Wednesday, March 11, 2015

When Buying a Pet Becomes Illegal? Hunting, Fishing, Birds and Petting Zoos too...

Yes, it's true...........selling or buying a pet in some cities has become illegal.

Especially if it's from a pet store.  The Humane Society of the USA (HSUS) knows that it would be illegal for states to make laws that interfere with interstate commerce.

So HSUS--which, by the way-- was one of the national groups, including ASPCA-- to pay out millions of $$ to the Feld Entertainment group involving the circus, after civil RICO (racketeering charges) were levied against them in the 14yr long Federal Court litigation that found the activist groups had paid the Plaintiff to go forward with lawsuit against the circus..........

In any event, HSUS knows that commercial kennels are legal and are under federal APHIS control. HSUS wants more investigators for such kennels but let's be serious--with our economy, that's not likely high on list of the government, and likely will never be high on the list with the way things are going.  HSUS then decided to go after the sales of commercial kennel animals, by telling activists how to petition to stop the sales of such animals.

It would have to be done by going city to city, because to do it as a state law would be blatantly illegal.  Apparently the activists don't bother to figure out that a state law would be illegal. Currently there are 4-5 Federal lawsuits on this issue, for example, Chicago?  And in Oceanside CA, the city attorney has published a synopsis of how creating a new city code section to prohibit sales of certain sourced animals may result and likely will result, in a Federal lawsuit against the city.

What people really do not understand, is the basics of the supply/demand, and how it does not really work when one takes shelter animals and tries to make them the source of all pets. A shelter is not a pet store, even though you or others may wish it was one. A shelter is not a viable commercial entity and it was never designed to be one.

The rescuing of animals and pets is not supposed to be a commercial enterprise, they are basically non profit status social welfare based.
Yet by watching the animal rights activists, led by HSUS, ASPCA et al, they are led down the path that rescues/non profits should take over the commercial business of the pet trade.

In case you haven't noticed, non profits are heavily working in tandem with major producers of dog food, chicken food, anything related to pets, animals and selling.  Various lawsuits between Purina and Blue Buffalo, where Blue was claiming they had no chicken meal in their food when they in fact, did [Blue Buffalo is now subject to at least 7 lawsuits in Federal Courts, probably for fraud in labeling the product-- we haven't read the lawsuits/covering it up rather than admitting it]; tainted animal treats coming from overseas, tainted pet food coming from overseas, etc. Pet food is the largest grossing part of the pet trade, and most pet stores make the largest share of income from selling pet food.

Every one of these things is just another opportunity for non profits to make $$ by partnering with another business (a commercial business)  and then helping to "promote" their  own enterprise. This is done with any animal related product. Just watch TV and look online.

With about 76 million dogs and 85 million cats owned, one can see significance of pet food sales. Of the dogs, only perhaps up to 17% are obtained from shelters. (That is an entire story in itself, see petdefense.wordpress.com if you want to know why, since the majority of people killed by canines were rehomed, rescue or shelter dogs. This mathematical red flag is enough proof of circumstantial evidence that could likely be admitted into court. That means odds of being killed by this source of canines is about 500% greater; and that doesn't include bites, just death.)

===========================================================
BUT---as can be seen, MANY of these activist goals involve taking out economic industries such as fishing, hunting, farming, testing for research  AND the breeding/sales of animals and pets..........see # 10 below in the 12 Step List??  

Yes, HSUS, ASPCA, PETA and friends, want no breeding of pets, they don't want any animals or pets or fish,etc. to be bred--if they are not indigenous to the area.
===========================================================

So any imported flocks, imported sheep, imported fish, you name it, should be illegal according to HSUS and the activists.  HSUS tries to pretend they don't really do this, but yes, this is exactly what they do, while fleecing everyone to give them $20/month by credit card.  (Note: PETA kills about 90% of all animals they take in and believe the best gift one can give a homeless animal is to KILL it by euth.)  HSUS has tried for years to get Congress to make non indigenous life forms illegal to own, buy, or sell. This includes birds, fish, horses and probably any other species alive.

And this is proven clearly in Supreme Court cases involving HSUS, where HSUS lost on First Amendment grounds, preemption, and more. Those cases involved videos, violent videos and children, sales of videos; which agency can regulate downer animals (such as pigs), and sex fetish videos being sold into stream of commerce [but was used against a historical video on how dog fighting originated nationally.]

HSUS was attempting to carve out the exception to regulate by making violent videos into the same category as pornography. If successful, HSUS would then keep moving forward by applying this to anything with animals in it--movies (outlaw animal actors), rodeos (outlaw rodeos), petting zoos (this has already been done in certain CA cities), outlaw the circus (Barnum/Bailey will stop using elephants in 2018+ several Southern CA cities have outlawed the circus from performing) and now, outlaw sales of animals from commercial kennels (this apparently has been passed in more than 30 cities nationwide.)

This cross marketing and propaganda campaign nationwide has not been lost on us. The activists have made it known decades  ago, and earlier,  that they believe:

published in ANIMAL AGENDA, November 1987
1. Abolish by law all animal research.
2. Outlaw the use of animals for cosmetic and product testing, classroom demonstration and in weapons
development.
3. Vegetarian meals should be made available at all public institutions, including schools
4. Eliminate all animal agriculture.
5. No herbicides, pesticides or other agricultural chemicals. Outlaw predator control.
6. Transfer enforcement of animal welfare legislation away from the Department of Agriculture.
7. Eliminate fur ranching and the use of furs.
8. Prohibit hunting, trapping and fishing.
9. End the international trade in wildlife goods.
10. Stop any further breeding of companion animals, including purebred dogs and cats. Spaying and
neutering should be subsidized by state and municipal governments. Abolish commerce in animals for
the pet trade.

11. End the use of animals in entertainment and sports.
12. Prohibit the genetic manipulation of species.

To read more on this, see http://www.humanewatch.org which has the files on many of the sourced legal issues.  To read more on all activist issues involving animals, see http://www.petdefense.wordpress.com







 

Tuesday, March 10, 2015

Owners Allow Dog That Killed Kid to Be Taken by Rescue



The legal battle over Onion the dog ended Thursday, nearly two years after he mauled and killed a young Henderson boy.  Henderson officials, who have long sought to euthanize Onion, turned the dog over to the Lexus Project, an animal rights group based in New York.  According to a statement released late Thursday, city officials decided to give up the court fight “in an effort to spare family members the grief of reliving the tragic events of the dog attack that killed” 1-year-old Jeremiah Eskew-Shahan.

The attack occurred on April 27, 2012, as the boy celebrated his birthday with his father, grandmother and other family members at their Henderson home.  After the incident, the city declared the dog vicious, and the owner turned him over to be euthanized. 

The Lexus Project intervened in court before that could happen, saying Jeremiah’s grandmother, the dog’s owner, had changed her mind and wanted to release the dog to the group.
In December, the Nevada Supreme Court returned the case to Clark County District Court for an evidentiary hearing to determine the facts of the case and ownership of the animal, a 120-pound mixed breed. At issue was whether Onion’s owner, Elizabeth Keller, voluntarily surrendered ownership to the city on the day of the incident.

“As part of the court proceedings, family members would have been required to testify and relive the horrible details of that day,” city spokesman Bud Cranor said in a statement. “We didn’t want the family to have to endure that tragedy all over again.” When reached late Thursday in New York, Robin Mattasch, president and co-founder of the Lexus Project, confirmed the settlement.

“The litigation for Onion has been dismissed, and he has been relocated permanently to a rescue,” she said. “And out of respect to the family of Jeremiah Eskew-Shahan, we will make no further comment on this subject. It’s over.” Mattasch would not say where Onion went, but she said he will not go to the Colorado sanctuary the group originally sought to send him to.
According to the city’s statement, its agreement with the Lexus Project indemnifies the city of future liability for the dog, “which was picked up from the Henderson Animal Shelter well cared for and in good health.”
“It also requires that the group transfer the dog out of state to a licensed dog rescue facility and provides assurances that the animal will never be allowed to be adopted out or in an environment with children present. The city is also requiring the Lexus Project to pay for a memorial for Jeremiah Eskew-Shahan that will be placed in a city of Henderson park.”

Blog:  This is interesting, but absurd.  When dogs kill kids, they are usually killed right away. Why should some dogs be allowed to kill adults or kids, and then stay alive in some rescue, sanctuary or wherever?
It's one thing to allow dogs to live, who have maybe bitten children.  But to save dogs that have killed people, whether adults or kids, is ridiculous.

Saturday, March 7, 2015

The Grace Foundation Horse Rescue Accused of No Proper Non Profit Governance, Now Evicted from Ranch

According to documents filed in Los Angeles County in the case involving the Grace Foundation El Dorado Hills,  and several banks (Wells Fargo,Bk of America plus Lassen County)--  the attorneys for the banks or the former bank attorney who was sued by The Grace Fdn,  claim that  CEO Beth DeCaprio did not have a proper Board of directors set up, and that she was the ONLY director.

Thus, it alleged that her lawsuit was essentially for HER and not the non profit.  However the case was supposedly starting trial on 7/28/14,but Grace dropped the case and never went to trial; a bench warrant was issued against the CEO and eventually, our understanding is that the case was dismissed with prejudice. [Our sources also indicate that prior, back in Lassen County, Grace was offered up to $800,000 to go away, we have no idea on what terms, but Grace refused the offer. That had to have been before the trial in Los Angeles was set up.]  

After that, apparently Grace's problems grew, and she and her non profit were evicted from the ranch in El Dorado County. The bank attorney used Twitter to claim many facts (bad facts it appears) about Grace/the non profit. Grace admitted the non profit was under investigation, and bank attorney later claimed the CEO (Ms. De Caprio)-- was siphoning off donation funds to herself--because CEO De Caprio says, she was owed $$ that she had previously loaned to the non profit. To be quite frank, the CEO used the horses taken in the seizure, to gain donations from the public. 

Recently, El Dorado County held a post seizure hearing, since Grace still had some of the seized horses; and although both original owners from Lassen responded, neither of them could afford the bail out costs, and the ranch owner is still not allowed to have animals as Lassen has kept his purported "abuse" case open and has so far purposely delayed the trial (likely creating a failure to have a speedy trial after almost 4yr); the People have no decent witnesses, no experts; but they would likely put up fake ones if they had to, however, the key witness, the Grace Foundation vet, has already declared they would have to arrest him to try and force him to testify, and we doubt the CEO from Grace would testify for Lassen after the debacle from Los Angeles;the case has gone from sensation to nothing but corruption exposed on part of bank or banks, and the bank attorney Timothy M. Ryan of Irvine who was working on the case, and with The Grace Foundation. 

There is still a viable malpractice claim on Ryan by Grace if she hasn't fumbled it, as Ryan was actually representing Grace in 2011, a direct conflict of interest. Additionally, Ryan sued Grace for defamation/trade libel and we believe he actually won. The truth of what the Ryan firm actually did, has already been stated in the bankruptcy case; and currently, the third District court of Appeals held that ranch owner's appeal could not be decided by the Court because the purported action supposedly involved an interlocutory issue. One of the questions is whether the ruling on the "summary adjudication" by Ryan, leading to an order or judgment in state court, on issue of how much land (rancher's raw land) became the bank's land is questionable, since the bank appears to have an order that they ended up with a reformed deed of trust over land which they not only never owned, but which had no lien on it at all. Their equitable lien, if any, would have to be a money judgment specified with a specific amount, which they never got. One can see this is complicated, at least to anyone who is not a bank or real estate practitioner.

Bank tried to sell the property with notice of liens and then withdrew the sale. Due to improper survey, the improvements were actually on the rancher's land, and not on a separate parcel area. Because rancher refused to sign what the bank tried to force him to sign (we cannot recall what the document was) this case then became a huge nightmare; ranch owner agreed to "turnover" in bankruptcy court against his attorney's advice, and the bank attorney worked with Grace to oust the owner by getting horses seized and booting owner and using a fake  Receiver.... 4 years later,  a different Judge allowed rancher back onto the land and now bank or banks are trying to get a ruling on clarifying what last Judge said, when Judge said the Receivership was not done properly. 

Hell, the Receiver was completely illegal, because Ryan was the Receiver, and acted for the Receiver at nearly all times. There are many words for what that could be called and none of them are pretty. Because we only state the truth, Ryan can claim whatever he wants, but we actually KNOW documents were taken out of the Superior Court files, switched, re-written, and handed to Judge who rubber stamped it all. That Judge later recused himself.  Two court clerks were fired. Likely the wrong clerks, we believe the bad clerk is still there.   

Knowing how slow the AG works, it is not likely the CEO would get into huge trouble from past cases we have seen. It is the CEO and Bd of Director's fault that the non profit suffered though, because CEO acted improperly in not putting decisions before the Board--and then apparently CEO used bank attorney to help seize animals improperly. Of course CEO claims it was not her fault. Partly true, as the bank attorney's receiver was at fault, as was Lassen County for allowing it to happen. So bank attorney is at at fault as well, since he acted as the Receiver, the physical Receiver was just a figurehead.  Justice can only be seved when bank attorney is forced to face the improper actions he took, and eventually, that day should come.