. 245, 258.\/
      28. Act 249 of 1980, as amended, codified with Act 300 of 1949, as
      amended at MCL 257.252 &seq, provides the procedure for impound and sale of
      abandoned vehicles and MCL 257.252d provides the procedure for immediate
      impound vehicles that are not abandoned.
      29. To the knowledge of the Petitioner or to Donkers, there was never
      any written notice as specified by MCL 257.252a affixed to the car. MCL
      257.252a(1) specifies that a car is considered "abandoned" only after 48
      hours (24 if upon a state trunk line highway) after a written notice as
      prescribed by MCL 257.252a(2)(b).
      30. To the knowledge of the Petitioner, the agency did not send to the
      Petitioner a written notice that the car had been considered abandoned until
      January 10th of 2003. MCL 257.252a(4)(c) states that the agency shall,
      within seven (7) days of taking custody of the car, send such notice to the
      owner. MCL 257.252d(2)(c) states that the agency shall, within ten (10)
      days of moving the car, send such notice to the owner.
      31. MCL 257.2524d(2)(c) also states that there must be a complaint by
      the towing company to the agency if the car has not been reclaimed within
      thirty (30) days. To the knowledge of the Petitioner, no such complaint has
      been filed.
      32. The Petitioner made every attempt to reclaim the car from the towing
      company on the date following the taking of the car into custody, and
      tendered the required payment to cover the towing and storage costs as
      required by MCL 257.252d(3).
      33. The towing company refused to release to the Petitioner the car,
      instead holding the car for further ransom.
      34. Refusal of tender of payment extinguishes the obligation.\/
      35. MCL 257.252f provides that the agency must not only follow the
      procedures properly, but it bears the burden of proof that it has done so.
      WHEREFORE, the Petitioner hereby respectfully requests the following relief:
      1. ORDER that a hearing be scheduled within 30 days for the purpose of
      determining whether the police agency acted properly and in strict
      accordance to the statutes enacted by the Michigan legislature. The
      petitioner lives at Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and there is already a hearing
      scheduled on February 27th of 2003; and,
      2. ORDER the owner and the police agency notified of the time and place
      of the hearing; and,
      3. In view of the refusal of tender of payment, ORDER that the hearing
      be scheduled without the requirement of a bond; and,
      4. ORDER that the police agency demonstrate that it complied with the
      procedures established for the processing of an abandoned vehicle or a
      vehicle removed under section MCL 257.252d; and,
      5. ORDER that there by provided a period of 20 days after the decision
      for the owner to redeem the vehicle; and,
      6. ORDER that if the owner does not redeem the vehicle within 20 days,
      the police agency shall dispose of the vehicle pursuant to section MCL
      257.252b or MCL 257.252g; and,
      7. Make a finding whether the police agency complied or did not comply
      with the procedures established for the processing of an abandoned vehicle
      or a vehicle removed pursuant to section MCL 257.252d; and,
      8. After making such a finding, the court shall issue an order
      directing that the vehicle immediately be released to the owner, and that
      the police agency is responsible for the accrued towing and storage charges;
      and,
      9. Make a finding that the towing and daily storage fees were
      reasonable; or in the alternative,
      10. Make a finding that the towing and daily storage fees were
      unreasonable and issue an order directing an appropriate reduction.
      Dated: 28 January A.D. 2003
      ________________________________
      Brad Lee Barnhill
      c/o non-domestic
      1 Dorchester Drive, #206; near:
      Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15241
      VERIFICATION
      county of Allegheny )
      :
      commonwealth of Pennsylvania )
      "Quakers, as a class, and other persons who have
      conscientious scruples against taking an oath, are allowed to make
      affirmation in any mode which they may declare to be binding upon their
      consciences, in confirmation of the truth of testimony which they are about
      to give." 1 Atk. 21, 46; Cowp. 340, 389; 1 Leach Cr.Cas. 64; 1 Ry. & M. 77.
      "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour."
      Exodus 20:16
      "Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old
      time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine
      oaths: But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is
      more than these cometh of evil." Matthew 5:33,37
      "But above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by
      heaven, neither by the earth, neither by any other oath: but let your yea be
      yea; and [your] nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation." James 5:12
      "I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also
      bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost." Romans 9:1
      SUBSCRIBED this 28th day of January in the Year of Our Lord and Savior Jesus
      the Christ, Two Thousand Three.
      ________________________________
      Brad Lee Barnhill
      Subscribed to before me, ________________________________, a Notary Public
      of the republic state commonwealth of Pennsylvania, by this man known to me
      on this 28th day of January in the Year of Our Lord and Savior Jesus the
      Christ, Two Thousand Three. Notarization is for identification purposes
      only and is not to be construed as entry into any particular jurisdiction or
      venue.
      _____________________________ _______________________________
      Notary Public My Commission Expires
      CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
      I, Brad Lee Barnhill, hereby certify that on January 28th of 2003, I placed
      a copy of this PETITION FOR UNCONDITIONAL RELEASE OF PRIVATE PROPERTY and
      PEITIONER'S FIRST INTERROGATORIES into a sealed envelope with sufficient
      priority mail postage and placed said envelope into the U.S. Mails to be
      delivered to:
      Michigan State Police Post 25
      12111 N. Telegraph Road
      Taylor, Michigan 48180
      ________________________________
      Brad Lee Barnhill

      In the 34th District Court of Michigan,
      in the republic state of Michigan,
      a state of the Union and party to the Constitution of the United States of
      America,
      as amended 1820

      STATE OF MICHIGAN,
      Defendant
      v.
      Brad Lee Barnhill,
      A man, Petitioner Case# 25-8009-2002

      In Re: 1989 Oldsmobile Regency 98, VIN# 1G3CX54C8K4314212

      PETITIONER'S FIRST INTERROGATORIES TO AGENCY
      Petitioner's First Interrogatories to Agency
      The answers to the following questions are required in the above captioned
      matter. You are requested to provide answers to the following questions
      under oath. You may, if you desire, answer the question directly on a copy
      of this form, and attach an appropriate verification page.

      1. What is the name of the party answering these questions?

      Name: ___________________________________________________________

      Address: ___________________________________________________________

      ___________________________________________________________

      2. Is the property considered to be an "abandoned vehicle"? Yes or No

      3. Is the property considered to be a "registered abandoned scrap
      vehicle?" Yes or No

      4. Is the property considered to be an "unregistered abandoned scrap
      vehicle?" Yes or No

      5. State the precise location where the car was "abandoned":

      _____________________________________________________________________

      _____________________________________________________________________

      6. Is this location private property? Yes or No

      7. Is this location public property? Yes or No

      8. Is this location considered to be a state trunk line highway? Yes
      or No

      9. Was there a check made to determine if the car was reported stolen?
      Yes or No

      10. Was the car reported stolen? Yes or No

      11. Was a written notice affixed to the car? Yes or No

      12. Please provide a copy of the written notice referenced in
      interrogatory 11. (Request for document)

      13. What was the date on the written notice?

      Date: ________________________

      14. What was the name and address of the police agency taking the action
      as shown on this written notice?

      Name of police agency: ________________________________________________

      Address of police agency:
      ________________________________________________


      ________________________________________________

      15. What was the name and badge number of the police officer affixing
      the notice?

      Name: ________________________________________________

      Badge Number: ________________________________________________

      16. What was the date and time noted on the written notice that the car
      would be taken into custody and stored at the owner's expense and scrapped
      if the car was not removed:

      Date: __________________

      17. What were the Year, Make and Vehicle Identification Number of the
      car, as shown on the written notice?

      Year: _________ Make: ____________________________________

      VIN: ________________________________________________________

      18. On what date was this written notice affixed to the car?

      Date: __________________

      19. Who affixed the written notice to the car on the above date?

      Name: ____________________________________________________

      Address: ____________________________________________________

      ____________________________________________________

      20. When was the car taken into custody?

      Date: _______________________

      21. Were any of the following actions performed?

      a. Was the car rechecked to determine of the car was reported stolen?
      Yes or No

      b. Was the car reported stolen? Yes or No

      c. Were two pictures taken of the car? Yes or No

      d. Was the car information entered into the LEIN? Yes or No

      e. On what date was the car entered into the LEIN?

      Date: _______________________

      f. Within seven (7) days of taking the car into custody, was a written
      notice sent to the owner? Yes or No

      g. Within seven (7) days of taking the car into custody, was a written
      notice sent to the secured party of the car? Yes or No

      h. To what mailing location was the notice mailed to give notice to the
      owner?

      Name: ________________________________________________

      Address: ________________________________________________

      ________________________________________________

      i. On what date was this written notice mailed to the owner?

      Date: ______________________

      j. To what mailing location was the notice mailed to give notice to the
      secured party?

      Name: ________________________________________________

      Address: ________________________________________________

      ________________________________________________

      k. On what date was the written notice mailed to the secured party?

      Date: ______________________

      22. Was the car apparently inoperable? Yes or No

      23. What was the "diagnosis" as to the cause of the inoperability?

      _____________________________________________________________________

      _____________________________________________________________________

      24. What is the estimate of the cost to repair the above inoperability?

      Estimated Cost: $ __________________________________________

      25. What is the fair market value of the car?

      Estimated Value: $ __________________________________________

      26. Is the car currently registered in Michigan? Yes or No

      27. Does the car display current registration plates from another state?
      Yes or No

      28. Was the car removed within 48 hour (or 24 hours, as the case may be)
      after the written notice described in interrogatory 11 above was affixed?

      29. Within 24 hours, excluding Saturday, Sunday, and legal holidays,
      after taking the vehicle into custody, did the police agency complete a
      release form and release the vehicle to the towing service or a used vehicle
      parts dealer or vehicle scrap metal processor? Yes or No

      30. On what date was the act described in interrogatory 29 performed?

      Date: ________________________

      31. Please provide a copy of the release form noted in interrogatory 29.
      (Request for document)

      32. Did the towing service or a used vehicle parts dealer or vehicle
      scrap metal processor transmit that release form to the secretary of state
      and apply for a certificate of the title or a certificate of scrapping? Yes
      or No

      33. On what date was the act described in interrogatory 32 performed?

      Date: ________________________

      34. Did the secretary of state shall issue a certificate of title or a
      certificate of scrapping? Yes or No

      35. Please provide a copy of the certificate of title or certificate of
      scrapping. (Request for document)

      36. Does the release form described in interrogatory 29 furnished by the
      secretary of state include a certification executed by the applicable police
      agency when the abandoned scrap vehicle is released? Yes or No

      37. Please provide a copy of the certification executed by the
      applicable police agency. (Request for document)

      38. Does the certification described in interrogatory 36 state that the
      police agency has complied with all the requirements prescribed by law? Yes
      or No

      39. Was the car is in such a condition that the continued operation of
      the vehicle upon the highway would constitute an immediate hazard to the
      public? Yes or No

      40. Was the car is parked or standing upon the highway in such a manner
      as to create an immediate public hazard or an obstruction of traffic? Yes
      or No

      41. Was the car is parked in a posted tow away zone? Yes or No

      42. Was there is reasonable cause to believe that the vehicle or any
      part of the vehicle was stolen? Yes or No

      43. Was the car seized to preserve evidence of a crime, or when there is
      reasonable cause to believe that the vehicle was used in the commission of a
      crime? Yes or No

      44. Was removal is necessary in the interest of public safety because of
      fire, flood, storm, snow, natural or man-made disaster, or other emergency?
      Yes or No

      45. Was the car is hampering the use of private property by the owner or
      person in charge of that property or parked in a manner which impedes the
      movement of another vehicle? Yes or No

      46. Did the owner of the private property complain about or request the
      removal of the car? Yes or No

      47. Was the car is stopped, standing, or parked in a space designated as
      parking for persons with disabilities and is not permitted by law to be
      stopped, standing, or parked in a space designated as parking for persons
      with disabilities? Yes or No.

      48. Was the car is located in a clearly identified access aisle or
      access lane immediately adjacent to a space designated as parking for
      persons with disabilities? Yes or No

      49. Was the car interfering with the use of a ramp or a curb-cut by
      persons with disabilities? Yes or No

      50. Did the towing company make a complaint to the agency? Yes or No

      51. Please produce a copy of the complaint referenced in interrogatory
      50. (Request for document)

      52. On what date did the towing company make this complaint?

      Date: _________________

      End of Petitioner's First Interrogatories



      For mailing use: Excellence Unlimited, 17795 E. Eldorado Place #201,
      Aurora, CO 80013 303-484-9895 fax 810-958-6113
      www.legal-research-video.com <http://www.legal-research-video.com/>
      www.legalbears.com
      To subscribe to Tips & Tricks for court send an email to:
      tips_and_tricks-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.