TX-RPOA -USDA Pet Breeder Lawsuit UPDATE

Interesting…

Today at 4:47 PM

TX RPOA E-News
From Responsible Pet Owners Alliance Texas Outreach
Crossposting is encouraged.
January 16, 2014

Below is an update regarding the lawsuit filed against the new USDA
regulation to require federal licensing for ALL species of pet breeders
owning more than four intact female pets AND “shipping” even one animal
without a previous face to face meeting. Please support this effort!

USDA RETAIL PET STORE RULE LAWSUIT UPDATE

From Frank Losey: <franklosey@twc.com>
More documents filed and more info:  www.keepourdomesticanimals.com

On the afternoon of January 13, 2014, our Response to the HSUS Motion to
Intervene as a Defendant in the Lawsuit was filed. (A copy of our Response
will be posted on the KODA Website.) A summary of key quotes set out in
our Response is as follows:

1. The HSUS “does not have standing to intervene (as a defendant) in this
case.”
2. The “USDA is capable of defending without the intervention of the HSUS.”
3. The “Plaintiffs’ challenge will not cause the HSUS ‘immediate and
concrete harm.'”
4. “HSUS presents no evidence that either of its examples involved members
of any of the 42 Plaintiffs.”
5. The “HSUS has not identified a single “so-called puppy mill” among the
19,000 small-scale dog and cat hobby breeder who comprised the membership of
the forty-two Plaintiffs.”
6. The “HSUS has not offered a single fact to support intervention to
prevent Plaintiffs from setting aside the Rule based on the substantial,
detrimental effects it has on their activities as small-scale dog and cat
hobby breeders.”
7. “In other words, the newly promulgated Rule saves the HSUS money, enables
the HSUS to be more efficient in gathering information, and gives HSUS
additional traction in its lobbying efforts, which is what it does.”
8. “Overheated rhetoric aside, HSUS’ decision to hound breeders acting
within the bounds of the law was entirely voluntary, and the fact that this
decision allegedly cost hundreds of thousands of dollars is a telling
measure of the substantial resources available to HSUS, and nothing more.”
9. The “HSUS does not allege injury due to USDA’s inaction, but instead
argues that it will be injured by Plaintiff’s challenge to a USDA action
that HSUS supports.”
10. “HSUS suggests that Defendant’s commitment to the Retail Pet Store Rule
is suspect, and that they will be less than vigorous in defending the Rule.”
11. “(N)one of the cases cited by the HSUS supports intervention on the side
of a defendant government agency to defend that agency’s rule.”
12. “(F)or the HSUS to assert that USDA will not now vigorously defend the
defend that Rule is speculative at best and cynical at worst.”
13. “If, as HSUS fears, USDA ‘might agree to settle rather than litigate,
and remand the rule for additional review. . . USDA has discretion to do
so.”
14. “Defendant’s Notice . . . stating that they take no position regarding
HSUS’ Motion to intervene plainly suggests that HSUS’s assistance is not
needed.”
15. “The parade of horribles that HSUS describes as the reason for the Rule
simply does not apply to Plaintiffs or their members, all of which are
small-scale hobby breeders.”
16. “The exposition of HSUS’ position would unduly delay the presentation
of Plaintiffs’ case, and would prejudice the adjudication of Plaintiff’
claims by making Plaintiffs appear to be something they are not.”

The Rules of the Court provide that the HSUS will have seven (7) days to
respond to our Response. We do not anticipate that the Government will
submit any response to our Lawsuit until after the HSUS files its Response
to our Response, which we expect will be filed on January 20, 2014.
However, on January 13, 2014 the Justice Department did file its Response to
the HSUS Motion to Intervene, and stated, as referenced above, the
following: “Defendants take no position regarding the Motion to Intervene
of the Humane Society of the United States.”
Frank Losey
———————————

Donate with PayPal or mail in at:
http://www.rpoatexasoutreach.org
_________________________
Disclaimer connected to this blog…Things said are of my opinion and the opinion of others…Stay tuned -B

Advertisements

~ by topcatsroar on January 16, 2014.

2 Responses to “TX-RPOA -USDA Pet Breeder Lawsuit UPDATE”

  1. I AM ABSOLUTLY SICK OF THE AMOUNT OF ANIMAL THEFT GOING ON, WITH ZERO EVIDENCE AT ALL, TO ONLY PROMOTE THEIR RACKETEERING . JUDGES SHOULD AS IN OTHER CASES, PUT THESE PEOPLE IN PRISON ADDICTED TO STEALING ANIMALS THAT HAVE A MENTAL ILLNESS OBSEST IN PROFITING OFF SOMEONE ELSES LIVELYHOOD. WITH SECRET ADOPTION WEBSITES ON THE SIDE.WE HAVE TO START LOOKING AT THE BEST INTEREST OF ANIMAL’S AND THESE INDIVIDUALS HAVE NO CONSCENTS ON HOW THEY HEART BREAK VICTOMS FOR THEIR OWN GREED.VIOLATING STATUE 933.20 NO INSPECTION WARRANTS ,NOR WARRANTS TO EVEN ALLOW THEM TO TRESPASS TO BEGIN WITH. LOCK EM UP! NOW BEFORE THEY DO MORE DAMAGE.VIOLATING DU PROCESS BESIDES THE POINT. DOGS ARE PROPERTY. THATS LIKE STEALING A CAR OR ANYTHING ELSE, YOU STEAL …YOU PAY THE CONSQUENCE! PERIOD! END OF STORY!

  2. I could not have portrayed my thoughts any better than “Lookingthruwolfeyes” did!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: