Are Animal Cost for Caring Civil Forfeiture Laws Constitutional

Question Presented The Montana State Supreme Court has decided an important question of federal law that has not been, but should be, settled by this Court, and it conflicts with : relevant decisions of this Court. Are Animal Cost for Caring Civil Forfeiture Laws Constitutional On Its Face and/or as applied regarding Montana Senate Bill 320 Statute 27-1-434. Case File No. DA 21-0150. Judgment date of November 2nd, — 2021. Petition for Writ of Certiorari is filed under United States Supreme Court Rule 11. . | | QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1.)The hybrid nature of forfeiture proceedings support adoption of clear and convincing standards of proof. , 2.) The Montana Supreme Court's rejection of my initial Motion for an Animal , Welfare Hearing to hear my constitutional arguments and to protect the lives of : my animals violates my procedure and due process rights. It violates my constitutional “rights” that are recognized as “privileges” and “immunities” under the Constitutions. The Courts continue to build on an unconstitutional foundation with excessive fines, punitive seizure and forfeitures and the resultant cruel and unusual punishment as acceptable under these civil forfeiture laws that are lawless and unconstitutional. 3.)Adjudication and prosecuting tribunals direct pecuniary interests in an outcome of forfeitures proceedings infringe on the neutrality requirements of due process and creates a culture of inherent conflict of interest. 4.) Whether criminal proceedings procedure (disguised as civil proceedings) as applied in this line of cases is impermissibly vague in enumerating . innocent-owner expectations. There are no innocent-owner provisions in Senate . Bill 320. 5.) The killing of Petitioner’s animals without due process and without a criminal Conviction is a due process rights violation and substantive due process rights violations. QUESTIONS PRESENTED CONTINUED 6.) The Montana Supreme Court's ruling constitutional arguments were not raised in the Eighth Judicial District Court is erroneous. Now the Appel’s Court . stance is all future constitutional arguments are further barred by res judicata when the proceedings were unconstitutional, vague, and all the harm and infliction of violation constitutional rights were not known until month(s) later is a travesty of justice. 7.) Legislatures creating bills that state “a notice of seizure can be posted on the owner's property “ in the event the owner is not home. MCA 27-1-434 3. The Petitioner shall serve a copy of the petition upon the respondent. If the name and address of the respondent are not available after reasonable investigation, the petition must be conspicuously posted by a law enforcement officer at the _ premises where the animal was seized. In my case scenario my physical body was seized and barricaded by law enforcement without giving a reason nor did they have a search warrant to block me from my animals and from my home. : They blocked my friends from coming to help also. They even followed one : supporter to his home. Then they used five days to manufacture citations on only five of the animals. This was done the day after | had filed constitutional violations against the County Officials involved in violating my rights May 15th, 2020. The State Courts have all refused to acknowledge those constitutional right violations | filed May 14th, 2020 but stated they were “moot” in the court Hearing of May 26th, 2020. Now they ruled constitutional violations are barred by res judicata. Montana Supreme Court Opinion November 2, 2021. LIST. OF PARTIES [ ] All parties appear in the caption of the case on the cover page. [ ] All parties do not appear in the caption of the case on the cover page. A list of . all