message from TX-RPOA of Interest

Texas Department of Licensing & Regulation LOSES court case: [BELOW]

RPOA has been notified that a vacancy exists for a “Public Member” on the
Licensed Breeder Advisory Committee for Texas Department of Licensing &
Regulation (TDLR). Texas Humane Legislation Network (THLN, the Humane
Society of U.S. and ASPCA “partner” in Texas) has been granted a position on
the Breeder Advisory Committee for the “Animal Welfare Organization” slot
with the appointment of Natalie Lynch, an Austin attorney. THLN has no
animal welfare programs and only does “legislation.” RPOA has administered
a statewide Pet Education, Assistant & Rescue Program for 24 years!
Applicants may also request an application by telephone (800-803-9202), FAX
(512-475-2874 or email ( ).
Applicants may be asked to appear for an interview; however, any required
travel for an interview would be at the applicant’s expense. Every RPOA
member that has applied for a position on this committee has been denied.

RPOA was also notified by TDLR that an Annual Inventory is due from Texas
Licensed Dog and Cat Breeders by February 1, 2015.
“An annual inventory must be completed and sent to TDLR no later than
February 1 each year. An annual inventory is a count of all cats or dogs
held at your facility at any time during the past calendar year. Use the
Annual Inventory Form to report this information.
Download the Annual Inventory Form (56 KB PDF).” Go to the TDLR website for
this active link and more information.
Federal Judge to Texas: No, You Can’t Force People to Do Useless Things

The state of Texas told Isis Brantley that she needed to spend thousands of hours taking useless classes and thousands of dollars on useless equipment before she would be permitted to teach hairbraiding at her own school. On Wednesday Judge Sam Sparks told Texas that that was unconstitutional, in a momentous decision that shows what judicial engagement can do for entrepreneurs everywhere.

Isis is an expert African hairbraider with decades of experience teaching everyone from out-of-work women seeking a new skill to state-licensed cosmetologists interested in learning the art of African hairbraiding. On June 25, 2013, the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation notified Isis that, in order to teach hairbraiding at her own school, she must first become a state-licensed barber instructor, a process that takes months and costs thousands of dollars. The requirements include completing a 1,500-hour curriculum that is wholly irrelevant to African hairbraiding. Would-be barber schools also must comply with a number of facility and equipment requirements that would cost over $20,000. The Institute for Justice joined with Isis to file suit in the Western District of Texas, contending that the Texas scheme violated the Fourteenth Amendment, which guarantees every American the right to earn an honest living, free of arbitrary interference.

The government apparently hoped that Judge Sparks would do what judges all too often do when they apply the so-called “rational-basis test,” the default rule in constitutional cases that do not involve rights that the Supreme Court has labeled “fundamental,” like speech, religion, voting and privacy. Judges in rational-basis cases routinely abandon their constitutional duty to seek truth and instead work to rationalize the government’s actions. In seeking to defend the challenged provisions, the government admitted that the provisions “may not be sensible or particularly well crafted” but argued that those who drafted them “could have believed that they furthered legitimate interests in public health and safety,” even if they actually did not. The government invoked Williamson v. Lee Optical (1955), a case in which the Supreme Court upheld a law barring people who were not licensed optometrists or opthalmologists from replacing broken lenses and preventing out-of-state eyeglass retailers from advertising — in the name of public health and safety, of course.

Fortunately for Isis (and unlike the Supreme Court in Lee Optical), Judge Sparks engaged in a genuine search for the truth, focusing on real evidence rather than hypotheticals to justify the government’s actions. Judge Sparks followed the lead of the Fifth Circuit in St. Joseph Abbey v. Castile, another case litigated by IJ. In St. Joseph Abbey, the Fifth Circuit struck down a Louisiana regulatory scheme targeting casket sales, rejecting Louisiana’s “nonsensical explanations” for the scheme after finding them to be factually baseless.

After carefully considering Texas’ hairbraiding scheme, Judge Sparks determined that it did not plausibly further any of the state’s alleged interests. He determined, for instance, that it made no sense for a braiding salon to be forced to install a minimum of five sinks when washing hair is not involved in the braiding process and may not legally be performed by a braider. He further noted that although Texas’ scheme explicitly contemplates the existence of braiding schools that teach solely the 35-hour curriculum that the state requires of all braiders, the state could not find a single braiding school that was able to meet its onerous requirements. What sense does it make to apply a regulatory scheme to hairbraiding schools that makes it impossible for them to even enter the market — unless, of course, you are trying to protect barber schools from competition from hairbraiding schools? Tellingly, Texas was perfectly willing to allow Isis to work for an existing barber school and teach hairbraiding for them.

If our constitutional rights are to be secure from arbitrary interference, judges cannot reflexively defer to the government. They must engage in a genuine search for the truth, scrutinizing the record carefully to determine whether the government’s actions plausibly serve truly public-oriented ends. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has given the government a free pass in rational-basis cases like Lee Optical, and lower courts have followed its lead. But nothing less will suffice to protect the liberty of ordinary Americans like Isis who are striving to realize their entrepreneurial dreams. We need truth-seeking judicial engagement in every case to set them free.


Our case will be going to the Supremes for opinion even though we know they can deny it.

These court decisions could ultimately have far reaching results-federal courts not always doing their designated job. But as already explained in previous posts, it is shocking that they did not and could not have read the petition for rehearing or reviewed the brief and the ACTUAL case with the documents that prove it rather than to just flip it and us off with an instant denial…!!!

Fred was denied an ASL interpreter from the start through and entire first hearing-Federal Court/Federal Law setting ADA Law on its ass. General warrants are not acceptable and the warrant was not only a general warrant but showed no probable cause to take the animals in the first place. Government codes of the state of Texas were not and are enforced

-The law is supposed to be pure and in this case far reaching with an impact that literally stole the American Dream that had been built on blood sweat and tears. But if hitting the books once again and writing more documents is what it takes to try to get the court, any fucking court, to recognize this case, then we try once again in another court however, we’re not expecting a positive result; the Supreme Court turns away 100s of cases that too should be heard. Cases deserve the proper attention of the courts for justice to be properly served. When a court does not allow a case to be heard, especially when a jury trial has been requested, you can not help but wonder why when the evidence of the case demonstrates the abuse of the lower courts and when the case law that the court uses does not and can not apply in this instance.

We do not come out alone as the losers, everyone including the judges and especially the citizens of Marion County, (Jefferson) Texas, where the original abuse occurred-Living under the rule of horrible judges who don’t even concern themselves with their jurisdiction -kangaroo court is in session at anytime, could actually be anyplace…doesn’t matter, not to anyone including the courts designated to protect you and I from the abuse of this occurrence.

Links of interest:

Remember what they do and did to us, can happen to you!!! The impact of the case, far reaching.

Disclaimer connected to this blog…Things said are of my opinion and the opinions of others…Stay tuned  -B

~ by topcatsroar on January 12, 2015.

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: