BRENDA GRANTLAND 
California Bar #165899
20 Sunnyside Suite A-204
Mill Valley CA 94941
415-380-9108

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA      	:
                              				:	No.  00-00000
           		Plaintiff,         		:	
                              				:	
       v.                     				:	ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
                              				:	FOR FORFEITURE IN REM
REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 		:
55555 258^th PLACE,				:
MOSQUITA, CALIFORNIA			:
						:
		Defendant.          		:	
                                                                       	: 
						:
JOHN DOE,					:
						:
		Claimant.			:
                                                                       	: 

	Claimant, John Doe, through undersigned counsel, answers the Complaint For Forfeiture in Rem as follows:
	1.  Admitted.
	2.  Admitted.
	3.  Admitted.
	4.  Admitted.
	5.  Admitted.
	6.  Claimant lacks sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the contents of the title report referenced in paragraph 6, but the title to the property was transferred to John Doe,  in January 2000, recorded in September 2000 (prior to the filing of this action.)  Claimant admits that a lien is held by _____, but lacks sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the government’s claim that it does not seek to forfeit the interest of _________.
	7.  Claimant asserts his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.
	8.  Claimant lacks sufficient information to admit or deny. 
	9.  Claimant admits he was incarcerated at the Los Angeles County Men’s Central Jail.  He asserts his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination as to all other allegations in this paragraph.
	10.  Claimant lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the content of hearsay statements made by the informant.  Claimant admits that he had a number of vehicles registered in his name, although many of them were non-operational.  He asserts his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination as to all other allegations in this paragraph.
	11.  Claimant asserts his Fifth Amendment privilege.
	12.  Claimant asserts his Fifth Amendment privilege.
	13.  Claimant asserts his Fifth Amendment privilege.
	14.  Claimant asserts his Fifth Amendment privilege.
	15.  Claimant asserts his Fifth Amendment privilege.
	16.  Claimant asserts his Fifth Amendment privilege. 
	17.  Claimant asserts his Fifth Amendment privilege.
	18.  Claimant asserts his Fifth Amendment privilege.
	19.  Claimant asserts his Fifth Amendment privilege.
	20.  Claimant asserts his Fifth Amendment privilege.
	21.  Claimant asserts his Fifth Amendment privilege.
	22.  Claimant asserts his Fifth Amendment privilege.
	23.  Claimant asserts his Fifth Amendment privilege.
	24.  Claimant asserts his Fifth Amendment privilege.
	25.  Claimant asserts his Fifth Amendment privilege.
	26.    Claimant asserts his Fifth Amendment privilege.
	27.    Claimant asserts his Fifth Amendment privilege.
	28.     Claimant asserts his Fifth Amendment privilege.
	29.  Claimant admits that search warrants were executed at Main Ave. and 258^th Place.  Claimant lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the  allegations concerning what occurred during the search of the defendant property and what was recovered there.    Claimant asserts his Fifth Amendment privilege as to the remaining allegations. 
	30.  Claimant asserts his Fifth Amendment privilege.
	31.  Claimant asserts his Fifth Amendment privilege.
	32.  Claimant asserts his Fifth Amendment privilege. 
	33.  Admitted.
	34.  Claimant admits that he was arrested on April 21, 1998 on methamphetamine charges and that these charges are still pending.  Claimant also admits that he was employed full-time at Wal-Mart for 17 years, but asserts his Fifth Amendment privilege as to the remaining allegations. 
	35.    Claimant asserts his Fifth Amendment privilege.
	36.  Denied.
                          First Defense
	37.  The evidence seized during the search must be suppressed as the  fruit of an unreasonable search and seizure under the Fourth  Amendment to the United States Constitution and One 1958 Plymouth  Sedan v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 380 U.S. 693 (1965).
                          Second Defense
	38.  The forfeiture of this property, in addition to the criminal punishment and fines and the automobiles that have already been forfeited from claimant, would be grossly disproportionate punishment in violation of the Eighth  Amendment's Excessive Fines Clause, and Austin v. United States, 509 U.S. 602 (1993).
       WHEREFORE, claimants pray:
       	1.  That this action be dismissed;         
	2.  That he be awarded reasonable attorneys fees; and
	3.  For such other and further relief as may be deemed  just and equitable.
						Respectfully submitted,
						________________________
						BRENDA GRANTLAND, ESQ.
						20 Sunnyside Suite A-204
						Mill Valley, CA 94941
						(415) 380-9108

Certificate of Service
       I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Answer was served, by first class mail, upon Assistant United States Attorney __________________, on this _______ day of June, 2002.

							Brenda Grantland, Esq.