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

 

Owners Allow Dog That Killed Kid to Be Taken by Rescue

By CARRI GEER THEVENOT
LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL   2014

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.

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.

  

ANIMAL SEIZED? GET LEGAL HELP ASAP! WAITING CAN RUIN YOUR CASE!!

It has been this attorney's experience that many owners wait until after animals are seized to try and get help on their cases, thus the notices (assuming they were properly given) involving hearings and due process can be more of a difficult issue, especially if there was no hearing, or if the hearing was already lost, or the hearing was not done properly.  Although in many cases, the proponents will result to deceit and stealth in order to seize anything, it is possible that part of the procedure may have been done correctly.  Thus it is very crucial that an assessment is done of all actions taken by the seizing entity as soon as possible.

We recently heard about the defendant (an attorney) who was purportedly convicted on ONE felony count, whereupon the State Bar claimed that such conviction amounted to moral turpitude. We know of other cases where defendants have been accused of beating up a girlfriend, and even that was not moral turpitude because he took a plea for another type of crime. So for an animal negligence case to rise to the level of moral turpitude, it is not exactly the same as if you left your kid in a car and it got sick and almost collapsed?  Or even if you accidentally forgot and left your dog in the car and it actually expired?

Judges tend to want to find "hoarders" guilty in many instances, however, animal hoarders in many cases, are simply people with a facet of OCD which is considered different than ordinary OCD, but there is no known scientific theory, only professional and semi-scientific guesswork. To us, the OCD part means it is a defense since OCD is all about the brain, and where non normal behavior is seen in relation to the actions (claiming to love animals and then purposely not feeding them for example), we can see that there is a direct discrepancy which is brain related.

Anyone accused of a Penal Code violation related to animals should call an animal law defense attorney immediately, and hopefully before any seizure is done.

530 359 8810  In custody clients call 365/24hr  We have bail agent on call 

Lawsuit re Pet Store Owners in Oceanside, and prior San Diego, CA

Oceanside law for pet stores now allows sales of animals from breeders of less than a certain
number. Mr. Salinas who likely owns the only pet store selling pets which are not just rescued
animals, purportedly went into compliance by selling animals meeting the criteria.

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.

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.

California Animal & Dog Attorneys - lawyers.law.cornell.edu

https://lawyers.law.cornell.edu/lawyers/animal...





Legal Information Institute

Compare and research animal & dog attorneys in California on LII.

California Animal & Dog Lawyers - Compare Top ... - Justia

www.justia.com › Lawyer Directory › Animal & Dog Law





Compare 135 animal & dog attorneys in California on Justia. ... (888) 587-8421 Contact Information California Animal & Dog Law Lawyer. Where are you found?

California Animal Law Lawyers - Lawyers.com

www.lawyers.com › Find a Lawyer by Legal Issue › Animal Law Lawyers





Find an animal law attorney in California (CA) to help with your legal issue by usingLawyers.com law firm listings and reviews.

Animal Law Lawyers - Legal Information | Lawyers.com

animal-law.lawyers.com/





Find animal law legal information and resources, including law firm, lawyer and attorneylistings and reviews on Lawyers.com.

Wagman, Bruce A. - Schiff Hardin LLP

www.schiffhardin.com/attorneys/attorney.../wagman-bruce...





Schiff Hardin

Bruce Wagman focuses his practice on animal law litigation, consultation, legislative affairs ... Northern California Super Lawyers – Animal Law; Personal Injury ...

Animal Pet Law Attorney California 530.359.8810

animalandpetlawattorney.blogspot.com/





Oct 4, 2014 - Animal Pet Law Attorney California 530.359.8810. Animal+Pet LawCases; Seizure,CA PC597,PC597.1,et seq, Forfeiture, alleged abuse ...

Animal Lawyers and Law Firms in California (CA) - HG.org

www.hg.org/law-firms/animal-law/usa-california.html





Find Animal law offices and lawyers in California for your city. HG.org includes firms' overview, contact information, services, website, social networks, articles, ...

---

Searches related to animal law attorney california