Friday, July 26, 2013

Animal Sales+Display "Bans"--are Illegal, Violate Constitutional Law

For information on this subject, see http://www.humanewatch.org, or http://www.petdefense.wordpress.com which continues to bring this issue forward, even if no one will listen to it?  PLEASE FEEL FREE TO PASS THIS POST FORWARD AND SHARE WITH YOUR FRIENDS.  YOU WILL NOT FIND THIS INFORMATION ELSEWHERE UNLESS IT'S ON THE ABOVE LINK.

Southern CA is a hotbed of animal activists that continue to use actors and entertainment people to fuel their agenda re animals. It's one thing to be vegan but it's another to not know what you are talking about. So Cal has long been guilty of simply ignoring the actual problem of shelter KILLING, and ignoring the social welfare aspects of trying to stem the tide of unwanted, throw away animals that mostly stem from several well known, low economic (poor) areas that the police are afraid to deal with...these underserved areas are difficult to work with, without social welfare advocates who understand not only diversity, but minority populations whose culture is completely different than the wealthy white flight suburbs.

With this background well known, the animal activists, which are mostly white women with some men thrown in, work with animal rights LOBBYING groups that claim they are all about animal welfare. Truth is that they are about animal rights, not welfare. There is a huge difference. Animal rights will actually prefer to see the animals dead rather than saved-- a prime example is PETA, which kills about 98% or more of whatever it takes in. ASPCA has become a working partner with HSUS (Humane Society of the USA) and both ASPCA and HSUS have been accused of RICO violations--racketeering-- and ASPCA paid out $9.3 million in circus lawsuit to get out of the RICO case. That pretty much spells out guilt.
HSUS still claims it is not guilty?  Yeah, right.

BEWARE.....DO NOT SUPPORT NATIONAL GROUPS LIKE HSUS OR ASPCA.

DONATE LOCALLY, VOLUNTEER LOCALLY, BUY/SELL LOCALLY.

Eggs are now about 30-45% more thanks to the passage of Proposition 2 re all layer hens both in California, and in any state where the shelled eggs were produced.

If you voted for Prop 2, you won't complain about egg prices that you helped create.  The eggie producers spent too little, too late. Numerous Federal Court challenges have so far failed to dismantle the law (mostly using constitutional claims and commerce clause..)

  After seeing this, agriculture producers nationally started to work together so that it would not happen to those involved in beef, pork and other agriculture pursuits.  This has made agriculture groups much more aware of their political vulnerability, and many groups, particularly the beef and pork industry, and gathered together to fight animal activists that want to meat to be sold or consumed as most activists are VEGANS trying to force vegan lifestyles on those who are not interested.


When groups that have millions and millions USE shelter animals on TV and video to FLEECE the public about what they are REALLY about-- which is NOT SAVING shelter animals--- believe us-- then you, dear readers, are 1,000 steps ahead of any other legal tech or attorneys out there, that believe these groups want to "save shelter animals."  NO, NO, and NO.

They (PETA and others) -- would prefer that they get killed, and HSUS published a Euthanasia BOOK with a vet, on HOW to kill nearly every animal that exists. Like using a gun to the head?  We BOUGHT the book because we couldn't believe they published it!

These type of groups and many smaller animal groups, are animal rights (AR) orientated, meaning-- they want to end all ownership of animals, and agriculture, and because that is a lifestyle/vegan belief, they are entitled to it, however, they are NOT entitled to MISREPRESENT THE AGENDA they are pushing. And that agenda is in fact, to bring animals up to the human form, so that they can have human rights. They may deny this but it is unavoidably true, as evidenced by the many years of trying to claim animals are not property UNDER THE LAW.

If animals were NOT property under the law, activists would be in court every second suing everyone alive for everything done to any animal for any reason. Animal products are extensively used in many facets of production, and normally it is not wasted; fertilizer, medical, leather, etc. Woolen goods, the list is long. Animals are not humans and although many may treat pets as family, they are owned by humans and can be bought, sold, transferred,etc. Ownership is what gives humans the right to have dominion over their property, including animals. Without ownership, our ability to control is diminished and subject to the whims of the government.  And we all know how the government is run. Let's not fool ourselves.

When activists put their videos, U Tube, commercials and etc, it is generally propaganda aimed at evoking emotional response to their calling for DONATIONS.  Unless you want your money going to their pension plans, and lies, do not donate to them, donate to your LOCAL shelters, local community rescue, or local low kill shelters. Try to volunteer with such entities to see how difficult it is to raise funding.

 It is very difficult due to the big groups scamming the public. People lose trust in animal welfare.  Your goal is to properly understand animal welfare, not animal rights-- as animal rights is a lifestyle belief. Certainly animals have a right to their own welfare, but California already has the most extensive Penal Code on animals in the USA and yes, HSUS certainly had its hand in drafting a lot of it.

We don't need more welfare code, we need people that understand animal welfare and the lies told to gain money for animal rights.


When the animal rights (AR) activists get BANS on selling, displaying, transferring, barter or give away of animals, be suspicious because guess what?  These laws get passed but they are not legally sound. Meaning they are illegal restraints on trade without the proper reasonable narrowly tailored aspect.

Constitutional law is normally a 2nd or 3rd year subject in law school if one goes to night classes. You will seldom see or hear any AR activists talk about con law unless it is related to the AETA (Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act) and then they like to say they are being singled out.  Perhaps they should not bomb, burn, torch/arson, beat up people, or steal people's animals?  Perhaps they should not use computers for stalking, hacking, or black out business fax lines?  Perhaps they should not sabotage a business, period, simply because they don't like the business?

AR activists are not animal welfarists. AR activists are simply emotional hotheads without a background knowledge of what the real world is about; they are often ignorant of how many shelters simply end up killing animals because they don't put stock into social welfare to stem the tide of excess animals that people do not want or need. The simple truth is you do not go to rich areas and find high shelter killing. You may find kids on drugs but you don't have tons of strays in the street, so it is obvious that excess or throw away animals being killed in Los Angeles is a KNOWN social welfare issue.  It is NOT breeders with small mini mutts or designer dogs.

 Don't be fooled by the propaganda--- most shelter animals killed are male juvenile mixed breed dogs of unknown origin, often lacking in behavioral training, and FERAL cats. In fact some shelters have stopped taking in cats in order to LOWER their KILL RATE?!!   That is the truth and this truth is NEVER told to law students, but should be. There are some other types of animals there, such as family got divorced, and their pet was given up, or family lost home and when family tried to rehome dog on Craigslist, the AR activists flagged their ad so they could not rehome it. But these family type dogs with socialization and some behavior training are not the most represented group. Not by a long stretch.

Other animals, especially dogs, are given up when owners don't know how to train the animal, and when kids don't want the animal anymore.  Thus the parents have a lot to do with acquiring the animal, and then giving it up?
One cannot change that without using social welfare outreach. That is not AR activism, it is animal welfare if you are trying to lessen killing in shelters.  Shelter animals CANNOT ever replace store bought or purposely bred dogs from breeders because the marketplace is driven by supply and demand, and when people want to BUY a certain size, breed, color, temperament or skill type (herding, hunting, guarding,etc) they have the right to choose.

The owners should not be FORCED to choose only dogs from shelters that they know nothing about its background, temperament, or behavior, or health.  Buying animals from stores is regulated heavily and the laws that go with such buying protect the consumer. People in AR activism IGNORE the legal part of consumer protection and instead, focus on "videos" and witch hunts which they claim are bad people who create harm to animals.  We all know there are bad apples in every group, but that does make EVERY ONE OF THEM bad??  Of course not. In fact the word "puppymill" [PM] is simply AR activist slang for kenneling that is not up to par, or substandard. There is NO legally defined term for PMs, and don't let activists fool you. Commercial kennels are actually legal and governed by Federal Regulations--although the AR activists don't like it, because they want MORE, MORE+MORE regulations.

Working in the legal field requires logical thinking and if only emotion is used to determine laws, then you can see why these laws are all bunk-- there is no legal thinking involved, JUST emotion.  The law is not even considered, case law is ignored, and people go on their merry way. How else does case law develop, UNLESS we challenge wrongful laws?  That right there ought to make students and paralegal realize why their jobs are so important. If we don't inform the public they get fleeced by those who would simply take the public's $$$ and then end up actually pushing for the killing of animals--quickly.  But they won't tell you that.  We just did.

Wednesday, January 23, 2013

CA SB917, Why It is Wrong+ Doesn't Stop "Abuse"; Law Passed 2 Years Later

Did you know it is illegal to show, display, transfer, offer for sale or rehoming, an animal outside at a public place, parking area, common area, including a park, or any public area for most part?
First violation is $250 and subsequent can rise to misdemeanors. The code is chaptered under the same section as animal abuse (malicious mischief) but is not a direct PC 597.1 violation, as they codified it under PC 597.4 purposely.  https://www.animallaw.info/statute/ca-cruelty-%C2%A7-5974-selling-or-giving-away-live-animals-any-street-highway-public-right-way

Certain exceptions apply such as 4H, certain dog shows, AND (not surprisingly)-- non profits that are based on animal intake for rehoming  [A public animal control agency or shelter, society for the prevention of cruelty to animals shelter, humane society shelter, or rescue group regulated under Division 14 (commencing with Section 30501) of the Food and Agricultural Code.]

This law is largely the work of groups like HSUS and ASPCA and those animal rights groups that would push a law outlawing rehoming, selling, transferring or even giving away an animal or pet, illegal. As written, it made the selling of crabs on Fisherman's Wharf illegal, and then was later to stop the transfer/sale of animals at Farmer's Markets, despite there being an "exception" for swap meets and flea markets. Some cities locally do not allow any animals or pets to be offered for sale, period, regardless of the law, and do not allow any animals inside the swap meet or flea market either.  It also made showing or having dogs outside illegal at dog show or cat shows or bird or rabbit show.

Most people do not understand the basis for this law and believed that it is an innocent law which creates no harm. What the public does not understand is that a member of the public can be punished for alleged animal abuse, BUT the "non profit" group or person cannot or is not punished simply because the "non profit" is exempted from such charge under the law. So if the "non profit" was guilty by actually engaging in animal abuse, he/she would be exempted, yet if the member of the public was NOT guilty, he/she would be guilty under this even if he/she did not do any animal abuse at all. In other words, the actual behavior of committing "abuse" is not the action of actual abuse--- but simply the selling, transfer or giving away of the animal outside. This is the most asinine law we have ever seen and should be struck down.

http://petdefense.wordpress.com/2012/03/11/legal-look-at-sb917-under-ca-penal-code/

Friday, January 4, 2013

Dogs, Breeds and Fatal Attacks

[PDF] 

CAROLYN CHAN - American Canine Foundation

www.americancaninefoundation.com/.../ACF_LETTER_K_KKK_NE...
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View
Aug 22, 2006 – CAROLYN CHANATTORNEY AT LAW
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you think almost no attorney in animal law has ever stood up for the most maligned
dog breed type in the United States, see this post above.  When Kory Nelson was
going full speed, prior to the time "dog bite" Washington blogger, Colleen Lynn
appeared, Nelson was working  behind the scenes via his  "Yahoo Group" which
was set up for government people, so they could learn how to make regulations
and use Home Rule, to establish what is essentially BSL (breed specific legislation.)



On that Yahoo Group, Nelson, who was the owner of the online group, posted that
the ACF was acting as a "strawman for dogfighters."  This is outright defamation, and
Nelson also attempted to ridicule the Aurora, CO case by sending emails from his
government based computer, directly to counsel. Kory Nelson and the blogger of
the bite site (Colleen Lynn) focus on NEWS REPORTS or what is commonly
known as STORIES.

While we all realize that each individual canine has its own genetic and behavioral
makeup, the most outspoken CRITICS of any dog breeds (especially pitbull types)
are those that know little and nothing of breeds of dogs, canine genetics, and 
otherwise.  Merritt Clifton of Animal People, Lynn of dog bite blog, and the attorney
who holds himself out as the dogbite attorney are ALL NOT EXPERTS ON CANINES,
PERIOD. They can talk about canines all they want, BUT they are not experts on 
canines, they do not work with canines, they usually have never owned a medium or
large dog, and they likely won't. 

IF there actually was some scientific EVIDENCE as to the allegations that it was the
genetics of every dog in the group they propose to malign that in fact, CAUSES the
harm they claim, that would be one fact.  However, not only can these proponents
not prove that fact, they take stories in the news and USE the STORY as the fact
which does not exist.

As for FATAL dog attacks, that subject has been rehashed for so long, it should be
obvious by now---- it is rare.   However, when such "attacks" purportedly occur, it does 
of  course, make front page news.  Because news "stories" are not necessarily based
on exact facts, the public never really KNOWS what facts caused or contributed to the
demise of the person.  We say this because the victim in some cases, has created or
caused situations that should have been or could avoided, although the story tellers
like to say otherwise. When people create situations that may cause them harm, and
they do not know canines, canine behavior, or dangerous dog propensities, they can
get hurt. When dangerous dogs (not by breed, but by behavior) do not display such
behavior openly, or when the behavior is not recognized, people can get hurt from any
number of behaviors, by increasing the risk.

There is ALWAYS a risk when dealing with canines, especially for novice owners, those
who ignore common sense, and those who are out to cause mischief by purposely
engaging in actions that increase risk. Leaving ANY child with a dog of any size is a risk.
Leaving any adult who knows nothing about canines, and just adopted an unknown dog
is a risk.  Adopting ANY dog from ANY source is a risk. NOT KNOWING the physical
demeanor of the dog or the dogs' parents is a risk. Adopting a large breed dog you 
know nothing about is a risk. 

Unprovoked attacks upon people by dogs running at large [creating fatalities] is uncommon, unless one lives in an area where this is happening all the time. IF this is happening all the time
then animal control is not doing their job. 

Dogs involved in fatal attacks usually involve
dogs NEW TO THE HOME (as in recently adopted, recently rehomed dog, recent
acquisition from Craigslist or rescue) and this is shown by more than 52% or more--of 
such attacks, involving dogs that are acquired from rescue, rehoming and shelter.
Only possibly 2-3 (if that) of all fatal attacks tracked involve a dog that was raised from
a puppy in the home. Thus raising a puppy from birth with no rehomings involved is the
safest method of knowing a dog, and the least risk.  IF one is actually afraid of dogs, but
wants one anyway, it would be best to get a dog less than 10lb. The dog can take out a
child's eye, but it won't likely kill a 10yr old or adult. Avoid leaving any dog with any baby
or children where the kids are not supervised, because children can provoke dogs.  

NOTE:  The ABA (American Bar Assn) through their House of Delegates, announced in 2012
that they would encourage ALL jurisdictions to NOT use breed specific legislation, but to
craft non discriminatory legislation/ordinances based upon behavior of canines, NOT by
breed. 







Tuesday, January 1, 2013

HSUS Lawsuit Thrown Out of Court in Florida

December 05, 2012 
 Purebred Breeders Seeks Legal Fees From HSUS To Donate

Humane Society of the United States Exposed Again MIAMI--(BUSINESS WIRE)

--Purebred Breeders is seeking an award of its attorneys’ fees and costs from plaintiffs and the Humane Society of the United States in Case Number: 11-38180 CA02 after a Circuit Court judge in Miami-Dade County last month dismissed the activist sponsored lawsuit against Purebred Breeders, a family-owned Florida business that connects well-raised puppies with loving families hoping to find a new addition to their home.

Purebred Breeders is committed to donating a portion of any attorney’s fees awarded by the court to local shelters around the country. This is in an effort to help replace a portion of the millions of dollars lost by these organizations from HSUS’s fundraising activities as referenced by members of Congress described below.

“HSUS is well-known for coordinating purported legal claims for publicity against responsible organizations and individuals. The Humane Society of the United States raises funds for its lawsuits and lobbying activities while leading the public to believe that the donations are supporting local shelters.” The court determined last month that the plaintiffs and the Humane Society of the United States (“HSUS”), which sponsored the lawsuit against Purebred Breeders, completely failed to justify their allegations. This motion for attorney’s fees and costs has been filed by Purebred Breeders as a result of the efforts of the Humane Society of the United States in bringing the lawsuit in an effort to influence the public against purchasing pets.

  Purebred Breeders’ advisor, Brent Gattis, former Deputy Chief of Staff for the House Committee on Agriculture, states that “HSUS is well-known for coordinating purported legal claims for publicity against responsible organizations and individuals. 

The Humane Society of the United States raises funds for its lawsuits and lobbying activities while leading the public to believe that the donations are supporting local shelters." Currently, the HSUS is being investigated by the IRS for tax fraud [Case File Number 29-92012] and six members of Congress joined the call for the IRS to act when they filed a letter with the Office of Inspector General Eric Thorson last year. 

In this letter the members of Congress wrote "HSUS continually seeks donations through advertisements that claim the money will be used to help neglected or abused animals. The commercials deliberately lead the public to believe direct aid to animals is the main activity of the organization, as does the misleading similarity between the name of HSUS and the hundreds of local hands-on animal sheltering humane societies across America, which are wholly unaffiliated with HSUS and receive zero funding from it.” 

Mr. Gattis added “Purebred Breeders experience in defending itself against legal claims is typical of the attacks other animal organizations and individuals have endured at the hands of HSUS’s large stable of attorneys. HSUS’s strategy against legitimate entities is this: force them to defend themselves in protracted legal battles over meritless claims, while also creating a false public perception of the group being attacked.” 

According to its own 2011 tax return, HSUS received donations of $122 million for the year and used $38 million or 31% on salaries, compensation, and employee benefits with 19 individuals listed as receiving compensation between $100,000 and $300,000. Additionally, $50 million or 41% of donations received were spent on marketing and advertising, fundraising, and educational materials while only $6.7 million was actually reported as being given or granted to animal organizations. 

However, a further look by Humanewatch.org into these organizational grants made by HSUS found that little more than $300,000 of the $6.7 million found its way to “hands on pet shelters” where the organization was involved with the “daily care, adoption, and/or rehabilitation of dogs, cats, rabbits and horses.” The $300,000 granted by HSUS during 2011 represented less than ½ of 1 percent (.5%) of the $122 million in donations received by HSUS during the year. 

Purebred Breeders has joined other animal professionals in pushing back against HSUS’s agenda. A ten-year legal battle on a lawsuit brought by the HSUS activist group against Feld Entertainment, owners of Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus, was ultimately dismissed. Feld has brought a Federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations claim against the activist group [Case Number: 07-1532 (EGS)] based on information uncovered during the HSUS lawsuit. 

Feld Entertainment has alleged that HSUS engaged in an elaborate racketeering and conspiracy scheme involving at least one paid witness, obstruction of justice, mail fraud, wire fraud, money laundering and malicious prosecution. HSUS in-house senior attorney, Kimberly Ockene, who filed the legal complaint against Purebred Breeders, and HSUS SVP of Animal Protection Litigation, Jonathan Lovvorn, have both been named individually in the Feld RICO case. 

HSUS, Lovvorn and Ockene filed motions to dismiss the claims. These motions have been largely denied by the court and the case is moving forward against them. 

Contacts:  Purebred Breeders Keryn Rod, 954-320-4565 keryn@purebredbreeders.com Recent Stories Claim against Purebred Breeders LLC Dismissed October 08, 2012 MIAMI--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Lawsuit sponsored by HSUS against Purebred Breeders Dismissed in Court. HSUS, Kimberly Ockene and Leopold Law PA fail to prove accusations against Purebred Breeders LLC.

Improper Proposed changes to APHIS

The Animal Welfare Act (AWA), 7 USC Sect.2131 - §2159, requires that minimum standards of care and treatment be provided for certain animals bred for commercial sale, used in research, transported commercially, or exhibited to the public. The Act provides guidelines for housing, enclosures, exercise, feeding, watering, sanitation and handling, but it does not regulate the type of experiments that can be performed on animals. The Act is enforced by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS).

Violators may be subject to criminal and/or civil penalties or may have their licenses revoked. The Act limits the types of animals it protects. It defines “Animal” as a “warm-blooded animal, which is being used, or is intended for use for research, teaching, testing, experimentation, or exhibition purposes, or as a pet.” Animals excluded from the Act: birds, rats, mice, reptiles and farmed animals.

Remarkably, in a town in Montana, the city passed an ordinance which prohibits the sale of mice,rodents, and LIMITS the number of fish owned to THREE. The ordinance affects mammals with a vertebrae and most fish that we know of, have vertabrae. (98% of animals are non vertabrae)

Facilities covered by the Act include: research laboratories, dealers (breeders and brokers), exhibitors (zoos and circuses) and transporters.
Facilities that are exempt include: retail pet stores, direct sellers, hobby breeders, public pounds, private shelters, private collections, livestock shows, pet shows, rodeos and any facility using nonregulated species.

UPDATE: UNFORTUNATELY the APHIS regs were upheld recently. This means small hobby breeders are subject to same rules as commercial kennels for some issues, and may have to actually change their kennel or housing just to comply. This can be very extensive and expensive.

 We will post more on the issue of APHIS and how animal rights are trying to change the policy of the APHIS regs to essentially end up regulating hobby breeders in direct contradiction from the case law in the early 2000s which exempted hobby breeders. These proposed changes would drastically create severe issues and impact interstate commerce.