The NEW World of Animal Rights-Not so new and just temporary~GOOD always overcomes EVIL -Working for one cause•April 22, 2014 • Leave a Comment
FYI: Animal Legal Defense Fund is a national “animal rights” organization
of attorneys, including attorney “Skip” (Robert) Trimble with Texas Humane
Legislation Network THLN), and other THLN attorney members of the Texas
State Bar’s Animal Law Section.
For ALDF, “animal law” is synonymous with attempts to gain legal standing
for animals (equal to humans), to allow animals to sue veterinarians and
their owners, to do away with animal “ownership” and turn animals into legal
persons, and ultimately have the law declare that humans and animals are
RPOA will never understand how intelligent attorneys can support this
radical agenda, and throw pet ownership under the bus. For $$$?
ALDF’s Tom Linney is a University of Texas School of Law graduate. While in
law school, Linney helped establish the school’s first Student Animal Legal
Defense Fund Chapter, got an animal law class added to curriculum, served as
legislative intern for Texas Humane Legislation Network drafting
legislation, worked for the Texas Legislative Council, in addition to
serving many elected officials and a federal agency. Linney was
instrumental in getting an anti-pet “animal rights” ordinance passed in El
Paso, which RPOA opposed to no avail.
Yolanda Eisenstein (below) has THLN connections also … oh, what a web the
“animal rights” attorneys weave in Texas!
Forward below from: “Sue Cone” who does a great job keeping us all informed!
OR Tiny URL:
Southern Methodist University: Lunching and Learning Ways to Make Animal Law a Career
This spotlight was submitted by Melissa Oosterhof, president of the Student Animal Legal Defense Fund chapter at Southern Methodist University Dedman School of Law.
During the 2009 fall semester, concerned students at Southern Methodist University (SMU) Dedman School of Law decided to organize a student chapter of the Animal Legal Defense Fund. Although SMU, located in Dallas, Texas, has active environmental law and public interest law groups, there were no organizations on campus to advocate for animals. SMU Student Animal Legal Defense Fund’s (SALDF) formation coincided with the exciting addition of the first-ever animal law class to be offered at SMU. It was the perfect time to bring the organization to the school since students were becoming aware of animal legal issues through the class.
In order to promote SMU SALDF and make its presence known on campus, members held a tabling event to gather signatures for ALDF’s Animal Bill of Rights, a petition to the United States Congress for stronger animal protection laws.
Armed with some ALDF temporary tattoos, bookmarks, posters, and dog bowls filled with candy, members took turns working the brightly decorated table in the law library commons area. Many curious students and professors stopped by the table with a little coaxing and candy, both of which proved effective. Members discussed the necessity of stronger animal protection laws as well as what the newest group on campus had in store for SMU.
While some were hesitant to sign, no one walked away empty-handed. Visitors all took Animal Bill of Rights literature and a few treats. By the end of the day, nearly all of the signature sheets were filled and SMU SALDF had a couple of new recruits, a great success for our first public event!
Later in the spring, SMU SALDF hosted its first annual vegetarian career lunch. Yolanda Eisenstein, an SMU professor and Dallas attorney who specializes in animal law, spoke about creative tactics students could use to include animal law in their careers. Professor Eisenstein encouraged attendees interested in animal legal issues to, “Create the job you want. Since [animal law] is new, you can create the job, you can become the expert, and you can own that category.”
Eisenstein suggested, when interviewing with a firm, you should go in with a plan to demonstrate how taking animal cases can be profitable and how your knowledge of the specialization can be of value. Firms that have environmental law, intellectual property, and estate planning practices could benefit from an attorney who has special knowledge of legal issues related to animals. A job candidate who can demonstrate why animal law is significant in modern legal practice has a marketable edge on interviewees who are not aware of the versatility and increasing relevance of animal law.
Luncheon attendees learned multiple ways to include animal law in a legal practice. Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA) cases in instances of breeder disputes and product liabilities with pet toy manufacturers are two examples of conflicts which award attorney’s fees. Further, as animal cruelty cases gain more coverage in the news, prosecution of animal abusers is an expanding specialization. Students should also consider the representation of different groups such as fish and wildlife organizations, veterinary associations, and medical and research associations. Job searchers can also seek out animal law opportunities in agribusiness, with insurance providers, and in farming industries. Alternatively, for those interested in politics, there is a great need for lobbyists for animal welfare groups.
Participants were encouraged to seek out unique opportunities with the assurance that a demonstrated interest in animal law is a specialty applicants can offer to employers as well as a means to make a passion for animal welfare a viable career.
This summer, SMU SALDF officers have been planning events for the upcoming school year. Fundraising for local shelters, more tabling events, movie screenings, and trips to animal law events are just some of the things planned. Our hope is to not only increase membership but also to encourage other students to become passionate about animal welfare issues.
What strikes me about this article is that they call themselves concerned for animal welfare-and couldn’t be further from the truth!!! The ALDF has been active nationwide for a long time…HSUS/THLN works hand in hand with ALDF…Some might consider these attorneys intelligent-I consider them the scum of the earth; they make money as terrorists from within.
Disclaimer connected to this blog…Things said are of my opinion and the opinion of others…Stay tuned -B
False claims on the rest of the animals will not be tolerated!!! He will either fight or the animals not requiring a special permit will be extorted from this owner-All to familiar with that game…Rither way it’s rigged so he can’t win in court…If anyone knows this owner please put him in touch with me…
Anacondas, a young alligator, rabbits and dogs removed from Ohio home
LANCASTER, Ohio – Authorities have seized two large snakes, a young alligator and other animals from a central Ohio home after neighbors complained to the local humane society.
Two anacondas, a young alligator, two rabbits and two dogs were removed Friday from a home in Lancaster, roughly 30 miles southeast of Columbus.
A humane officer tells the Lancaster Eagle-Gazette (http://ohne.ws/1haSLu5 ) that authorities expect to file neglect charges against the owner. He says the dogs, both English mastiffs, showed signs of neglect. They’re being cared for at the local humane society.
Its director says the animals’ owner didn’t have proper permits to have exotic animals.
The Ohio Department of Agriculture took the alligator. Columbus Zoo officials took the snakes.
No use for another alligator but note that Jack Hanna’s Columbus Zoo was quick to take those expensive snakes!!! Wonder what happened to due process!?! What BULLSHIT!!!
Disclaimer connected to this blog…Things said are of my opinion and the opinion of others…Stay tuned -B
RPOA is the “reasonable” voice regarding Texas animal issues.
RPOA’s concerns are for all animal owners in Texas, not only dog and cat
breeders. We’re receiving reports of “investigations” and intimidation of
animal owners by SPCA of Texas (Dallas) and SPCA of Houston. Be advised
humane societies and SPCAs in Texas have no police powers nor legal
authority to enter your property without a Search Warrant or permission.
Their actions reflect badly on the state of Texas and word travels quickly
via the Internet.
Furthermore, unless dog and cat breeders are licensed, Texas Department of
Licensing & Regulation can NOT enter private property without a Search
Warrant or permission. Nor can any city or animal control officers.
Read the link below for the entire article about a New Jersey incident:
“Inhumane Society: Armed SPCA agents handcuff 84-year-old animal lover”
By Paul Mulshine/The Star Ledger,
updated April 19, 2014
When actor Jim Carrey played the title role in the movie “Ace Ventura:
Pet Detective,” people all over America yukked it up at the idea of a
wannabe cop running around investigating animals.
That’s a joke in most of America. Here in New Jersey, it’s not so funny.
Theresa “Tee” Carlson found that out in January when two armed officers of
the New Jersey Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals arrived at
the humane shelter she was running in Hunterdon County.
“They put me in handcuffs and they took me to a police station where I
sat in a cell for several hours,” the 84-year-old Carlson told me last
week when I met her at the office of her attorney. “I was treated like
That’s not my language. Those terms come from a 2000 report by the State
Commission of Investigation on what were then 17 SPCA chapters around the
state. The SPCAs are private groups that “are accountable to no
governmental authority” the report stated.
Worse, said attorney Victor Rotolo, the male officers didn’t bother to bring along a female officer to do the pat-down.
“The male patted her down over her privates,” Rotolo said. “It was over her clothes but it was very humiliating.”
It was also a violation of normal police procedure, he said. Rotolo should know. Prior to becoming a lawyer he was a real cop, working on the Elizabeth police force. Like most real cops, he has little respect for the “wannabe cops” with a “gun-club mentality” in the SPCA.
That’s not my language. Those terms come from a 2000 report by the State Commission of Investigation on what were then 17 SPCA chapters around the state. The SPCAs are private groups that “are accountable to no governmental authority” the report stated. It concluded, “The time has come to repeal the government authority vested in the SPCAs.”
It cited many examples of abuse of that authority, including an incident involving the Warren County chapter “when its reckless actions resulted in the 17-hour siege of the home of an elderly man, who died of a heart attack within two weeks.”
A shining exception was the Hunterdon County SPCA, of which Carlson was then a leading member. That chapter got a glowing review from the SCI.
“The society emphasizes the volunteer nature and interest in animals that initially gave rise to the SPCAs,” it said.
The report (read a summary here) also noted that “uniforms are not worn and guns are not carried” by the chapter’s agents. That set it apart from what the report termed the “gun-club mentality” of other chapters.
Carlson is perhaps the leading critic of the arming of SPCA agents. She even got her local assemblyman to introduce bills reforming the practice.
“I don’t feel guns and the word ‘police’ on the back of uniforms are appropriate,” she told me. “They have generals. They have colonels. These are people who couldn’t get into a police force.”
That 2000 report echoed those views. And it also noted that some county chapters were accusing the state chapter of “employing tactics of intimidation and threats to revoke their charters and seize their assets.”
Events in the interim certainly seem to confirm those accusations. In 2002, the Hunterdon chapter joined a coalition of other chapters fighting the NJSPCA’s efforts to seize the assets of the county units.
Then in 2004 Hunterdon’s conflict with the state chapter came to a head. At issue was the trial of former basketball star Jayson Williams on charges he shot his chauffeur two years earlier. A witness said Williams, who lived in Hunterdon, also shot his dog. The state chapter wanted the county chapter to file animal-cruelty charges against Williams.
Carlson argued the matter was better left to the county prosecutor. That prompted the NJSPCA to demand the chapter turn over “vehicles, funds and any and all property” to the state chapter, according to a letter the NJSPCA sent to the Hunterdon chapter. The chapter responded by moving its assets to a separate nonprofit corporation out of the reach of the grasping hands of the NJSPCA.
Or so it seemed.
Then on Aug. 22 of last year NJSPCA agents showed up at the Hunterdon Humane Animal Shelter to find evidence of animal cruelty. They charged the shelter was above its capacity for cats.
“But this was a no-kill shelter,” Carlson said. “We’re not going to put animals to sleep just because we have a few extra cats.”
Nine of the cats in question did indeed end up dead — but only after the NJSPCA removed them. Nonetheless, the condition of the cats was used as the basis of an arrest warrant issued for Carlson in January.
Normally anyone involved in such a legal proceeding would be issued a summons, said Rotolo. But the NJSPCA agents told a judge they needed to arrest her because they didn’t know her home address. They never asked for it, Rotolo said. And in any case, “They knew she was at the shelter every day.”
In his court filings, (SPCA.pdf ) Rotolo argues the NJSPCA needed the arrest to invoke an obscure law intended to protect animals in the absence of the owner. In 2005, the NJSPCA lost a long court fight to be named receiver of the chapter’s assets. This time the arrest and the removal of Carlson permitted them to gain that status — and access to the chapter’s $5 million in assets — without lengthy litigation, said Rotolo.
Whether they’ll be able to keep those assets will be decided in court. But unlike the many other people I’ve spoken to who’ve been bullied by SPCA agents, Carlson has the resources to fight back. In addition to fighting the arrest, Rotolo said he is also preparing a civil suit against the state chapter and the individuals involved.
When I called SPCA spokesman Matt Stanton, he said he could not discuss the case because of the litigation. But he did discuss Rotolo’s allegation in the filings that the NJSPCA had withdrawn more than $200,000 from the shelter’s bank account. Stanton denied that.
“I believe they’re withdrawing some little funds now,” Stanton said. He said the NJSPCA is now running the shelter.
“This is our first time in the shelter world,” said Stanton. “A lot of people think we operate shelters. We don’t. We enforce animal cruelty statutes.”
I ran that by David Favre, an expert on animal law at Michigan State University.
“That’s weird,” Favre said. “Every humane society I know has a shelter as its main facility.”
Even weirder is the granting of police powers to a group of private citizens, Favre said. That’s a relic of the 1800s long abandoned elsewhere.
“Around the 1900s, those laws were revoked in most states,” Favre said.
I then told him the sad story of the 84-year-old lady clapped in cuffs.
“Wow. That’s amazing,” he said. “Sounds like it’s time to clean the slate and start over again.”
It does indeed.
ALSO, here’s an excerpt from that 2000 report:
“The issue is no longer whether or how to fix this errant group of self-appointed, self-directed and uncontrolled entities, but whether to eliminate the archaic system entirely,” the report states. “The Commission concludes that the time has come to repeal the government authority vested in the SPCAs and place the function of enforcing the cruelty laws within the government’s stratified hierarchy of law enforcement.”
Read the whole thing. And then ask your local legislator why it was ignored.
Egg Lawsuit Fingers HSUS Mafia Tactics
The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) has been pressuring egg farmers for years to go “cage-free.” Mind you, HSUS doesn’t really support cage-free eggs—as an animal rights group, it wants to get rid of the egg industry entirely, by its own admission—but it sees cage-free as a step in the right direction for its agenda.
So what happened when some egg farmers went along and gave their chickens more space a few years ago? HSUS complained to the Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission. You can’t make this stuff up.
HSUS’s complaint was that egg producers were using an animal welfare program as a front for price fixing, and several years ago, some food retailers sued egg farmers on those grounds. Egg farmers, under the program (called “UEP Certified”), reduced the number of hens per cage, thus increasing the space available to each bird. But the retailers alleged the real point of the program was to reduce the supply of eggs and therefore raise the price, even though, according to Feedstuffs, restaurants and supermarkets had ironically been pushing egg farmers to adopt animal welfare guidelines.
The litigation is complicated and involves many parties, and some of the egg company defendants have settled (and, for the record, we don’t have a position on this suit). But interestingly, two companies filed a counter-complaint last month against the food retailers. The egg companies claim that the food retailers knew everything all along, but were actually pressured by the egg industry into the certification program in order to not be attacked by HSUS and PETA:
[D]iscovery has revealed that the Counterclaim Defendant DAPs conspired to induce the Counterclaim Plaintiffs [egg companies] and the broader egg industry to implement and maintain the UEP Certified Program, with full knowledge of all material aspects of that Program, as part of a deliberate plan to avoid being the subject of high-profile public relations attacks by animal rights groups like People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (“PETA”) and the Humane Society of the United States (“HSUS”). In this context, their lawsuits can only be understood as a bad faith and opportunistic attempt to extort money from the Counterclaim Plaintiffs.
This puts a spotlight on, for lack of a better characterization, the mafia-like tactics of HSUS. Look at it this way: Food retailers don’t want to be accused of animal cruelty. They have brands to protect. When HSUS shows up at their door, the message is clear: “Nice business you’ve got there. Shame if something happened to it.” And more often than not, companies cave in to HSUS’s demand du jour and pass the buck by making demands of their suppliers. HSUS then claims a P.R. “win.”
Recently, for instance, HSUS has been demanding companies change their pork sourcing to suppliers that don’t use veterinarian-approved maternity pens to house pregnant pigs. Some companies have agreed. It’s shortsighted, but understandably easier, for a restaurant to make a wishy-washy pledge to do something in 10 years—and get HSUS off its back today—than to potentially draw HSUS’s ire with a negative, contrived P.R. campaign.
It’s not about what consumers want—it’s about avoiding attacks from the HSUS/PETA crowd. The trouble is that giving a schoolyard bully your lunch money never makes him go away. You have to fight back, as a circus company is doing by taking HSUS and two of its employees to court with a federal RICO lawsuit. That suit alleges HSUS had a role in a scheme involving malicious litigation and illegal witness payments, and the whole kerfuffle could see an HSUS affiliate bankrupted.
Amusingly, WATT editor Terence O’Keefe has a tongue-in-cheek suggestion that HSUS should be sued for price fixing. Why? Because its Proposition 2 ballot initiative in California to mandate more cage space for hens will reduce supply and drive up egg prices—exactly what HSUS is complaining about with the egg industry program.
It’s a joke, of course, since you can’t litigate against HSUS for hypocrisy. But HSUS can be sued if it allegedly violated anti-racketeering laws. And it can be investigated for potentially deceptive fundraising by a state attorney general. Hopefully justice will be served.
Disclaimer connected to this blog…Things said are of my opinion and the opinions of others…Stay tuned -B
And what about warrantless searches that went on for THREE Days before obtaining a warrant with nothing wrong?!? Animals that can not be seen from the road, no starving and sick animals, receiving treatment if there was something wrong, plenty of supplies and no law broken!!!
People accused of owning a ‘puppy mill’ or hoarding’ animals-Texas creating ‘puppy mill’ laws to stop all breeding…Ohio ban on owning property…All exceeding the limitations for seizing a single animal!!!
What happens in Oregon or any other state for that matter, affects ALL states…
Appeals court says pets are ‘property’ as it throws out dog-starving conviction
The Oregon Court of Appeals Wednesday threw out the conviction of a 28-year-old woman found guilty of starving her dog based on evidence from a veterinarian who tested and treated the animal without a warrant.
The ruling could set a precedent by making it more difficult for animal-cruelty investigators to seek instantaneous care for beaten, starved or otherwise injured pets. And the ruling could make it tougher for prosecutors to go after people suspected of abusing or neglecting their animals.
In reversing the 2011 misdemeanor conviction of Amanda L. Newcomb, a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals ruled that animals are living beings but they are also property under the eyes of the law. And that doesn’t trump their owners’ constitutional rights to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.
The case at issue began when an informant told the Oregon Humane Society that Portland-area resident Newcomb was beating her dog, failing to properly feed it and keeping it in a kennel for many hours a day. An animal-cruelty investigator went to Newcomb’s apartment in December 2010 and, once invited in, saw the dog in the yard “in a near emaciated condition.” The dog, the investigator reported, “was kind of eating at random things in the yard, and trying to vomit.”
The investigator asked why, and Newcomb said she was out of dog food but that she was going to get more that night, according to the Court of Appeals’ summary of the case.
The investigator determined a “strong possibility” existed that the dog needed medical care and brought the dog to a Humane Society vet. The vet gave the dog food, charted his weight and measured his rapid weight gain over several days. The vet also tested the dog’s feces and blood, ruling out disease. The investigator concluded nothing was wrong with the dog other than it was very hungry.
Newcombe was charged in Multnomah County Circuit Court with second-degree animal neglect.
She tried to suppress the vet’s findings by saying her state and federal constitutional rights to be protected from unreasonable search and seizure were violated when the investigator seized her dog without a warrant and the veterinarian tested her dog without a warrant.
Newcomb argued that dogs are personal property and she has the same privacy rights to her dog as she would to objects such as pocket knives or boots — which is a reference to previous case law.
The prosecutor countered that unlike other possessions, animals have a right to medical care and to be free from neglect.
Judge Eric Bergstrom denied Newcomb’s attempt to suppress the evidence, and she was found guilty. She was sentence to one year of probation and ordered not to possess animals for five years.
The Court of Appeals on Wednesday found that the investigator had probable cause to seize the dog and didn’t need a warrant. But the appeals court found the vet’s “search” of the dog violated Newcomb’s privacy rights because the authorities hadn’t obtained a warrant.
Although many judges would likely issue a warrant under such circumstances, critics argue the ruling will slow down the process of getting medical care to animals.
The appeals court sent the case back to Multnomah County Circuit Court for further proceedings, but it is unlikely Newcomb will be retried since the main evidence against her isn’t admissible.
Judges Timothy Sercombe, Darleen Ortega and Erika Hadlock took part in the decision
Disclaimer connected to this blog…Things said are of my opinion and the opinions of others…Stay tuned -B