Animal Law Issues + Paralegals--Here is a Prime Example

Easy, fast way to learn why Animal Lovers Get Fleeced by groups like HSUS and ASPCA (click link)  and remember, BOTH of these groups paid out MILLIONS on civil RICO charges (racketeering) when sued by the circus (Feld Entertainment) after a 14year lawsuit in Federal Court finally ended, with the animal activists LOSING their case. Attorney fees were undoubtedly awarded against HSUS, ASPCA and other groups.  Rather than taking 14 years of Federal Court time, imagine if they had instead, worked to get animals new homes and done something productive?

http://www.humanewatch.org/category/visual_hsus_series/

WARNING:  HSUS IS A LOBBYING GROUP BUT CALLS ITSELF AN ANIMAL RIGHTS GROUPS.  PETA KILLS LIKE 90% OF ANIMALS IT CLAIMS TO TAKE IN. IT DOES NOT SAVE THEM.  HSUS SEIZES ANIMALS IN PUBLICIZED "BUSTS" TO GAIN MORE DONATIONS.
THAT IS THEIR JOB, THEN THEY PUSH FOR MORE AND MORE LAWS TO DRIVE UP PRICES OF FOOD, AND MAKE CONSUMERS INTO VEGANS. THAT IS THEIR GOAL. THEY USE SHELTER ANIMALS TO GAIN DONATIONS. THEY DON'T OWN ANY SHELTERS. INSTEAD, THEY PUBLISH A BOOK ON HOW TO KILL EVERY SPECIES. DON'T BELIEVE US? GO LOOK IT UP. YOU CAN BUY IT ON AMAZON.

Copyright © 2013 by The Humane Society of the United States. All rights reserved.  Second edition ISBN 978-1-934785-03-4 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Number: TXu 1-866-347 Copyright © 2013 by The Humane Society of the United States.

Here is a quote from the book which they call a reference manual:

 ....[t]here may be cases where it is necessary to euthanize large numbers of animals off-site, either because of their physical condition (for example, several equines in such poor condition that they cannot be humanely transported) or because of the sheer number of animals involved (for example, large-scale hoarding cases). 

UPDATE, RE SUSANVILLE HORSE CASE: Originally published 2011-2013, now its 2015...

The seizure of the animals was done by the bank "Receiver" on paper, but in reality, the bank attorney controlled the Receiver AND executed a written indemnification which is really not appropriate, since Receivers are supposed to be neutral parties, not working for ONE party.

Further, upon the seizure of the animals, there was no warrant and there was no exigency but bank attorney said it was a medical exigency when it was not.

There was no opposition allowed for owner to contest the taking which is also improper.  Currently, 3 years later, the Superior Court ruled that the Receiver was wrongfully appointed. The banks are attempting to allegedly "clarify" this but the wrongful nature of the entire proceeding was wrong from the start, however the Court then changed its mind and found that the appointment of the Receiver was correct. As for the method or actual actions by the Receiver, the Court did not claim it was errant or not errant (which the banks wanted...)

     Unfortunately, Lassen County is corrupt and even though there are really no expert witnesses, Lassen will claim to use an outside expert and no first hand experts. The vet that initially purported to state that the horses were either "abused" or "neglected" has stated he will not testify and they would have to basically handcuff him and force him to testify. So using an alleged drug charge, Lassen claims they will either convict horse owner on drugs or on animal charges. He is definitely not guilty of any animal abuse and from what we hear the drug charges are simply coercion by police.

The rescuer who formerly had the vet do the alleged inspections has seen her "non profit" have its license revoked for failure to produce income tax returns, not coincidentally, at just the same year that the animals were seized and forward-- therefore, no one will know how much The Grace Foundation made off of using the Lassen horses predicament.

The banks then worked a deal with one of the raw land owners (former girlfriend)  and allegedly sold out her "share" for $200k, meaning the former horse-land owner's raw land, is owned in part by "the banks?" How awful. Nothing has been done about the Receiver (who was really the bank attorney Ryan) or the failure to allow the debtor to exempt his personal property.  Grace former CEO DeCaprio may have reported to the California State Bar on the bank attorney but as far was we can see, nothing has been done to him at all.  

Although we are not surprised at this, because Grace CEO should have never worked with the bank attorneys, both the Grace CEO conducted the non profit improperly, and the bank attorney conducted the receivership improperly. A receiver should be a neutral party but instead was completely controlled by bank attorney for most part. We do not forsee that this case will end very well, mostly because too much time has gone by and the evidence does not necessarily get better with time. Although there is good evidence against the bank (at least one of them) if no one can find an attorney to bring the case forward by now, it's unlikely to have a huge success in the future, especially if the witnesses are either paid, or other subterfuge is used, which we are sure will happen.