Saturday, October 4, 2014

Laws and Rescue Groups According to ARs+Which Animals Kill People

https://www.animallaw.info/intro/laws-regulating-rescue-and-foster-care-programs-companion-animals

Below is information that was posted to the above site link, most of which is animal rights leaning. We have long noticed a tendency for the site to post articles, and cases which seem to take the side of activists but will skimp on the cases that favor the winning side,  if the winner was human and not the "animal."  We also never use the term "companion" animals, we always use either "animal" "pet" or "owned" animal.
Owners have paramount rights over animals, period. Animal rights people believe that people should have no ownership of animals, that animals should not be used in entertainment, that animals should not be used for food or anything else that humans may want or like. Such as horses pulling carriages in Central Park in New York; sled dog races, the circus, the rodeo, etc.  The fact that some people may be negligent will not change animals into children. The word "guardian" is not something we use either. A guardian is lifted from child welfare statutes. It confers NO OWNERSHIP, therefore we do not use that term. It is an activist term to which none of us subscribe.

Further-- the author of the "article" is ...part of the ALDF (Animal Legal Defense Fund), Student affiliation, so they can recruit animal activists........

Student Animal Legal Defense Fund (SALDF)
SALDF is a student group that is affiliated with the Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF) and shares its mission to protect the lives and advance the interests of animals through the legal system. The goals of SALDF include educating the University of Denver community about forms of institutionalized animal abuse, understanding how the law can be used to combat animal abuse, and supporting the larger Denver community in its efforts to improve animal welfare.SALDF sponsors fundraisers for local animal welfare agencies, promotes animal cruelty awareness through school events, and educates students on available career paths in animal law. Officers, Titles, and Contact President: Jessica Leabo Vice President: Kristen pariser. 


Overview of Laws Regulating Rescue and Foster Care Programs for Companion Animals
Kristen Pariser (2014)


"The types of people who work in rescue and foster care programs are often very passionate and caring; running these organizations requires a lot of patience and access to resources. However, there has been a lack of regulations and oversight in monitoring these groups. Additional legislation defining these organizations and laws to require licensing and inspections will ensure all organizations are accountable to the animals they shelter."

"Although there are few states that currently define these groups, other general laws on animal facilities may be able to be applied. The first step to becoming a rescue or a foster care provider is to be licensed. Because there is no national law regulating these organizations, the requirements will vary from one state to another, and even from one city to another. In some states, a rescue or foster home may be regulated like a commercial kennel or similar to a shelter. The organizations may be subject to inspections from the Department of Agriculture or they may opt to work under contract as an agent of the shelter. Some states will have no regulations and simply leave it up to the city or county to regulate permitting and enforcement of the rescue and foster groups."
Note by author of this blog: In CA it is not generally required to be "licensed" in general in order to "rescue" an animal such as a dog, cat, bird by the State; some cities/counties may require a local license but generally, shelters do not require a 501(c)(3) to pull animals necessarily; and rehoming without a 501(c)(3) is usually not illegal, since non profits can exist WITHOUT a 501(c)(3). Animal control limit laws usually do not exempt rescues, so some rescues warehouse in rural areas. Kennel permits are usually quite expensive and are discretionary approval based in most cases. Often septic systems are required and a host of other codes in regard to building will apply. Often the permit application fee is not refundable and can be thousands of dollars.  For exotics, it is an entirely different setup with federal regulations and is both somewhat complex and difficult, especially where activists do not want many species to be owned, bought or sold, even bred species such as tropical birds or fish.  

"Once the organization becomes licensed the group will need to acquire companion animals to begin their work saving and re-homing the animals. This can lead to issues because under the law animals are still considered property and can be the subject of contractual agreements. Disputes over ownership can happen. When this occurs a court will look to see if a valid contract was in place. Next, it will look at the terms of the contract and determine which party has breached those contract terms. Many shelters will contract with rescues and foster care providers and depending on how the contract is drafted, the shelter will either retain ownership of the animals or will transfer ownership over to the receiving party. A rescue group will also set up contractual agreements with their foster parent volunteers. Contracts with dog breeders can also become a problem if a rescue takes a dog surrendered by its owner when the animal should have been returned to the breeder according to its purchase contract."
Note by blog author: We never use the word "foster parent" as no foster family is the 'parent' to an animal, period. An animal is not a child. It may be a temporary foster home, kennel or other setting, but in no instance is the fostering considered a parental unit. In fact, the foster entity normally is not ultimately responsible for the animal legally, but the rescue likely would be. SELECTING the foster unit may cause further liability to the rescue itself since a foster may not know what they are doing and then allow the animal to cause harm to a child or other prospective buyer. Further, legal issues can arise pitting the rescue against the actual buyer of the animal in the event that the rescue claims to still "own" the animal even when the buyer has already purchased it. Using the word "adoption" does not mean no ownership transfers. If a rescue claims to own property that has already been sold, then there was not a sale, but something else. These circumstances can cause expensive legal bills and should be avoided. This addresses the alleged "flipping" mentioned below, claiming that an animal is "resold" for "a profit."

"Pet flipping is also becoming an animal welfare concern in the world of adoptions. Pet flipping is where someone finds a dog for adoption and then turns around and re-sells the animal for a profit. Rescue and foster groups are now considering revising pet adoption contracts to prohibit adopters from re-homing an animal once it is adopted. This as a practical matter could be difficult to enforce and retaining certain rights over the animal after it is sold can possibly leave a rescue or foster open to further liabilities."
Note by blog author: "Flipping" is constantly done by RESCUES. "For a profit" is simply the animal activists way of saying that selling an animal should NEVER result in a "profit." Well guess what? Many rescues sell animals for a profit. They only make money by selling animals and by gaining donations. If they don't get donations then they gain by selling the animal. If they cannot keep afloat by either means, then they shouldn't be in business, BECAUSE rescuing animals is quite expensive to do. If rescues are set up in BUSINESS, being a non profit does NOT mean they cannot make a profit. In fact, ASPCA and HSUS are huge examples of profit making "non profits" just like the huge cancer groups that take millions of donations. Their profits are used to keep their work going in theory but the reality is, HSUS for example, spends plenty on pension funding, lobbying, and advertising on TV. So much so, that HSUS has bragged for years on end, that they go from the state capitols to the Congress to the courts.

"The legal complexities however don’t just end with licensing and acquiring companion animals. Rescues and foster care providers must also abide by several other laws when operating their non-profit organization. A majority of the states have a spaying and neutering requirement that applies to both shelters and other releasing agencies. In addition, there has been a trend in animal rescue groups to travel across state lines and bring animals from high-kill shelters in the south to the north for fostering. Some northern states have instituted new laws and regulations in response, which may require quarantine, health certificates or additional veterinary inspections to help reduce the spread of contagious disease."
Note by blog author: There are far more laws than several. Activist animal rights people are CONSTANTLY telling people how we owners should do everything, they insist on telling us where we MUST obtain a pet. They insist on claiming we have no right to choice as to what we buy. That we must all buy what they want US to own. HA. Not in our opinion.

"Many cities and counties may also have pet limit ordinances that limit how many pets an individual can keep at one given time. Courts have upheld these statutes as being constitutional, therefore, rescues that use foster homes will need to be sure that all volunteers abide by the statutes. In addition to pet limit laws, private nuisance and zoning laws can limit the number of animals that can be kept in residential zones. Rescues and fosters should also be aware of local tethering laws. Some cities may have anti-tether laws that prohibit tethering and others may permit it under limited circumstances. All rescue and foster volunteers should be sure to have the appropriate type of housing for securing the companion animals that they house."

"Another issue that rescues and foster groups can run in to is breed specific legislation, which will prohibit owning and keeping certain breeds of dogs that have been deemed dangerous. Rescue groups wanting to help those breeds of dogs will have to operate outside of the city limits where breed specific legislation has been enacted."
Note by blog author: BSL laws, while disfavored, do not deem all dogs listed as necessarily dangerous, but simply are lists of dogs that the city or county claims are dangerous due to the statistics used by insurance companies, based on dog bites. Thus, certain breeds can be on a list even if NOT deemed dangerous. Like Saint Bernard, Great Pyr, and others.

"Regardless of which dog breeds a rescue or foster group works with, it is important to have liability insurance. A majority of states have strict liability dog bite statutes, which mean that even if a rescue or foster volunteer does not intend for someone to get hurt, the owner or keeper of the dog will still be held liable for damages caused by the dog."

 Note by blog author: In California, the dog's owner is subject to strict liability. If a rescue takes in a dog, it owns the dog. If the rescue fails to tell the truth about a biting dog, or a dog with dangerous propensities, or a dog that has bitten many times, the rescue is in trouble. If the rescue tells an owner it will not own the dog but will find it a home, and knows of the bad behavior of the dog, the rescue can still be sued. No rescue should be rehoming dogs with questionable or known bad propensities. 

 Most rescues are NOT professional dog handlers, dog behaviorists, or dog professional anything, period. Which is why we see "rescue" people in the news, getting KILLED by having 3-7 rescues dogs or even 1 rescue dog, which kills the rescuer, seriously maims the rescuer, or may even kill children. In most cases, the killed or maimed "rescuer" was female.

 Over half of dog-human fatalities is likely attributable to REHOMED dogs.  This fact is not broadcast widely, [because animal rights activists don't want to admit that rehomed dogs can present huge liability problems, legal issues, behavioral issues, health issues and even huge danger]  but when only about 15-18% of dogs are sourced from rescued/rehomed/shelter-- and they are responsible (in fatalties) at over 50% of the killings nationwide, we can see that the chances of it being "coincidental" is impossible. Note that nothing was stated about "breed" of dog, despite the generic "pitbull" label assigned to most dog attacks in the media.

 If only 37 dogs per year kill 37 people, it is nearly impossible to find that half of the killings would be done by the minimal percent (15-18%) of rescued/rehomed/shelter animals. Yet because it is true, we can see that this huge unlikely fact means that rehomed/rescue/shelter animals pose far greater risk of harm to people than just regular dogs obtained as puppies, NOT from shelters, which stay with a family from day one.  As yet another example of this, a Bay Area guy bought a dog from the shelter; it was pregnant apparently, and he kept the dog and at least one puppy. He ended up with 4-5 of such dogs, and they ended up killing his step-grandson in the garage. 
           First, no one should be keeping 5 dogs in the garage. Second, no one should leave a child with even 1-2 dogs, much less more. Third, the door to the house leading to garage was obviously not secure. Fourth, the owners should have known better than to keep more than 2 of such dogs when they didn't know anything about the breed, propensity, or other behaviors of such shelter animals. It was NOT surprising to find the owner was convicted of involuntary manslaughter.  Rescued animals killed the child.

Trial begins for step-grandfather of Concord child killed by ...

www.contracostatimes.com/.../trial-begins-grandfathe...

Contra Costa Times
Aug 21, 2013 - Trial begins for step-grandfather of Concord child killed by pit bulls ... faces up to 10 years in prison if convicted of involuntary manslaughter and child ... morning Jacob wandered into an unlocked garage where the dogs were...

"Lastly, animal rescues and foster care providers may be entitled to reimbursement costs when taking in and caring for sick or injured animals from cruelty situations. Authority for reimbursement can come either from state statute or a judge may order the defendant to pay restitution, even when the non-profit receives donations from the public."  
Note by blog author: Yes, and here when we see this situation, is where we see the dark underbelly of rescues that seize/keep animals to profit off of them by mounting up here storage LIENS, free propaganda advertising, donation central, and in general, to profit off the situation. If you didn't know it before, you probably need to learn more about animal rights in general.


Posted by at No comments:

Cases on Animal Law Issues, Often by Animal Rights Groups

We are not saying we agree with these cases as filed,  however, activist groups file cases constantly in Federal Courts and state courts across the country.  In the first case, even if a defendant was careless, that does not necessarily amount to gross criminal negligence IN California, which requires the standard (to meet the burden of proof.) General negligence is not sufficient.

Shotts v. City of Madison, 2013-KM-01108-COA, 2014 WL 4347582 (Miss. Ct. App. Sept. 2, 2014). Defendant was charged with animal cruelty after burning his girlfriend's dog while giving it a bath. He said it was an accident. There were no other witnesses, and the attending veterinarian testified that the dog's injuries were consistent with defendant's account. Defendant was nevertheless convicted after the county court suggested he could be guilty of animal cruelty if he had “carelessly” hurt the dog. 
Instead, the appeals court found the lower court applied the wrong legal standard. The 2011 animal cruelty statute, since repealed, that applied in this case required proof beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant acted maliciously. Since the prosecution failed to meet that burden, the Mississippi Court of Appeals reversed and rendered the defendant's conviction. Justice James dissents finding that there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction.
We didn't bother to read this case below, because ALDF uses a lot of the same attorneys that HSUS and cronies use, so if there is a way to "tweak" something, they usually do it. Doesn't mean success in every case (such as saying chimps have human rights due to their cognitive ability) as animals are still considered as property in the United States.

Animal Legal Def. Fund v. Otter, 1:14-CV-00104-BLW, 2014 WL 4388158 (D. Idaho Sept. 4, 2014). In a ‘hold your tongue and challenge now’ First Amendment challenge to an Idaho statute that criminalizes undercover investigations and videography at “agricultural production facilities,” the Animal Legal Defense Fund, as well as various other organizations and individuals, (collectively, “ALDF”), brought suit. The State defendants, Governor Butch Otter and Attorney General Lawrence Wasden, moved to dismiss the ALDF's claims. The claims against the Governor were dismissed under 11th Amendment immunity because the ALDF failed to explain the requisite connection between the Governor and enforcement of section 18–7024. The court also found that since the ALDF failed to allege a concrete plan to violate subsection (e), it lacked standing to challenge section 18–7042(1)(e) and the claim in regards to that provision was therefore dismissed. However, the ALDF’s First Amendment, bare animus Equal Protection, and preemption claims survived the motion to dismiss.
Defenders of Wildlife are consistently filing cases. They do win some. 
Defenders of Wildlife v. Jewell, CV 12-1833 (ABJ), 2014 WL 4714847 (D.D.C. Sept. 23, 2014). In 2012, a rule transferred management of the gray wolf in Wyoming from federal control to state control. Plaintiffs moved for summary judgment, and maintained that the decision was arbitrary and capricious because Wyoming's regulatory mechanisms were inadequate to protect the species, the level of genetic exchange shown in the record did not warrant delisting, and the gray wolf was endangered within a significant portion of its range. Given the level of genetic exchange reflected in the record, the Court decided not to disturb the finding that the species had recovered, and it would not overturn the agency's determination that the species was not endangered or threatened within a significant portion of its range. However, the Court concluded that it was arbitrary and capricious for the Service to rely on the state's nonbinding promises to maintain a particular number of wolves when the availability of that specific numerical buffer was such a critical aspect of the delisting decision. The Court therefore granted plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment in part, denied it in part, and remanded the matter back to the agency.

United Pet Supply, Inc. v. City of Chattanooga, Tenn., 13-5181, 2014 WL 4637546 (6th Cir. Sept. 18, 2014). A private non-profit corporation that contracted with the City of Chattanooga to provide animal-welfare services, received complaints of neglect and unsanitary conditions at a mall pet store. Investigations revealed animals in unpleasant conditions, without water, and with no working air conditioner in the store. Animals were removed from the store, as were various business records, and the private, contracted non-profit began to revoke the store's pet-dealer permit. Pet store owners brought a § 1983 suit in federal district court; the Owners alleged that the removal of its animals and revocation of its pet-dealer permit without a prior hearing violated procedural due process and that the warrantless seizure of its animals and business records violated the Fourth Amendment. The district court’s entry of summary judgment was affirmed in part and reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Due process requires an opportunity to be heard at a “meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.”Armstrong, 380 U.S. at 552, 85 S.Ct. 1187. The failure to provide a hearing prior to a license or permit revocation does not per se violate due process. See Barry v. Barchi, 443 U.S. 55, 65–66, 99 S.Ct. 2642, 61 L.Ed.2d 365 (1979) (holding that the summary suspension of a horse trainer's license without a prior hearing did not violate due process, but the failure to provide a timely post-suspension hearing did violate due process). But there is no dispute that never providing an opportunity to challenge a permit revocation violates due process. Thus, the revocation of Pet Supply's permit without a pre-deprivation hearing or a post-deprivation hearing violated due process.
*18 No reasonable officer could believe that revoking a permit to do business without providing any pre-deprivation or post-deprivation remedy was constitutional.

Searches related to animal law attorney california


Posted by at No comments:

Monday, September 8, 2014

Post Seizure Hearing Lassen Horse Case Example

Post Seizure Hearing under Penal Code 597.1 and Abandonment, Civil Code 1815

1815.  An involuntary deposit is made:
   (a) By the accidental leaving or placing of personal property in
the possession of any person, without negligence on the part of its
owner.
   (b) In cases of fire, shipwreck, inundation, insurrection, riot,
or like extraordinary emergencies, by the owner of personal property
committing it, out of necessity, to the care of any person.
   (c) By the delivery to, or picking up by, and the holding of, a
stray live animal by any person or public or private entity.
   (d) By the abandonment or leaving of a live animal, as proscribed
by Section 597.1 of the Penal Code, in or about any premises or real
property that has been vacated upon, or immediately preceding, the
termination of a lease or other rental agreement or foreclosure of
the property.


1816.  (a) The person or private entity with whom a thing is
deposited in the manner described in Section 1815 is bound to take
charge of it, if able to do so.
   (b) Any person or private entity with whom a live animal is
deposited in the manner described in subdivision (d) of Section 1815
shall immediately notify animal control officials for the purpose of
retrieving the animal pursuant to Section 597.1 of the Penal Code.
Animal control officers who respond shall be entitled to exercise the
right afforded them pursuant to that section to secure a lien for
the purpose of recovering the costs of attempting to rescue the
animal. Nothing in this subdivision shall impose any new or
additional civil or criminal liability upon a depositary who complies
with this subdivision.
   (c) A public agency or shelter with whom an abandoned animal is
deposited in the manner described in Section 1815 is bound to take
charge of it, as provided in Section 597.1 of the Penal Code.
   (d) The person in possession of the abandoned animal is subject to
all local ordinances and state laws that govern the proper care and
treatment of those animals.
   (e) For purposes of this section, the person or private entity
that notifies animal control officials to retrieve the animal or the
successor property owner shall not be considered the keeper of the
animal or the agent of the animal's owner as those terms are used in
Section 597.1 of the Penal Code


















 "This bill would provide that an involuntary deposit is made by the
abandonment or leaving of a live animal in or about any premises or
real property that has been vacated upon, or immediately preceding,
the termination of a lease or other rental agreement or foreclosure
of the property. The bill would require any person or private entity
with whom a live animal is involuntarily deposited to immediately
notify animal control officials for the purpose of retrieving the
animal."


Abandoned Pets 

                                   DESCRIPTION 

          Generally, a voluntary deposit of property occurs when a  
          party gives to another, with his or her consent, possession  
          of their personal property; whereas an involuntary deposit  
          of property occurs when the property is provided to another  
          by accident (without negligence) or by necessity.  

          This bill would provide that an involuntary deposit is also  
          made by the abandonment or leaving of a live animal in or  
          about any premises or real property that has been vacated,  
          upon, or immediately preceding, the termination of a rental  
          agreement or foreclosure of the property. 

          This bill would require any person or private entity with  
          whom a live animal is left, as specified, to immediately  
          notify animal control officials for the purpose of  
          retrieving the animal as provided by Penal Code Section  
          597.1, which authorizes any peace officer, humane society  
          officer, or animal control officer to take possession of  
          the abandoned animal and provide care for the animal until  
          the animal is deemed to be in a suitable condition to be  
          returned to the owner.

          This bill would also authorize animal control officials to  
          secure a lien upon the animal for the purpose of recovering  
          the costs of rescuing it, as provided by Penal Code Section  
          597.1. 




It is pretty obvious that the person has to abandon and leave the animal


for this to apply. Owner never left them, the County, the Receiver and


the rescue/bank attorney SEIZED the animals about 1 month after getting


an exigency removal, without due process. There was no due process because


there was no order to give ownership up--the animals were only to be moved


in part, to the fairgrounds to determine if they needed vet care. The horses


were to be returned to owners and never were returned.








This bill does not mean bank attorney works with a rescue and AC to use


improper method of seizing animals while owner is still on property, and


bank attorney goes to court acting as the Receiver, to say he must gain


custody/remove due to exigency health of animals. Nope.





There cannot be an involuntary deposit of something which has already been



there with the owner for years, but bank is trying to TAKE property over which



they may have some equitable lien that was never proven up in $$ amount in a



lawsuit brought by the one owning the property, not the bank?







As far as "foreclosures" go, there was/is  no foreclosure, because banks do not have



title they can prove; thus they had to use other means; Bank of America admitted they                     have no ownership. Banks have only a potential interest in improvements that are



situated on owner's land, and they did not partition it. They never filed a lis pendens.



They claim they inherited the improvements somehow (which was in securitized trust.)







That leaves Wells Fargo Bank. Bank attorney Ryan was REMOVED from the case.



He was replaced with other Bryan Cave attorneys. Those attorneys have done



very little in the case and have not even tried to take the property. There are some



key, hard issues with that, and they don't want to make it worse than it already is



we guess, even though someone had offered the now-evicted rescue about $800,000 to



settle the case and she refused.







Although El Dorado held post seizure hearing on the horses which WERE involuntarily



left at the ranch, the horses ARE evidence in a criminal case AND we have no idea



where they went. Lassen did not respond to the post seizure notice, but there are



still criminal charges pending on those horses. Do we really think Lassen can



convict owner by using pictures? They would have to get witnesses to lie. There



are no witnesses except interested parties like animal control wanting to save their



own hides. 
































Posted by



at





No comments:
  


































          

        

          

        

Sunday, September 7, 2014


          

        










Humane Officer Tries to Claim Llamas Need to be Seized










Humane officers have tried to claim llamas just north of Sacramento need to be seized for "abuse" because they need grooming, fleece removing, or other terms used to trim the coat. Elderly llamas

are not normally sheared down heavily at the wrong time of the year since their coat

may not return properly.  A well known veterinarian will be out to inspect the critters

and the Humane officers will not be allowed entrance to the property, even though they

(humane officers) already took pictures of the animals.



Update: Apparently, the "humane officer" that is bent on creating problems for llama owner took even more action recently, and has attempted to get authority to search the residence premises.

We will update when we find out what transpired. {NOTE: the "humane officer" in question here, is now being sued in Eastern District Federal Court on many counts, due to fact that such "officer" purposely worked with various employees employed by the city/or county,etc. and proceeded to ignore the correct California Penal Code law (PC 597 and 597.1) when they illegally seized in Plaqcer Couty,  animals/personal possessions, failed to engage due process; then hired well known animal attorney from San Francisco who told Judge that it was the Legislature's fault that PC 597.1 had flaws [ that the owners did not get any due process]...What is ridiculous, is that this SAME attorney wrote that law and has continued to try and further add to that law in the legislature, year after year. Trust us, the law is one of the worse ever written, just made worse and worse year after year. That same attorney has also written the case text book used to teach animal law in California.

He may know animal law, but he definitely knows little to nothing about due process.]



The person owning the llamas has many many years of experience with llamas and they

are not the same as shearing sheep. We seriously doubt any humane officer is going to know

more about trimming or shearing than the llama owner in question. Typical animal rights

humane officer trying to get a "bust" as usual.



The result--- owner followed protocol, vet consulted, a few things done, animals viewed, everything was fine.





 http://photographyblogger.net/20-wonderful-pictures-of-llamas/

see cute pics of other llamas at link.


















Posted by



at





No comments:
  


































          

        

          

        

Wednesday, August 13, 2014


          

        










HSUS Navigator Charity Rating Revoked to Zero!!!






















About 73,000 results (0.38 seconds) 

























































































Posted by



at





No comments:
  


































        

      









Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)