AWAKE CENTRAL

FORMER AC OFFICER ARRESTED FOR FRAUD AND SWINDLE

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Wed, 04 Nov 2015 15:27:00 +0000

PATRICK PACE, FORMER AC OFFICER, ARRESTED FOR FRAUD AND SWINDLE 10/18/2015

Patrick Pace has been arrested multiple times for theft in the past, as well as for driving with a suspended license while working at Animal Control in Brooksville, Hernando County, FL.

PACE, PATRICK JOSEPH (03/25/1975)
Submitted by admin on Mon, 10/19/2015 - 11:53

report_number:
2015-23116/5
person_name:
PACE, PATRICK JOSEPH (03/25/1975)
offense:
817.034 - SCHEME TO DEFRAUD/OBTAIN PROP
arrest_location:
1215 GATEWOOD AVE
full_image_url:
http://www.hernandosheriff.org/applications/records/ArrestsShowImage.aspx?SubRelObjFileID=232255&fileName=image.jpg
Arrest Date:
10/18/15 21:55

Mugshot:

From an earlier arrest...

YOUR DOG'S BEST FRIEND MAY BE HIS ATTORNEY

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Wed, 04 Nov 2015 05:04:00 +0000

Illegal Animal Seizure

How to prevent or deal with "animal cruelty" confiscation by animal control and animal rights terrorists.

YOUR DOG’S BEST FRIEND MAY BE HIS ATTORNEY

by Diane Amble, We The People USA

Warrantless seizures plague animal owners! If contacted by animal control authorities SEEK LEGAL COUNSEL IMMEDIATELY to prevent illegal confiscation and impoundment.

In fact, you may want to find a good attorney now. Why?” you ask. The answer is by the time the knock comes at your door, it may be too late to protect your animals and prevent them from being seized. Often times, seizure of animals results in the injury and death of the animals by the same authorities that claim to be "rescuing" said animals.

Once your animals are seized they will be subjected to stress and disease if not outright abuse and even death at the hands of callous animal control workers or overzealous animal "rescuers". Do you have an elderly dog or a litter of tiny kittens? How do you think they will fare at the pound where disease is usually rampant and the stress of impoundment may very well make your dog more susceptible to disease. Will your dog be able to handle an attack by another dog as they are often thrown in together in a kennel regardless of age or size?

Too many believe that the law protects their rights and their property as we were taught in Civics and Government class in middle school.

Too many believe that because they provide optimal care for their animals and live in a nice neighborhood or a rural countryside that they will never be subjected to the onerous raids one hears about. "Those people" you assume did not properly care for their animals. We are told "those people" are hoarders.

The reality is that even people with four animals have been labeled "hoarders" by rogue raiders. Once they release often contrived raid details to the press, you will be presumed guilty by the media and the public.

Trying Your Animal Abuse, Limit Laws, or Hoarding Case:

You assume you will prevail in a court of law. That may be the case if you have deep pockets to appeal in a court of law. However, like child protective cases, most animal cases are heard by your accusers, in a private hearing within the animal control department without the legal protections provided in a courtroom setting. The reality is often that the animal control agency alone is the judge, jury and executioner - literally.

If you are lucky enough to have your case heard in front of a magistrate, chances are they will take the word of the officers over yours and they nearly always know nothing about animal care and its intricacies.

If you have children, child protective services will be contacted and without warning they will appear. You may have to fight two fronts: allegations by animal control and allegations from child protective services. And in both cases, your animals and your children may be seized immediately. You may be taken to jail and have to post bond in order to be released to begin your defense of what often amounts to “guilty until proven innocent."

Often another agency is also used to levy fines and put obstacles in your case: code enforcement. In some locales these officers now even legally carry guns! They will often declare your property condemned simply due to "blight", refuse or even "odor". You may be forced to leave your own property under their authority.

If your home is a mess, or maybe you are "hoarding" too many recyclables, they may contact Mental Health Services and you may be placed under evaluation (hospitalized) due to their perception of your inability to care properly for yourself. This is not uncommon is cases where the person is elderly.

You will be billed for each of these services.

Fines, Fees, and Court Costs of Illegal Animal Seizures:

In fact, many people cannot retrieve their animals due to the high cost of per diem exacted by animal services along with exorbitant veterinary fees. Code enforcement may charge $200 per hour to evaluate and re-inspect you monthly on violations and repairs. They can place a lien on your home. In some areas, just breeding animals for consumption is deemed "illegal agricultural activities" and fines can be as high as $1000.00 per day.

Are you now asking yourself if all these seizures or fines are legal? Most are not but that does not stop them from happening. In fact, animal officer training includes instruction on ways "around the law" based on drug seizure precedent cases. Sure "those people" are the "bad guys dealing drugs to the neighborhood" but law enforcement is now teaching and applying the same interpretations to animal seizures.

Just as in cases where rogue narcotics officers place incriminating evidence in the alleged criminal's car or home, so may an overzealous animal officer kick over a water bowl, tighten a chain, or even flood your barn to prove animal abuse or neglect. If a pet is placed in a carrier and set out in the heat of the day for hours, how will your precious pampered pet look once they finally arrive at the animal control facility for veterinary examination? Your pet may be near death at that point. How can you prove your pet's condition was due to mistreatment following the seizure rather than your poor care?

At this point, most of us would be shouting out the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness or reciting the Constitution! Are you prepared to hire a Constitutional attorney to uphold your rights under the law?

U.S. CONSTITUTION – Amendment 5. Self-Incrimination; Double Jeopardy; Due process. “No person shall…be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

California Penal Code § 1548(d): “Laws of the United States” means (1) those laws of the United States passed by Congress pursuant to authority given to Congress by the Constitution of the United States where the laws of the United States are controlling, and (2) those laws of the United States not controlling the several states of the United States but which are not in conflict with the provisions of this chapter. CONGRESS makes laws, NOT counties, cities, code enforcement, or dog-catchers.

Yet, we are aware of countless ordinances that subject animal owners to excessive fees, which are really taxes, and unreasonable stipulations along with arbitrary and often ridiculous numbers; 4 dogs, 3 cats, 1 chicken, no roosters! Such ordinances are based on a whim or the agenda of animal rights fanatics with unrestrained, autocratic use of authority by elected or hired personnel or merely appointed commissions or agencies!

Where will it stop? Will such illegal agencies soon tell us how many acres we can own? How many cattle we can have? How many pairs of shoes? How about how many children you can have? Sound incredulous? Well, in China it is not only a reality but a living nightmare from which you cannot awaken.

In the state of California not one case has been won that resulted in all animals returned to the owner. This is also true across the United States. The only two cases that were successfully won with all animals returned were in South Dakota. Cases have been won, but too late. The animals were destroyed, sold for profit, disappeared, or the SPCA refused to return the animals.

You see it on the news every day: "The poor animals were too ill and had to be destroyed". The favorite of the six o'clock news is "The hoarder had very unsanitary conditions so the house had to be condemned and bulldozed'. "Restitution was ordered by the judge to be paid to the SPCA/Animal Control". What they don't tell you is, a six digit figure was awarded to the SPCA/Animal Control, who promptly placed a lien on the Home & Property. The owner was sent to jail so they couldn't fight them.

Can't believe it could happen to you? Stay tuned - we have hundreds of cases from California and across the nation. Not one state is immune. In Part II, we will discuss how you may be able to prevent any seizure and minimize fines by being pro-active.

References:

2008 - 2009 Significant Animal Law Cases. Author Rebecca F. Wisch Animal Legal & Historical Michigan State University College of Law

WARRANTLESS SEIZURE PROVISION OF ANIMAL CRUELTY STATUTE CONSTITUTIONAL. Author Julie Fothergill, Attorney, VLCT Municipal Assistance Center VLCT News, May 2004

California Criminal Animal Protection Laws by Alison Schiebelhut; George Washington University (GWU) Law School’s Animal Welfare Project 2008

California Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Law Handbook (Penal Code 11164-11174.3)

Code Enforcement Unit inspections temporarily suspended by Jessie Faulkner/The Time-Standard April 9, 2008

Police Shooting Pets by Pamela L. Roudebush Animal Legal and Historical Center, 2002 Michigan State University College of Law

http://www.thedogplace.org/TERRORISTS/Illegal-Animal-Seizure-1107_Amble.asp #117g142

See Rescue Raids: The Crime Of Animal Confiscation

When Animal Control Comes Knocking

Attorney On Animal Control

Animal Control Nightmare

For the net's first documentation of illegal seizures and impoundment, go to Terrorists INDEX

Easy R eprints - Privacy Policy - Disclaimer

Explore TheDogPlace.org for authoritative information on DogCare.

If you breed or show, get your free subscription to TheDogPress.com

RESCUE RAIDS: CONFISCATION RACKET

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Tue, 03 Nov 2015 14:17:00 +0000

Rescue Raids: Confiscation Racket

Humane groups team with animal control to seize and sell valuable dogs, cats, birds, horses, etc. Legal advice and resources to prevent or deal with illegal animal seizure.

October 2014 Update | TheDogPress.com

Barbara J. Andrews, Editor-In-Chief

Note: The ASPCA (American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals), founded in 1866, has no affiliation with local groups. Any rescue, humane society, or individual may become a non-profit "SPCA" which, as you are about to learn, can be extremely profitable.

ABC News 20/20 spent a year investigating SPCA groups based on animal owners’ claims that SPCA falsely accused them of neglect, then confiscated their animals and sold them. In SPCA Steals Animals John Stossell says “"I thought they were heroic animal rescuers, but some animal owners say they act like petty tyrants, confiscating animals that aren't in trouble. The SPCAs are not police agencies, but they are given the authority to act like it. Animal owners tell us SPCAs abuse their power to steal people's animals.”

Rescue raids frequently involve horses or other livestock which sell for $thousands, thus impoundment is a lucrative business. Veterinary care is billed to the owner even if the animals are ultimately adopted or destroyed. It is difficult for animal owners to get good legal advice because local judges usually side with Animal Control. Most magistrates consider rescue groups as the experts who save abused animals, and through preconceived vision distorted by HSUS or Animal Control, court judges view plaintiffs as “hoarders” or “bad breeders.”

Many who have had animals confiscated report that SPCA, HSUS, or local humane societies teamed up with Animal Control, which has police authority. What follows are case files and examples of unjust seizures by those who misuse police powers to seize healthy, happy animals. Defined as Animal Enterprise Terrorism by the FBI, animal seizures can be highly profitable.

Whether any judges receive compensation for issuing warrants and handing out convictions for animal abuse is unknown. According to the 20/20 broadcast, many victims had their lives destroyed by thugs who care more about fines and impoundment fees than about animals. Right or wrong, there may be no recourse because ABC News reports that many states have passed laws wherein “once a Justice of the Peace approves one of the SPCA's confiscations, an owner can't do anything about it.”

“Should we put Animal Rights above Human Rights?” Many great minds debate that question and we must remember that PETA insist that a rat’s life has the same value as a child’s. There is no debate however, on whether many rescue groups profit handsomely from selling the animals they confiscate, aided by "humane interest" TV coverage which generates donations based on dramatized plight of the rescued animals.

This attorney does not give free legal advice but as examples, he presents three cases of out-of-control Animal Control. In the first, an entire pack of valuable hunting hounds was seized, in the second, priceless pedigreed dogs were taken while the owner was at dog shows, and the third describes destruction of an internationally-known AKC judge’s career and reputation.

In one televised example, Animal Control raided a show breeder’s kennel. Reporters intoned “120 dogs lived in deplorable conditions.” The owner said some of them were thin because they were nursing large litters of puppies. Any dog breeder knows that to be true but the SPCA took custody of all the dogs “including award-winners worth up to $6000 each.” The veterinarian stated that the owner “does care about and care for her animals, no starvation was evident” but even so, a local judge upheld the confiscation. The dogs were sold even though the owner mortgaged her home to pay attorneys and legal bills and consequently, she lost everything.

Under current Federal Law, Title 9, Animal Law, sec 2.129, Confiscation and destruction of animals, an APHIS officer is empowered to:

Confiscate animals which may then be "(1) Placed, by sale or donation, with (other) (2) persons or facilities … as determined by APHIS, even if (they) are not (APHIS) licensed or registered. Or the animals can be (3) Euthanized."
The APHIS official (often associated with the HSUS or a self-declared local SPCA) can have: "local police or other law officer to accompany him to the premises."
The really sweet deal is that the person, from whom the animals were confiscated, often without warrant, or proof of Just Cause, must: "bear all costs incurred in performing the placement or euthanasia activities authorized by this section."

Working the system from every angle, animal rescuers typically invite television crews along on raids. Such broadcasts spur the public to adopt the animals (for a fee) or make generous donations. More than $6 million p/year to the Dallas SPCA-which, as revealed by ABC News, helped pay Garcia's $80,000 annual salary.

Animal Control/SPCA Confiscates 101 valuable birds in a particularly noxious raid. The owner, a licensed Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation rehabilitator, was at a Bird Fair when her friend arrived to care for the birds whereupon Animal Control promptly handcuffed and arrested her for animal cruelty!

The cruelty was that during the SPCA raid, baby birds suffocated in overturned nest boxes, and the seized birds were made sick from unsuitable food fed by their "rescuers" and their respiratory systems were damaged by bleach spray - ignorant atrocities committed by over-zealous, ignorant authorities. Upon testimony by a Board Certified Avian veterinarian and other expert witnesses, Pinellas County Judge Dorothy Vaccaro dismissed the case but nothing could undo the damage done to the birds and their criminally abused caretaker.

Bob Attelson, All Setters Rescue, was at a dog show when Little-Minded Littleton, CO executed the carefully planned rescue raid. They sealed off Attelson’s street with four police cars, two animal control trucks, six uniformed police officers and two animal control officers. Neighbors said it was like a terrorist attack. Actually, it was. Littleton SPCA and law enforcement battered down his door, terrorizing a mother dog, confiscating her nursing litter and three rescued dogs for which he was seeking homes.

In addition to animal seizure and resale, plus court-decreed fines, fees, and impoundment costs, there’s another way to make money in animal rescue. Transporting adoptable dogs from shelter to shelter spawned a new industry under the acronym CUR, i.e. Canine Underground Railroad. Nel Liquorman, investigating for this publication, reported CUR’s unsavory connection with ALF (Animal Liberation Front). Following a lead on “250,000 rescue groups” Liquorman discovered an average of 520 rescue groups for each state - 4 times the average number of counties per state! A startling statement on the profitability of rescue.

Small, cute, young dogs are highly adoptable and are often transported to shelters with low inventory. According to Best Friends, some shelters publish a list of “to be destroyed animals” because rescuers are charged a “pull fee” which is additional income for the animal shelter.

If this seems like an Animal Control Nightmare, it is. Read what this woman went through when they knocked on her door and what her final decision was...

Many breeders face police, SPCA, HSUS, rescue or local humane groups in defense of their house pets or livestock. In 2005 when the "pit bull ban" took effect in Denver, thousands of pit bull look-alikes were confiscated, dragged from the homes of hysterical dog owners and destroyed . In Quartz Hill, CA a woman who depends on her trained service dogs fought LA's “no exemption” policy when against federal law, Animal Control tries to confiscate seizure alert dogs!

This extremely well referenced and documented Illegal Animal Seizure Report reveals a nationwide increase in warrantless, illegal raids and offers sound advice on how to deal with profit motivated animal control. No one expects it will happen to them but it does, every day, even in small towns. If they confiscate your animal(s), even a rabbit, you face long-term boarding (impoundment) and veterinary fees which bankrupts many owners. If your animals are taken, your first call should to be to an attorney whom you have preselected.

Spurious dog bite statistics can incite a rash of raids against target breeds. When animal control stages a televised rescue, your face and your “helpless dogs” are flashed throughout the day, promoting the 6 P.M news of the confiscation that “saved a dozen animals” from animal cruelty and abuse.

The following legal advice is from George J. Eigenhauser Jr., a California attorney licensed since 1979, he practices in the areas of civil litigation. It is the best course of action to prevent arrest or compile evidentiary challenge if you are arrested. The first defense is to know and assert your rights, one of which is to forbid warrantless intrusion by not giving animal control, SPCA, HSUS or any “rescue” group a foot in the door, even if accompanied by a sheriff’s deputy or police officer! This document is your best protection When Animal Control Comes Knocking at your door.

If you can't stop Animal Control from seizing your animals, you may have a winnable cause for action if you have good legal representation and a record of court rulings. This Animal Impoundment Legal Defense offers a CD or USB drive packed with information to protect your rights if police authority runs rampant. You will be under emotional stress when challenging an attempt to remove your animals but be prepared and be careful because you could be arrested, ironically, for “obstruction of justice” or interfering with a law officer.

OK, you've read it but don't leave without clicking the above links. It can happen to anyone. Arm yourself with knowledge and legal advice that can protect you and your dogs from the purported "rescue" raids that have escalated this year. News broadcasts make us worry about Ebola virus and ISIS terrorists but those are remote threats compared to being raided by "rescue" and/or HSUS.

Side Effects - because for every cause, there's an effect

http://www.thedogpress.com/SideEffects/Rescue-Raids_LP.asp 131g149156

"Sendto" has been through 8 weeks training and loves his job - click the puppy to send this article to your friends

San Francisco Animal Control director fired and escorted out of the building

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sun, 27 Jul 2014 20:26:00 +0000

Cindy Marabito
American Pit Bull Examiner
July 27, 2014

San Francisco, CA: According to Fix San Francisco, a group organized to bring change for bay area animals being killed in San Francisco, Rebecca Katz has been fired and escorted out of the building of SFACC located at 1200 15th Street in San Francisco, California.

"Just getting word that Rebecca Katz, the Director at Animal Care & Control San Francisco has allegedly been FIRED, escorted out of the building. Stay tuned for updates. This is a good day for the shelter animals." This statement was published July 25 after word reached the administrators of Fix San Francisco regarding Katz's dismissal.

None of the local papers or news media has released a statement about the firing of Katz. As the city's dog pound has ties to local media, one of the anchors for Channel 7 is a longtime board member of Friends of San Francisco Animal Care and Control, leaving local animal lovers hanging.

What led up to the firing of Katz with need to be escorted out the door? Much has gone on regarding the many pit bulls killed at this shelter according to annual reports of Rabies Control Activities. San Francisco Pit Bull Watcher tries to keep an eye on the many dogs who never see the light of day after entering 1200 15th Street by logging heartbreaking photos of the intake dogs from the city's own Pet Harbor database.

Could it be from the interviews on the Monty Show in which Katz laughed about killing pit bull puppies?

Was the firing related to the huge mishandling and two year long tsunami aftermath around the dog Charlie who was removed from his owner after chasing a horse at the dog park. At press time, this dog's whereabouts have been kept secret and owner David Gizzarelli has reportedly not received quarterly court ordered updates from SFACC under Katz's administration.

Katz has appeared on the Monty Show and even on Facebook hate group pages to voice her opinions about Gizzerelli. Furthermore, she included me in her diatribe for writing a series of articles about Charlie and the many holes in the case surrounding his impound. A video was released which raised serious questions about Charlie's treatment at SFACC and label as a vicious and dangerous dog while shown playing with another dog through the bars of his cell.

Questions of money issues have been raised by Fix San Francisco in an effort to direct huge salaries toward saving lives.

Many questions and concerns are not being answered about Katz's dismissal. Local media has historically covered only the puff pieces filtered out by SFACC media liason Deb Campbell and Captain Vicki Guldbech whose comments regarding the dog Charlie were contested by the video of a playful, friendly dog.

Many local animal advocates have unanswered questions and suspicions regarding Katz's firing.

One local advocate observed, "It could only have come from the mayors office, after some kind of investigation.."

A longtime SFACC former employee stated, "I worked for her for 2 1/2 years and everyone there hated her. I'm so glad that animal killer is gone!"

He made this observation of the interim director Eric Zuercher, "Even worse, he picks and chooses which animals to call rescues about. WIth many strays, he doesnt even bother calling even though they are clearly not aggressive. When my former co-worker Arsenio told him he needed more hours to support his family, Eric literally told him "Well maybe you should go rob a bank" with a straight face."

Concerns are great Eric Zuercher, longtime kennel manager has stepped into Katz's shoes as temporary director will continue to kill innocent animals while a humane director is sought.

Fix San Francisco is organizing an effort to try and put a solutions no-kill inspired director in place. It would be a first at the facility which handles all San Francisco impounded pets, a city named for St. Francis of Assisi, the patron saint of animals.

Please consider an email and phone campaign to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors and the mayor to appoint a director with a strong no kill and rescue conscience. A list will be provided on the American Pit Bull Examiner Facebook page.

More will be reported about Katz's dismissal as news is released.

(Source Link: http://www.examiner.com/article/san-francisco-animal-control-director-fired-and-escorted-out-of-the-building?CID=examiner_alerts_article)

Activists Fight Back Against Animal Control Agencies with Lawsuit That Cites Corruption and Abuse

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Thu, 29 May 2014 21:40:00 +0000

By Joshua Cook, November 21, 2013

One of the main arguments used by big-government advocates is that the government is vital to helping those who cannot help themselves. To that end, the government spends millions of dollars each year funding Animal Control, which enforces animal protection laws and runs pounds in every county in America. The role of government in animal protection has gone largely unquestioned until recently, but now activists are filing lawsuits against California Animal Control organizations for abuse of both animals and power.

Two sets of lawsuits are being prepared. The first will be filed on the local level against San Bernadino County – with more Southern California counties to follow – and addresses the issue of animal treatment in government-run shelters. These shelters fail to obey the very state laws they use in their justification for seizing animals in the first place. Animal Control is equivalent to the police force of the animal world, not intended to protect individual animals but rather to maintain order among pets, strays and animal owners.

The second lawsuit, however, would address a much more important issue of civil rights and liberties at the federal level. The government isn’t the only organization claiming to protect animals, and in fact it is less successful than private shelters, with higher kill rates, lower adoption rates and less successful animal placement. Government shelters, therefore, find themselves in a losing competition with private rescues for volunteers, donations and adoption fees.

To counter this, it has become all-but-standard practice for government organizations to violate the Fourth Amendment rights of private shelters, their owners and their supporters. Violating Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizures, government agencies enter private shelters and seize their animals on dubious legal grounds and with no probable cause. Regardless of whether or not they’re found to be in violation of any laws, though, they must pay hundreds of dollars per animal to retrieve them.

It doesn’t matter if they’re guilty or if they’re being victimized; they have to pay the fines. Most shelters are completely unable to pay the tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars required, and are forced to relinquish their animals to the shelter – which makes money adopting some out, and euthanizes those which aren’t profitable, even if they weren’t at risk or being abused in the original shelter – and in some cases to close down. Shelters across the country live in fear of these actions, while Animal Control profits.

Though this is a crucial issue in animal welfare, it far surpasses animals in importance. With the majority of animal conversation focused on issues like hunting and horse slaughter, many believe that the government controlled animal organizations have engaged in nothing less than tyrannical actions against private charities.

The simple truth is that not only are there people out there eager to help animals – meaning that government involvement is unnecessary – the government has taken steps to intimidate and even eliminate these private charities. In doing so, it routinely violates citizens’ constitutional rights.

“This is standard operating procedure for these questionable animal controls,” reads a post on the No Kill Coalition’s Facebook page. “Harassment of animal activists and rescues that dare question their policies is a tactic employed by virtually all of them. Hopefully, this movement which is gathering momentum in California will soon spread to all corners of the United States and beyond.”

This isn’t the only example of government being the most significant threat faced by animals and people who care for them, and it’s not the only example of government corruption involving animals. Animal Control in Tennessee recently killed a young deer for being too friendly with people. Animal control sent a SWAT team into a no-kill shelter and killed a baby deer named “Bambi” before the shelter could transport it to a wildlife rehabilitation center.

“Anti-hoarding” legislation forces everyone who wants to help give animals homes to be registered with the government, and subject to government controls which force them to adhere to higher standards of animal care than most individuals – or government shelters – do, with the accompanying threats of random inspections and Animal Control “raids.” In so doing, it keeps a thousands of pets homeless by stifling individual charity, a move very reminiscent of Michael Bloomberg’s preventing individuals from giving food donations to homeless people.

With animals, as with people, the government attempts to stifle individual attempts to help those it deems “needy.” Not only do the actions of Animal Control show what happens when there is a lack of government accountability, they also illustrate perfectly that the government does far more damage than it does good.

Note from Joshua Cook: Special thanks to Sarah Tanksalvala who contributed the majority of work and research for this article. This is an issue the media is not covering and we plan to continue to write on this important topic.

Original article: http://benswann.com/activists-fight-back-against-animal-control-agencies-with-lawsuit-that-cites-corruption-and-abuse/#ixzz338yL20Dk

Famous SPCA Thug Gets His Due

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Mon, 26 Aug 2013 15:31:00 +0000

I found this while browsing online. Click here for the original link. It was posted on July 14, 2005.

Greetings Gamefowl News Members!

Is it "Miller" time Mr. Frank David Garcia ?
Make sure you have your seat belts on and lets proceed.

In this issue

	Finally The Past Has Caught Up With One Mr. Frank David Garcia The Truth About SPCA CBS Ch 19 From Tyler Texas Exposes Felon Frank Dave Garcia Hot off The News Wire re Frank David Garcia Letters To The Editor

Finally The Past Has Caught Up With One Mr. Frank David Garcia

After selfless and tireless work by GFN's investigating reporters Mr. Frank David Garcia finds himself, yet again, sitting at the DEFENSE table. GFN's lead investigator, whom we shall call XYZ, works inside of a well known Animal Rights organization in and around Washington DC. Kudos to you XYZ !!!
GFN apologizes to the drunken, convicted, felon, SPCA officer from Texas if our work has made you hit the local dive Bar trying to drown your sorrows in whiskey.,.,.,on second thought, naw, go ahead and drown yourself. (Editors Note)

The Truth About SPCA

The ABC News 20/20 story on the SPCAs has taken on a life of its own. Imagine raid victims investigating the SPCA raiders who ruined lives! Victims in several states are uncovering shocking secret criminal records that point to key figures at the SPCAs as being nothing but con artists and hardened felons.
Within days of airing the 20/20 story entitled, "Cruelty to Owners" past raid victims came forward with surprising revelations of felony charges against Dave Garcia, who heads rescues now for the SPCA of Texas. Game Fowl News looked further and found that Garcia has similar convictions in several States including outstanding warrants. Finally, we've uncovered records of a kidnapping and rape conviction showing that Dave Garcia has served 9 years in an Arizona State Prison. Yet he heads a group that formulates new laws on animal cruelty for the State of Texas! He's prospered in Texas and owns lots of property now himself. He's done the same legislative work in Missouri where he ran a Humane Society! It's clear that Dave Garcia is just the kind of person the SPCAs and Humane Societies need to do its dirty deeds but shame on the authorities for not doing a background check! I guess we have to do it ourselves.
20/20 also focused on Joe Stuebing, the New Jersey Arabian breeder who was raided by a New Jersey SPCA. Joe says the SPCA custodian, Andy Harris, was caught beating and kicking the horses on hidden video recorders in Stuebing's barn. Joe says that day after day, the cameras captured the incompetent handling by SPCA workers, including not feeding horses on some days, and allowing horses to run dangerous and loose in the barn. There are other shots of horses being left out unprotected in the freezing wind and snow in the middle of the winter. After watching news reports of the raid, lots of volunteers came forward to help the SPCA but after observing the SPCA for a while, the volunteers began moving away from the SPCA and working with Joe Stuebing to help him get his horses back.
Meantime, the NJ SPCA custodians decided to walk away with four of Joe's prized horses, before volunteers saw the horses being led onto the custodian's nearby farm. The volunteers got a judge to order the horses to be returned. During that time, other horses were starting to colic because the SPCA mistakenly overfed them. The worst came when SPCA custodian, Andy Harris assaulted a female volunteer who was trying to take a picture of a horse that had coliced under the SPCA's care. Andy asked her to leave the barn and when she didn't, he beat her so bad, she vomited and fainted. The woman wound up spending time in the hospital, suffering from brain damage from the beating and she's recovering slowly. The horse wound up in the hospital too, needing surgery after the way the SPCA cared for it. SPCA custodian, Andy, was convicted of assault on the woman, but he barely served time, of course, because he works for the SPCA!
Joe has $100,000 in legal fees and eventually won on appeal, He says he's waiting for the NJ news media to show an interest in the hidden video tape evidence he has of animal abuse by the SPCA, but he says the press seems to automatically take the SPCA's side.
So folks, how long are we going to let the SPCA's get away with all this? Help Joe Stuebing and the victims of Dave Garcia! They all have high legal bills that the SPCA needs to pay back to them. We need a letter writing campaign so that the SPCA of Texas and the New Jersey SPCA makes restitution on every case involving the confiscation of property and destruction of human and animal lives. Write your local legislators to get these people put out of business and to pay restitution!

CBS Ch 19 From Tyler Texas Exposes Felon Frank Dave Garcia

GFN's investigators forwarded enough legal proof to various sources in Texas that the Julia Mc Murrey case had to be set aside as further investigations continue. GFN thanks Jane Slater, from CBS 19 Eyewitness News Tyler, Texas, for following up on the information we sent in.
Below is the transcript from the report by Ms. Slater on last nights CBS 19 Eyewitness News;
((Dan)) A HIGH PROFILE ANIMAL CRUELTY CASE HAS BEEN PUT ON HOLD...
((Kelli)) IT TURNS OUT ONE OF THE STATE'S KEY WITNESSES IS A WANTED MAN. CBS 19 JANE SLATER HAS MORE.
((Jane)) JULIA MCMURREY'S PAWS AROUND THE PLANET ANIMAL SHELTER WAS RAIDED BACK IN AUGUST OF 2003. LEADING THE INVESTIGATION WAS DALLAS S-P-C-A VICE PRESIDENT DAVE GARCIA... C-B-S 19 HAS LEARNED THAT GARCIA IS WANTED BY ARIZONA POLICE.
" These cases are going to be reset for the 17th of August." JUDGE FLOYD GETZ POSTPONED WHAT WAS TO BE JULIA MCMURREY'S LAST VISIT TO COURT. MCMURREY HAS BEEN TO COURT TWICE FACING CHARGES OF ANIMAL CRUELTY. SHE'S ALREADY RECEIVED ONE CONVICTION. THE OTHER ENDED IN A HUNG JURY. ONE OF THE KEY WITNESSES AGAINST MCMURRAY WAS S-P-C-A VICE PRESIDENT DAVE GARCIA.
HIS DAY'S AS A WITNESS COULD BE SHORT LIVED. JUDGE GETZ SAYS HE RECEIVED AN ANOYMOUS PACKET. INSIDE WERE DOCUMENTS LIKE THESE THAT APPEAR OFFICIAL, SHOWING DAVE GARCIA RACKED UP A OVER HALF A DOZEN D-W-I CONVICTIONS ACROSS THREE STATES. C-B-S 19 HAS CONFIRMED 2 OF THOSE CLAIMS. IN NOGALES ARIZONA, A 1990 D-U-I LANDED HIM A WARRANT FOR HIS ARREST....FOLLOWING A FAILURE TO APPEAR IN COURT.
IN MONTGOMERY COUNTY ANOTHER D-W-I IN 2000. BOTH THE STATE AND MCMURREY'S DEFENSE ARE NOW ALSO TRYING TO VERIFY THE CLAIMS.
Joel Baker, Julia McMurrey's Lawyer: "There is some information about the lead witness in this case and we need to look into some of those issues."
Matt Bingham, Smith Co. Dist. Atty.: "What I'm going to do is determine the veracity of that information and what it contains."
MATT BINGHAM SAYS HE WAS NEVER MADE AWARE OF GARCIA'S PAST. HE SAYS THE PROSECUTOR TRYING THE CASE ASKED GARCIA IF HE HAD A CRIMINAL HISTORY, HE SAYS GARCIA REPLIED NO. JUDGE GETZ HAS GIVEN BOTH SIDES 30 DAYS TO INVESTIGATE THE CLAIMS.
((Jane)) WE WERE NOT ABLE TO REACH DAVE GARCIA BUT WE DID SPEAK WITH S-P-C-A PRESIDENT JAMES BIAS. HE SAYS HE STANDS BEHIND GARCIA AND HAS NOT BEEN CONTACTED BY ANY LAW ENFORCEMENT REGARDING THE CLAIMS.
AS FOR MCMURREY'S CASE, BINGHAM SAYS HE'S NOT DECIDED WHETHER OR NOT HE'LL DISMISS IT. DAN AND KELLI....

Hot off The News Wire re Frank David Garcia

By CASEY KNAUPP, Staff Writer for the Tyler Morning Telegraph www.tylerpaper.com
Julia McMurrey's trial on charges of cruelty to animals was reset on Wednesday after a judge received an anonymous fax alleging that one of the state's key witnesses has a criminal record.
Ms. McMurrey was scheduled to be tried on three counts of animal cruelty. She has been through two trials already - the first ending in a misdemeanor conviction and the second a mistrial. She is charged with failing to provide proper care to individual dogs in each case - 198 were seized from her now-defunct rescue facility, PAWS Around the Planet, in 2003 by the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals of Texas (SPCA) and local law enforcement.
County Court-at-Law Judge Floyd Getz received an anonymous fax containing allegations that Dave Garcia, vice president of affairs for SPCA, has a criminal history. The judge gave the information to prosecutors.
After a hearing on Wednesday, Smith County District Attorney Matt Bingham said he had not had time to verify whether the fax was accurate. Prosecutors were granted additional time to review the information and the trial was reset for Aug. 17.
Defense attorney Joel Baker said that he's been getting mail with similar information for a while and that about two weeks ago, he received a packet with all of the allegations.
Baker said Garcia apparently has a driving while intoxicated conviction in Texas, as well as convictions in Missouri and Arizona. He also said Garcia has an active warrant out for his arrest from the 1990s but did not elaborate on the charges.
Bingham said the information could possibly be used to impeach the witness, to let the jury know about his prior convictions, but that wouldn't mean that his testimony for the state would be untrue. "If it turned out he had a criminal record, that doesn't mean she (Ms. McMurrey) didn't do it (commit the crime)," he said.
A mistrial was declared in April in Ms. McMurrey's second cruelty to an animal trial after a hung Smith County jury deliberated for about six hours. She was convicted in February of the first Class A misdemeanor case by a jury. She was sentenced to 180 days in jail and has since been released on bond pending her appeal.
After the mistrial, the state announced it would try the three remaining cases at the same time rather than separately as they had previously planned.
Ms. McMurrey, who began PAWS in 1997, testified during her first trial that her passion in life is still animals. The intention of the facility was to take on animals that were no longer wanted and to try to find them permanent homes.
People continuously "dumped" dogs, some of which were in poor shape, on her property. But Ms. McMurrey said she believed in euthanasia only as a last resort. She said she fed and watered the dogs every day, and worked long hours to clean and maintain the 10-acre lot that housed more than 300 dogs. Garcia testified that the facility and the dogs were in horrible conditions.
He said he observed dogs eating dead animals, decomposing dogs in cages, dirty water and other unacceptable living conditions at PAWS, located at 11804 Texas Highway 110 North. He outlined ways Ms. McMurrey could correct the problems and she agreed to comply within two weeks. But when they returned, it appeared that only the grass had been mowed.
Ms. McMurrey voluntarily gave up custody of the dogs a few days after her arrest on Sept. 11, 2003.
Assistant District Attorneys Brent Ratekin, Keith Downs and Stacy Cunningham have represented the state in her trials. Casey Knaupp covers county, state and federal courts. She can be reached at903.596.6289. e-mail: news@tylerpaper.com

Letters To The Editor

Roosters should have the right to trial before they are executed by nazi AR activists. Were the animals given a chance to life or doomed death? Under the animal welfare act the judge was to issue this death sentence, not the humane society! At a trial it should have been determined, not before the humane society acted against the law. Theft of livestock title section 667 of the criminal code, conspiracy against rights title 18 241 and the color of official rights 242 it also violates 5 amendment, 4th ,14th and the 7th amendment.
Pate

The True Story Behind the Raid at Frisky Felines Foundation

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Tue, 23 Oct 2012 16:13:00 +0000

Please click here to see the story on their Home Page so that you may visit the links and sign the petitions!

This is the true story behind the raid on our shelter on November 17, 2011

Am I surprised at what the animal control officer said about me on tv and the news papers? Yes and no.

Is he lying? Yes

Has this be exaggerated or blown out of proportion? Yes

Why you ask? Well, here is the last 2 years of my family's life. If you read it, maybe then you will understand. Nothing in these statements that I have written is written in false light, nothing is sugar coated, nothing is written here except the truth. I have nothing to hide now, I had nothing to hide then. My husband and I are innocent and my children and our pets have been abused by CPS and the animal control officer, not by my husband and not by me. Here is our story....
Samantha

These are my children, Candace (age 17 at the time), Josh (age 19 at the time) and Parker (age 14 at the time), this photo was taken on 6/17/2011. These kids USED to be happy. These children are now distraught, suffer from post traumatic stress disorder, anxiety and Candace was hospitalized in February due to anxiety and depression brought on by the raid in November. These are the children that you non believers called "victims", the ones you said you "feel so sorry for", these children do admit they are victims, but when you ask them who have abused them they say "BL, the animal control officer and CPS". Just ask them anytime you see them, they'd be more than happy to give you their side of things as NO ONE has ever bothered to ask the children how they feel about having their pets taken from them, murdered and held hostage. No one has bothered to ask the children if they felt they were neglected. No one has bothered to ask the children if they enjoyed running the no kill shelter. The children very much want to be heard, but yet, their pleas to speak falls upon deaf ears because they are "minors". Well Candace will be an adult on Sept 12, 2012 and has the right to voice her side of what happened.

Samantha and Randell Lee are the founders of Frisky Felines Foundation A NO Kill Cat Shelter that was started after the Lee's took in several stray cats and realized their county had a problem. They wanted to make a difference in their community so they started a rescue/adoption shelter to help not only cats but families with cats that are in need.

On November 17, 2011 the Lee's were raided out of retaliation. This has cost 4 cats their lives, the Lee's have been fighting this case that is based on lies with money that was ear marked for important things for their kids such as braces, college school camp this summer, etc and money for their house to do major repairs that have had to be put off. The children were humiliated by the lies the ACO stated, rumors that began because of the defamation to the point in which Candace (the 17 year old daughter) was hospitalized. 4 cats were murdered at the hands of the ACO because no cats in the Lee's care were ill enough to die! Donors have donated to animal control to take care of the Lee's pets believing they are helping care for ill cats when in fact the cats were healthy and several had recently been seen by a veterinarian. People are complaining as to why they have to take care of the Lee's cats when the Lee's should have to, but the cats were not sick in the Lee's care and the Lee's never received any citation or warning to take care of their pets. The Lee's have since had to legally fight for one of the dog's that animal control wanted the Lee's to either put to sleep or pay $1000 for an exploratory surgery. These animals were not in any harm before leaving the Lee's home, but they have been since being in animal controls care. These animals must be returned to the Lee's, a family that loves them and was caring for them and these senseless seizures and invasion of privacy upon this family that helps others MUST stop!

This is the story that lead up the the Lee's raid...................................

In December 2009, someone living close to the Lee's called CPS on them, on 12/15/09 CPS visited the Lee home, were asked to come to the CPS office on 12/17/09, in which they did, before leaving the caseworker asked them if they'd allow her to open a case on them. The Lee's said no.   CPS unsubstantiated the allegations on 12/21/09.

The case worker then called in a welfare child check on 1/6/10 (on a family with a closed case). The town marshal from another town lives up the street and of course answered the call.    This time, the town Marshal (that had been stalking the Lee's for months was brought in on this (and amazingly is behind the 2011 raid also). The Lee's told the Town Marshal he was not invited into the home because they were trying to clean the basement and they were washing down stuff in the kitchen and they needed to get it finished. The town marshal refused to leave and argued with Samantha that he was going to come into the house, that he was there to check for heat. Samantha told him, "look up you can see and smell the fireplace." He then said he needed to check for hot water. Samantha told him that both he and the caseworker knew that she is disabled and REQUIRED aqua therapy daily in order to be mobile. So heat and hot water were an essential in the Lee household period. He said he didn't care he needed in the house to check on it. Samantha had to stand outside for 50 minutes fighting for her right to privacy because this town marshal would not leave, he even threatened to lock up Randell for a joke he said, remember, this is a neighbor. Samantha was on the phone for 20 minutes arguing with the caseworker that they had no right to be there and they were not coming in and the family was busy. The caseworker told her someone was going to get into that house that night if she had to come out herself, Samantha said she had already offered the town marshal (neighbor to neighbor) to come back in 2-3 hours after they got done what they were doing, he refused that and they were not going to allow him in, they felt he had no right to even be there. The caseworker argued that she'd have someone else to come out, Samantha argued no, they weren't going to stop until they were finished. Samantha who is disabled and cannot be in cold air or talk on the phone long told the case worker she was then in pain and had to get off the phone and going in but was not going to let the town marshal in, the caseworker kept arguing and would not let Samantha off the phone. She kept on Samantha asking Samantha to let her open a case on the family, Samantha said no, so she started again on the town marshal getting into the house. Again Samantha said no, this went on for about another 8 minutes. Finally Samantha near tears in pain told the case worker that she can have the town marshal come back in 2-3 hours after they got done. The case worker said no, he was going to get in then. Samantha said no he isn't he can come back in 2-3 hours but I am hanging up. Then the caseworker said "FINE, but you BETTER let him in and he will be there in TWO hours." Samantha told the caseworker the family would have to stop what they were doing to clean up the kitchen floor, take all the dirty items back down to the basement and cram all the cleaned items in the loft, etc. The caseworker also said, that she would be out the next day to discuss opening a case on the family. Samantha handed the phone to the town marshal, told him to come back in 2 hours and walked into the house. They didn't go in before because they feared what this town marshal would do, they do not trust him. It took Samantha 50 minutes to fight for her right to privacy.

On 1/7/10 the case worker said she wasn't coming out because of snow, but asked Samantha if she'd agree to opening a case on the family. Samantha said no. The caseworker said she will discuss it with her when she comes out the following day.

On 1/8/10 the case worker said she wasn't coming out because she didn't feel well, but asked Samantha again if she'd agree to opening a case on the family. Again, Samantha said no. The caseworker said she'd see her on Monday and would discuss it then.

On 1/11/10 the case worker came out to the house, was 30 minutes late at that. The reason Samantha let her in is because she was tired of the bull and wanted to set the record straight with this caseworker. The case worker lied the minute she opened her mouth. Said the school called in a complaint about the kids. Samantha told her "hold it right there, I know you are lying, you had to of called the school. And the reason I know the school would not had called you is because I have an open relationship with that school and the principle because of Josh!" the caseworker never denied and records show the caseworker called the school. Then when Samantha called her on that, she started in on the cats, saying this cat had feline leukemia, this cat was sick, that cat was sick, this cat was emaciated, just on and on and on. Samantha told her "I am a former vet tech, I have an animal educational background, some of the cats are currently under a vets care and that cat is not emaciated she is long and lanky". Then she started in on Samantha homeschooling Parker. Samantha has followed the Indiana Department of Education laws on homeschooling, the caseworker didn't even know what the laws were and Samantha had to educate her. So the caseworker was getting ready to leave and once again asked if they' d allow her to open a case on them. The Lee's said NO again. The caseworker explained it would be an informal case plan and that she would be able to get them a grant to finish remodeling their home, to get new kitchen cabinets, floor, furnace, etc. Samantha said
"we do not agree to an open case, we do not want the states money, we will fund the remodel the way we have been out of our own money". With that the caseworker left. The Lee's felt they finally put things straight with this caseworker.

1/12/10   With that the caseworker told her supervisor and the director of CPS that Samantha and Randell were cat hoarders. With that the director told this caseworker (acording to the CPS records obtained by Samantha Lee) to contact animal control.

1/13/10 The caseworker calls Samantha and told her to stay put she was on her way back out to the house, even though Samantha told the caseworker she didn't have time to meet with her, the caseworker refused to listen and made Samantha stop to meet with her.   The caseworker arrived at the Lee home with her supervisor and 2 sheriff deputies and told Samantha and Randell they were there to detain the children (without a warrant and without exigent circumstances) and by the way they called animal control and he would be there shortly. The Lee's were dumbfounded as the last thing either of these parents would do would be harm their children or their pets, both are the world to them. They knew something did not make sense but knew that animal control would set this straight. So when the ACO arrived at the home Samantha spoke with him and he stood in the Lee's living room for 20 minutes commending Samantha on a job well done. He questioned her about a few things just to assure her knowledge, in which Samantha picked up on his ill spoken terminology relating to animal care, but dismissed it. As the ACO went to leave he looked over at the caseworker as though to say goodbye and with that his demeanor changed and he said he would be back the following day to seize all the cats. It did not matter that the animals were under veterinary care just 30 days prior, did not matter that Samantha had proof of that, or proof of medication the cats were on, or anything.

1/14/10 The ACO came back and took the cats and coerced Samantha in surrendering Parker's ducks.

Fast forward to evidence provided. The ACO stated in his probable cause affidavit to Judge Roger Davis that he saw a cat in a cage with crusty eyes and had an emaciated appearance. Animal Control's veterinarian said this cat weighed 8.8 pounds and that this cat was considered OVERWEIGHT.   Since the seizure Samantha has discovered ALL 15 cats he illegally seized he killed. His excuse....."Mrs. Lee never returned for the cats so they were put to sleep". This is a lie, Samantha in September 2010 AFTER waiting on the bench warrant that the ACO told her and Randell that would be issued, contacted the investigator and told her that she wanted the cats back. The investigator told Samantha that they were still being used as evidence against her, but would tell the aco. The investigator kept on Samantha wanting to know where her horses were, this was 9 months AFTER the seizure, they could not find the horses and were still looking for them. What Samantha didn't know is that the cats were euthanized on 2/1/10. Why? Because no abuse was found, according to state law, they had 90 days to locate the owners of said property before destroying it.

In 2011 Samantha filed a tort claim on the ACO for what he did in 2010. He had a duty to realize the cats in the Lee's care were being taken care of especially providing vetting documentation to him. The tort claim was mailed out to Animal Control, Commissioners and County Council on Feb 28, 2011. The parties had 90 days to respond, no response meant the Lee's had the right to sue.

10/28/11 the Lee's horses were stolen by the Harrison County Sheriff's department and have been at a rescue since then. The sheriff's department stated the horses were at large, however they broke into a locked barn, the fence was cut and told Samantha she would probably be charged with something over the horses, Samantha told the Sheriff she didn't see how since she did not believe that the horses were out but that someone let them out. It was found out later that the Sheriff (same sheriff that was part of the 2010 incident) said the horse rescue cut the fence, the horse rescue told Samantha they were never on her property and that the mounted sheriff patrol brought the horses to the horse rescue. The Prosecutor saw no problem with the horses, just asked the Lee's to make the paddock bigger, however, this was October, the weather was not feasible to move a fence but the Lee's were trying. (In February 2012 the prosecutor asked the Lee's to surrdender the horses to the horse rescue. Samantha told the attorney that she tried to do that back in November after the raid because with fighting to get the animals back and protect the kids she didn't have time for the horses and the horse rescue refused, but Samantha did surrender them in February. In March the prosecutor asked Samantha to take the horses back. However, the Lee's could not take the horses back because of the raid, they lost the property the horses were at).    The horse rescue is now saying the Lee's owe $9000+ on horses that the prosecutor asked the Lee's if they would surrender to the horse rescue so the rescue could adopt out to recoup their losses.

November 16, 2011 Samantha Lee went to get 2 feral cats from a lady begging her for help (this lady was referred to Samantha, Samantha did not seek this person out like the ACO has tried to make the public believe), stating if Samantha did not take these cats that she would be evicted. Samantha is a very compassionate person and tries to help people, since the cats were feral she said she would help because the cats would not be part of Frisky Felines Foundation as Samantha told this woman she was full and could not take anymore, but would help her since they weren't coming to the rescue and would put them with a feral colony.

November 17, 2011 before noon the sheriff's department was on the Lee's porch.

Everyone that has heard the ENTIRE story believes the Lee's were set up to get these feral cats to be raided.   NOTHING was ever stated as to as to why the ACO seized ALL the pets on the property, except that this lady that Samantha helped had a complaint on the condition of the house. (A house that no address was listed for, an address that is not on Samantha's business card, and the reason there has not been an address listed for the rescue is because the Lee's were remodeling their home during which it was not set up for visitors and to prevent drop offs), how did this lady get the Lee's address?????

In addition to this the Lee's were not allowed to see the warrant UNTIL AFTER all the animals were removed out of the house

The Lee home was a mess, something Samantha has never denied, BUT the house was a mess for VERY good reasons and I will state those here for you to clear up any rumors you may have heard or will hear.

1) In September the basement flooded, had 8 inches of water in it, then the sump pump broke and what water they could get out just came right back in.   The Lee's went to get another sump pump and they could not get the type needed for their basement. Eventually they did get the correct sump pump but things had gotten worse in the basement to the point that the beginning of October Samantha and Randell MADE their nearly 19 year old son move out of his basement bedroom until they could get all the water logged items outside and burned/tossed. Which was a task in itself.   It has been reported that Samantha made her 17 year old daughter, another report says minor child sleep in this water logged room as late as November, that is not true, that is why the basement looked the way it did, NO ONE was using the basement since Oct 1, it was being emptied out due to the mildew, everything was water logged and was going to be burned, but you can't burn wet things nor is it safe to walk on the floor with water because of the cement. This is an UNFINISHED basement. It has a concrete floor and concrete walls.

Josh (who is the oldest child) moved to the living room. Josh is a typical teen age boy and is not the cleanest unless he wants something from his parents then he is amazingly neat. Which Samantha and Randell feel is a typical kid. From moving Josh to the living room the living room then became smaller, crowded and consisted of things the living room didn't have before which all belonged to Josh. In order to get Josh's "bedroom" in the living room Samantha had to take down her office and turn it into a sitting room to house the living room furniture, so Samantha had to condense the office (which is upstairs in the loft) to another part of the house. This meant purging items and getting rid of things that they no longer wanted, etc. They had to move decorations around to utilize attic space better which is why Halloween things were out.

Josh also asked Samantha if he could take over the kitchen (he wants to be a chef), Samantha knew not to do that, but Josh promised to keep up with it all and keep it clean. So the living room and 1/2 of the kitchen was then Josh's responsibility. With this, Josh as a typical kid enjoyed making the mess when cooking but never wanted to clean up afterward and Samantha like a typical mother had to get on him over and over.

2) On Nov 5, 2011 (Saturday) The family took Samantha out to celebrate her birthday. Come home and worked some in the basement.
3) On Nov 6, 2011 (Sunday) Samantha came down with a stomach virus that lasted for 6 days. The family had started the process to get things ready for Thanksgiving, they put up Christmas decorations on Thanksgiving evening and wanted to get as much of the basement cleaned up as well as the few areas they were trying to remodel done. They would bring things up from the basement on weekends and Samantha and the kids would clean it and put it away then start the process over until they got the basement emptied.

4) On Nov 7, 2011 (Monday) Samantha had to take Parker's cat Gizmo to the vet for cosmetic surgery and Speck an adoption cat for a check up. This vet that Samantha uses is a 1 1/2 drive one way from the home. Samantha really did not feel like going but Gizmo had only a few days window to get the surgery, so she went. Samantha also is disabled and driving that far did her in just on her disability alone, not to mention the feeling being nauseated while driving. When she got home she laid down in hopes of feeling better the next day.

5) On Nov 8, 2011 (Tuesday) Not feeling any better, she called the vet and had Gizmo stay another night. Samantha though didn't feel well did some of the things that needed done but was not up to par to doing them all.

6) Nov 9, 2011 (Wednesday) feeling a little better but not great Samantha went back out to get Gizmo. Once Samantha and Gizmo got home, not feeling well Samantha laid down for a bit and did a tad bit of this and that around the house.

7) On Nov 10, 2011 (Thursday) feeling a little better Samantha started cleaning some more. Candace was cleaning their bathroom and their bathroom walls had mildew on it (not mold as the media reported) and Candace was wiping the walls down (the mildew was on the glue from where they took the wall paper off in order to paint the walls. The mildew came not from lack of ventilation as stated in reports but due to the door being shut after showers and the fan for the vent not being turned on, it was also reported this bathroom had no ventilation and it does.) Samantha told Candace to stop wiping the walls down until she went to to the store to get facemasks.   (CPS has a photo where you can see the wall was being wiped down), but these parents are being charged for having mildew on the bathroom walls because Samantha halted cleaning that until face masks were available, they'd rather the family clean it than take safety precautions. They were cleaning the walls to be able to have the bathroom fixed up for guest on Thanksgiving.

8) On Nov 11, 2011 (Friday) The family had started working on getting more of the basement dried up and emptied out from all the waterlogged items in the basement. It was a slow process to get this done due to Josh's bedroom being in the basement and 3/4 of the basement being used for storage. Everything was either getting ruined or got ruined due to the sump pump breaking and they not being able to find a sump pump back in September.   There was dilapidated cardboard that had floated for a while that disintegrated to mush, blankets that Josh had laid on the floor that were hopeless of being salvaged so sat there to be drained to be moved outside that started growing fungus, but by this date they were still way to heavy to pull up and out, so the family was cleaning the items that were more accessible waiting for the bigger, wetter items to continue draining. Josh had been complaining about his stomach bothering him. Samantha assumed he had gotten the same stomach virus she had. So he started laying around not able to do much like Samantha did the week before.9) On Nov 12, 2011 (Saturday) The family was trying to get everything washed up and stored away. There were clothes hampers of stuffed animals brought up, Josh's items out of his room, the stored canned goods, the furniture that still needed to be moved upstairs, etc. All of the items from the basement were placed in the living room and in the kitchen. Some of Josh's items were on the living room chairs. The items that were ready to be thrown in the washer (that they were trying to save) were on the kitchen floor which consisted of a dog bed, a pillow case and a rag all from the basement, a jacket and pair of shorts) there were other items in clothes hampers that were to be washed in the washer and other various things needing somewhere to go were setting out. Josh was still feeling off and was not helping as much due to feeling nauseated.

10) On Nov 13, 2011 (Sunday) was rolled over cleaning from Saturday. Josh was off and on with not feeling well. The family kept going through things. Kept on the same routine of getting ready for Thanksgiving. They brought more things up to be washed in the bathroom, some of it was on the floor, etc. Samantha did not mop the kitchen floor, living room floor, or the kids bathroom floor because they never got finished and was waiting to mop once that part of what they were doing was finished. Kenya, an adoption cat started acted odd and Samantha had planned on taking her to the vet the following day.

11) On Nov 14, 2011 (Monday) at 6 am Josh woke Samantha up and asked her to take him to the ER. Samantha told him he was on his 6th day and Samantha told him just to stay home from school and try to sleep it off, he'd be fine as hers lasted 6 days.   Josh insisted to go to the ER so Samantha got up and took him. After Josh was released (with a diagnosis of a stomach virus) she took Kenya to the vet. Kenya was diagnosed with an upper respiratory infection and was put on Clavamox. Samantha spent that night tending to Josh and Kenya and trying to get the house back in order as they were trying to get everything done as thanksgiving was just next week and they had guest coming and wanted to put the Christmas decorations up prior while leaving some for the tradition for the family. The goal at this point was stopping on the basement, getting everything brought up, cleaned and put away, then work on general housework so they could paint Saturday, get the rooms arranged the way they needed to be to do any minor adjustments after the house was back to normal.

12) On Nov 15, 2011 (Tuesday) Samantha had a long day the following day and she had to "precooperate" to prepare for that due to her disability. During this the lady about the feral cats called crying to Samantha about if she does not take the cats she is going to be evicted. Samantha told her she had way too much going on with her own cat and didn't really have time. The lady pleaded with Samantha that she'd be evicted and the cats are being shot at by the neighbor. So Samantha told her since she had to go to her town the next day she'd swing by and get them. (There is a big part of this meeting getting this cats that is not listed here). Samantha had Josh to go to the basement and clean up his room and throw out things that were ruined of his and bring up any dishes and get them washed. Josh brought up the dishes but sat them on the counter and in the sink and didn't wash them up.

13) Nov 16, 2011 (Wednesday) Samantha waited for the vet to call about Kenya's blood work. She called and Samantha told the vet that Chargheera and Mufasa had started with sneezing and coughing, but Kenya was doing better, but didn't bounce back as quickly as Samantha felt she should had. Samantha asked the vet if she could give Mufasa and chargheera their own Clavamox. The vet said "legally I can't give them their own Clavamox but I can give Kenya a refill and ok that you give it to those 2 cats and any cat that gets it." Samantha then stated "since these 2 are getting it, chances are the whole kennel will get it, what should I do at this point?". The vet then told her "I can order you L Lysine and you can give that to all of them and hopefully that will ward off some of them from getting it........."   So Samantha ordered the L Lysine for the shelter and the vet told Samantha to come up and get another bottle of Clavamox and start Chargheera and Mufasa on it and gave Kenya another prescription in additon to her Clavamox.    So Samantha left the house to get Josh at school to take him to his other school, had to stop at the animal hospital, while at the animal hospital she spoke with the vet tech and asked if she knew of any local feral colonies that were being maintained as she was not going to be keeping the cats she was getting but was going to put them with a feral colony, drop Josh off, head to get the cats she was going to help and then headed out to see how much it was going to cost to get her van fixed. Then after wrapping up her errands, Samantha picked up Josh and headed home. Samantha got home and discovered Candace and Parker did not do their chores. This made Samantha mad as there was so much that needed done by Friday night. Samantha did not want to wake Candace because of school, so she punished them instead of doing their chores for them, she left them to do the next day after school with additonal chores. If it wasn't holiday coming up she would had grounded them from their friends like she normally does.

14) Nov 17, 2011 (Thursday) Samantha got up to get a head start on getting the house back in order and since she punished Candace and Parker she was trying to get her chores out of the way so she could help the kids get the house back in order, Samantha and Randell soon learned they were being staked out.

The 2 dogs (Brownie and Coal) were stolen based on the ACO saying he could see Coal's spine and ribs from a distance, implying that Coal was emaciated, but the state veterinarian stated that Coal was of average weight. Then months later the ACO made this comment about Coal and I quote... "I would consider him to be of average weight when I got him". So there are 2 statements and 2 witnesses saying that Coal was not emaciated as he stated to get an ok to seize the dogs while waiting on the seizure warrant.    The search and seizure warrant was based on Coal being emaciated and that they also saw emaciated cats and cats with upper respiratory infections. There were ONLY 3 sick cats and NONE of those had an active URI, Kenya got sick on that Sunday, Chargheera that Tuesday and Mufasa that Wednesday, the raid happened the following day that Thursday! I would like to know why the state vet reports that 21 cats scored a 1-2 on the bcs, which says they were emaciated. I had a few overweight cats. How can NO cat on the bcs not score a 6 if they were overweight??? The state vet said, when she examined the cats that NONE of the cats were of average weight. I want answers as to HOW none of the cats were of average weight when I have pictures from CPS that were taken the day of the raid that show 3 overweight cats in their own photos!!!!

It is rumored that there was feces all over the floors, on the kids beds, on the table, counters, etc. That is a lie, yes, there was SOME feces in the house, it was generalized by the back door which was by a litter box and another litter box. A couple of cats were being treated for coccidea and had loose stools. The aco and the cops both testified that "these cats had it coming out of both ends", and that is a lie. ( Actually this is the same statement stated in the paperwork in the 2010 illegal seizure.) They say the poo was old and that is a lie also, I checked the floors before I went to bed the night before the raid (by the litter boxes) because I wanted to make sure the litter boxes didn't need to be scooped before I went to bed, because if they did the cats may go outside of the boxes before I got up in the morning, that is Parker's job to maintain the main floor litter boxes, there was some poo in the boxes but not very much for that many cats, there was enough room and fresh litter available in the boxes. They are saying the litter boxes weren't touched in weeks or months, however, Parker just washed, sanitized and refilled the litter boxes that Monday evening, you can see the fresh litter in the photos. The reason there was feces there is because we were staked out for 5 hours and I could not tend to the main floor at all. Not to mention when they came in the house they didn't "walk" through the house, they were skipping around, flying about like they were giddy children. The cats were freaking out and I have never seen my cats act like that. First the cats were all calm, laying around, but then started running about the house. It was really sad to not be able to comfort them, I think most of them knew what was going on. The floors were marked up for tracking the water from the basement throughout the house and coming in and out of the back door.

That pretty much describes what happened. Was the house a mess, yes, would a simple, clean it up suffice, yes, were the animals generally in good health, yes, did anything warrant a seizure, no! As a matter of fact the house was clean within 24 hours. The rest of the time was spent trying to protect the kids and cats.

The ACO is out to destroy Samantha and has already defamed her on TV and to the news papers, why? Is it because she filed a complaint and now it may be found out what he has done and possibly is doing to other people and how for no reason he is killing HEALTHY animals that STILL LEGALLY belong to people? Does he want to give her such a bad name that no one will believe her once she speaks the truth to the community of how he is hurting innocent animals? Is it because she is standing up for her family's civil rights? When asked what his job consists of he stated and I quote "seizures, impounds and helping the sheriffs department build criminal cases." Really? Since when does an ACO's job consist of seizures and helping build criminal cases? What happened to issuing citations/warnings that is LISTED in the Harrison County Ordinance?

These people behind this illegal seizure need to be fired and put in jail for child and animal abuse as the accusers are the abusers.

These are pix of the cats taken during the raid, tell me, do they look neglected, malnourished or sick?

Click Here To Sign Our Petitions
Petition #1
Petition #2

Please donate to help us see this through. We have an attorney ready to take over the lawsuit we filed against CPS and animal control. He needs a minimum of $7000. The judge has been working with me on raising the funds, but he has given me a final date of July 11, 2012 to have my attorney to file an appearance and to file an answer to the defendants motion to dismiss. IF I do not have these things done, the judge said he will rule on the matter WITHOUT a hearing, so the case will be dismissed. Please do not let any of these people walk, each person we are suing are responsible in some shape or form for the MURDER of our cats, the mental abuse upon our children and then because they did nothing when I filed the complaint the animal control officer then retaliated against me and did it again, please, do not let them get by with it. I want BL, the animal control officer REMOVED from his position! Please help us make that happen, that will hopefully help other animals.

What do you get out of helping me?? Well, for one, I am mad as heck and I will be lobbying for new laws, yeah, everyone says that will never happen, that is probably what they said about Ambers Law, etc. I will fight for it until it happens. Secondly, IF we win this lawsuit for what we are asking we will be putting up a fund to help those wrongly affected by CPS, Animal Control, or the liking to be able to fight back and sue. In my opinion that is what is wrong with this country, no one can financially fight it or they are too scared due to retaliation, I mean, seriously, I stood my ground, now I am facing criminal charges because of it. Let my present not be your future. Please donate anything you can, please share this page, please get the word out. Please for the love of the animals of this world, do something to help us stop it.

Thank you from the bottom of our hearts,
Samantha, Randell, Josh, Candace and Parker
And all our fur and feathered babies

Please Share Middle Campaign To Help Raise The Majority Of The Money, Please Use Chipin Or Pay Pal On The Campaign So I Can Get The Funds Quicker To The Attorney

Cats Seized In 2011 The Lee's Home

Take Back Our Country The Media Coverage

"Animal Control" is Out of Control

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sat, 13 Oct 2012 16:57:00 +0000

Currently in Colorado, there are no uniform standards for the training of animal control officers. Often, cities and counties will contract with 3rd party non-profits, such as the Human Society, to provide these officers. Apparently these individuals often lack appropriate training.

Anna Pullaro and her now deceased husband, Sam Lopez, made the mistake of taking in sick and abandoned animals on their 125 acre farm outside of Pueblo. Because Anna's story is long and complicated, I've had to edited it down. Despite the complexities, what became clear to me is that without controls, some of the "humane" officers are, in essence, acting as an animal control gestapo, often seizing and then selling animals in order to provide funds for their organizations. These actions often wreck the lives of the well-intentioned owners.

Victoria Brodsky of Aurora, Colorado tells of her "animal control" ordeal, when one of her dogs bit her other dog while she was on vacation.

THE STORY OF THE "OUR ANIMAL HAUS" ILLEGAL RAID AND SEIZURE

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Wed, 23 May 2012 20:05:00 +0000

This is the compelling story of the illegal raid and seizure of Our Animal Haus animal sanctuary that happened in October of 2009. This story is complete with photos and links to official documents. Read on....

Your Miranda Rights-Show Me the Law

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Wed, 16 May 2012 14:18:00 +0000

Our Miranda PageShow Me the Law

"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"
(translated: Who watches the watchmen?)
Related Reading: Fourth Amendment

Know your Constitution
Learn More

A MUST VIEW

You have the Right to Be Silent
~~~~~~~~~

Don't Talk to the Police

Related Blog
~~~~~~~

10 Rules for Dealing with Police PART 1
~~~~~~~

Untrue Confessions
~~~~~~~~

See News Flash of
Great Importance
05/21/2010
Click Here

Practical tips about interacting with police officers in California, with ''dos'' and ''don'ts'' sections about being stopped for questioning, stopped in your car, and being arrested or taken to a police station.

Protect your children, read more on some super ideas by clicking on Topics below
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Importance of Miranda
Miranda Awareness & Hatch Amendment
Group Experience & Advice Needed
Miranda Pamphlet from AFRA (For Reference only. NFPCAR members are not affiliated with this organization)
Related Reading: Standing Our Ground~Parental Rights & the Juvenile Justice System
                    Why Warrantless Entries Into Homes Are Generally Unconstitutional
                                Memo-08/27/07 Home School Legal Defense Association
                           The Social Worker At Your Door: 10 Helpful Hints
                         Article-04/19/06 Home School Legal Defense Association
                         'Miranda' Dealt One-Two Punch by High Court
                               Article-02/25/10 National Law Journal
Additional thoughts on Good response during questioning
Super Idea~~~Miranda/Constitution Dog Tags
- Copyright Letter (PDF file-Rev 03/09)

Children's Rights ~ You Have the Right to Be Silent
Update 06/07/2010>>But, Unfortunately, do to a recent Supreme Court Decision, you Now must speak up to be Silent... Go Figure??? X X

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Importance of Miranda
By~Panda Bear

Self-Incrimination ~ Right to Know the Nature of the Investigation ~ Warrantless Search~ Notable Cases ~ What is "in loco parentis"?

"You have the Right to remain silent, anything you say,

can and will be used against you in a court of law.

You have the Right to speak to an attorney and to

have an attorney present during any questioning.

If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you....."

I'm sure most of you have heard this sort of Miranda Warning in TV shows sometime in the last 40+ years since the original Miranda case was handed down by the Supreme Court. What the Miranda case did in 1966 was set guidelines for when a suspect must be told of their right to remain silent and their right to an attorney.

Most people don't realize that Miranda only comes into play when a suspect in a criminal case has been taken into custody or arrested. If you are being investigated by police or CPS officials for any reason, no one is going to read you your Miranda rights from the beginning, but that doesn't mean you can't invoke them.

At its most basic level, Miranda is to protect you from self-incrimination. Where does this protection or right come from? The U.S. Constitution, the basis for all our laws. If you haven't read it lately, you need to. Go here for a free PDF file you can download: http://www.apfn.org/pdf/citizen.pdf

Self-Incrimination

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand jury. . . nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself; nor be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law. U.S. Const. Amend. V

The Fourteenth Amendment provides, in part: "....nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." U.S. Const. Amend. XIV.

Let's get this clear. If you are being questioned by officials of any type, you have a Constitutional Right not to shoot your mouth off to them and spill your guts about everything you know (or even don't know) to be reinterpreted by them, which may or may not land you in jail with criminal charges filed.

How can you take back any statements once they've been uttered? Remember the WWII slogan, "Loose Lips Sink Ships"? It certainly applies here. CPS doesn't have to get a guilty verdict in a court of law to devastate your family and your children. They can just put you in the hot seat, try you in the court of public opinion and watch your life unravel like pulling a loose string on a hand-knit sweater. They don't have to hit a bull's eye for the collateral damage to take its toll. You may even never be charged criminally and could still wind up loosing custody and your parental rights terminated. You still loose your children and the State wins -- gloating all the way to the bank.

There is also no law for you to help them prove or win any case they might be trying to build against you or a loved one. In fact, you have the Right against self incrimination according to the 5th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.

Case workers or investigators will go on "fishing expeditions" for information that may or may not be related to an incident that suddenly gets blown all out of proportion. Do not give them fodder to chew on. They are not your minister, priest, or rabbi; they are also not your parent, counselor, or friend. They have their own agendas in the course of an investigation and it does not include looking out for your Constitutional Rights. In fact, they will try their best to threaten, intimidate, and cajole you into telling them what they want to hear, regardless of your Rights.

Their goal in the course of their investigation is to find you guilty - of something, ANYTHING, because then it justifies their existence. The more people that are found guilty, the more money that flows into the coffers of whatever department you have, per chance, come across.

Asserting your innocence does no good, because everyone is guilty of something if you dig long enough. They may not be able to pin a murder charge on you because there's no body (evidence), but what about jaywalking, littering, or spitting on the sidewalk? Well, you must have done the crime, right? Otherwise you wouldn't have been charged in the first place by this nice official who has all the "right" credentials. It becomes a case of "he said/she said". When you're dealing with a stacked deck, who wins? The person who owns the deck!

The authorities are all familiar with each other. They see each other on a regular basis. They conduct their business together all the time. In fact their very jobs are dependent upon money being brought in. Courtrooms are full of citizens being brought in by various governmental departments. Police, sheriff, code enforcement, dog catcher, you name it. And all these governmental players have friends in the courthouse since they are there so often. They are all playing on the same team folks!

They want you to play with them with their own stacked deck, but they don’t tell you that it’s stacked. This is why we have constitutionally guaranteed Rights to help you deal with the "stacked deck." This is even if you didn't know the deck was stacked in the first place! If you don't assert your Rights, it is as good as if you didn't have any. If you don't know what your Rights are, how are you going to let them protect you? If you willingly talk with investigators, you are giving up Rights that protect you. At this point, you have waived them and you have consented to abandon your Rights. Why should you? Why do you want to help them "win" their case? Why do you want to give them ammo for their gun? They want you to play with them with their own stacked deck, but they don't tell you it's stacked.

It's probably because you don't remember your high school civics class, how to be a good citizen by knowing and asserting your Rights to better balance the power between yourself and the authorities. You have also been watching too many brain numbing shows in which the suspect willingly gives up their Right to remain silent before they talk with their attorney. Monkey see, monkey do! You have to stop that right now.

Now is the time to install the proper "software" in your hardware (your brain) on how to deal with contacts with the authorities. Watch these videos to help you remember:

Busted, A Citizen’s Guide to Police Encounters: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqMjMPlXzdA
Don't Talk To The Police Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sik
Don't Talk To The Police Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08fZQWjDVKE

"The government's interest in the welfare of children embraces not only protecting children from physical abuse, but also protecting children's interest in the privacy and dignity of their homes and in the lawfully exercised authority of their parents." Calabretta v. Floyd, 189 F.3d 808 (1999).

Remember, learning about and knowing your Rights and respectfully asserting them during encounters is no guarantee that your Rights won't be violated. But, it does help diffuse a situation before it becomes all blown out of proportion, with reason and logic having gone out the window - for both sides.

The key is to be respectful. Even if the other side isn't doing the same to you, be kind in your replies to them. Do this if it takes every ounce of willpower you can muster. It puts them off guard. It also lets the investigator know that you are not just some hick that fell of the turnip truck yesterday, and they cannot run roughshod over you willy-nilly. Besides, you do have your tape recorder or video camera running, right? (Don't think about posting to You Tube just yet - better talk it over with your legal counsel.)

You want to make sure that you not only have a cool demeanor in dealing with these people, but that you look like the one who is the innocent party in this whole situation, and that you have your act together! You can wig out, scream, cry, or whatever, in the safety and comforts of your own bedroom after these guys are gone. Do not let them see you are intimidated or cowed by their behavior. But, neither do you want to come off cocky or like a smart aleck. If there is any time to be calm, cool and collected, this is that time.

Top

Your Right to Know the Nature of the Investigation

Before You or Your Children Are Questioned

What is Search and Seizure ~ What is a Warrant~Knock, Knock ~ Card to take to School

Keeping Children and Families Safe Act of 2003
(CAPTA, Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act)
Summary~Full Text

This Act has two provisions to help protect children and families during child abuse investigations. First, it requires CPS workers to be trained in their duty to protect the statutory and constitutional rights of the very people they are investigating. Secondly, CPS workers are to tell people involved in an abuse or neglect investigation what the complaint or allegation is that has been made.

What is Search and Seizure?

Once upon a time when the King was on his throne, his agents went from house-to-house looking for printed papers, and "prohibited and uncustomed" goods. These items either had been smuggled in to avoid the high tax, or were claimed by the King to promote seditious libel and civil unrest. The Colonists grew tired of these "writs of assistance", general warrants, that made no man's home his castle. They were viewed as unreasonable by the early Patriots. Because of these issues, the Founding Fathers wanted boundaries to the "blank check" warrants that had been common. From these circumstances, the Fourth Amendment was birthed.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, house, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. U.S. Const. Amend. IV."

Since the penning of those great words, many years ago, there have been many court rulings that have defined and refined the limits of search and seizure. The key is the "reasonableness" test.

"A "search" occurs when an expectation of privacy that society is prepared to consider reasonable is infringed. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. at 113; State v. Daly, 14 Kan.App.2d 310, Syl. ¶ 5, 789 P.2d 1203, rev. denied 246 Kan. 769 (1990)"

"A "seizure" (of property) occurs when there is some meaningful interference with an individual's possessory interests in that property. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. at 113; Brooks v. Sauceda, 85 F.Supp.2d 1115"

I know many social workers and others believe there is an exemption of the warrant requirement in child abuse investigations. But, the Ninth Circuit Court has ruled in Calabretta v. Floyd that as a general rule, unreasonable searches and seizures are banned and it presumes that all warrantless searches are unreasonable. The only exemptions for not getting a warrant (aside from voluntarily agreeing to a search) during the course of an investigation for child abuse are twofold:

1. That the social worker has in his or her possession evidence that would establish probable cause, and

2. There are exigent circumstances (meaning there is an emergency) threatening the health or welfare of the child.

Please print up the following page which details "Why Warrantless Entries Into Homes Are Generally Unconstitutional" and add it to your law notebook. http://www.hslda.org/docs/nche/000010/CPSMemo.pdf

Top

What is a Warrant

A Warrant is a court order specifically describing the person, place or thing to be seized or searched.

How Do They Get a Warrant?

A governmental official applies to the court to try to obtain permission for them to invade your privacy to obtain information that may be useful to them in convicting someone -- probably yourself, or someone you know, of a crime. In the application, they have to be specific about their allegations, i.e. "We have been told by (friend, relative, school teacher, etc) that John Doe's (house, property, car, person, computer, etc) contains evidence that he (knows about, participated in, personally committed) the crime of (name your favorite here).

They have to show the court "probable cause" which is a good reason for assuming that a crime has been committed, and that you or the person in question did it. The facts that are known must be sworn to, or attested, that they are true to the best of the beliefs of the person making the application.

Anonymous tips, by themselves, cannot be the basis of a warrant, since you have no means of testifying to their veracity. However, if you have an anonymous tip that corroborates the other information that has been gathered from other known sources, you can use it. But again, not all on its own.

“[A]n anonymous tip, without more, does not constitute probable cause.” See United States v. Wright, 215 F.3d 1020, 1025 (9th Cir. 2000) (citing, inter alia, Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 227 (1983)). For an anonymous tip to be accorded any weight there must be some basis that the tip is true. United States v. Luong, 470 F.3d 898, 903 (9th Cir. 2006)."

“Frankly, it is difficult to conceive how a social worker, whose work is directly governed by state law and regulation, could claim to have a reasonable belief that a warrantless removal that is expressly prohibited by state law and regulation is somehow permitted by the Constitution.” Moodian v. County of Alameda Social Services Agency 206 F.Supp.2d 1030, *1035 (N.D.Cal., 2002

See also H.R. v. State Department of Human Resources, 612 So. 2d 477 (Ala. Ct. App. 1992); and Calabretta v. Floyd, 189 F.3d 808 (1999); North Hudson DYFS v. Koehler Family, Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division (2001); Moodian v. County of Alameda Social Services Agency 206 F.Supp.2d 1030, *1035 (N.D.Cal., 2002

Top

Notable Cases

Doe v. Carla Heck, a 7th Circuit Court of Appeals 2003 decision where a social worker entered a private school to interview a certain 11-year-old child in an attempt to find out about corporal punishment he and other students may have had and other "certain family matters". (This is the fishing expedition, folks!)

On a later occasion, the social worker tried to interview other students, but was denied access to the children without a court order or parental consent. The social worker later had to close the investigation for lack of information and the parents of the 11-year-old child sued for violations of their Rights under the 4th and 14th Amendments.

The social worker(s) "went to the school for the specific purpose of gathering information, an activity that most certainly constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment,” and that "under the traditional approach, the term 'search' is said to imply 'some exploratory investigation or an invasion and quest, a looking for or seeking out.’” The court found that the 11-year-old child "had been 'seized'” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment because no reasonable child would have believed that he was free to leave..." citing Brokaw, 235 F3d at 1010 "holding that the defendants action of taking a child into custody, without the consent of his parents, for the purpose of questioning him about allegations of child neglect was a seizure under the Fourth Amendment".

Did you get that? The court has ruled that gathering information is an activity that constitutes a search under the 4th Amendment. A fishing expedition is a search, and as such, you are protected by your Constitutional Rights, unless you waive them.

What is "in loco parentis"?

This ruling above, however, does give the authorities a loophole, as it restricts these fishing expeditions on PRIVATE property, i.e. a private home, private school, etc. A PUBLIC school does not have these protections. Why? When you drop your child(ren) off at the schoolhouse door, you are then giving the public school authority to act in your stead via something called "in loco parentis" which is Latin for "in place of the parents." (Related term: Parens Patriae which is Latin for "father of the people")

When the public school exercises their version of in loco parentis, they substitute their judgment for yours. Remember, they are government officials that you place in charge of your children for approximately 180 days a year. They will do what they deem best for your child while you are not there, including letting other governmental personnel have access to your child. You remember that the public school is a governmental institution, don't you?

''...[S]chool officials act as representatives of the State, not merely as surrogates for the parents.''469 U.S. 336 (1984)

You give this same authority to a private school, but with a few differences.

Number one, they are not a governmental entity.
Secondly, this school probably reflects your values and standards better than the public institution. A public school probably has different values and standards than you do in your home. Their mantra is often "Is it good for the children?", which they have loosely translated from the legal definition of "in the best interests of the child."
Third, a private school is more interested in protecting your rights as they have a vested interest in keeping you a happy customer. They want your business, (you pay them money) and are willing to abide by your rules, and you have already given them a copy of your Reverse Miranda notice and the Hatch Amendment Letter, right?

A public school has public monies at its disposal. They don't have to please you, as they feel they are the only legitimate source of education there is, even if it isn't. They don't want the parents to have the freedom to choose, because when we do, we often don't choose the public version of school.

Another good case to note is Heartland Academy Community Church, et al, vs. Michael Waddle, decided May 11, 2004 in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Missouri, Northern Division.

“In the context of removing a child from his home and family, a seizure is reasonable if it is pursuant to a court order, if it is supported by probable cause, or if it is justified by exigent circumstances, meaning that state officers ‘“have reason to believe that life or limb is in immediate jeopardy.’” Brokaw, 235 F.3d at 1010 (quoting Tenenbaum v. Williams, 193 F.3d 581, 605 (2d Cir. 1999) (citation omitted)). The same standard for reasonableness applies when a child is seized from a private school where she has been placed by her parents. See Doe, 327 F.3d at 512 (holding “[i]n our view, there is no basis for concluding that when a minor child is entrusted to the care of a private school in loco parentis his reasonable expectation of privacy, vis-à-vis government officials, differs in any material respect from that which he would otherwise expect to receive at home.”).

Michael C. v. Gresbach, another 7th Circuit Court of Appeals decision, this time from 2008, mirrors the Doe v. Heck case above. From the Liberty Counsel website:

"Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled in favor of two Wisconsin children who were strip-searched by a state social worker at a private Christian school. In Michael C. v. Gresbach, the appeals court panel unanimously ruled that the social worker, Dana Gresbach, violated the Fourth Amendment rights of the children to be free from an unreasonable search.

"The court stated that "it is a violation of a child’s constitutional rights to conduct a search of a child at a private school without a warrant or probable cause, consent, or exigent circumstances." The court held the social worker personally responsible for violating the students’ rights, because the law in this area is so clear that she should have known her actions were unconstitutional. Although the school principal allowed the social worker to interview the students, the social worker never even mentioned that she intended to require the children to remove their clothing. In addition, the social worker refused to allow the principal to contact the parents before the interview or to be present when she forced the children to strip.

"Stephen Crampton, Vice President of Legal Affairs and General Counsel for Liberty Counsel, commented: "Decades ago, the United States Supreme Court emphatically ruled that the child is not the mere creature of the state. Unfortunately, social workers repeatedly ignore that fact and routinely trample parents' rights under the guise of protecting the children. This ruling sends the message that the Constitution is still in effect protecting law-abiding families from the overreaching arm of the state, both in the home and in private schools."

In Arizona on Sept 27, 2007, in the case Loudermilk v. Arpaio, a Federal Court ruled that an unsupported threat to place children in custody was unconstitutional because the fear tactics the social workers and sheriff's deputies used violated the constitutional guarantee of family privacy and integrity.

“Defendants persisted in their threats to remove the children if Plaintiff Parents did not consent to the search, stating that [they] could arrest or handcuff the Parents in front of the children. Based on the allegations set forth in the Amended Complaint, viewed in Plaintiff’s favor, no reasonable official would have believed that his or her conduct was authorized by state or constitutional law.”

The judge additionally cites:

"The principle that government officials cannot coerce entry into people’s houses without a search warrant or applicability of an established exception to the requirement of a search warrant is so well established that any reasonable officer would know it.” Calabretta, 189 F.3d at 813. Similarly, “[t]he constitutional right of parents and children to live together without government interference is well established.” Mabe, 237 F.3d at 1107 (citing Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 753 (1982))."

“Knowledge will forever govern ignorance. And people who mean to be their own governors, must arm themselves with the power knowledge gives. A popular government without popular information or the means of acquiring it is but a prologue to a farce or a tragedy, or perhaps both.” James Madison, letter to W.T. Barry (August 4, 1822), reprinted in G.P. HUNT, ED., IX THE WRITINGS OF JAMES MADISON 103

“The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies that serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may maintain control over the instruments that they have created.” Washington Public Records Act, RCW §42.17.251

Unless courts are prepared to enforce these rights and protect those charged with crime, irrespective of their obvious guilt, they condone illegitimate and unconstitutional practices which, if long adhered to, may result in a breakdown of the protection accorded free men by the Fourth and Fifth Amendments.[fn3] This course, like the enforcement of other parts of the Bill of Rights, may often afford a shelter for criminals, "But the forefathers thought this was not too great a price to pay for that decent privacy of home, papers and effects which is indispensable to individual dignity and self respect. They may have overvalued privacy, but I am not disposed to set their command at naught."[fn4] BROCK v. UNITED STATES, 223 F.2d 681 (5th Cir. 1955).

Top

Knock, Knock

So what do you do if the "authorities" come knocking at your door? First of all, why answer the door if you don't know who it is? There's no law that says you are obligated to answer every knock on the door (or every time the phone rings!). But, if someone tries to catch you unawares, perhaps on your way from the house to the car to go someplace, how should you respond? Perhaps your encounter could go a bit like this:

Social worker comes up to you and says, "Hi, I'm Sarah Snake with the Division of Family Services. I'd like to ask you and your children a few questions about a complaint we've had. I'm required by law to come into your home to investigate." She hands you her business card and has her photo id clipped to the lanyard around her neck.

You are about to reach for the door to go inside to put your groceries away. Your children have already scurried inside. Close the front door and stand outside your house. (You don't want her to follow you into the house like a little puppy without permission, and they will try.) You turn to the SW and say, "Oh, what is the nature of the complaint?" (You have a right to know this before you answer any of their questions.)

Sarah Snake sneakily says, "We've had an anonymous hotline complaint and I can't reveal more information until I've conducted my investigation."

You politely reply, "I'm sorry, but I'm sure my attorney is going to ask what the investigation is about. He's also instructed us not to allow you into our house without a search warrant. May I see yours please?" (Be reaching for your cell phone to call your attorney.)

A bit miffed that you aren't cowing to her every whim and desire, Sarah Snake snips back, "I can get one in a matter of minutes. What are you trying to hide, anyway?"

Nicely as you can, you muster a smile even though you feel as if you've just been slapped in the face or worse yet, sucker punched in the gut. However, you also know that she can't get a warrant without support of imminent physical danger and probable cause, and an anonymous complaint can't be the basis of a search warrant.

"I understand your concerns, Ms. Snake. I'm sure you've had training in upholding the Constitutional Rights of citizens in the course of carrying out your job, haven't you Ms. Snake? I'm sure you're just as concerned as we are about the gradual usurpations of these Rights, aren't you Ms. Snake? It's because of this, Ms. Snake, that I must tell you we need a search warrant before any further investigation. I'm sure you understand. Have a nice day, Ms. Snake."

At this point, you enter your home and close the door securely behind you.

Some Helpful Sentences to Learn
For Encounters With Authorities:

· "What seems to be the problem officer?"

· "May I see your warrant?"

· "I do not consent to a search, officer."

· "I understand your concerns and I'm happy to cooperate. May I see your search warrant please?"

· "I do want to cooperate; however, I do not want to ignore proper established procedure."

· "Why would you want to circumvent clearly established laws and procedures?"

· "I am happy to do all that is asked of me by the court. Do you have a court order for the things you are asking?

The three most important things for you to do after you politely inform someone you wish to stand on your Constitutional Rights (objecting to a warrantless search, right to remain silent, etc.) are:

1. Be quiet

2. Shut up and

3. Don't say anything

And then as soon as possible, talk with your legal counsel. Get a notepad and pen and write up the sequence of events while it's still fresh in your mind. Do not give a copy to any investigators, only to your attorney.

Finally, read, read, and read as if Your Life depends on it. You have been thrust into a situation that you were not expecting for the most part, but you can't give up. You have been thrown into shark-infested waters and you must learn to swim, and swim quickly.

Please let us know if you have a question we can help you with. We're not attorneys, we're just like you, people that were once in the same midst of a sink or swim, do or die, circumstance. We made it through, and so can you. Hang tough.

Top

Card for Your Child to take to School
Download Word File

Top

Warrantless Search

The following information, in this section, is provided by Home School Legal Defense Association. The first is an image of information that you can place on your front door, for example. You can download this image (searchwarrantreqd.gif) and make it what ever size necessary.

These references are files for download titled:

Why Warrantless Entries Into Homes Are Generally Unconstitutional - August 28, 2007
The Social Worker At Your Door: 10 Helpful Hints - Although this is written for a homeschool parent, there are many tips that may be useful for all - April 19, 2006

Top

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Miranda Dog Tags for Your Children
Copyright © NFPCAR May 2008

Idea Description (Originally Posted 5/2/08 on IdeaBlog)

I am the CA. Director for NFPCAR (National Foster Parent Coalition for Allegation Reform) & we are a non profit online support group for families who have been falsely attacked by CPS or the Juvenile Justice System. Our support group is developing "Miranda Dog Tags" as a "safe-guard" for children that will protect them from being forced to talk to "strangers" who try to interview them without the parents present. On one side of the tag would have personal contact information and the other side would have a brief "Miranda" statement for the child to use when needed. These Dog Tags can be worn by any child and presented when cornered by strangers. Directions for proper use will be included.
This idea is meant for ALL parents...children...biological, foster, adoptive or kinship care. We at NFPCAR totally AGREE that the common enemy is CHILD PROTECTION SERVICES...(CPS) and we ALL need to stand together in this fight. As soon as we can get these "dog tags" manufactured and on the market they will be offered to "anyone"...not just foster families. Anyone who is interested in joining together in this fight for justice please feel free to join our NFPCAR group by going to...the bottom of this page...and signing up. Our support group is FREE to anyone who wants to join and we are open to any and all parents, grandparents and kinship caretakers. Please help us achieve our goal to help protect our children and families from the enemy...Goliath...(i.e. CPS and the Juvenile Justice System). I can be reached at the NFPCAR group site or at dogpatch1940@yahoo.com.
Thanks for your support,
Nancee
CA Director, NFPCAR

Please check back soon for an example of the Miranda Dog Tag.

Proposed Wording

FRONT:
Dear Government Agent: I am exercising my Constitutional right to remain silent.
Please do not coerce me into answering your questions. Please call my parents
and/or attorney immediately.

BACK:
List Parents Names and ALL contact phone numbers. List any other person
that can "stand in" until parent can be reached. List your family
attorney and number

All ideas and development of the Miranda Dog Tags for Children is Copyrighted © by the NFPCAR Organization.
Any duplication of this material is forbidden-May 2008
Copyright © NFPCAR
May 2008

Back To Index

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Miranda Pamphlet from AFRA

Okay, I found a site from AFRA (American Family Rights Association) with a three panel pamphlet, that may be a little over the top. But who is to say we can't print it and hand it out? The way you print it out is a little rough, so I created a file called Miranda.pdf. So click on this link and print away.

However, if you wand to start at the beginning and read a little more from AFRA, click here: http://www.familyrightsassociation.com/info/law/all_about_miranda/index.html .

I keep seeing too many posts that say their Schools don't accept Miranda. I just read something on the AFRA site that said there was a higher court decision that says the Schools don't need to read rights unless the police say so. However, I found nothing that says a Parent can't inform the school that no one can not question your child without you and/or your lawyer present.

Back To Index

Good Responses When Being Questioned
Research from a member of our Foster Parent Allegations Group

Hello everyone,

I came across something that I thought might be helpful for those of you in current investigations and any future investigations. This is an excerpt from a letter written by Carolyn Middleton, who is a paralegal and has a group called THE COMMITTEE. She has a very specific response that she gives even when being questioned as a "witness".

When police arrived the ex-husband, (having heard the sirens), left in haste. When police arrived, an officer approached me and asked what was going on. I replied, "I can't say". He repeated his request, claiming he was investigating a report of domestic violence. Again I repeated, "I can't say". "Why can't you say?", questioned the officer. Because under my Constitutional Rights and the application of Miranda, I choose to exercise my right to remain silent.

The officer became quite angry with me and said, "That only applies to your right not to give witness against yourself", to which I responded, "I am a paralegal and this is my client. As such I cannop give testimony against her either. The officer became even more angry with me and threatened to arrest me. I drew my hands out in front of me and said, "Let's go!" The next second the officer attempting to interrogate me, left me alone and started in on my client, who told him everything about what her ex-husband had done, and the fact that she had a restraining order against him. The officer came back to me and asked me to verify what my client had said. I simply shrugged my shoulders and said, "I can't say". The officer turned away from me and told his partner, in an angry tone, "I'm done with this one!"

When being questioned, her primary response is "I can't say." When the officer asks her "Why can't you say?", her response is "Because under my Constitutional Rights and the application of Miranda, I choose to exercise my right to remain silent."

I believe that this is very important for all of us to memorize and burn into our brains. You generally will not be advised/reminded of your miranda rights when being questioned in a CPS investigation. You also will not generally be advised/reminded of your miranda rights when being questioned as a "witness". Many times, police will just say they are questioning you as a "witness", but will in fact be questioning you as a "potential suspect". They are legally allowed to lie to you and can tell you that someone has already confessed, so you need to hurry up and confess and try to make a deal before the other person. They can tell you that they have evidence to prove you did it, even when they have nothing.

Jargondatabase.com defines "Reasonable Deception" as "A legal doctrine that says police may lie to suspects during interogations so long as an innocent person would not be affected. For example, the police could say that they had found a bloody fingerprint when they had not. The innocent person would know that they were lying, but the guilty would not be sure. A very effective technique, and one of the main reasons why defense lawyers exist." Notice that it says they may lie during interrogations "so long as an innocent person would not be affected". How many of us on this group can testify from experience that their deception has indeed affected an innocent person?

I also found the following links and thought I would share them as well. Hope they help some of you with what you're going through right now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tort_of_deceit Tort of Deceit
http://www.lib.jjay.cuny.edu/cje/html/sample1.html Deception By Police
http://www.law.umich.edu/centersandprograms/olin/workshops/Documents/Winter2007/levmore.pdf A THEORY OF DECEPTION AND THEN OF COMMON LAW CATEGORIES
http://policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction=display_arch&article_id=118&issue_id=102003 Police Officer Truthfulness and the Brady Decision (including relevant case law about Officer Truthfulness)

1. Officer Truthfulness: Relevant Case Law

Haney v. City of Los Angeles, 109 Cal. App. 4th 1 (2003).
Ziegler v. City of South Pasadena, 73 Cal.App.4th 391 (1999).
Brogan v. United States, 118 S. Ct. 805 (1998).
LaChance v. Erickson, 118 S. Ct. 753 (1998).
Ackerman v. State Personnel Board, 145 Cal. App. 3d 395 (1983).
Gee v. California State Personnel Board, 5 Cal. App. 3d 713 (1970).
Brady v. Maryland, 83 S. Ct. 1194 (1963).
http://www.4lawschool.com/outlines/bank/crim.htm Legal Terms and explanations of those terms, including Mens Rea, deliberate negligence, culpable negligence, malice, conspiracy, etc. (for filing charges/lawsuits against CPS & law enforcement maybe?)

Back To Index

UNTRUE CONFESSIONS

Comments from Contributor

This article was originally posted on the American Bar Association website but I couldn't find the original link, so I had to copy and paste it from my saved web pages. There's also two more interesting links called "How the System Works" and "Truth in Justice" posted at the bottom of this article. I'm not sure if the links at the bottom of this article will work for you (I was able to connect to them from my saved webpage), so here they are as well: http://www.truthinjustice.org/systemworks.htm and http://www.truthinjustice.org/index.htm .

Truth in Justice has this to say on their website: "Truth in Justice is an educational non-profit organized to educate the public regarding the vulnerabilities in the U. S. criminal justice system that make the criminal conviction of wholly innocent persons possible."

"When we say "wholly innocent," we mean a person who had absolutely no part in the crime charged. An innocent person is deprived of life, liberty and the opportunity to contribute to society, while the guilty party is free to commit more crimes against unsuspecting victims. In many instances, no crime was committed in the first place -- a suicide is charged as homicide, or an accidental fire is mistaken for arson. How does this happen? Faulty eye witness identification, tunnel vision investigators, over zealous prosecutors, bad science, compromised experts and a politicized judiciary are major factors, along with a credulous public."

"Why should you be concerned about wrongful conviction? The cases here make the answer clear: it can happen to anyone, including you. What can you do? Educate yourself. Ask questions. Think. Stop rewarding malfeasance. It starts with just one person. It starts with YOU."

UNTRUE CONFESSIONS
Prof. Paul Cassell

No one says that police have brought out the rubber hose, but some of their interrogation techniques are raising questions about why innocents confess to crimes they didn't commit.

BY MARK HANSEN

Two days after 12-year- old Stephanie Crowe was found stabbed to death on the bedroom floor of her Escondido, Calif., home, her 14-year-old brother, Michael, told police he had killed his younger sister as she slept.

Not long afterward, one of his friends and classmates told police he stood lookout the night of Jan. 20, 1998, while Michael and a third boy sneaked into Stephanie's bedroom and killed her.
Based entirely on the two boys' statements, police came up with the theory that Michael, jealous of the attention his sister was getting, enlisted his friends in a plot to kill her.
The only thing missing in the investigation was the murder weapon. Police thought they found it when they came across the younger brother of one of the boys playing with a hunting knife. Later the older boy told police he had been given the knife after the killing and told to hide it.
With that, all three were arrested on charges of conspiracy and first-degree murder, and the case became an overnight media sensation: Three seemingly typical teenagers from apparently "good" homes whose shared fascination with knives and computer games had gotten way out of hand. One TV tabloid show even went so far as to describe the case as "The Devil Son Who Murdered the Angel Daughter."
The only problem with the whole scenario is that all three boys may be innocent. That became clear at the start of jury selection in a trial in January, when prosecutors disclosed that Stephanie's dna had been found on a bloody sweatshirt worn by a 29-year-old vagrant seen knocking on doors and peering in windows the night the girl was murdered.
In late February, prosecutors dismissed all charges against the three, though they left open the possibility that they may be refiled later. By late May, the vagrant had not been charged in connection with Stephanie's death.
If the boys hadn't joined in a plot to kill Stephanie, the "confessions" by two of them, who both quickly recanted, raise troubling questions about human nature. But they also raise troubling questions about standard police interrogation tactics.
What kind of person would confess to a crime he or she didn't commit? And given the fact that some people apparently do, what makes them more likely than anybody else to confess falsely?
The answer, experts say, is that while practically anybody can be made to confess to something he or she didn't do under the intense psychological pressures of a modern police interrogation, the young and the mentally impaired are more susceptible than most.
That's because the young and the mentally impaired tend to be more suggestible, more eager to please, more deferential toward people in positions of authority and less capable of rational decision-making than the average person.
The whole point of an interrogation, after all, is to extract a confession from somebody police suspect is probably guilty by leading that person to believe the evidence is overwhelming, his or her fate is certain, and the benefits from confessing outweigh the costs.
To do that, police interrogators employ a variety of psychological tactics designed to wear down a suspect and break the person's resistance--from appealing to the suspect's conscience to fabricating claims of evidence--all of which is perfectly legal and highly effective.
Hopeless Confusion
But the same tactics that work so well at getting the guilty to confess sometimes work just as well with the innocent, who tend to confess to a crime they didn't commit for one of two reasons. Either they come to the conclusion that their situation, while unjust, is hopeless and will only be improved by confessing, or their faith in their own memory is so badly shaken they come to believe they are guilty even though they don't remember it.
"The logic is really quite simple," says Richard J. Ofshe, a sociology professor at the University of California at Berkeley who studies the relationship between police interrogation tactics and false confessions. "If you put somebody in a situation he believes is hopeless and you give him a choice between two bad options, you can get him to say just about anything you want."
Ofshe recalls one case in which police induced a suspect to confess by telling him they had satellite photos of him committing the crime. In another case, he says, a quick-thinking detective invented a new type of bogus technology--called a neutron proton negligence intelligence test--to persuade a suspect that police had scientific proof he fired the gun used to kill two people.
Saul Kassin, a social psychologist at Williams College in Williamstown, Mass., who specializes in the dynamics of police interrogations, says average people tend to think they would never confess to a crime they didn't commit. But average people don't understand how stressful a police interrogation can be, he says.
"We all have our breaking point," Kassin notes. "When somebody reaches his or her breaking point, all he or she wants to do is escape. And the quickest means of escaping a police interrogation is to tell [interrogators] what they want to hear."
The Vulnerable Ones
The question, then, is not whether innocent people falsely confess, but how often.
E. Michael McCann, Milwaukee's district attorney, says any experienced prosecutor knows it can, and sometimes does, happen, particularly when the person confessing is a young child or someone with limited intellectual abilities.
But McCann says a false confession can usually be distinguished from a truthful one depending on whether it includes details about the crime only the offender would know. The danger, he says, is that the false confessor could inadvertently have been provided those details before or during interrogation.
"Even the most conscientious cop can make a mistake," McCann says. "That's why you have to be extremely careful in a situation like that, particularly if there is no independent, corroborating evidence to go along with the confession."
Some prosecutors admit there are false confessions and there are coerced confessions, but they say there is no such thing as a police-induced false confession.
"Innocent people do confess sometimes, which is a real problem for law enforcement," says Joshua Marquis, the Clatsop County, Ore., district attorney. "But the idea that somebody can be induced to falsely confess is ludicrous. It's the Twinkie defense of the 1990s. It's junk science at its worst."
Paul Cassell, a law professor at the University of Utah and a former federal prosecutor, studies the phenomenon of false confessions. He says the problem doesn't appear to be pandemic, as others have suggested, but confined to a very narrow and especially vulnerable subset of the population, namely the mentally impaired.
"The evidence suggests that those with mental limitations are at special risk of false confessions, but that it's actually quite rare and hardly ever results in a wrongful conviction," he says.
Yet Kassin says there have been enough documented instances of false confessions in capital cases, which tend to get far more scrutiny than noncapital cases, to suggest that the problem is a lot bigger than anyone would like to think.
Ofshe and a colleague, Richard A. Leo, a professor of criminology, law and society at the University of California at Irvine, claim to have identified more than 250 likely cases of false confessions in the post-Miranda era. Sixty of these have been documented in an article they wrote for the Winter 1998 issue of the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology. 88 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 429.
In their article, Ofshe and Leo not only analyzed the evidence in the 60 cases they examined but grouped them into three categories: 34 of which they classify as proven false confessions, 18 as highly probable and eight as probable.
One case they classify as probable may even have resulted in an innocent man's exe- cution, the authors contend. That is the case of Barry Lee Fairchild, who was executed in 1995 for being an accessory in the 1983 abduction, rape and murder of a Pulaski County, Ark., woman.
According to Ofshe and Leo, no independent evidence linked Fairchild to the crime. And Fairchild, a mentally handicapped man who had steadfastly maintained his innocence, insisted he had confessed to the crime only because he had been beaten and tortured by the local sheriff and one of his deputies. (Two former sheriffs now admit that beatings were a common interrogation tactic at the time of Fairchild's arrest.)
A case Ofshe says is sure to appear on the next list surfaced in Chicago last August, when the police announced they had solved the July 28 murder of an 11-year-old girl, Ryan Harris, with the arrest of two boys, ages 7 and 8, both of whom were said to have confessed to the crime. But charges against the boys were dropped after semen found on the victim's underwear was linked to Floyd Durr, an ex-convict who was already awaiting trial for sexually assaulting three young girls. In late April, Durr was charged with Harris' murder as well.
Interrogation Tactics
But the Stephanie Crowe case is a textbook example of how a police interrogation can go wrong, according to Ofshe, who was an expert for the defense, and others connected with the case.
Police thought from the beginning that the murder was an inside job because the house showed no sign of forced entry. And they quickly settled on Michael as the prime suspect. One of the first officers on the scene had described him as being "inappropriately bereaved."
Michael, who was immediately separated from his parents, was brought in to the station for questioning the day after Stephanie's murder. Over the course of the next five hours he adamantly and repeatedly insisted he had nothing to do with his sister's death. But he was brought back the next day and administered a controversial lie detector test known as a computerized voice stress analyzer--which he was told he had failed--and then grilled for another six hours.
Police used every trick in the book to get Michael to confess, according to a transcript of the interrogation, most of which was videotaped.
They told him there was a mountain of evidence against him. They made him write a note of apology to his dead sister for having killed her. They told him his parents hated him and never wanted to see him again because they had come to believe he had killed his sister. And they told him if he confessed he would receive psychological treatment instead of prison, where, he was reminded, he would have to shower with some unsavory characters.
At one point in the interrogation Michael began to wonder aloud whether he might have had something to do with his sister's death, though he still maintained he had no memory of it. Eventually, he came to accept the notion that he must be guilty.
"I completely blocked myself out," he said near the end of the session. "And I wouldn't even know that I did it if she wasn't dead. It just as easily could have been a dream. I can't remember."
After Michael's confession, police repeated the same process with Joshua Treadway, the 14-year-old friend who supposedly stood lookout. After 11 hours of questioning, he not only confessed but implicated 15-year-old Aaron Houser.
"You'd have to know Josh to understand why," says Mary Ellen Attridge, Treadway's public defender. "He's very naive and very gullible. There's not a streetwise bone in his body."
Meanwhile, Richard Raymond Tuite, the 29-year-old vagrant and a diagnosed schizophrenic with a lengthy arrest record who is now serving a three-year sentence for an unrelated burglary, was questioned by police the day Stephanie's body was found.
But he was quickly discounted as a possible suspect. And while the red sweatshirt Tuite was wearing during questioning was confiscated, it wasn't until late last year, when Attridge spotted what appeared to be blood stains on one sleeve, that it was tested for dna.
The Crowe family has already filed a civil rights suit against the Escondido police and the San Diego County district attorney's office. And the Treadway and Houser families are said to be contemplating similar legal action.
"It's like one long nightmare," says Stephen Crowe, Michael and Stephanie's father, who bitterly accuses police and prosecutors of trying to put away three innocent boys to save their own behinds. "I don't know how they sleep at night."
Ofshe, who estimates that he has appeared as an expert witness in more than 125 false-confession cases, admits that his view of police interrogation tactics may be skewed by his experience with the practice. But he says the evidence he and others have amassed should persuade any fair-minded person that something needs to be done to reduce the likelihood of police-induced false confessions.
A requirement that all interrogations be recorded, which is now the rule in only two states--Alaska and Minnesota--would help, he and other experts say.
What the Justice System Can Do
But the real solution, they argue, would be to give courts authority to evaluate the reliability of a confession by comparing a suspect's account of the crime with the known facts. If the substance of the confession conformed closely with the facts, it would be admitted; if not, the confession would be suppressed.
But Cassell of the University of Utah isn't convinced that false confessions are as serious a problem as Ofshe and others suggest. Cassell doesn't believe giving the courts authority to scrutinize confessions is a good idea. The consequence, he suggests, would be suppression of more truthful confessions from the guilty.
Cassell says that his examination of the facts in nine of the 29 cases in which Ofshe and Leo claim a false confession may have led to the wrongful conviction of an innocent person shows that all nine confessors were probably guilty.
In the Fairchild rape and murder case, for example, Ofshe and Leo claim there was no independent evidence connecting the defendant to the crime. But Cassell says he found that Fairchild took police on a tour of the crime scene after confessing, and that a watch recovered from his sister, which Fairchild claimed to have bought in a pool hall, was identical to the victim's missing watch.
In eight of the nine cases he examined, Cassell says, the defendant appeared to be mentally retarded or suffering from serious mental problems.
The only solution, he says, is to videotape all interrogations and do away with the Miranda warning, which he says does nothing to protect the innocent and only makes it tougher to get truthful confessions from the guilty.
In the meantime, the innocent may have only their willpower to rely on.

Mark Hansen is a reporter for the ABA Journal. His e-mail address is markhansen@staff.abanet.org.
Copyright American Bar Association.

Tell Attorney General Holder to Keep His Hands Off the Miranda Rule

In the wake of the attempted bombing in Times Square in May 2010—as after other terrorism attempts—there have been misguided calls to weaken our constitutional rights, including a call to loosen the Miranda rule.

Last week, Attorney General Eric Holder told the House Judiciary Committee that the administration wants to "modernize" and "clarify" Miranda warnings for terrorism suspects. Miranda warnings—ruled by the U.S. Supreme Court to be a constitutional right—are used to inform suspects of their rights during interrogation.

There is no evidence that the Miranda requirement has obstructed the government from obtaining valuable information and intelligence from suspected terrorists.

Both Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, who was caught on a Detroit-bound plane with explosives in his underwear, and Faisal Shahzad, arrested for trying to bomb Times Square with a car full of explosives, were caught, questioned, and Mirandized. Crucially, both cooperated with law enforcement authorities both before and after they were read their Miranda rights.

The ACLU thinks changes to Miranda are both threatening to our criminal justice system and entirely unnecessary. This week, we sent a letter to Holder asking him to leave Miranda alone. And we're not the only ones who think this is a bad idea; three former FBI agents also sent a letter to Holder, writing:

"As professional interrogators who have spent decades questioning accused criminals—including spies and terrorists—we are writing to make clear that interrogators can do their job using the existing Miranda rules. No changes are necessary. In fact, changes might do more harm than good."

>> Take action: Send a message to Attorney General Holder. Tell him to keep his hands off the Miranda rule!

If you are interested in joining our support group, use the link below to subscribe.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Other Items to Add:

http://heartlandamerica.com/browse/item.asp?product=sling-shot-dvr-pen&PIN=87653&GUID=B437A4E8-8C09-4B1C-A314-CCED95356AD9&DL=HWH3
This is what the website says about it:

> It looks like a pen. It writes like a pen. But it's actually one of
> the world's smallest and most discreet digital recorders!
> 4GB digital pocket recorder is the perfect way to secretly capture
> video. Great for conversations with your ex-wife, vendor meetings,
> negotiating with salespeople and more! Ever wish you had video of
> that conversation you had? Now you can! This working pen has a new
> and improved color CMOS image sensor that captures video in 600x480
> resolution at the simple press of a button. Also has 4GB flash
> memory to store up to 5 hours of video, on-board mic, built-in
> rechargeable battery, comfort rubber finger grip, replaceable ink
> cartridge, USB 2.0 interface and more. Windows compatible. 5.8"L.
> NOTICE: State and federal laws make recording audio illegal under
> certain circumstances. Carefully check all applicable laws before
> using the audio recording feature to make surreptitious recordings.

Agency Investigation Policies
Connecticut

Do a web search for:

State of Connecticut Department of Children and Families

Once on the home page - look for Policy and Regulations (bottom right hand side of the page)

Open section 34 of the policy manual is titled 'Investigations'

The whole section is good info. However, section 34-3-5 titled "Conditions for Interviewing the child victim' is the info I was pertaining to about interviewing children with or without consent.

Of course there are CT State statutes that supports all this. I could get you the statute numbers as well, but I am on my way out.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

TO ADD

Protection of Pupil Rights (Hatch Amendment)
http://www.learn-usa.com/relevant_to_et/pr002.htm

Goals 2000, Educate America Act—

Sec. 1017. PROTECTION OF PUPILS

Section 439 of the General Education Provisions Act (20 U.S.C. 1232g) is amended to read as follows:

"PROTECTION OF PUPIL RIGHTS

"Sec. 439. (a) All instructional materials, including teacher's manuals, films, tapes, or other supplementary material which will be used in connection with any survey, analysis, or evaluation as part of any applicable program shall be available for inspection by the parents or guardians of the children.

"(b) No student shall be required, as part of any applicable program, to submit to a survey, analysis, or evaluation that reveals information concerning—

"(1) political affiliations;

"(2) mental and psychological problems potentially embarrassing to the student or his family;

"(3) sex behavior and attitudes;

"(4) illegal, anti-social, self-incriminating and demeaning behavior;

"(5) critical appraisals of other individuals with whom respondents have close family relationships;

"(6) legally recognized privileged or analogous relationships, such as those of lawyers, physicians, and ministers; or

"(7) income (other than that required by law to determine eligibility for participation in a program or for receiving financial assistance under such program),

without the prior consent of the student (if the student is an adult or emancipated minor), or in the case of an unemancipated minor, without the prior written consent of the parent.

"(c) Educational agencies and institutions shall give parents and students effective notice of their rights under this section.

"(d) Enforcement.—The Secretary shall take such action as the Secretary determines appropriate to enforce this section, except that action to terminate assistance provided under an applicable program shall be taken only if the Secretary determines that—

"(1) there has been a failure to comply with such section; and

"(2) compliance with such section cannot be secured by voluntary means.

"(e) Office of Review Board.—The Secretary shall establish or designate an office and review board within the Department of Education to investigate, process, review, and adjudicate violations of the rights established under this section.".

When does this act apply?

When federal money is involved in the implementation and maintenance of a program. If a school district has a federal grant to write curriculum, this law applies. If the state has a federal grant for a particular program, and in turn, provides grants to school districts for the same program, this law applies.

╪

'Miranda' Dealt One-Two Punch by High Court

Original Link: http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202444486063&src=EMC-Email&et=editorial&bu=Law.com&pt=LAWCOM%20Newswire&cn=NW_20100225&kw=

Tony Mauro

The National Law Journal

February 25, 2010

It has not been a good week for the famed Miranda warning at the hands of the Supreme Court.
In decisions issued on Tuesday and Wednesday, the Court ruled that confessions should be admitted at trial even when police interviewed suspects in circumstances that lower courts viewed as Miranda violations.
The Court on Wednesday issued Maryland v. Shatzer (pdf), establishing new, more permissive rules for police who want to question a suspect for a second time after the suspect invokes Miranda's right to remain silent.
The Maryland case came down a day after the justices decided Florida v. Powell (pdf), in which a 7-2 majority Court said that Florida's alternative wording of the Miranda warning is acceptable, even though it does not explicitly state that a suspect has a right to have a lawyer present during questioning.
Stanford Law School professor Jeffrey Fisher said the rulings continue the Court's trend of "extreme hostility toward constitutional rules that require the exclusion of evidence -- especially confessions and the product of illegal searches -- from criminal trials." Fisher, who heads a National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers committee that files amicus briefs at the high court, said, "In short, this Court sees the costs and benefits of rules designed to curb police overreaching entirely differently than the Court did a generation ago. "
Sidley Austin partner Jeffrey Green, who also assists NACDL and other defense lawyers in high court arguments, added, "At this rate, what's left [of Miranda] will be only what we see on TV."
But Lauren Altdoerffer of the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation, which supports law enforcement officials in Miranda cases, said the rulings don't weaken constitutional protection against compelled self-incrimination. "The Court is allowing states and police to draft rules that fit their needs but still fit the requirements of Miranda." She added that the crucial question is whether the interview of the suspect is compelled or voluntary.
In the Maryland case, which was argued on the first day of the Court's term last October, the ruling weakens the so-called Edwards v. Arizona rule, which states that, once a suspect invokes Miranda, any subsequent waiver of the right triggered by a police request is deemed involuntary -- making further police questioning improper.
Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, carved out an exception to that rule when there is a "break in custody" between the first and subsequent police efforts to question the suspect. In the case before the Court, defendant Michael Shatzer Sr., who was in prison on other charges at the time, asserted his Miranda rights in 2003 when police tried to question him about sexually abusing his son.
The investigation was closed, but more than two years later was reopened and he was questioned again in 2006, while still in prison. Investigators read him his rights again, he signed a waiver, and made incriminating comments about the episode with his son. Indicted on abuse charges, Shatzer sought to have his interview suppressed because of the 1981 Edwards rule. The Maryland Court of Appeals, the state's high court, sided with Shatzer, citing the Edwards rule.
Scalia said the Edwards rule should not act as an "eternal" bar against further police questioning. "In a country that harbors a large number of repeat offenders, this consequence is disastrous." In the interest of producing a clear rule on the issue, Scalia said the Court agreed that, after a 14-day "break of custody," police may try to question a suspect again without fear that a subsequent confession would be suppressed. "That provides plenty of time for the suspect to get re-acclimated to his normal life ... and to shake off any residual coercive effect of his prior custody," Scalia wrote. In Shatzer's case, Scalia said the fact that he was actually in prison during the "break in custody" did not alter the calculus. Justices Clarence Thomas and John Paul Stevens joined Scalia's decision except for the 14-day duration of the new rule.
In Tuesday's Florida v. Powell ruling, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote that Tampa, Fla., police had satisfied the requirements of Miranda even though its warning did not explicitly tell the suspect that he had the right to have a lawyer present during questioning. Interviewed in connection with a 2004 robbery, Kevin Powell was told he had "the right to talk to a lawyer" before answering police questions, and that he could use "any of these rights at any time you want" during the interview. The Florida Supreme Court said this wording was inadequate and misleading and the confession should be suppressed.
But Ginsburg said that, in combination, the Tampa police warnings "reasonably conveyed Powell's right to have an attorney present at all times." She noted that the FBI, like many other jurisdictions, explicitly state the right to have a lawyer present, "but we decline to declare its precise formulation necessary to meet Miranda's requirements."
A third Miranda case is still pending this term. Berghius v. Tompkins, which will be argued on March 1, asks whether police can try to noncoercively persuade a suspect to answer questions after the Miranda warning has been given, but before the suspect has invoked or waived the right.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
TO ADD

http://www.fightcps.com/articles/whattodo.html
http://familyrights.us/how_to/fight_cps.html
http://nhdcyf.info/first_contact.html http://www.massoutrage.com/ma/cps-resources/what-to-do-if-dcf-comes-to-your-door/

God Bless, GranPa Chuck
Weekend WebMaster

Anonymous Call to New Animal Abuse Hotline Leads to Raid on Colorado Woman’s Rabbit Farm

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Wed, 16 May 2012 11:17:00 +0000

Anonymous Call to New Animal Abuse Hotline Leads to Raid on Colorado Woman’s Rabbit Farm

August 10th, 2011

Debe Bell will probably never forget Thursday, July 21. It was the day she found herself surrounded by people from her local law enforcement agency, and they weren’t there to help.

Unlike John Dollarhite of Nixa, Mo., and several magicians across the country who’ve been hounded and threatened with massive fines by agents from the USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Bell had to go face to face with her hare-brained local sheriff.
An anonymous Crime Stoppers hotline tip led animal control officers from the Jefferson County (Colo.) Sheriff’s Office to descend upon Bell’s one-acre farm at about 10:30 that morning and, before the day was over, remove nearly 200 rabbits from the property. The 59 year old was being accused of 24 misdemeanor charges of cruelty to animals, including charges that she somehow mistreated two meat rabbits already inside her freezer. More on the hotline later.
Bell had purchased the 1.01-acre property 12 miles north of Denver nearly 40 years earlier with plans to raise as much livestock as she wanted. After all, it was zoned for agricultural purposes (“A-2”) and had everything she needed, including a four-bedroom, tri-level home and a 600-square-foot barn. It looked like a great place to raise a family.
About 15 years later, Bell formed Six Bells Farm Candle Company and Rabbitry as a licensed farm business. Launched as an offshoot of a 4-H project via which she taught her four children how to take care of something other than themselves, it grew into an operation that involved raising more than a dozen varieties of rabbits, primarily for personal meat consumption but also for use in educating children — including kids involved in 4-H — and members of the general public nationwide.
As the years passed, Bell’s expertise and reputation grew alongside her rabbit farm. Not only did she become president of the local Long’s Peak Rabbit Club, but she became known as the go-to “resource person” for 4-H kids in Colorado who were interested in rabbits. Her reputation as a top expert when it comes to understanding and caring for rabbits spread throughout Colorado and across the United States. But that was before the raid.

The Day of the Raid

When Bell, 59, woke to begin that day almost three weeks ago, she had no idea government agents would soon swoop down on her tiny farm and effectively put an end to the pursuit of happiness in which she had been engaged for more than 25 years.
An instructor and lab coordinator at Metropolitan State College in Denver, Bell was in Boulder doing research when she was interrupted around 1 p.m.
“My neighbor called and said, ‘They’re seizing your animals! You need to get home!’” Bell recalled.
When Bell asked for more details, the neighbor explained that animal control officers and deputies from the sheriff’s office had arrived around 10:30 a.m. and were preparing to seize her rabbits.
About 45 minutes from home, Bell wrapped up her research as quickly as she could and drove home to find out more about who was taking her rabbits and why. She wanted to save the rabbits, each of which she knew by name, breed, tattoo and sex.
Upon arriving home at about 1:40 p.m., she found the animal control officers being unreasonable and milling about on her property — without a search warrant. The “salt in the wound” that the situation had become was the fact that the sheriff’s office officials were accompanied by volunteers from the local branch of the House Rabbit Society — a nationwide group comprised of people who, according to Bell, think rabbits need to be raised like small children.
Much “discussion” took place during the day and, when the animal control officers told Bell she had “too many animals for your zoning,” she begged to differ.
“No, you need to check your zoning regulations,” she told them. “I moved in before you changed the zoning. I can have as many animals as I want. I have more than an acre. I’m zoned A-2.”
Apparently stumped by her knowledge of the local zoning, she said they told her they would set the zoning issue aside.
When she told them her business was a livestock operation, they told her they disagreed and began to push the proverbial envelope.

Bell said one officer told her, “We found a dead rabbit,” and acted as if that was the “nail in the coffin” for his case. She responded bluntly, saying, “Rabbits die” — a fact she learned while growing up in Central Texas, where everybody is aware of that fact.

That prompted the officer in charge to tell Bell her rabbits were going to be seized, spayed or neutered, and then put up for adoption.
“What for?” Bell asked.
Instead of answering her directly, the officer responded to her question with one of his own.
“When was the last time you were in the barn?”
“This morning at 5 o’clock when I watered them,” Bell answered.
“Well, they have no water,” the officer countered.
“They’re fine,” Bell replied. “They have a swamp cooler and three fans.”
What’s a swamp cooler? According to Bell, it’s an air conditioning device that blows air over moist pads to lower temperatures in environments such as barns. More on this later, too.
At that point, Bell said, the officers had been in her barn for more than three hours, had opened up the doors, messed with the barn’s water system and had, effectively, turned off the water to the swamp cooler.
When their often-heated conversation turned to the temperature inside the barn, Bell said she told the officer that her barn’s cooling system could not keep up if it had to air condition the back yard where the outdoor temperature was 94 degrees. That prompted more than one officer to literally scream at her, saying, “It’s 84 degrees in there!”
“Yeah,” Bell replied, stunned that the officers were apparently concerned about rabbits suffering in 84-degree heat.
When the officer asked if she had any idea how many animals she had, she answered, “One-hundred sixty-three and probably 19 or 20 babies.”
Bell said she went a step further by telling the officer she could tell him the location of every animal in that barn. In addition, she told him the cages were tagged, numbered and sexed — with either pink tape or blue tape on them — and that she knew each rabbit in that barn by name.
Though officers couldn’t have overlooked the fact that the rabbit enclosures were clean and the barn was equipped with cooling, fly-control and watering systems, Bell said they seemed intent on making sure she didn’t do anything crazy to get in their way.
Bell said she wasn’t allowed to move, was threatened with being arrested at least four times, could not go inside her barn and, if she wanted to go anywhere else, had to ask officers for permission.
When Bell told one of the four sheriff’s deputies on scene that she wasn’t comfortable with House Rabbit Society members being on her property, she said the deputy looked her in the eye and said, “It is what it is.”
Hoping to document her experience, Bell said she took three photos — two of which appear above — of the area around her barn. Soon after, she was told by a sheriff’s deputy, under threat of arrest, that she had better stop.

“They told me four, five or six times (that) they were taking the animals no matter what,” Bell said, noting that she pointed out to them several times that there was nothing wrong with the animals or the conditions in which they were living.
When an officer told Bell the rabbits were living in “deplorable conditions,” she told him he was wrong.
“They are not living in deplorable conditions,” she said. “Their cages are clean. The trays are underneath them. We’re cleaning this weekend.”
Bell went on to explain to the officer that kids from the local 4-H organization who are involved in raising rabbits come out every weekend to help clean cages and do other things related to the care of the rabbits.

$24,000 Per Month*

Several times during the day, animal control officers approached Bell and asked her to sign the rabbits over to them. When she asked what it was going to cost her if she didn’t, their reply stunned her.
“They said, ‘Five dollars a day per rabbit,’” Bell recalled, “and I said, ‘That’s $815 per day. Take ‘em! I can’t afford that.”
As a result of recently putting two boys through Colorado State University, Bell said, she told the officers she has a “mountain of debt” already and could not afford more than $24,000 per month — for a minimum of one month. The entire herd of rabbits was worth only $17,000.
At approximately 4:30 p.m., Bell said, a sheriff’s deputy arrived with the long-awaited search warrant and, within a half hour, the assembled animal control officers and volunteers began hauling out the rabbits in an effort that lasted about four hours.

The ‘Official’ Story

When I contacted sheriff’s office spokesperson Mark Techmeyer by phone early Tuesday afternoon, he explained how an anonymous tip led to his agency obtaining a search warrant.
“They reacted on a Crime Stoppers tip and went out there, and they saw what they believed to be some issues,” Techmeyer said. “Then they were able to take that information back to the judge and get a warrant issued.”
Thanks to a new Crime Stoppers program launched in June 2011, he said, individuals can call a statewide animal abuse hotline and, while remaining anonymous, can report cases of suspected animal abuse.

Rabbit Experts?

While I had him on the phone, I asked Techmeyer if any of the employees at the sheriff’s animal control division were rabbit experts, Techmeyer never answered the question. Instead, he quibbled, saying, “That depends upon how you define ‘experts,’” and then changed the subject.
None of the animal control employees — or the volunteers accompanying them — knew much about rabbits, according to Bell. In fact, she said the rabbits were severely mishandled during their removal.
For instance, 10-day-old babies “still in a nest box with their mommy” were wrapped in a towel and placed inside a cat crate and stood their mother on top of them.
“I looked at ‘em and I said, ‘You just issued a death sentence for those babies,’” Bell said, explaining that the mother would stomp the babies.
In response, the sheriff’s office employee said, “That’s their mom. Why would she do that?”
“Because they’re rabbits,” Bell replied.
“They loaded them in cardboard boxes, put them in a horse trailer and hauled them off to the fairgrounds,” Bell said, “where they housed them in a concrete, non-air conditioned horse stall barn.”
In addition to being placed in a hot environment, Bell said, her rabbits were placed in dog and cat crates with solid-bottom floors, meaning, “The minute they urinate, they’re standing in their own urine.”

The Next Step

Asked what her next step might be, Bell said her attorney, Elizabeth Kearney of Burthoud, Colo., has written several letters on her behalf, trying to get a meeting with Scott Storey, the district attorney for Jefferson and Gilpin Counties, but “keeps hitting brick walls.”
“They don’t want to return her calls,” she said. “They don’t want to talk to her.”
In addition, Bell said, sheriff’s office officials will not provide any information to Bell about the condition of her rabbits and will not allow her veterinarian of nearly 25 years to examine them.
Why might that be? Bell thinks she knows the answer.
“I think, honestly, they dug themselves a deep hole,” she said, “and they don’t quite know how to crawl out of it.”
“They’ve destroyed me emotionally, socially and professionally,” Bell said, listing numerous ways in which local animal rights activists have publicized information about the case in an effort to make her and her four children — all adults who haven’t lived under her roof for several years — look bad. But that’s not all.
“They’ve made 4-H kids all across Colorado just sob,” she said, “because I am their 4-H connection.”
Bell noted that 12 of the seized rabbits belong to 4-H kids who were planning to show them at upcoming fairs — two at the Jefferson County Fair that begins Thursday and the remaining 10 at the Colorado State Fair which runs from Aug. 26 to Sept. 5 in Pueblo.

Rabbit raisers in Colorado are so scared they might suffer the same fate as Six Bells Farm, Bell said, that many are not going to show their animals at the Colorado State Fair. The shortage of participants at this year’s Small Animals Show is so severe that officials extended the deadline for entry and, in order to prevent animal rights activists from collecting the names of rabbit owners, officials are planning to not display the names of rabbit owners alongside their rabbits.
“I would hope the entire United States would get involved in this,” Bell said, “because this is a group of people that have gotten away with this crap once or twice and they’re just continuing.
“Because they’ve been given the power erroneously once, they’re taking it more and more,” she continued, “and they’re gonna chase farmers out.”
Closing thought for the day: Bell said she learned through a third party familiar with her case that the people caring for the displaced rabbits at the fairgrounds eventually bought a cooling device to improve the rabbits’ living conditions at the fairgrounds. What did they buy? You guessed it! A swamp cooler.
More to come.
UPDATE 8/10/11 at 10:17 p.m. Central: An animal rights troll who is no longer allowed to post comments on this site claims that a CBS Denver news report shows animals with matted fur, etc. Of course, she’s wrong. The report does not show any animals in poor condition. Instead, it only shows spokesman Techmeyer using words to paint a picture of abuse. Watch it here if you must.
UPDATE 8/11/11 at 8:25 a.m. Central: Cross-posted at Andrew Breitbart’s BigGovernment.com.
UPDATE 8/12/11 at 9:07 a.m. Central: I’ve been advised that a legal defense fund has been established to help Debe Bell. You can make a donation on PayPal (Rabbitdefense@gmail.com) or you can send a check to the address below:

Responsible Animal Owners Defense Trust

c/o Joyce Holliday

PO Box 1287

Berthoud, CO 80513

UPDATE 8/13/11 at 7:57 a.m. Central: Denver Media Outlets Fail to Cover Multitude of Juicy Stories Behind Recent Rabbit Farm Raid
*UPDATE 8/13/11 at 5:51 p.m. Central: In speaking with Debe Bell last night, I learned that the Sheriff has already begun giving away the rabbits. Why? Because she signed away her rights to them in order to avoid paying $24,000 per month (one-month minimum) — as mentioned in the story above — for their care and feeding while the matter was adjudicated.
UPDATE 8/13/11 at 7:02 p.m. Central: Denver Post Coverage of Rabbit Raiser Takes 180.
UPDATE 8/14 11 at 8:30 a.m. Central: Foothills Animal Shelter will soon start adopting out Debe Bell’s rabbits, according to this announcement.
UPDATE 8/18/11 at 8 p.m. Central: The Denver Post reported this afternoon that the Foothills Animal Shelter has halted adoptions of nearly 200 rabbits seized from an Arvada home last month after the rabbits’ owner filed an emergency motion in court.
UPDATE 2/1/12 at 3:05 p.m. Central: Deb Bell found guilty on 35 counts of animal abuse targeting rabbits.

DEALING WITH ILLEGAL ANIMAL SEIZURE, by Diane Amble

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sat, 12 May 2012 20:40:00 +0000

DEALING WITH ILLEGAL ANIMAL SEIZURE, by Diane Amble
You will have to click on this page, as I cannot cut and paste it...

PETA KILLS ANIMALS

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sat, 12 May 2012 20:13:00 +0000

PETA Kills Animals

New Documents: PETA Killed a Near Record-Breaking 95 Percent of Adoptable Dogs and Cats in its Care During 2011

Hypocritical Animal Rights Group Brings Pet Death Toll To 27,751
Washington, DC — Today the nonprofit Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF) published documents online, obtained by a Freedom of Information Act request, showing that People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) killed a staggering 95.9 percent of the adoptable pets in its care during 2011. Despite years of public outrage over its euthanasia program, the notorious animal rights group has continued killing adoptable animals at its Norfolk, VA headquarters, at an average of 37 pets every week.
According to records from the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, PETA killed 1,911 cats and dogs last year while placing just 24 in adoptive homes. Since 1998, a total of 27,751 pets have died at the hands of PETA workers.
"PETA hasn’t slowed down its slaughterhouse operation, even as the group continues to lecture the American public with its phony ‘animal rights’ message," said Rick Berman, CCF’s Executive Director. "It appears PETA is more concerned with funding its media and advertising antics than finding suitable homes for these dogs and cats."
Despite its $37.4 million budget, PETA employees make little effort to find homes for the thousands of animals they kill every year.
A 2010 inspection of 290 PETA animal custody records performed by the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services discovered that PETA killed 84 percent of the animals it took control of within only 24 hours. Additionally, the inspection discovered that PETA’s animal shelter didn't meet PETA’s own published guidelines for running a humane shelter.
"For the 13th year in a row, PETA’s leaders have shown they don’t care about the unlucky dogs and cats that come to its Norfolk facility," Berman continued. "It’s about time PETA’s ‘shelter’ is reclassified as a slaughterhouse."
CCF has obtained PETA’s "Animal Record" filings for every year since 1998 from the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. Members of the public can see these documents at www.PETAKillsAnimals.com.

Pets Killed by PETA

Year	Received†	Trans- ferred	Adopted		Killed
2011	1,992	34	24	1.21%	1,911	95.9%
2010	2,345	63	44	1.86%	2,200	93.8%
2009	2,366	31	8	0.34%	2,301	97.3%
2008	2,216	34	7	0.32%	2,124	95.8%
2007	1,997	35	17	0.85%	1,815	90.9%
2006	3,061	46	12	0.39%	2,981	97.4%
2005	2,165	69	146	6.74%	1,946	89.9%
2004	2,655	1	361	13.60%	2,278	85.8%
2003	2,224	1	312	14.03%	1,911	85.9%
2002	2,680	2	382	14.25%	2,298	85.7%
2001	2,685	14	703	26.18%	1,944	72.4%
2000	2,681	28	624	23.27%	2,029	75.7%
1999	1,805	91	386	21.39%	1,328	73.6%
1998*	943	125	133	14.10%	685	72.6%
Total	31,815	574	3,159	9.93%	27,751	87.23%
* figures represent the second half of 1998 only † Other than spay/neuter animals » Skeptical? Click here to see the proof.

What is Peta Kills Animals?

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) has a problem. Despite its mission to advocate for "total animal liberation," government documents obtained through public records requests indicate that each year PETA kills thousands of animals at its headquarters.
According to records from the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, PETA has killed more than 25,000 animals (mostly dogs and cats) at its headquarters in Norfolk, Virginia.

Join Us on Facebook

Hitler and the Animal Rights dichotomy of Germany in the 30s

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sat, 12 May 2012 20:02:00 +0000

Hitler and the Animal Rights dichotomy of Germany in the 30s

Posted on February 4, 2011 by beezelbarb

Hitler and the Animal Rights dichotomy of Germany in the 30s

The troubled middle: An exploration of our ethical obligations to animals in Some We Love, Some We Hate, Some We Eat: Why It’s So Hard to Think Straight About Animals, by Hal Herzog.
Website for the book: http://halherzog.com
According to Hal Herzog in Some We Love, Some We Hate, Some We Eat, Germany implemented some of the world’s best animal protection laws in the 1930s—while simultaneously murdering 6 million Jews. WTF?

How the Nazis could Love Dogs and Hate Jews
A bizarre moral inversion occurred in prewar Germany that enabled large numbers of reasonable people to be more concerned with the suffering of lobsters in Berlin restaurants than with genocide. In 1933, the German government enacted the world’s most comprehensive animal protection legislation. Among other things, the law forbade any unnecessary harm to animals, banned the inhumane treatment of animals in the production of movies, and outlawed the use of dogs in hunting. It banned docking the tails and ears of dogs without anesthesia, the force-feeding of fowl, and the inhumane killing of farm animals. Adolf Hitler signed the legislation on November 24, 1933. This was only the first in a series of Nazi animal protection acts. In 1936, for example, the German government dictated that fish had to be anesthetized before slaughter and that lobsters in restaurants had to be killed swiftly.

In announcing restrictions on animal research in a 1933 radio address, Hermann Göring said, “To the Germans, animals are not merely creatures in the organic sense, but creatures who lead their own lives and who are endowed with perceptive facilities, who feel pain and experience joy and prove to be faithful and attached.” Göring once threatened, “I will commit to concentration camps those who think that they can continue to treat animals as property.”

Hitler objected to killing animals for scientific research and he believed that hunting and horse racing were “the last remnants of a feudal society.” He was a vegetarian and found meat disgusting. As you might expect, contemporary animal activists don’t relish the idea that Adolf Hitler was a fellow traveler, and some activists adamantly deny that he was either a vegetarian or an animal lover. But the anthrozoologist Boria Sax has carefully documented the evidence that many leading Nazis, including Hitler, were genuinely concerned about the treatment of animals. (Needless to say, the fact that Hitler loved animals does not in any way undermine the validity of the case for animal protection.)

The Nazis used framing to construct a perversely inverted moral scale in which Aryans were at the top and Jews were classified as “subhumans”—beings lower than most animal species. While German shepherd dogs and wolves were high on the moral hierarchy, Nazis compared Jews to vermin—rats, parasites, bedbugs. In 1942, Jews were forbidden to keep pets. In one of history’s great ironies, the Nazis followed the legal procedures governing humane slaughter when they euthanized thousands of Jewish pets. But, unlike their dogs and cats, Jews were not covered under German humane slaughter legislation. No, they were sent to concentration camps, where their treatment was not covered by the Third Reich’s animal welfare laws. For the Nazis, Jews blurred the boundaries between man and animal. They were a polluted class, freaks, neither fully human nor completely animal.

To me, Nazi animal protectionism speaks volumes about human moral thinking. A few pages ago, I argued that for a thousand generations, the genetic puppet-masters have murmured into our ears “people over animals.” Hitler’s ability to construct a culture in which dogs were afforded moral status denied to Jews, Gypsies, and homosexuals illustrates the fact that with enough social pressures, humans will ignore the whisperings of the genes. Nazi animal protectionism also shows that the ability to resist our biological inclinations does not necessarily make us better people.

In spite of the fact that many people dispute that Hitler was a vegetarian, this is pretty disturbing. And this is why I think it is so important to not only express our concern for how animals are treated in today’s society, but also to be concerned, for instance, with the treatment of humans working in dangerous slaughterhouse jobs—and for any mistreated group—whether starving humans, or pets on death row in our shelters. The more we open our eyes, the more we realize that it’s all related.

Hitler would have approved of Peta, the creepy animal rights fanatics

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sat, 12 May 2012 19:56:00 +0000

Ed West

Ed West is a journalist and social commentator who specialises in politics, religion and low culture. He is @edwestonline on Twitter.

Hitler would have approved of Peta, the creepy animal rights fanatics

By Ed West Politics Last updated: March 19th, 2009
14 Comments Comment on this article

As a rule I never support any group that uses nudity as a form of protest, nor anyone who compares their opponent to the Nazis. Which is why I have always disliked the animal rights group Peta, up to their old tricks protesting outside Jamie Oliver's restaurant.

Hitler: vegetarian? (Photo: Smabs Smutzer)
I despise animal rights protesters, to be honest. I hate the ill-treatment and industrial farming of animals, and I'm glad that ethical consumers have helped to improve their lot. My brother became a vegetarian after reading an account of factory farming in Britain, and some of the stories make horrific reading. (It also makes a mockery of the BNP campaign against halal meat, which echoes the Polish anti-semitic campaign to get kosher slaughter banned in 1938, a bill that the future Pope Pius XII helped to stop. Halal and kosher methods are far more humane than most industrial methods.)
I take the Old Testament view that man's job is guardian and protector of the animals. I also agree that we are going to have to cut down on meat use if we are to feed the human race, and that means making it more expensive.
But the idea that animals have "rights" is sentimental, childish and ultimately evil. Peta has done one or two good things in the past. But its fundamental philosophy is warped and extreme, and there are a number of things that make me oppose them.
There is their use of nudity, especially by supermodels, a form of passive-aggressive bullying, and the fact that they rely on celebrity supporters such as Pamela Anderson, Jamie Lee Curtis or Sir Paul McCartney, always a flashing red light.
But it is their innate shrillness that grates the most, and their inability to put things in proportion. In 2003 Ingrid Newkirk wrote to Yasser Arafat complaining that he had used a donkey in an attack on Israel soldiers. Never mind that many of the young kids Yasser sent to their deaths had about as much understanding of the conflict as that donkey, and never mind that thousands of Palestinians and Israelis had been killed, what about donkey-wonkey?
"Animals claim no nation," she wrote. "For animals, there is no Geneva Convention and no peace treaty – just our mercy."
What a cultural imperialist! For all she knows the donkey willingly laid down its life and is in paradise right now with 76 donkey virgins, lying around in hay and eating carrots or whatever else donkeys enjoy doing.
Their most disgusting campaign was called "Holocaust on your plate", which juxtaposed images of intensive farming with pictures of the Final Solution.
How offensive can they get? The man behind the campaign was Jewish, which gave them some cover, but can they not see that such images dehumanise the victims of the Holocaust, who were dehumanised quite enough in their lifetime. Where is their sense of proportion? Factory farming is terrible, but put it in perspective.
It is strange because the Nazis are the animal rights lobby's Achilles' heel. A guaranteed way for a newspaper to overload its inbox with threatening and whining emails is to mention that Hitler was a vegetarian. "How dare you," they will say, "he occasionally ate meat. He was one of you!"
Maybe, but Hitler certainly mocked meat eaters, and if I ran a newspaper I would make it a rule that any article about vegetarians must have a picture of Hitler next to it with the caption: "Hitler: vegetarian."
The Third Reich was in favour of animal rights. Nazi Germany was the first country to ban fox hunting and the first to outlaw animal vivisection (they did, after all, have an alternative supply). They even banned the boiling of lobsters as cruel.
OK, I know I just said that you shouldn't compare an enemy to the Nazis, but people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. And the Nazis' attachment to animal rights reminds us that being sentimental about animals, rather than being simply humane, is not a sign of compassion and virtue, but of psychopathic emotional retardation.

ANIMAL RIGHTS USED TO FURTHER AGENDA 21

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sat, 12 May 2012 19:47:00 +0000

We The People

ANIMAL RIGHTS USED TO FURTHER AGENDA 21

Watch the video below. If watched, you will understand the connection.

What is really behind the animal rights movement:

Please view the video and read the article below. Then understand that U. S. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack has a long history of championing the animal rights agenda. According to HSUS’s Mark Markarian: “Vilsack has a solid record on animal protection, and he was the top choice of HSUS and HSLF to lead the USDA, the agency that oversees our federal laws on animal welfare, humane slaughter and transport, horse protection, animal fighting, and others. Full article available here: http://hslf.typepad.com/political_animal/2008/12/cabinet_apppoin.html

I think it is critically important at this point in time for us all to realize that the Animal Rights Movement is being embraced to facilitate the implementation of Agenda 21. Agenda 21 is a UN mandate to create a “sustainable planet”. To better understand the word “sustainable” in this context just substitute the word “acceptable”. Agenda 21, once fully implemented, will dictate the manner in which all resources are used as well as define which of our behaviors are “ acceptable”. Since we know that the use of animals must cease and domestic species must be eliminated according to the tenants of Animal Rights, then it is safe to assume that we animal owners, breeders, and farmers are in grave danger from Agenda 21. HSUS and other ARO’s are simply vehicles being used to implement the larger agenda- Agenda 21. The fracas that has been created about “animal protection, preventing animal enslavement, etc” is nothing more than a red herring to confuse and distract us away from what is really the root of this poisonous tree.

In California , SB 917 and AB 1117 are not simply about preventing roadside sales nor the prevention of animal cruelty and neglect. It is about the destruction of farming and animal breeding just as we suspected all along. Likewise, the restriction of water to southern central valley California farms was not about the protection of the Delta Smelt. That was just the excuse used. What this is really about is power and control over the American citizenry by controlling the production of food.

Please share this information with everyone you know. We still have a slim amount of time to save our freedom but time is quickly running out.

MUST WATCH VIDEO:

USDA Attacks Rural American With Smart Meters

http://healthfreedoms.org/2011/07/25/usda-attacks-rural-american-with-smart-meters/

Submitted by Lois Rain on July 25, 2011 – 8:24 pm

Traditional electronic meters measure usage and require a meter reader but smart meters measure in real time, alert consumer of usage, and can be remotely disconnected to control usage.
Why did the Administration create the White House Council To Strengthen Rural Communities with an Executive Order this June? Hint: it will do anything but “strengthen” rural American.
In fact, the plans are in place to take control and dismantle the rural grid as we know it. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack just announced plans to modernize the nation’s electric grid and for the USDA to put $250 million in smart meter implementation in rural American within the year.
The following article explains the use of the modern electronic grid (smart meters) to control the rural food grid.
~Health Freedoms

On June 9, 2011, the Obama Administration Established the “White House Rural Council to Strengthen Rural Communities” via Executive Order. “Strengthening Rural Communities” is the spin. The real issue is control. Rural communities are where food is grown, and control of food is a main priority for the New World Order.
So, who is in charge of this Council? Why the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture, Tom Vilsack, of course!
Sec. 3. Membership. (a) The Secretary of Agriculture shall serve as the Chair of the Council… (PDF of E.O.)
Just what is this new Rural Council?
The White House Rural Council will coordinate programs across government to encourage public-private partnerships to promote further economic prosperity and quality of life in rural communities nationwide. Chaired by Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack, the Council will be responsible for providing recommendations for investment in rural areas and will coordinate Federal engagement with a variety of rural stakeholders, including agricultural organizations, small businesses, and state, local, and tribal governments.
Well, that is sufficiently vague to encompass just about anything. The following video describes its true agenda, which is to usher rural farming communities straight into the total control of Agenda 21.And just what is one of the first things that Secretary Vilsack, as Chair of the Council going to do? Attack rural America with Smart Meters.
Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack joined Administration officials today to announce initiatives aimed at modernizing the nation’s electric grid, including USDA’s goal to invest $250 million in smart grid equipment deployment in rural America over the next 12 months.
What a Smart Grid does
In the United States , the Smart Grid concept is defined [2] as the modernization of the nation’s electricity transmission and distribution system to maintain a reliable and secure electricity infrastructure that can meet future demand growth and to achieve each of the following, which together characterize a Smart Grid:
(1) Increased use of digital information and controls technology to improve reliability, security, and efficiency of the electric grid.
(2) Dynamic optimization of grid operations and resources, with full cyber-security.
(3) Deployment and integration of distributed resources and generation, including renewable resources.
(4) Development and incorporation of demand response, demand-side resources, and energy-efficiency resources.
(5) Deployment of `smart’ technologies (real-time, automated, interactive technologies that optimize the physical operation of appliances and consumer devices) for metering, communications concerning grid operations and status, and distribution automation.
(6) Integration of `smart’ appliances and consumer devices.
(7) Deployment and integration of advanced electricity storage and peak-shaving technologies, including plug-in electric and hybrid electric vehicles, and thermal-storage air conditioning.
(8) Provision to consumers of timely information and control options.
(9) Development of standards for communication and interoperability of appliances and equipment connected to the electric grid, including the infrastructure serving the grid.
(10) Identification and lowering of unreasonable or unnecessary barriers to adoption of smart grid technologies, practices, and services.
What this means to you
A smart grid will put into place “digitally controlled devices that can alter the nature of the electrical load (giving the electric company the ability to turn off appliances in your home if they see fit.”
If you are using too much electricity, the kill switch is there to make sure that you are in compliance with mandated electrical usage. If you are trying to grow food, and your electrical consumption is high because of it, you can be cut off. No electricity means no water. No water means no crops. This is a total control grid.
Unlike traditional electric meters that merely record power use – and then must be read in-person once a month by a meter reader – Smart Meters measure consumption in real time. By being networked to computers in electric utilities, the new meters can signal people or their appliances to take certain actions, such as reducing power usage when electricity prices spike…
The system also has the ability to remotely disconnect or reconnect service…
The noose is tightening, and food is on the menu for complete corporate control. Control the food, and you control the people. Control the water, and you control the food. Control the electricity needed to pump the water, and you effectively place that noose squarely around our nation’s neck.
© 2011 Barbara H. Peterson
Sources:
http://farmwars.info/?p=6530
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_grid
http://newsroom-magazine.com/2011/executive-branch/usda/usda-to-invest-250-mln-in-smart-grid-development/

ARCHIVE: Holocaust Imagery and Animal Rights

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sat, 12 May 2012 19:30:00 +0000

ARCHIVE: Holocaust Imagery and Animal Rights

Updated: August 2, 2005

A disturbing development that has emerged in some animal and environmental activist circles is the use of Holocaust imagery to promote their causes. The following is an archive of information related to this topic.
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA)
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), a Norfolk, Virginia, based nonprofit animal rights organization, founded in 1980, is one of the most well known organizations that has utilized Holocaust imagery in their advertising campaigns and on their Web sites.
PETA operates under "the simple principle that animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, or use for entertainment." PETA claims to educate "policymakers and the public about animal abuse and promotes an understanding of the right of all animals to be treated with respect."
PETA is known for its use of outrageous antics to publicize its radical animal rights agenda. On February 24, 2002, PETA issued a press release unveiling its "Holocaust on Your Plate" exhibit. According to the press release, the exhibit consisted of "eight 60-square-foot panels, each showing photos of factory farm and slaughterhouse scenes side by side with photos from Nazi death camps."
"Inspired by the words of Jewish scholars," PETA wanted to "stimulate contemplation of how the victimization of Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, and others characterized as 'life unworthy of life' during the Holocaust parallels the way that modern society abuses and justifies the slaughter of animals."
On May 5, 2005 (Holocaust Remembrance Day), after the exhibit comparing the treatment of farm animals to the victims of the Nazi concentration camps traveled to over 100 American and foreign cities, PETA issued an apology for its "Holocaust on Your Plate" campaign. PETA President Ingrid Newkirk said she realized that the campaign had caused pain: "This was never our intention, and we are deeply sorry."
PETA had previously used holocaust imagery in a television ad called "They Came for Us at Night," which was aired by a few local cable networks in the U.S. It was also aired in Warsaw in July 2003. The television ad showed the outside world through the slats of a boxcar and is narrated by a man (with an accent) who describes the plight of being transported with no food and water. "I know the ad is provocative," said Dan Mathews, the vice-president of PETA. "But for me, one of the lessons of the Holocaust is to recognize other atrocities as well."
It should also be noted that PETA's relationship with extremist animal rights groups has received increased publicity. In 1995, PETA gave $45,200 to the support committee for Rod Coronado, a convicted arsonist and Animal Liberation Front member, who firebombed a medical research facility at Michigan State University.
In April 2001 PETA gave a direct donation of $1,500 to the Earth Liberation Front, the most active and controversial militant environmentalist group in the U.S.
More Holocaust Imagery
In 2001, Meat.org, an anti-meat eating Web site, included an "Animal Holocaust" section comprised of color photographs of animals with words such as "Holocaust Victim". There is also a series of moving images on the Web site juxtaposing a Swastika flag with the words, "Stop the Animal Holocaust."
Meat.org claims that, "It's easy to see the resemblance of the systematic destruction and slaughter of over six million Jews by the Nazis before and during World War II and the over 20 million animals that are executed every day in America alone. Many of the Jews of the Holocaust were transported to concentration camps in cattle cars to their death. The concentration camps very much resemble the common slaughterhouses of today." Meat.org posts links to the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) and PETA.

The Consistency in Compassion Campaign (CCC), a project of the Northwest Animal Rights Network of Seattle, Washington, similarly tried to "provoke debate on the issue of animal suffering on modern factory farms."
According to the Web site, "The term 'Consistency in Compassion' embodies the belief that we should scrutinize the morality of our actions now with the same severity that we scrutinize the actions of those in history. Today we are faced with a moral dilemma equal to that of those who chose to fight against the genocidal beliefs of the Nazi Party. Let us now respond to that moral dilemma with equal contempt for the victimization of non-human animals."
To this end, CCC created an ad, which uses photographs of undressed dead Holocaust victims in a pit at a concentration camp with photographs of dead cows and a swastika. The Web site included a "Frequently Asked Questions" page, which discussed whether or not the ad is anti-Semitic. "CCC believes the Holocaust stands for much more than the one event. It represents a place and time when supremacist thinking was so embedded in a culture that they were blind or apathetic to the evil that existed in their everyday world. This kind of thinking is not exclusive to just that time and place. The great blind spot of our country and Western Civilization for that matter is the mistreatment and disregard for non-human animals in nearly every capacity."
The group further claimed that the ad is not anti-Semitic because, "We have volunteers and contributors to this campaign who are of Jewish descent and understand that the comparison is only drawn to illustrate common patterns and catastrophic results of supremacist thinking."
The "Experimentation" section of the site included the following statement: "Josef Mengele, a medical researcher, came to Auschwitz in May, 1943." Texts detailing the experiments of Mengele then follow. The text pertaining specifically to animals states: "Unfortunately, sadism and evil in the medical sciences did not die with Josef Mengele. In laboratories across the country, tens of millions of sentient animals are subjected to experiments equally as cruel and pointless as Mengele's each year."
The San Francisco-based Web site of the magazine No Compromise hosted information for "grassroots animal liberationists by providing a forum where activists can exchange information." For at least six months, the Web site introduced the Animal Liberation Front with the following quotes:

"If we are trespassing, so were the soldiers who broke down the gates of Hitler's death camps; If we are thieves, so were the members of the Underground Railroad who freed the slaves of the South;
And if we are vandals, so were those who destroyed Forever the gas chambers of Buchenwald and Auschwitz."

In July 2000, a one-page commentary titled, "The Animal Holocaust", appeared on a list-service. The article compares the killing of animals for food to the Holocaust. "There is no excuse at all for this Holocaust. What is the reason why this Holocaust is occurring…? It's time to stop the Animal Holocaust! Support the Animal Liberation Front!"

The cover article for The Animals' Agenda (March/April 2002) is another example of equating the Holocaust with the farming of chickens. The cover story, "The Holocaust and Animal Exploitation" is written by Charles Patterson, author of Eternal Treblinka: Our Treatment of Animals and the Holocaust.
Eternal Treblinka
The book, Eternal Treblinka, draws links between the ideologies and persecutions of various historical eras to the ways people treated animals during those times, emphasizing throughout the extent to which persecuted groups have been likened to animals. It traces a progression from ancient Sumeria - where the same word allegedly referred both to castrated slave boys and young domesticated animals - to the antiseptic extermination machineries of the modern world.
"Although the U.S. eventually went to war against Hitler," writes Charles Patterson, the book's author, in the afterword, "his world view lives on in the land of the victors."
"Each day millions of lambs, calves, pigs, chickens…are transported to killing centers to be slaughtered for the tables of the master species….Fortified by denial, indifference, and mindless custom that stretches back to our primitive origins, our oppressive exploitation seems hopelessly eternal."
Patterson, who has written histories of anti-Semitism and the civil rights movement, as well as a recent overview of the industrial use of animals, lists dozens of animal rights groups that he says support the "idea" of the book. Yet his treatment of some of the book's themes move from the offensive and ridiculous to the absurd. Apparently compelled to demonstrate that Hitler could not have been a vegetarian (nor have liked them), Patterson writes:

"Hitler discovered that when he reduced his meat intake, he did not sweat as much, and there were fewer stains in his underwear. He also became convinced that eating vegetables improved the odors of his flatulence, a condition that distressed him terribly and caused him much embarrassment….Nonetheless, Hitler never gave up his favorite meat dishes, especially Bavarian sausages, liver dumplings, and stuffed and roasted game…. "Whatever his dietary preferences, Hitler showed little sympathy for the vegetarian cause in Germany. When he came to power in 1933, he banned all the vegetarian societies in Germany….Nazi persecution forced German vegetarians, a tiny minority in a nation of carnivores, either to flee the country or go underground."

The books also devotes extended sections to "Holocaust-Connected Animal Advocates" - survivors and others "influenced by Holocaust images and lessons" to speak out on behalf of the treatment of animals. One chapter is dedicated to Isaac Bashevis Singer, who was well-known for his vegetarianism and concern for animals - and from whose writing the book gets its title.

Related Articles

Holocaust Imagery and Animal Rights

Animal Rights Group Should Take the Lead of PETA and Stop Using Holocaust Imagery (8/2/05)

PETA's Appeal for Jewish Community Support 'The Height of Chutzpah'
(10/14/03)

ADL Denounces PETA for its "Holocaust on Your Plate" Campaign (2/24/03)

E-Mail This to A Friend

Fight Anti-Semitism
Support ADL

Home | Search | About ADL | Contact ADL | Privacy Policy

ACTION CENTER

ANTI-SEMITISM

CIVIL RIGHTS

COMBATING HATE

EDUCATION

EXTREMISM

HISPANIC AFFAIRS

HOLOCAUST

INTERFAITH

INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS

INTERNET

ISRAEL

LAW ENFORCEMENT (L.E.A.R.N.)

RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

SECURITY AWARENESS

TERRORISM

Adolf Hitler: The Ideological Forefather of PETA and Animal Rights Advocates

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sat, 12 May 2012 19:11:00 +0000

Adolf Hitler: The Ideological Forefather of PETA and Animal Rights Advocates

June 24, 2011

The Philippine Animal Welfare Society and their animal rights cohorts have publicly shown great compassion for a now famous puppy named Whitey. This animal rights group filed a lawsuit against the owner of the puppy who was identified as Jerzon Senador.

PAWS accused Senador of violating the Animal Welfare Act, a law that seeks “to protect and promote the welfare of all animals in the Philippines by supervising and regulating the establishment and operation of all facilities utilized for breeding, maintaining, keeping, treating, or training of all animals either as objects of trade or as household pets.”

For allegedly violating this absurd and non-objective law, Senador may be punished for not less than 6 months or not more than 2 years of imprisonment and may be fined of not less than P1,000.00, but not more than P5,000.00.

The unconditional compassion of these animal rights advocates for animals is very much understandable considering the depravity and the evilness of their ideology or philosophy. Like I said in a previous post, this group and all animal welfare groups are motivated by an anti-Man political ideology. While they publicly flaunt their unconditional concern and compassion for animals, they blatantly ignore the rights and welfare of man, as well as the negative, unintended impacts of their political advocacy on man’s interests.
This reminds me of the animal rights and welfare advocacy of Hitler and the Nazis in Germany in the 1930s.
Some of my friends call PETA a neo-Nazi group. Lest I/they be accused of committing a new ridiculous fallacy called “argumentum ad hitlerum”, which is actually a smear term and a fallacy unto itself, let me state here that Adolf Hitler was also an animal lover and an animal rights/welfare advocate.

This should debunk the so stupid a claim by some people that pet-hanger Jerzon Senador is a wannabe serial killer or whatever.

Section 2 of Nazi Law on Animal Protection states:

It is forbidden:
1. to so neglect an animal in one’s ownership, care or accommodation that it thereby experiences appreciable pain or appreciable damage;
2. to use an animal unnecessarily for what clearly exceeds its powers or causes it appreciable pain, or which it-in consequence of its condition-is obviously not capable of;
3. to use and animal for demonstrations, film-making, spectacles, or other public events to the extent that these events cause the animal appreciable pain or appreciable damage to health;
4. to use a fragile, ill, overworked or old animal for which further life is a torment for any other purpose than to cause or procure a rapid, painless death;
5. to put out one’s domestic animal for the purpose of getting rid of it;
6. to set or test the power of dogs on cats, foxes, and other animals;
7. to shorten the ears or the tail of a dog over two weeks old. This is allowed if it is done with anesthesia;
8. to shorten the tail of a horse. This is allowed if it is to remedy a defect or illness of the tail and is done by a veterinarian and under anesthesia;
9. to perform a painful operation on an animal in an unprofessional manner or without anesthesia, or if anesthesia in a particular case is impossible according to veterinary standards;
10. to kill an animal on a farm for fur otherwise than with anesthesia or in a way that is, in any case, painless;
11. to force-feed fowl;
12. to tear out or separate the thighs of living frogs.

This source narrates the sheer contradiction in the Nazi’s concept of rights and welfare. It states:

Many individuals in Nazi Germany genuinely believed in the “rights” of non-human animals, yet they simultaneously were capable of cruel behavior against members of the Jewish faith. Not only that, but they went as far as using animal protection as a justification for their inhumanity to the Jewish people, as explained by Arluke and Sax.
…
Another point that could be made regarding Nazi animal protectionists is that they were inconsistent in their actions. When juxtaposed against the pronouncement of a ban on vivisection and claims of ethical superiority, the treatment of the Jewish people and hideous medical experiments that were conducted are arguably inconsistent. Arluke and Sax offered additional examples that illustrate the inconsistent actions of the alleged “…friends of animals…” in Nazi Germany. Once again, however, we encounter another parallel with the contemporary AR movement. At the same time that PETA was expending large sums of money to obtain custody of the Silver Spring Monkeys, they killed 32 “liberated” rabbits and roosters at their Aspin Hill animal “sanctuary” for reasons of “overcrowding.” One wonders why a portion of their multi-million dollar annual budget could not have been used to provide suitable housing for those animals.

There is considerable evidence of acceptance of animal “rights” by officials of the Third Reich, who have proven to be some of the most heinous villians of our century. They loved those non-human animals, though. In Nazi Germany, practices such as vivisection were characterized as Jewish (by relating them to the ritual of kosher slaughter) and thereby vilified. Subsequently, reverence for the “rights” of animals was used to justify the oppression of Jewish people.

As to Hitler the animal lover, Goebbles wrote in his Diary, May 30 1942;

“He (Hitler) has bought himself a young German Shepard dog called “Blondi” which is the apple of his eye. It was touching listening to him say that he enjoyed walking with this dog so much, because only with it could he be sure that [his companion] would not start talking about the war or politics. One notices time and time again that the Fuhrer is slowly but surely becoming lonely. It is very touching to see him play with this young German Shepard dog. The animal has grown so accustomed to him that it will hardly take a step without him. It is very nice to watch the Fuhrer with his dog. At the moment the dog is the only living thing that is constantly with him. At night it sleeps at the foot of his bed, it is allowed into his sleeping compartment in the special train and enjoys a number of privileges….that no human would ever dare to claim. He bought the dog from a minor official in the post office in Ingolstadt”

Does this sound familiar? The Nazis declared great compassion for animals, yet they sought to eliminate the entire Jewish race. The die-hard members of PETA and animal rights group publicly declare the same degree of compassion for animals and pets, yet they don’t have the same compassion to drop a complaint against a pet-hanger named Jerzon Senador.

LEARN THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ANIMAL RIGHTS AND ANIMAL WELFARE!

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sat, 12 May 2012 17:12:00 +0000

IF YOU HAVE TROUBLE READING THIS PAGE, GO HERE.

Welcome! This page is continually undergoing construction, changes, additions, and improvements. Please stop back in, and feel free to link to or print out this page.
Links to other websites which examine & clarify the goals, philosophies, and monumental differences between ANIMAL WELFARE and ANIMAL RIGHTS organizations
http://www.furcommission.com/debate/
http://www.geocities.com/ktkris.geo/animalwelfare.html
http://arc.enviroweb.org/ARAW.htm

Do you donate money to animal charities? This page is designed as an educational tool so that you will know whether or not the group you choose to endorse/join/support/contribute to holds the same beliefs, agenda and goals that you do.
Each group or organization is a little bit different, but most fall under one of the following two categories:
Know the difference!

	ANIMAL *RIGHTS*	ANIMAL WELFARE
Goals Purpose Mission Group Classifications and links (many more to follow)	To end all human "exploitation" of animals - this includes, but is not limited to, raising and slaughtering of livestock for human or animal consumption, eating meat, hunting, using animals for any medical or veterinary research, zoos (regardless of how well managed), circuses, rodeos, horseshows, dogshows, animals performing in TV commercials, shows or movies (regardless of how well treated any of the above are), guide-dogs for the blind, police dogs, search *& rescue dogs, and the practice of owning pets.* PETA (People For The Ethical Treatment Of Animals) HSUS (Humane Society Of The United States) *************************************** Several of PETA's latest exploits have been their campaign to speak to children at McDonald's restaurants and to hand them literature designed to frighten them from drinking milk. In Vermont, PETA representatives coerced Vermont elementary school teachers to take down posters in classrooms bearing the slogan "Got MILK?" and threatened school officials with legal action if they did not comply. The governor of the state ordered that the dairy posters be put back up and promised to allot special moneys for a fund for legal defense against any future actions of the radical animal rights group. In Canada an Animal Rights group nearly put a company out of business that manufactures nutritional "sports snack bars." Claiming that the company had been guilty of cruel animal testing, they laced the bars with poison, necessitating a nationwide recall. Dogs and humans alike had been subjected to cold temperatures to test how well the nutritious snacks helped them to maintain body heat. None of the test subjects were subjected to conditions that in any way endangered their health or caused extreme discomfort. Last year, PETA made a financial donation to the Earth Liberation Front (ELF), a shadowy organization that the FBI has labeled "the largest and most active U.S.-based terror group." Since 1996, ELF and its sister group, the Animal Liberation Front, have caused more than $43 million in property damage resulting from over 600 attacks including arson, assault and property destruction on a massive scale. source: The Center for Consumer Freedom "I openly hope that it comes here." Ingrid Newkirk, PETA Co-Founder, on her desire for a USA hoof-and-mouth epidemic. Quotation from: "Hoping for Disease: PETA Hopes Foot-And-Mouth Strikes in the United States by Alan Elsner, Reuters, Norfolk VA 4/2/01 "It would be great if all the fast-food outlets, slaughterhouses, these laboratories and the banks who fund them exploded tomorrow... Hallelujah to the people who are willing to do it." Quote from Bruce Friedrich, PETA Spokesperson at the "Animal Rights 2001" convention. 2002 - PETA's tax exempt status is currently under scrutiny by the IRS, due to their history of criminal activity ************************** They Speak For Themselves** The following are quotes from PETA's own materials: "We are not especially 'interested in' animals. Neither of us had ever been inordinately fond of dogs, cats, or horses in the way that many people are. We didn't 'love' animals." --Peter Singer, Animal Liberation: A New Ethic for Our Treatment of Animals, 2nd ed. (New York Review of Books, 1990),Preface, p. ii. "Pet ownership is an absolutely abysmal situation brought about by human manipulation." -- Ingrid Newkirk, national director, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA), Just Like Us? Toward a Nation of Animal Rights" (symposium), Harper's, August 1988, p. 50. "The cat, like the dog, must disappear ... We should cut the domestic cat free from our dominance by neutering, neutering, and more neutering, until our pathetic version of the cat ceases to exist." --John Bryant, Fettered Kingdoms: An Examination of A Changing Ethic (Washington, DC: People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA), 1982), p. 15. "Arson, property destruction, burglary and theft are 'acceptable crimes' when used for the animal cause." -Alex Pacheco, Director, PeTA "...the animal rights movement is not concerned about species extinction. An elephant is no more or less important than a cow, just as a dolphin is no more important than a tuna...(In fact, many animal rights advocates would argue that it is better for the chimpanzee to become extinct than to be exploited continually in laboratories, zoos and circuses." (Barbara Biel, The Animals' Agenda, Vol 15 #3. Torturing a human being is almost always wrong, but it is not absolutely wrong." --Peter Singer, as quoted in Josephine Donovan, "Animal Rights and Feminist Theory, " Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, Winter 1990, p. 357. "As long as humans have rights and nonhumans do not, as is the case in the welfarist (animal welfare) framework, then nonhumans will virtually always lose when their interests conflict with human interests. Thus welfare reforms, by their very nature, can only serve to retard the pace at which animal rights goals are achieved." (Francione & Regan, "A Movement's Means Create Its Ends," Animals' Agenda, Jan.-Feb., 1992). "To those people who say, `My father is alive because of animal experimentation,' I say `Yeah, well, good for you. This dog died so your father could live.' Sorry, but I am just not behind that kind of trade off." - Bill Maher, PeTA celebrity spokesman (It bears noting here that advances in human medicine arrived at through animal research, usually carry an equivalent benefit to veterinary medicine - ASPCA and other Animal Welfare groups monitor conditions in laboratories and support legislation for humane conditions, but do not call for an end to laboratory research on animals--- webmaster's observation) "If the death of one rat cured all diseases, it wouldn't make any difference to me." --Chris DeRose, director, Last Chance for Animals, as quoted in Elizabeth Venant and David Treadwell, "Biting Back," Los Angeles Times, April 12, 1990, p. E12. "Even if animal tests produced a cure [for AIDS], 'we'd be against it.'" --Ingrid Newkirk, national director, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA), as quoted in Fred Barnes, "Politics," Vogue, September 1989, p. 542. "If it [abolition of animal research] means there are some things we cannot learn, then so be it. We have no basic right not to be harmed by those natural diseases we are heir to." --Tom Regan, as quoted in David T. Hardy, "America's New Extremists: What You Need to Know About the Animal Rights Movement." (Washington, DC: Washington Legal Foundation, 1990), p. 8. "Even granting that we [humans] face greater harm than laboratory animals presently endure if ... research on these animals is stopped, the animal rights view will not be satisfied with anything less than total abolition." (Tom Regan, The Case for Animal Rights, 1983). "If my father had a heart attack, it would give me no solace at all to know his treatment was first tried on a dog," Ingrid Newkirk, national director for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, (PeTA), Washington Post, Nov. 13, 1983. "Not only are the philosophies of animal rights and animal welfare separated by irreconcilable differences... the enactment of animal welfare measures actually impedes the achievement of animal rights... Welfare reforms, by their very nature, can only serve to retard the pace at which animal rights goals are achieved." --Gary Francione and Tom Regan, "A Movement's Means Create Its Ends," The Animals' Agenda, January/February 1992, pp. 40-42. "I'm an insulin-dependent diabetic. Twice a day I take synthetically manufactured insulin that still contains some animal products--and I have no qualms about it." Sweetland adds, "I don't see myself as a hypocrite. I need my life to fight for the rights of animals." -Mary Beth Sweetland, PETA "Liberating our language by eliminating the word 'pet' is the first step...In an ideal society where all exploitation and oppression has been eliminated, it will be NJARA's policy to oppose the keeping of animals as 'pets.'" --New Jersey Animal Rights Alliance, "Should Dogs Be Kept As Pets? NO!" Good Dog! February 1991, p. 20. "Let us allow the dog to disappear from our brick and concrete jungles--from our firesides, from the leather nooses and chains by which we enslave it." --John Bryant, Fettered Kingdoms: An Examination of A Changing Ethic (Washington, DC: People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA), 1982), p. 15. "[A]s the surplus of cats and dogs {artificially engineered by centuries of forced breeding) declined, eventually companion animals would be phased out, and we would return to a more symbiotic relationship--enjoyment at a distance." --Ingrid Newkirk, "Just Like Us? Toward a Notion of Animal Rights" (symposium), Harper's, August 1988, p. 50. ******************************************** FAQ (about the Animal Rights Movement) ANIMAL RIGHTS MYTHS by Kevin O'Donnell MYTH 2.15: "Animal rights groups should be supported by animal lovers." In fact AR groups such as PETA have many extreme proposals that pet-lovers in particular should be shocked by: "Pet ownership is an abysmal situation brought about by human manipulation" (Ingrid Newkirk, PETA founder Washingtonian Aug. 1986) "In the end I think it would be lovely if we stopped this whole notion of pets altogether" (Ingrid Newkirk Newsday, Feb. 21 1988) "One day we would like an end to pet shops and breeding animals [Dogs] would pursue their natural lives in the wild" (Ingrid Newkirk, Chicago Daily Herald Mar 1, 1990) "Eventually companion animals will be phased out...." (Ingrid Newkirk, "Just Like Us? Toward a Notion of Animal Right" (symposium), Harper's, August 1988) "Let us allow the dog to disappear from our brick and concrete jungles- from our firesides, from the leather nooses and chains by which we enslave it." (John Bryant, _Fettered Kingdoms: An Examination of A Changing Ethic_ (Washington D C, PeTA, 1982). p. 15) "The cat, like the dog, must disappear..... We should cut the domestic cat free from our dominance by neutering, neutering, and more neutering, until our pathetic version of the cat ceases to exist." (John Bryant, _Fettered Kingdoms: An Examination of a Changing Ethic_ (Washington, D.C.: People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, 1982), p.15) From the above, it is clear that pet-lovers have a great deal to fear from the AR movement. People who describe themselves as supporters of 'animal rights' are often shocked to discover the real agenda of the AR organizations. This is because being an animal lover is not the same as supporting animal rights. Most people who describe themselves as animal lovers, including most scientists, are in fact supporters of _animal welfare _ rather than animal rights COPYRIGHT NOTICE The author of this FAQ is Kevin O'Donnell (kevin@embra.compulink.co.uk). Permission is granted to reproduce and distribute this FAQ providing it is copied in its entirety, including the Acknowledgement and copyright notice and provided no charge is made. **************************************** Animal Shelters Should Tell Animal Rights Groups Show Us the Money! By Susan E. Paris President, Americans for Medical Progress For the amount of money raised and spent by U.S. animal rights groups every cat and dog in America ought to have its own condominium. Why then, do more than 15 million pets a year end up in underfunded local humane shelters with overworked staff who are frustrated that they cannot even adequately feed and care for them? And why are 11 million of these animals-three out of every four cats and two out of every three dogs- destroyed for lack of a home? The true measure of the success or failure of the animal rights movement in America ought to be the number and condition of animals in local humane shelters. Animal rights groups claim to corner the market on compassion for animals, so what more valuable a service could they provide? What more deserving an animal than one that has no home, food and medical care? Scores of news stories from around the country attest to the deplorable condition of local animal shelters. Among the problems cited: food shortages, overcrowding, open sewage pits of animal waste, rodent, ant and cockroach infestation and lack of medical treatment. At least one shelter, due to a lack of funds, had been forced to destroy unwanted animals using an old carbon monoxide chamber, or worse, because of difficulties obtaining the drug needed for a less painful death. Euthanizing an animal using carbon monoxide is considered inhumane because it is often a prolonged death which causes fear and suffering to the animal. In a 1995 direct mail solicitation, the president of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Ingrid Newkirk, wrote about the condition of one local humane shelter. She noted that the animals "suffered from overcrowding, lack of regular food and water, and a failure to provide veterinary care." Newkirk wrote that, "Shelter services have been drastically curtailed to the point where ...people with animals have been turned away at the door." So what has PETA done to help these homeless, hungry and sick animals and others that suffer and die in shelters each year? According to its FY 1995 tax documents, next to nothing. Less than $5,000, or .03%, of PETA's $13.4 million budget was allocated to shelter or spay and neuter program in the U.S. 90% of the $1,485,076 PETA donated, or $1.3 million, went to itself-that is, PETA's satellite offices in Germany, The Netherlands, and England. Next to PETA's overseas offices, the next largest donation, $45,200, was sent to animal rights terrorist Rodney Coronado to help him avoid going to jail for firebombing medical research facilities. Coronado is now serving a 57 month jail sentence. The Humane Society of the United States, for its part, raises and spends close to $50 million, enough to bankroll at least one well-run animal shelter in every state and have enough left over to spay, neuter, feed and save the lives of tens of thousands of dogs and cats every year. So how many HSUS-run animal shelters benefit from the HSUS budget? None. Yet the HSUS managed to pinch enough of its precious pennies to pay its president, Paul Irwin, $237,831 and its chief executive officer, John Hoyt, $209,051 in addition to providing tens of thousands of dollars in bonuses to the pair. What programs did the HSUS fund, besides the Paul Irwin and John Hoyt "Luxury Living Fund?" Legislative initiatives to ban horse tripping. National effort to ban bear wrestling. Contraception programs for elephants and deer. Why do animal rights groups refuse to help shelter animals, who need it most? Why attack the biomedical community for working with fewer than 150,000 dogs and cats, which live in comfortable surroundings and receive the best medical care, and yet do nothing for the 11 million hungry, sick animals are destroyed in animal shelters each year? The animal rights movement's main goal is not, and never has been, to save or help individual animals. Its mission is to market its philosophy and lifestyle to the American public-a lifestyle which is predicated on the belief that the life of a rodent deserves the same moral consideration as the life of a child. This sales pitch is most effectively done through massive media events, attention-grabbing legislative initiatives and fancy Hollywood galas. Shelter animals are sacrificed in the short-term so that animal rights groups can gain the money, power and influence needed to sell their view in the long-term. Animal rights activists cannot blame researchers, hunters, circus owners, meat-eaters, fur-and leather-wearers, fishermen or zoo keepers for the sorry condition of shelter animals. It is the animal rights movement which has turned its back on the suffering of these animals. Every local humane shelter should demand that animal rights groups show them the money. And every animal rights donor should find a local humane shelter to support rather than PETA's "naked celebrity" campaign or some executive's bank account. ***************************************** A colossal portion of HSUS's annual budget is allotted to staff salaries. **************************************** The National Charities Information Bureau (NCIB) is an excellent organization whose purpose is to be a resource on charitable giving, how charitable boards should operate, establishing standards which charitable organizations must meet to be worthy of receiving contributions, etc. Web site is http://www.give.org ) PETA did not meet the standards of the NCIB because PETA does not have a full board of directors!!! It's run by Ingrid Newkirk and about 2 or 3 others. No full board at all! ************************************** PETA has recently opened an animal shelter with a high euthanasia rate in VA. Monies spent on this new endeavor do not represent a substantial portion of this organization's budget, to say the least, and one must seriously question their motives - based on their mission statements of the recent past (none of which have been re-canted) it would seem the purpose of this shelter's existence is a PR move to counter their poor reputation regarding the welfare and treatment of animals. (italicized words are my own - Marci Sudlow 8-20-00) *****************************	To prevent suffering and cruelty to animals. And to provide care and good homes for pets in need. This often includes, but is not limited to, the funding and running of animal shelters (to provide a sanctuary for abandoned, abused, homeless, or unwanted pets, and to place them in good homes where possible, provide painless euthanasia for those that cannot be adopted, and to educate the public about the need for spaying/neutering their pets to prevent more surplus animals ending up in shelters), enforcement of anti-cruelty statutes (where their authority permits), initiating, lobbying for, and monitoring enforcement of legislation to ensure more humane standards of care for livestock, laboratory animals, performing animals, and pets. ASPCA (American Society For The Prevention Of Cruelty To Animals) MSPCA (MA Society For The Prevention Of Cruelty To Animals) *NAIA (The National Animal Interest Alliance)* http://www.naiaonline.org/aboutus.htm (at present there is a controversy regarding 2 of the 20+ persons on their board of directors who represent the "pet industry." Upon review of the facts, I cautiously endorse NAIA. To decide for yourself, please click on link below) http://www.angelfire.com/vt2/rutland/NAIAcontroversy.html AHA (American Humane Association) *Rutland County Humane Society* (This is a link to my local humane society shelter here in Rutland, Vermont. This shelter is an extremely well run, and fairly well-funded despite funding by donations alone. However most humane shelters nationwide are run on the same principles and are excellent causes to *donate* to, where contributions have a direct impact on homeless pets and animals in the community.) Collie Rescue League of New England (Similarly this is the dog breed rescue of which I am a member, and an example of an extremely effective such group. Similar rescue groups exist nationwide for nearly every breed of dog and for cats, and provide direct help in placing pets in need of homes) ****************************************************************************************** With great regret I report that ASPCA's most recent venture is the initiation of a lawsuit against Ringling Brothers Barnum & Bailey's Circus, ie "The Greatest Show on Earth," and traditionally home of some of the world's most talented and knowledgable animal trainers and historically best cared for performing animals. The lawsuit alleges training abuses and violations of wildlife laws. This misuse of money to harass this haven for exotic animals (in contrast to the poor quality of life offered by what is left of their natural environment where they are threatened with extinction by poachers and loss of habitat.) I am most distressed by this misuse of donations to fund this Animal Rights style campaign. I am not yet ready to discontinue my membership to this group, in light of the overwhelming positive accomplishments to their credit. However I am going to qualify that no portion of my donations are to be used for this misguided lawsuit, and I plan to watch their future activities carefully. On a positive note, in the wake of the World Trade Ctr disaster, ASPCA conducted an awe-inspiring endeavor of rescuing and reuniting pets with displaced owners who resided in evacuated buildings near the World Trade Center in NYC. Because ASPCA is, among other things, a law enforcement agency, their officers were permitted to escort pet-owners back into their apartment buildings, or to go on their own, to retrieve abandoned pets. ASPCA set up their mobile unit on a nearby site where all rescued pets were given a thorough check-up by a veterinarian, and in some cases held until they were deemed well enough to be released to their owners. Eye infections from the soot were treated; oxygen was given to pets with respiratory troubles, and IV fluids were administered to dehydrated animals. The percentage of successful rescues versus the very few animals lost was astounding. Also AHA was on the scene with a similar set-up to provide veterinary support for the search and rescue dogs. AHA's performance on behalf of these hard-working dogs was worthy of monumental praise. ASPCA operates a poison hotline/control center at 888-426-4435. Founded by Henry Bergh in 1866, the ASPCA is the oldest humane organization in America, and one of the largest hands-on animal welfare organizations in the world. The Society also prompted the New York State legislature to pass the country's first effective anti-cruelty law. The ASPCA headquarters in New York City houses one of the area's largest full service animal hospitals, an adoption facility, and the Humane Law Enforcement Department, which is responsible for enforcing New York's animal cruelty laws. The History of ASPCA In 1867 ASPCA operated the first ambulance anywhere for injured horses, two years before New York's Bellevue Hospital put into service the first ambulance for humans. In 1874 Bergh helped organize the first Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (SPCC) on behalf of an abused 9-year-old girl named Mary Ellen. In 1875 Bergh invented a canvas sling for rescuing horses that got stuck in the mud or fell into the river. In 1894 ASPCA assumed the job of caring for New York City's stray and unwanted animals, a function previously performed by New York City government. In 1902 ASPCA put a motorized horse ambulance into service. In 1912 ASPCA opened its first veterinary facility, a free horse dispensary. In 1916 ASPCA started a formal humane education program for school children. Raised money to help care for the 934,000 horses that served in World War I. In 1920 ASPCA advanced the use of anesthesia in animal surgery. First used radium to treat cancer in animals. In 1925 ASPCA began a weekly series of talks over the new communications medium: radio. In 1928 ASPCA expanded the humane education program with classroom demonstrations in public schools and summer playgrounds. In 1939 ASPCA inspected the 2,000 animals on exhibit at the New York World's Fair. In 1942 ASPCA took wartime emergency measures and conducted courses on care of animals in the event of air raids. In 1944 ASPCA inaugurated obedience training classes for dogs and their owners. In 1952 ASPCA began voluntary inspection of laboratories in New York that use animals for research -- the first program of its kind in the country. In 1954 ASPCA expanded its animal hospital by adding a contagious disease ward, pathology laboratory, X-ray therapy laboratory and an internship program. In 1958 ASPCA opened the Animalport at Kennedy International Airport to inspect and care for animals entering or leaving the country by plane. United States Department of Agriculture takes over this work in 1994. In 1961 ASPCA's animal hospital performed its first open-heart surgery on a dog. ASPCA acquired patents for pens for the humane slaughter of food animals and offered them royalty-free to meat packers throughout the world in 1964. Began a course to train animal handlers working for research institutions. ASPCA celebrated 100th anniversary in 1966 by renaming the hospital after Henry Bergh and presenting a gold medallion to Walt Disney for his positive depiction of animals. In 1973 ASPCA adoptions department began compulsory spay/neuter for all animals. In 1976 Dr. Gordon Robinson developed the Bergh bandage, a highly efficient design still being adopted across the country. In 1985 Government affairs office opened in Washington, DC, to monitor, initiate and lobby for legislation to protect animals. Advocated for Animal Welfare Act revisions to include provisions for the exercise of dogs and the psychological welfare of primates used in animal research. In 1992 ASPCA began promoting the adoption of retired greyhounds, administering a grant from the American Greyhound Council to help rescue groups across the country. In 1993 ASPCA along with 10 other humane organizations, initiated National Council on Pet Population Study and Policy, the first survey and census of shelter animals in the United States. In 1994 ASPCA helped to pass the 1994 New York State Animal Experimentation Bill that allows students who object to dissection to complete an alternative project without a negative impact on their grade. In 1995 after 100 years of providing animal control services for New York City, ASPCA declined to renew the contract in order to focus on national education, information and advocacy. Animated "Spokescritters" adopted by ASPCA from the Walt Disney animation studios. In 1996 ASPCA acquired the National Animal Poison Control Center, the only veterinary toxicology telephone service operating 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. Henry Bergh Memorial Hospital inaugurated the Care-A-Van, a mobile spay/neuter clinic for the New York metropolitan area. ASPCA offers new services: mobile vet-clinic vans to bring medical care to poor neighborhoods, as well as a Companion Animal Services dept.. The mission of the ASPCA Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals is to protect animals, relieve their suffering, advance their health and welfare, prevent cruelty, and work for a just and compassionate society ************************************************* The MSPCA/AHES's seven shelters around the state take in as many as 1,000 animals per shelter per month during the busy summer season. They provide vital services such as adoptions, behavior training, humane-education programs, and spay/neuter programs. Each year more than 80,000 animals receive outstanding routine and specialty care at the MSPCA's three Massachusetts-based state-of-the-art veterinary hospitals, including Angell Memorial in Boston, one of the foremost clinical veterinary institutions in the world. In addition to investigating cruelty complaints, MSPCA law enforcement officers inspect facilities and events involving animals; testify in court; work with police and social-service agencies in animal-related cases; and speak to school and community groups about animal care and protection. History of the MSPCA 1868 George T. Angell founds the MSPCA on March 23, after reading about an event in which two horses were raced to death 1868 Angell publishes the first edition of Our Dumb Animals —the first magazine "to speak for those who cannot speak for themselves" and the precursor to today's Animals magazine 1882 The first American Band of Mercy— a group of school children who pledge to be kind to animals and to keep them from cruel usage—is formed; soon there are hundreds of Bands of Mercy across the nation 1886 First official headquarters of the MSPCA is dedicated at 19 Milk Street, Boston 1889 The American Humane Education Society (AHES) is incorporated 1890 Angell publishes the first American edition of Anna Sewell's humane classic, Black Beauty, and distributes 2 million copies free through the Bands of Mercy 1893 AHES** distributes the children's classic Beautiful Joe 1909 George T. Angell dies

A key marker to NEW LEGISLATION being advanced by Animal Rights groups is
the use of the tag "Guardian" in place of the word "Owner." This choice of wording
may sound innocuous, but it has strategic legal ramifications designed to curtail
our own rights to enjoy our relationships with our domestic animals, as pet owners,
responsible breeders, exhibitors, animal sports enthusiasts, trainers, etc. Be
aware!

SPECIAL NOTICE: If you buy pet supplies from Lambriar Animal Health Care, you may be
interested in the following correlation:
   Lambert, Roger
   member, *Iowa Pet Breeder's Association ( Http://www.iowapetbreeders.com )
   owner,    *Lambriar Kennels, Inc. USDA license # 48-B-0043
                  Address: 100 Pine Street, Mahaska, KS
                    Phone 888-289-7871 or 785-245-3238
                    (known to boast "WE ARE THE NATION'S LEADING SUPPLIER OF COMPANION PETS.")
                    Website formerly at http://www.lambriar.com/
*Lambriar Animal Health Care ( http://www.lambriarvet.com/ )
     Address: 101 Highway Avenue (also listed at 100 Pine Street) Mahaska, Kansas
     Phone    800-344-6337

back to Marci's Menagerie

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sat, 25 Jun 2011 01:54:00 +0000

JAIL is THE NEW GOV TORTURE CHAMBER for the SUPER POOR.
CHARLES DICKENS, WHERE ARE YOU WHEN WE NEED YOU?

BOTH MY SON AND I ARE IN JAIL! NOBODY
CAN TAKE CARE OF MY GRANDKIDS. A
NON CRIME RUINS OUR LIVES!
~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~
Successful painter taken for big money & jail term by city of L.A.
an ex-tagger, 4 yrs earlier, his probation terms for graffiti were 'own no paint ever'. A.C.L.U. furious, ready to sue!
JUDGES TAKE KICKBACKS FOR SENDING KIDS TO PRIVATE, FOR-PROFIT PENAL INSTITUTIONS! SOON TO BE ENDEMIC IN AMERICA WHERE JAILS ARE PRIVATIZED
LIFE SENTENCE FOR SHOPLIFTING CHILDREN's VIDEOS for ARMY VET
THREE STRIKES you're out. HOW MANY OTHER LOVING DADS LIKE HIM? HOW MANY STATES have 3x law?
CAN'T PAY some BILL? DO NOT ALSO FAIL to GO TO COURT -- IF YOU DON'T, YOU GO STRAIGHT TO JAIL! Just show up and you can wiggle out of the whole thing!
KILLER CALIFORNIA, the most CRUEL STATE OF THE UNION
HOW COURTS MURDER PET ACTIVISTS who WAR WITH OTHER PET ACTIVISTS! The PENALTY? A HALF MILLION BUCKS FINE OR YOUR unborn BABY'S DEATH! Los Angeles Courtroom sentences young, pregnant woman to JAIL for CARING FOR a kitten! Cat is gassed, mother miscarries, baby dies, IN COURT! Another woman's dogs are taken, she's fined $400,000 and sentenced to l8 months in jail. Who turned her in? SPCA. Who got the money? SPCA!
All kinds of silly bogus beefs, total NON-crimes --get you sent to jail these days, if you're poor. NEW YAWK NEW YAWK... SNOOZE YOU LOSE. THEY JAIL YOUSE!
NEW YORK TIMES EDITORIAL ON HOW BAD IT'S GETTING
YOUR CHILD HAS A DEBT? AGAIN, ANOTHER WAY FOR PARENT TO GO TO JAIL
WHAT DO YOU SAY IN COURT? EASY! NO JOB, NO MONEY. Then they may forgive you, but FAIL TO SHOW? JAIL!
The Brightest Thinkers in the West Describe America's many inconsistencies & Inequities. This group of philosophers has amazingly nailed the causes of all our problems, see website CANNABIS NATION. And smaller minds still dare allege that grass makes you stupid!
FAIL TO PAY YOUR LIGHT/ HEAT? WATER? GET BEHIND ON HOUSE TAXES which are DOUBLE WHAT THEY SHOULD BE (CITY OF BELL SYNDROME EVERYWHERE) and DO NOT REFLECT THE NEW, LOWERED VALUE of HOME, SINCE RECESSION.... STILL, the CITY CAN TAKE YOUR HOUSE!
Galpal of mine turns house into B&B. Costs her a lot to do it, as building is 70 years old. She gets a little credit card slider machine as Europeans come.. Three years of biz, she has a few guests. She pays taxes. Suddenly out of nowhere, city of LA says that she owes 3 years of 14% of all grosses, as a tourist transit fee. In other words, not only is 350k owed by her, but they allege. l00 times what she earned, and they assayed a double penalty so total that they say she owes is 700 thousand! They intend to take away her home! Never get a credit card machine!
~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~
GOVERNMENT OVER-REGULATION.
~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~
License: The lawful definition of a license is, "A permit to do that
which, without the license, would be illegal to do". In other words, the
government suddenly makes something that was otherwise naturally lawful
to do, "illegal" by decree, so that they can then demand you pay them a
bribe, ostensibly a "fee" to turn their backs and give you a permit that
allows you to perform this act that they just said was illegal to do!
“License” is rooted in and derived from the word, “licentious”, which
simply means unlawfully evil.*Depraved. Do we need to put someone
in charge of us who calls our need to work and eat and feed children
DEPRAVED???
FROM: http://www.naturalgod.com/RightsFreedoms.html
Surf to that page, at the bottom you will see "License" - The Definition
~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~
YARD ART GETS THE POOR ARTISTIC SENIOR JAIL!
Growing food on her curb strip gets hungry senior cited by a city hungry for MONEY!
ILLINOIS JAILS YOU FOR BEING BLACK
CANDIDATE FOR NY GOVERNOR LOVES JAILING POOR PEOPLE. IT'S HIS MAIN PLANK, FIGURED it'll get him elected!
NOT SINCE DICKENS TIME DO THE POOR GO TO WORKHOUSES! BUT AMERICA DOES IT NOW!
ECONOMIC POLITICS, your FUTURE BEST BET HOBBY!
THE FINAL FILLIP: GETTING BEAT UP BY THE POLICE! HAPPENED TO TWO SEPARATE PEOPLE I KNOW IN L.A. BOTH WHITE.
SUE THE BUGGERS, how PROGRESSIVES can make spare money knowing the LAW as well as these VULTURES DO! Know the rules for being a protester!
We all know cases of those seniors who maybe can't afford gardener, didn't weed or cut their lawn. NOWADAYS, they get cited, then jailed and fined. I personally had city of L.A. cite me for jungle of fruit trees in my front yard, tell me they'd come in and do it & charge me thousands if I did not prune trees back myself. Almost killed myself pruning. The world's smartest man died pruning, George Bernard Shaw. Bones got infected after a break. A senior up on a ladder is against nature.
SOON there will be horrible laws in place to jail you if you grow your own vegetables. Monsanto chemistry corporation has enabled a Congresswoman, married to a Monsanto lawyer ( Mrs De Lauro) to see to it. She must be stopped, voted out of office as she's the one making GROWING VEGIES in your garden illegal.
SIGN HERE ______________x______ I BELIEVE WHAT YOU TELL US. I want to be a PRO BONO LAWYER, TRY APPEALS, DO CLASS ACTION LAWSUITS for millions, TORT CASES AGAINST THE ESTABLISHMENT to ENCOURAGE CITIES hit with PUNITIVE SETTLEMENTS NOT TO ever LET THESE RATS RUN THINGS again! I envision A NEW AMERICA PURGED of its gutter slime bureaucrats! If you get beat up at a picket or demonstration, the city pays you a million. Only a Pro Bono lawyer can get that deal for you!
LEGAL HEROES... THE LION OF BERKELEY, J. TONY SERRA
"Not a courtroom but a cash register.." Defense Attorney shaking her head sadly.
The real shocker is it is in the US LEGAL Code. IRS Judges can take money as bonus rewards. A woman Attorney threatened to go public with this fact, next day she was strangled to death! Check out this link and share it with your list:
http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/payoffs_for_judges_232.html

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Our POSTER is ANITA SANDS HERNANDEZ, Los Angeles Writer, Futurist and Astrologer. Catch up with her websites TRUTHS GOV WILL HIDE & NEVER TELL YOU, also The FUTURE, WHAT'S COMIN' AT YA! FRUGAL LIFE STYLE TIPS, HOW TO SURVIVE the COMING GREAT DEPRESSION, and Secrets of Nature, HOLISTIC, AFFORDABLE HEALING. Also ARTISANRY FOR EXPORT, EARN EUROS....* Anita is at astrology@earthlink.net ). Get a 15$ natal horoscope "my money/future life" reading now + copy horoscope as a Gif file graphic! No smarter, more accurate career reading out there!
http://www.masterjules.net/jailpoorindex.htm

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sat, 25 Jun 2011 01:40:00 +0000

It is my experience that SOME people who OVERLY FIXATE
on and ADORE animals --hate humans
I have first hand acquaintance with the "Blondii Syndrome." Blondi was Hitler's beloved German shepherd bitch who birthed her last litter in the bunker. He so loved her that A) for that last year he threw her in the hole with himself and his Gang, and b.) he had the whole group cyanided when he had to leave this plane, not trusting any pal to raise the pooch without Daddy along. (!) I knew this kind of person as my beloved father had all these traits. He adored his animals SO MUCH. He never in all the years that I observed him ever spoke a single word to any of us kids except to yell 'go to bed!' I knew him fifty years. NOT ONE WORD. Well, when he got near his 90's, 'come over and cook for me.' But in his 80's when he came to my house and I cooked, he'd just sit watching TV eating. He was not stupid. He was a big star composer arranger at MGM. Johnny Green, Mikos Rozsa, Franz Waxman, Tony Martin, Cyd Charisse, Greer Garson, Mario Lanza would come to our house. Mario would tear apart the fridge. Greer would sit at the piano with him planning her nightclub act. Daddy was hired by them all for their night club acts outside of MGM. He worked for Marlene Dietrich but SHE didn't come over. He worked for Charlie Chaplin, played tennis at Charlie's though. And Daddy played tennis at Rudy valee's til Rudy died and even after, The widow let him. So Daddy made house calls.
Like Hitler, Dad was used to being leonized, even by film stars, So imagine how cordial and witty he was at home when he conversed with Mommy at dinner and we were allowed to listen to his wit and brilliance, his Oscar Wilde act --performed at the dinner table. But WE didn't exist for him. He could not feature that one day we would need some grounding from a basic, social interacting, maybe some advice, some personal vignettes to know him better. Or that we'd need his counsel. WE GOT NONE OF THAT. His poodles got it. Same with his parents who were careerists too. And had pomeranians. All from Germany by the way. Only emotion I EVER saw from my father was that he wept when his dog Christy died. Once I went to his new house to reclaim my stereo (400$ from my first acting job had bought it.) He'd taken it after my Mother divorced him for philandering. Well as I started to walk out with it, he beat me up. Fists to face. I persisted and got out of the house with my stereo shocked that he should interpret my REPO as something that demanded fists! So, I'm getting to something here, a man who bonded with animals and was tender and loving with them and was miserable to every other relative.
So here's the Blondi THEOREM. Animal lovers having a choice, prefer pets to humans and do not feel ANY OF THE FEELINGS their family or friends have! They are numb to feelings. They will split their time fifty fifty with friends and family, but they're nimble at getting away from anything real, tedious with them. Their joy is the pet.
Hard Core animal activists don't have any use for humans. You want to prove a theorem, exaggerate it. Extrapolate to the end of spectrum. Animal activists --- they really LOATHE DESPISE AND HATE HUMANS! They maintain cordial, crisp modalities to hide the reptilian center but they'd as soon shoot you as talk to you. Like Adolph, pictured above. And I know it's true about a lot of pet lovers, especially the most virulent kind as I met some diehard activists recently.
I have never been put thru a Hell like the one I entered when I met the cat crone. It was 11 years ago, when I first moved into the Valley and began feeding my cats outside in fenced front garden. Other cats smelled the boiled chicken meat with green vegies added last four minutes & those freeloaders would come, so I'd feed them too. And it got to be a squadron of a half dozen hungry mouths.
Neighbors could see the laggards in the driveway their little heads bent over bowls of boiled chicken. The 'cat action' attracted the attention of a warped cat-fascinated crone, four houses down. Suddenly Our Dog Java (chained on long chain on tree during the day, got reported to the Pound. "No chain on any tree, madame, not for over 3 hours'' pound employee said.. Dog must be in a fenced back yard, no chain." "But My son gets off work early at 4pm, then boy and dog are together. "Sorry. Put him in the Back yard." So I did. A big big shepherd who didn't bother the cats, got the yard. No trees small enough for that chain, only fifty five year old trees. Yard was rounded and sealed by honeysuckle hedges on 8 foot high cyclone fences. The very first day, Java climbed the ivy and leapt out. My son and I both went driving around that day looking for him and my son found the smashed body, wept like a child for hours, said he hated me and would never talk to me again. Ever. And soon he was indeed to move out.
A few days after Java died, LATE AT NIGHT, I noticed 3 metal cat traps around my house, not so much NOTICING as they appeared at night, but hearing cats trapped in them --howling. I ran outside, there were my pets. Intuitively, I knew who it was. The crone down the street -- a woman with many cats, an animal lover and the same woman who had probably reported Java on a very long chain in the shade of a tree. Gotten rid of him and now was free to penetrate my fences and trap my cats.
I took the 3 traps to her and said 'my dear, you nailed three of my pet cats!' She played a critical Mother Teresa imitiation, said that she just wanted to neuter them and that she did this 'trap, neuter release' thing for ferals and how she spent three grand a month on vets. (I realized that she had Baron Munchausen madness ... vet addiction. she had a stand, blood bag, needle, did IV's on cats!) If you realize you have a lethal landmine buried in your own back yard, what do you do? I chose to build a rosebush around it. and stupidly didn't criticize her, didn't get mad, I tried to make her a friend so that she'd stop being a pain in the ass enemy. Hard to do as she never smiled, was grim, extremely critical of me, up tight and in general showed contempt and was no damn fun at all. Face like a rat,a rodent face by the way. Not a human face. Rat like.
A few days after that triple trap event, the crone saw that I'd gone to market, as my car was not in front. She broke into my back garden via the closed gate and from the tracks later, I realized she had run around all the RAISED vegetable beds, at high speed, knocking down planks, the stakes that held up the planks the loose, fertile earth spilled out over a dozen paths, and trampled vegies all of which she'd done RUNNING after feral mothers and their wildly fast kittens. When I asked next day, 'what were you doing in my garden, she said 'oh my tom cat is missing.' I wanted to scream, CRONE..you destroyed The Home Depot Mexican Cristobal's WORK of building raised beds, a few dozen of them. ALL GONE. Vegies stomped on. But I calmed myself and even believed that emotional story, though footprints and destruction showed me clearly that she was running!
In the next ten years, I let her help me neuter cats, my own and ferals. She wanted the baby kittens for her gal pals who had 'adoption agencies' of some kind. Later I'd discover that one of them, Monika, got 450$ a kitten donation. Monika preened about that, (being German ) but I didn't think anything. There were two other adoption agencies, Belinda's and Elyse's Probably all profiting, too. Later I'd google find the first two were legal charities, just not the last. ) I slid into role of feeder/ breeder for them and became a KITTY SUPPLIER without my even knowing what was happening. THEY knew what was happening. every summer to get the kitties, they threatened me, (We will report the cats, they'll all be killed by pound.) browbeat me, insult me. If I slowed down on handing over kittens, the Crone would tell me 'oh guess what, some of our neighbors want to report you to the Pound' making me instantly sick with dread. "But don't worry, I'll talk them out of it", she assured. The crone was like her rat face, mendacious, tricky, manipulative, Macchiavelian and downright weird but I COULD NOT SEE the VAST PANORAMA behind the BOGUS PERSONA. She manifested that she was Mother Teresa Incarnate so I continued to feed ferals and the crone continued to help me get neutering coupons and harvest the kittens. TWO LITTERS A SUMMER.. She gave me l8 lb kibble bags regularly so kitties would be fabulous. She made me pay her of course, full price. She wanted healthy kittens at all costs. It was so damn GERMANIC and NEW ARYAN MASTER RACE yet I swear, I couldn't see where we were heading. Not til the day very late in the game when she confessed she got $450 for a single kitten! THEN I GOT IT! But that was way later.
Then there is the cat master Mind, the man who set me up for JAIL!. How did I meet him? Hard times hit and the city stopped giving freebie neutering coupons. I asked this actress friend, (I'd known her since junior high so for 58 years) to use her PETA connections to get coupons. She and her very wealthy HUSBAND, MIChAEL were raving dog/cat activists. They avidly said they'd help. "You have no money for all that cat food, we're connected with PETA. Let us get together some free coupons, we're in with the whole Animal Regulation dept here." So, STUPID here, agreed to let them help me fix my cats, (noting they had city coupons available to them to get a 200$ spay or neuter surgery done for absolutely free and were super connected with the activist community. Even with the top OFFICIALS I was soon to find out!).
What I didn't note was that her wealthy husband accepted my petition with panting alacrity, glazed eye and AVID
INTEREST. Fool that I was, I did not realize he was in a paroxysm. He was now in his control. He was doing me a favor. My next mistake: I introduced him to my neighbor the cat activist the bible thumping Crone who trapped my kittens all the time, ran in my garden, also who fed cats at the airport, trapped, neutered, released and who'd gladly drive the cats in cages to CATNIPPERS (his freebie vet choice) and pick 'em up. Then he sent in a third activist, a German woman Monika who would do the actual trapping of ferals on my street and buckle my cats into their cages to give to the CRONE activist WHO DROVE. and picked up. My 28 year old Honda Civic was not legally tagged and up to date at times, at other times dead in the water, no tags, no water pump or I'd have driven.
They told me that 7 PM was cage up time. I indicated that I wanted to hand over cats in the morning or daytime as I went to bed at 3 pm being on a graveyard work shift. I reminded my junior high school chum the wife of the mad neuterer that I was a candidate for open heart surgery, had to oxygenate with SLEEP, 8 hrs of it. They were not interested. 7 PM or nothing. I had no time to get off GRAVEYARD SHIFT which takes advancing an hour a day...as we were neutering a few every weekend. I got on this shift at PSYCHIC HOTLINES and turned it into an exotic second job, being an astrology researcher writer, who wrote web seminars all night long, so as not to be distracted by daylight, gardening and other tempting stimulus. They insisted they had to come at 7 pm. In the middle of my sleep period. I begged for the pick up hour to be changed. SIX AM? 7AM NOON? Anything but during my sleep period! I was agreeable and polite, humble, begged on my knees. Almost. (There I exaggerate. I don't get on my knees for anybody. I guess I should have.) They all said No. Impossible. We need them at 7 PM. We fast them til 7 am when they go to doctor. Yes I said but I can fast them and 7 am is fine. NO. they said. Wouldn't hear it. Well I said, wait til I can change my body clock. I move forward an hour a day so in two weeks... I was mentally calculating when I heard: "No. NOW. TODAY Or we report you to city and they take 'em all to their death." "YOU WHAT?" I couldn't believe it. They were threatening to gas my cats?
I believe all edicts come from God. Somehow on some level, God mandates all. The waking me up after 3 hrs sleep went on every SUNDAY NITE for about five weeks cuz their vet would do 4 someweekends, or 5 or 3 or two at a time. I had to trap and cover cages so cats weren't frantic. I stopped sleeping entirely.
Prolonged sleeplessness makes even a HEALTHY YOUNG person ragged and weeping, depressed, insane and unable to earn a living (typing accurately at least,, which is what I do. I do horoscopes. Am an internet witch, have to type 8 hrs a day. I totally stopped doing my work. Clients piled up, I couldn't pay the rent. My landlord wondered what was up. I didn't know how to tell him it was CAT NAZIS. But it was something more. I am seventy years old, three holes inside my heart, aortic, sistolic and one more...pulmonary, that's it, and docs have been saying that I need open heart surgery to patch those three valves. I didn't tell that to the CAT NAZIS, though the guy's wife, my junior high gal pal, she knew it. They wouldn't hear or have empathy for ME. ONLY CATS and DOGS mattered to them. They were Tyrants for Tomcats: Their way or the highway. And they repeated the threats to send all my babies to the pound which would kill all my darling cats. So I remained stalwartly polite to my torturers. And obeyed orders SEIG HEIL MEIN FUHRER! I saluted!
And the well heeled cat activist man (married to my junior high homeroom class best gal pal,) wrote
horrid daily e mails to me many times a day insisting that I was being a prima donna, exact words, a jobless scoundrel, a welfare Barbara, (referring to 25 years of raising four kids with a Basque non paying daddy far away in Mexico City..) and in general KEEPING the best kittens for myself and dragging my heels, sending me complete raving diatribes emailed not only to me but CC'd to THE PRESIDENT OF ANIMAL REGULATION (read DOG POUND) in my city and to groups of his activist friends as if inviting them to a gang bang, claiming that this stupid woman didn't want to neuter her feral cats using phrases like: "I am going to report you and have them all taken by animal reg. " i.e. gassed. Spoken like a true Nazi. MASS' EM AND GAS 'EM. Now that's racketeering, threats and all, so I quietly mentioned that there was a Rico Racketeering amendment prohibiting profiting from criminal activity (a fake cat charity) and threatening famliies for kittens. They knew I was on to them.
I wrote my high school girlfriend, "tell your hubby to lay off! What he's doing is illegal. 8 emails here where he threatens me with killing my cats if I don't hand over that one kitty that I want to keep little Henry.". She's no PC gal, 'goes in her email once a month. So guess what happened. He opened HER email, and he answered me with all the same misspellings he used in his regular mail to me, yet he signed her name. He mimicked her prissy voice exactly even as "she" told me to piss off and stop being a bitch. 'She' had that Mary Poppins tone.
Next horror, the cat Nazis, (that's what I came to call them,) wanted all my young kittens. Seems the German cat nazi had kitties caged at her boutique and sold them like gum drops at her posh shop, got donations, big hefty ones for kitties, I refused, they threatened that they'd sic the cops on me. Dog police, get my animals all killed. I was a wreck. Breaking into tears at all hours. Unable to do my work, just writing letters to them saying I'm here, I'll do it. But the kitty named HENRY whom I loved most -- I wanted to keep. Or give to an astrology client friend. They wouldn't hear of it, said the kitten should NOT go to devilworshippers who did satanic ceremonies and told me all my astrology clients and friends were hippy warlocks, not theatrical agents, actors, dress manufacturers, heirs to iron pipe factories, school teachers, which they are.
So get the picture. These animal-loving activists invaded my life, dictated cruel hours, criticized me, ran me down to each other and threatened to murder my clan, all with evil sadistic glee. Each email lambasting ME was directed to groups of other activists they knew, utter strangers to me! Many working at ANIMAL REGULATION! WHo
seemed to share some fever of hatred against folks who didn't neuter, which I WAS DOING which I HAD ASKED THEM TO DO. But they didn't have any Jews to kick around that week so they had to make do with me. I became THAT "BAD CAT LADY" WHO WOULDN'T COOPERATE ---when I'd approached THEM! They depicted me to others as their favorite type of sluggard, the cat hoarder, even used that word!. With a mere TEN CATS (I fed ferals religiously but they weren't MINE. ) THE CAT NAZI CRONE NEIGHBOR
OF MINE HAD THIRTY cats in neat cages, locked in bare rooms like a concentration camp! Stacked like FIREWOOD. They never got out of these small rooms, 8 x 8. I was able to look in and see them when we went thru her garden. (I wanted to landscape it to pay her back). Every weekend, a few cats got neutered. Week after week, I got 3 hrs sleep on weekends. I was a mess. I've been on my doc's list for open heart surgery to replace valves, so I oxygenate with sleep. BUT NOT WITH THIS GANG. Months on end without sleep on weekends. And to boot, all week long, the MALE SUPER RICH ACTIVIST guy was sending me emails saying "give me kittens, do this do that or I call the pound" and they will kill all your animals, and he actually cc'd that email to three or four big pound officials. !!! He has no human sensations. Could not imagine a.) that I was cooperating, he had no need to take out heavy artillery, and B) that kind of thing cuts to the heart! A heart that already needed various parts replaced.
FINALLY, One eve at 7 pm, the Crisp German Lady activist, from Bremen actually-- real close to MUNICH where HITLER got his start --said "Can't we open the garage, for the ferals for when it rains." NO NEED. my back door is open, cats use it when they need it. 24/7. I have my son's guns in the garage, I can't unlock it. What if these guns got stolen? Thieves around here with a shotgun and pistol?
She went right to the rich sadist and told him. Anita is armed. She could kill us all if we push her too hard. At that point the RICH GUY went bezerk; feeling in his total guilt of being a sadist this paranoid feeling that I'd shoot him! That he had pushed my buttons to the Nth degree and that I was capable of murder. SUCH WAS HIS PARANOIA. Right? Hitler was a notorious PARANOID. Let nobody near him at public functions. So the RICH CAT ACTIVIST did some serious sleuth work and tracked down my entire family. He emailed and phoned
each member of my family, said I was uncooperative, wouldn't allow animals to be neutered (by then they were all neutered by that time so he lied like a rug,) and then he asked very obliquely, was it true I had guns in the house?
IMAGINE you're my mother and sister, my brother, my sons, my daughter and they all hear that? YOUR MOM IS CRAZY AND HAS GUNS. Well, I get these phone calls saying just that. "ARE YOU CRAZY" HAVE YOU TRULY GONE AND LOST IT?" I try to explain the above, get no further than CAT NAZIS and they hung up on me. None would invite me for Thanksgiving or Christmas. I was out crowd wIth my own crowd. Have not seen any of them since, none have talked to me either. SCARY. MY LIFE RUINED in one fell swoop by a cat lover. Only he made ME look wacko!
So, I am writing this to explain the misunderstanding to my family. The gun remark by the Male Cat nazi was nothing more than ADOLPH Hitlerish, UTTER raving PARANOIA of getting SHOT BY ME, by my going to his mansion and picking him off from the curb. Paranoia goes with evil as does guilt. Hate/ Paranoia, Murderous feelings, these syndromes are typical of this TYRANT type. They hide it from themselves by having great love bouts for kitties and puppies. Or being PETA donators. They know unconsciously that they're wack jobs, petty tyrants, sadists, people haters. WHich is why guns terrify them as in their mind, all humans are potential killers. All of this is part of the Blondi SYNDROME. I hear it's called the PETA SYNDROME too. They love dumb critters which can't talk back, don't criticize, who need love every time they see you, don't hold anger and have big soulful eyes. They drape animals in anthropomorphic gloriousness. See things in them that aren't really there. That glistening cocker spaniel eye and licking tongue is TOTAL true meaningful LOVE. No matter that it's really advanced STOCKHOLM SYNDROME by the poor trapped animal.
BUT THERE ARE THREE OTHER HORRORS TO GO. Each worse. First, five cages go off to the CatNippers one morning, (four ferals, one my pet Patti Kate.). Four cages return. The crone brings the four to the curb, starts unwrapping groggy cats. Pure white young PATTI KATE is not there. She denies she was ever there. I call the rest of the SS. Cat Team, complain, Dorothy didn't bring my pet home, just the four ferals. She STOLE the pure white cat! Dorothy drives off, angry and brings back Patti a few minutes later from her garage. She'd tried to steal her and I've made her lose face. I just had my baby back, I sort of forgot about it, but she did not.
A few days later, the Bible thumping crone told me that my cat HANNAH needed surgery on a small supperating spot in the ear and she wanted to have Vet see her and she'd be right back. I couldn't drive a car legally, spent all my money on raw chickens for the cats. But she wouldn't hand Hannah over after. Said Vet wanted a surgical date next "WEDNESDAY" I remember it well. I'll keep her til then I said. No, she said. A WARNING BELL SHOULD have gone off in my head. I should have called a COP but all of these people would have reported my other cats to POUND and killed them if I disagreed with anything. And,I couldn't pay for surgery and the RICH MALE NAZI said he'd pay for the surgery. Wednesday came and went, crone told me she had to give medication now. She wouldn't give her back -- after surgery!
Basically the ancient crone added HANNAH FONTANA to the 30 zombi cats she had neatly locked in rooms, in cages. 8 to a meatlocker. My darling fur daughter got the bathroom, all alone, not even the full bath, an icy powder room in October or November. I begged her for my cat back, implored. --DID THIS one day for a solid hour outside at top scream. FOR next two MONTHS I would go over to front yard, talk to Hannah through the window, explaining why this had happened.. I was imagining what Hannah was going thru in the powder room. Having to suck up to Crone the Cat Nazi when she made her appearance with some kibble for a few minutes each day. Stockholm Syndrome -- Hannah who used to love her cat confreres, roam house, garden, doors open 24/7, lie in the sun, come to Momma and get petted, tummy scratched, when SHE WANTED COMPANY, not when I wanted it, get real meat instead of Friskies kibble....that Hannah was now in Aushwitz. I wept and was told by friends, call the cops on her, allege theft.
I am unable to do things like that. Besides, over the last 11 years I know the crone, she's told me that all my neighbors want to report the amount of ferals around here and have them gassed and she's my only HEDGE against genocide. So December, the CRONE phones me. Hannah is dying, maybe a few hours left. Come say goodbye. I went over. Hannah looked 'out of it' but she could walk. I talked to her at length. She purred. I begged the neighbor woman to give her to me for what was left of her life. She refused. It would have taken my grabbing the cat and running. I thought of it. I gauged this woman's scratching me and screaming and calling the POUND and killing all my other cats vs. just accepting. I went home, a few hours later I got a phone call. The horrid woman said that Hannah had just died. Of GRIEF I AM CERTAIN.
This crazy crone who goes daily to one of those churches to join with Jesus (in her own unholy mind at least,) so that she can make the RAPTURE during Appocalypse while the rest of this planet sinks down to Hell managed to out do herself with hellish hurts.
A few weeks after Hannah's death, the crone came into my garden and stole a 4 1/2 month old male kitten who was so loving and hand tamed (his Mom was a wary feral,) and so close to my heart.. Within minutes of my return from market, she phoned me. "I have your kitten" she said. Oh good. That's good. I went to her house, she's at gate, I go past her, went in and started to look around for him. Suddenly I felt a heavy weight fall on me from behind. She had leapt on my back like an octupus, wrapped her arms around me strangling me with right forearm around my neck, smashing my voice box. And screaming HELP at full pitch. I realized she was setting me up for her neighbors to come in on this scene. Her final revenge. A plotted out plan, That was why she told me to come over.
I couldn't get her off no matter what so I walked around the house opening doors with this human riding my back, with a stranglehold on my throat, clawing my neck and arms; (they were bleeding when I got home). I figured, don't talk, don't complain just check the doors, the bedrooms, go get my kitty. I found him locked in the bathroom just like Hannah had been. I picked him up and she swung around to hang over my front, hands around the BACK of my neck, crush the kitten against my hipbone. I set him down and backed thru the hall, she's eighty so I didn't try to unwrap her arms. She saw a scowl in my eyes not three inches from hers. I reminded her she'd tried to steal Patti Kate and killed Hannah just to get back at me for busting her in public for the theft and now she'd taken the kitten to really get back at me. (I hadn't figured out then that it was on THE RIcH GUy's orders. I'm slow. That ocurred to me way later, after they jailed me.) i told her She was a devil of revenge, not a christian. Satan she talks about all the time was in her. Astonished, she let go, I picked up the kitten and my shoes which had fallen off and walked out on a real crazy cat lover.

ONE MINUTE LOCKED IN A ROOM IS HELL. NEVER
LOCK A CAT UP EVER! MY MOMMY SAVED ME FROM
MONTHS or YEARS OF IT AND CERTAIN DEATH.
I weep for my darling cat Miss Hannah who until death released her was locked in a BUCHENWALD or AUSHWITZ cold tile room full time...with a little Hitler crone but I'm filled with joy that I got my kitten out.
Today I am wary of PETA types. I stay away from Cat Activists. Kurrent Kulture hasn't as yet identified the full virulence of the PETA SYNDROME so I thrust forward my evidence, the Blondi syndrome -- for your perusal. Basic Blondi THEOREM, i.e. PSYCHO SICK animal lovers who ---having a choice, ---prefer pets to humans.
They do not feel ANY tender emotions for the family or friends that God gave them. They are numb to human-targeted-feelings. They will give some time to friends and family, but they're nimble at getting away from anything real, tedious with them yet will 'goo goo' with kittens and puppies. That makes animal lovers sociopaths, no?? Their reality is that (domestic) animals are most trustworthy/predictable (perhaps even more appreciative?) than humans, have bigger hearts as they are always in the "Now"/moment and loyal to whomever gives them good care. The pet fanatic sees how egoless they seem, always loving, licking them and interprets that brainless kindness as genuine devotion. Humans are a turn off to them. Their own wounded, PARANOID BRAIN and CUT OFF HEART don't allow them to see that Humans are much greater. All pets look up to us lovingly but they're basically in a kind of instinctual Stockholm syndrome. The human is in total control. The pet never confronts the human with his/her weird ugly quirks. There is no judgement cuz there' s limited brain. Copping to the fact that only a brainless critter can adore you, be loyal to you, should warn you that there must be something you are NOT doing with humans like bonding with them, loving them, serving them, being rudimentarily NICE and building tender relationships. Anyway, my take is, that devotion to critters is a very bad sign. Do not buy your children pets, ever!
I kind of wonder what made this Bible thumping crone tick. Why she'd hit bible classes daily reading only appocalypse chapter, calling everyone SATAN who wasn't going into the rapture, forgetting l0 commandments, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not covet nor bear false witness... and yet steal the really pretty cats from a neighbor and justify it with 'your cat needed my medicating." She had been raised on a farm a singleton child, her only companion the animals there, parents struggling with depression era hard times, very stressed. The poor demon could only bond with animals. I am filled with compassion for the evil bitch.
Life settled into a happy rut. I'd feed the cats at dawn and they'd go into the two jungles, front and back, climb trees and watch squirrels. I didn't see or hear from Dorothy for three months, no idea why. Well HERE'S WHY. Her punishment for trying to ENTRAP ME was this. way after she sent me to jail for going past her into her house to get my kitty out, I learned that the evil crone had fallen and broken her hip 3 days after our encounter. She'd been placing a wind whipped tarp up on the roof in the rain. She fell, broke both hips. Three days after she tried to entrap me. She was hospitalized for several months, all of her 30 illegal cats taken by members of her appocalyptic church (You know the kind, "Me go up in rapture, the rest of you are Satan.) She blamed me for the fall. Day she got out of the hospital she had promptly reported me to cops as a criminal who'd trespassed, hit her and stolen HER cat.
So one day a lady police officer comes to my door. "Dorothy is charging you with trepassing and battery. ME? She beat ME up! I said. I tried to tell the cop what really happened."She phoned me up said come over, I've got your kitten which she'd stolen from here an hour earlier. I'd been in her home a thousand times, why wouldn't I GO?"
Just then, little Mr. Ruggles came to the screen door. This is the very cat, I said. I pointed. I didn't know this was a strictly animal cop so when she started talking about my avoiding the pound officers, as she's rattling her manacles her cufflinks and she's got this huge gun, I got faint. I told her to go away, she'd need a warrant to talk with me further. So she heard me for ten seconds. That was the extent of her report on me. It was skewed in favor of Dorothy.
I got a notice, I'm called to court. So a week or two go by, the morning of court, I'm barely dressed, door bell rings. 20 people, cops,animal reg, police, 3 psychiatrists drag me outside. They had a crime report where Dorothy says I hit her multiple times, a search warrent, they pulled me into the street, put me in cuffs, sking me if I knew what year it was and who was president....searched my house.. Not a single cat was in there. So the shrink kindly took me to the court 6 miles east. I waited all day in court, at 3 pm, finally, I'm up to base. The policewoman didn't indicate that she'd been wrong. That I in fact had no cats. That Dorothy had lied. None of that. She didn't want to admit that her investigation was skewed in favor of the Cat Nazi. She'd bought every lie and The crazy lady had lied like a rug. My public defender was like a PUBLIC PRETENDER, she never spoke up though I'd told her the facts. Judge only saw the "Crime Report" the cop had taken from DOROTHY. I was not allowed to say a single word. I asked for a jury trial. Even if it was 'he said, she said' . The prosecutor said 'well take stealing the cat off the table, we'll take assault off the table. Just leave the trespassing if you forgo a jury trial. The judge said that if I asked for a jury trial I might lose and he'd give me 18 months in jail. I said fine, you can sentence me right now, no jury just for trespassing. TO my shock I was given 3 yrs probation for trespassing and forced to attend 52 'cat hoarder meetings' also to pay 1500$ for these classes. My combined soci. secur and disability is 620$ and that's for rent, food, utilities. I am 70 yrs old, facing open heart surgery can't walk 12 miles to classes, no money for bus. I can't give that sum of money to city of L.A. for classes but if I don't, I go to jail for trespassing. I was in shock In the court there was another girl, pregnant and weeping, I leaned over asked what ws wrong. She'd been gifted with a kitten. Her two children loved it, 2 mos later, the neighbor GIFTER lady says give it back to me. The young mother won't, gifter presses charges. Alleging all kinds of crzy things that were untrue. Same deal, nobody talks up for the accused, the plaintiff always can allege anything, that is all that's on the record. The young mother had been punished with 800$ worth of cat hoarding classes to last a half year. She took them but then she couldn't come up with the last $250 balloon payment, a 'signoff fee' and had been fired from he job. No cash to eat. I heard judge say 'borrow it from your family' or he'd put her in jail. That's when I left the court but I got her email address, wrote her a few days later. She didn't answer. I thought she was in jail. 3 weeks later she does answer. She had lost the fetus and faced D&C surgery . And guess what, that same judge now wants her to WORK for the city to pay off her bill for the classes. She was too upset to explain it in detail. So I wrote that up in "HOW THE CITY SNOOKERS US"
I Google researched the judge, Dennis Mulcahey. Turns out some poor woman by the name of ZsuZsa Blakely had l7 rescued dogs that she loved and adored. SPCA turned her in for sheer number of pooches. That judge and that D.A. or prosecutor, (my rich enemy's best boy pal, Name of D.A. Cocek, gave her 6 months in jail and fined her $400,000 so she lost her house. SEE STORY #13 on this ANIMAL RIGHTS PAGE if you don't believe me. ASPCA had been in on the bust, taking relish in it. Pet People again. Prosecutor was notorious Donald Cojek who prosecuted my own case and that of the girl (mother of two fatherless children,) who lost her third pregnancy fetus from sheer stress, as she walks out of the court where the Judge said he was going to JAIL HER... court records will prove this. She was made to pay over 900$ for cat hoarder classes, and now works free for the city so they can fire regular union workers. To pay off her debt to society which was made up by the animal cop. Cojek supports his buddy and the villain in my piece, Michael Bell who if the truth were known, runs an illegal cat charity out of a posh gift shop in Woodland Hills called "Monika's Elegance". Under the silver, china, bronze, copper trinkets you will see cages full of kittens. Monika confided to me that she gets as much as $450 per kitten donation. Kittens are locked in cages in the shop or in her garage until some poor dupe takes them, the donator believing that he's helping a 'charity' or rescue org. All they're getting is a young kitten torn away from his mommy's teat early so he's still gorgeous darling..but who's going to be permanently traumatized and neurotic! NO KITTEN should be taken until he is weaned. PERIOD. I know first hand how Michael Bell, Monika and Dorothy blackmail one with threats to have all the ferals gassed by pound, to get you to release a kitten before weaning. Dotty did it to me for 11 yrs, Bell for one miserable AUTUMN and went so far as to call my family and tell them I was crazy. He googled up every member of my family. To date, no family member has ever talked to me again. THAT IS RIco RACKETEERING AMENDMENT definition. Torture, blackmail for an illegal enterprise. That is what I threatened him with and why he set me up.
Avoid Cat Nazis, cat Activists. Feral trap and release people as they are obsessive. If one guy cages cats or lock them indoors and the other leaves them feral, they war with each other and report each other. THEY basically HATE PEOPLE so they are dangerous! ANY disagreement with you over anything, they stomp you like an ant.. Try to get your city officials to give you neutering coupons. If you can't get them, or you hit your coupon limit, get friends to get the coupons. Do most of the important neuterings first, which would be to go for females only, just to stop birth explosion flat. Now, it's true a male cat will travel a mile if he smells a female. And you can't lock a potent male in the house, he sprays. So maybe choose the females for house pets. Another thought, do what I did, turn them all feral. Build cat houses in garden for cold weather. In snowy climes, use heating pad under blankets. In December, we sunbathe here, so that's not a California thing. RAIN is scarse, a tarped lanai with cat houses will work fine for your ferals. But I do have a rich gal pal in Massachusetts with a mansion too fine for pets who puts heating pad in dog house all winter. I scorn her bigtime for not letting them in but they are feral!
You can feed a dozen cats cheaply if you avoid commercial catfood. Go holistic with the cat friendly cheap meat diet. (I boil 49c lb chicken quarters twice a day.) Avoid or use less corn/kibble which is not natural to carnivores and causes mucus in body ergo diseases, in both humans and pets. Use more simmered chicken, green vegies added at last minute. Cats can tolerate much more fat than dogs so I leave chicken SKIN in there but I take all broth, fridge it, skim hard fat off, into tins, give to soap makers via craigs list freebie ads.
Feed all your ferals, hope that they handle themselves wisely having the consult of Mother Nature, be there for them. But don't be there for your neighbors. Humans are lousy. Only animals are good. OhOH, did I say that? I guess I now have BLONDI SYNDROME too.
http://www.masterjules.net/blondisyndrome.htm

Brooksville, Florida Animal Control too busy killing animals to talk to people who want to adopt

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Tue, 10 Aug 2010 22:04:00 +0000

Brooksville, Florida Animal Control too busy killing animals to talk to people who want to adopt

July 19, 6:40 PM
Tampa Animal Welfare Examiner
Maryann Tobin

A Hernando County Animal Services worker came out to the adoption area this afternoon wearing a pair of surgical gloves. As he walked past a family trying to get someone to help them with a potential dog adoption, he said, “They have to stop sending people back here, I’m busy euthanizing.”

Kennel Worker, Dave Krusko appeared angry and frustrated as he walked past me. Then I heard him comment that he had been “euthanizing all day”, and again complained that the people in the front office should not be “letting people back here when I’m euthanizing.”

People who care about the disposition of abandoned animals are generally upset by ‘kill shelters’, but to witness a half-dozen people being chased away from the adoption area because a kennel worker was more eager to kill animals than to get them homes - is an outrage.

It is unclear as to whether Mr. Krusko had been ordered by his superiors to kill a certain number of animals today, or if the problem lies in some other part of the Hernando County government system.

Regardless of the circumstances, this examiners eye witness account of putting killing animals ahead of getting them homes is an intolerable abuse of power by local authorities - which must be stopped immediately.

See UPDATE: Brooksville Florida Animal Control makes excuses to kill animals instead of having them adopted

Here is info on their website Hernando County Animal Services

19450 Oliver Street
Brooksville, Florida 34601
(352) 796-5062
Fax (352) 796-3746
EMAIL: ac@co.hernando.fl.us
Visiting Hours (Office & Kennel):
Monday - Friday: 9:30 a.m. – 4:30 p.m.
Saturday: 9:30 a.m. - 1:00 p.m.
Phone Hours:
Monday – Friday 8:00 a.m. – 5:00 p.m.
Saturday: 9:30 a.m. - 1:00 p.m.
CLOSED: Sundays & Holidays

SPCA CONFISCATION

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 08:37:00 +0000

By Jean Pattison
African Queen Aviaries
Lakeland, FL

This was written on 12-18-06 with some additions as they developed, and the final today 8-2-07. All the italic from page three on, is the updated material.

I sat down last night about dusk, wanting to write this article and didn't know where to start, or if it would even be read, or do any good. All of a sudden I heard one of my small Poicephalus screaming wildly. I knew something was horribly wrong. I ran out to find a hawk flat against the side of one of my flight cages with a mirror image of a little Red-bellied flattened against the inside of the cage wall. The wire on the cages is only 1/2″ X 1″ wire, and there is only six inches of space between the cages. Somehow the hawk squeezed between the cages and partition and was able to grab my little male Red-bellied. I quickly scared off the hawk and grabbed my little Red-bellied out of his flight cage. I saw no blood anywhere and he only favored one leg a bit, so I think he will be okay, just a bit scared ... well a lot scared. He is now in a holding cage in the house under my watchful eye.

I came back to the computer with tears streaming down my cheeks, thinking to myself, is this all really worth it?

There are so many things we breeders have to worry about. Birds becoming ill, working many hours a day cleaning cages and feeding the flock, the public's perception that we are factory farms, when in reality we are lucky to have our birds breeding and healthy. We don't take vacations with our loved ones, since we can't find good help to take care of our flock while gone. We worry about theft, and never leave the premises at night. Since working on the Florida theft committee with Jan Schotenlore and Linda Meade for three years, there is much I learned, and learned what to be afraid of.

If we didn't love our birds so much, I am sure a lot of breeders would just throw in the towel.

Thieves know what they are doing. For many years now, I do not go to bed until 2 or 3 a.m. and then my husband gets up and patrols the property until daylight. We did once have 2 men climbing over our back fence with burlap bags, to steal some of our birds. So the vigilance does pay off.

When I retrieved my little Red-bellied from the clutches of the hawk, I was angry, very angry. So much we go through. We are judged by every group o f animal people there are, starting with rescue organizations, pet people, bird behavior consultants, anti-breeding groups, pet "over population" groups - and then there was the ordeal of September 10th, 2006. A lot of professional breeders and aviculturists have just gone through this ordeal together, and this is the reason for my article.

The ordeal I refer to was an injustice perpetrated by a new kind of "thief" - "thieves" who do their dirty work under color of "legal authority" - "thieves" who operate using the "letter of the law" against innocent and law abiding animal breeders - "thieves" who can steal our animals from us when we are doing nothing wrong. Those "thieves" are those officers employed as law enforcement officers and animal shelter personnel who believe in the "animal rights" philosophy and religion - people who do not believe that we should breed animals to be sold as pets. President Bush calls religious fundamentalist terrorists "evil doers." We now have to deal with another kind of fundamentalist terrorist "evil doer" - the "animal rights evil doers" who take our animals from us because their "animal rights" religion tells them they should, by whatever means available.

Early in the morning of September 10th, while a breeder was at a bird expo for the weekend, a group of terrorist evil-doers entered her home and proceeded to remove approximately 35 pairs of her breeding cockatiels, mostly show cockatiels, as well as a few other species and her pet birds. The total birds removed were at about 100. Cage trays were removed and dumped on the floor; cages were turned on their sides, with nest boxes containing newly hatched chicks and fertile eggs. The cages were then shoved into waiting vans. Naturally the chicks were smothered and died, and eggs addled and embryos killed. The terrorist evil doers claimed that they had been told they could move breeding pairs without harming or upsetting the birds. Wonder what expert told them that? The evil-doers removed all the animals on the property, and took them to a warehouse to conceal their loot.

Just a bit over three months passed and the birds were retrieved from the holding facility by their owner on December 16. I was in attendance. Many of the birds were thinner than when they were taken. Many were very plucked and tattered from being overcrowded. Some of the birds were even in too small of cages for the species, as well as not being as clean as they should have been. Birds, including breeder birds, had their bands removed while in the custody of the evil doers. While working the theft committee for three years, this is the same scenario we saw over and over again.

The terrorist evil-doers in this story? The SPCA of Pinellas County Florida! And to make matters worse, the animal removal was all done under the supervision of the local sheriffs department.

As the story unfolds, a disgruntled neighbor called the sheriff about barking dogs. The sheriff entered the house through a back door that she claimed was left open, and found the birds, in what was in her “opinion” an abusive situation. The bird that started it all was sun conure with a plucked chest that the breeder had just gotten from a friend that was retiring. The sheriff concluded that this bird must be abused! The sheriff didn't know to take into account the very visible fat chest, and perky attitude of the bird. Animal Control was then called in and refused to take the animals, seeing no violations. The undeterred sheriff then called the SPCA, who will gladly confiscate any animals. This is great publicity and sympathy always brings in money. This particular SPCA has on their website, if called anonymously they will hold your name in confidence, and "SPCA Humane Officers will follow up on your information. Every attempt is made to improve the animal's situation through owner education and persuasion. When this does not lead to positive results, the SPCA works closely with city and county law enforcement officers to correct the situation."
http://www.spcafl.org/site/PageServer?pagename=cruelty_invest

(The pictures on the web pages are not of this breeder's birds. These are from a more recent case.)

In our case, the owner's friend arrived at the owner's home, as requested by the owner, to check up on the birds and newly hatched babies as well as check on their food and water. The friend was arrested for animal cruelty. The owner was called and said she would return home immediately. The police and the SPCA told her they would not wait, and took all the animals. I assume they don't read their own web page. Once the breeder's friend arrived one would have thought since there was a caretaker on premises, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) could have been called. We Florida breeders are licensed and governed by the FWC, which regularly inspects bird breeders. If there are violations they issue a warning and return to reinspect the facility to verify that the violations have been corrected. In extreme cased they will confiscate.

Thanks only to Fred Smith, the regional director of the American Federation of Aviculture (AFA), in his tenacity to get to the bottom of this, were the breeders in Florida made aware of this injustice. The regional director, Fred Smith, wanted to know if one of our AFA members was really as bad as the news media portrayed, and investigate the accused member. Fred Smith went to the SPCA to see what the conditions of the birds were.

Upon arriving at the SPCA and seeing the birds, Fred was shocked at how well t he birds looked, and none were in any type of abused or neglected condition. Fred, like the rest of the public, had read the newspaper accounts and had seen the TV news stories about how abused and neglected the birds were and that they were in horrible condition. Fred, along with attending every bird expo in Florida educating people about the care of birds and promoting the AFA, tending his own flock of breeding birds, and fulfilling his regional director duties, spent the time uncovering facts and investigating the circumstances around this confiscation.

Once Fred was satisfied with the breeders care of her birds, we were all made aware of the case. Fred spent countless hours on the phone, and one call was made to the Florida Federation of Aviculture Inc. (FFAI). The FFAI, working with the AFA, was brought up to speed and immediately started their own investigation, and held an emergency meeting.

Notices were put out by Fred and other FFAI members with the date of the first court hearing. The SPCA was filing a petition for ownership not only of the confiscated birds, but also for any other birds owned elsewhere by the breeder, and her friend. They petitioned for fines and jail time to be imposed on the breeder and her friend, and they asked the court to order that the owner and her friend were to never own birds again. They also asked for a court order that the breeder pay all boarding fees and other costs incurred by the SPCA. The fees and costs to date are approximately $13,000.00.

During all this time, there was an ongoing criminal investigation, so no information was, or could be, given out to the public or to the news media. In many animal confiscation cases, the criminal charges against the animal owner are dropped as soon as the confiscating party is granted permanent possession of the animals. This is a pressure tactic and a ploy used by the prosecution to keep the truth and any evidence from being obtained by the animal owner or by the media while the confiscating party pursues their confiscation case. This case followed that modus operandi. In this case, the breeder won her birds back in court, and all criminal charges have now been dropped against the breeder and her friend. In this case the owner of the birds fought back, and won her birds back, against seemingly overwhelming odds that she would not be able to successfully fight the powerful and arrogant SPCA.

The hearings spanned three months and were grueling. The first court hearing was attended by approximately 20 aviculturists. It was very obvious to all the aviculturists and professional breeders in the courtroom that the SPCA personnel and lawyers knew virtually nothing about birds, or breeding birds, or their anatomy or diseases, or their proper maintenance. The entire SPCA team (including the sheriff's officer who first arrived on the scene, all of the testifying SPCA personnel, their testifying veterinarians, and their attorneys) was in way over their heads. Some of the testimony presented by SPCA witnesses regarding the care the SPCA was giving to the birds made it clear that the SPCA did not know how to care for any bird, much less care for a flock of breeding birds. They used bleach in their cleaning solution to clean the birds' area, resulting in damage to the birds' respiratory systems. They fed the birds incorrectly, resulting in some of the birds developing diarrhea.

As most bird owners know, when food unfamiliar is offered, birds can literally starve to death refusing to eat. Birds do not comprehend that this unfamiliar looking stuff in their food bowl is food. Food changes require long periods of slow introduction, so they can learn it is food.

They incorrectly assumed that vials of polyoma vaccine found at the breeder's home were medications for diseased birds, and they demonstrated that they knew virtually nothing about bird diseases or treatment for bird diseases. The vet for the SPCA was a dog and cat vet with an interest in birds, but she was at least ten years behind the times in the evolution regarding avian medicine and care.

As the prosecution continued to put on their case they were oblivious to the fact that most of their witnesses' statements were idiotic and that their evidence simply served to demonstrate their ignorance about birds and bird care. It became clear that the SPCA was accustomed to winning animal confiscation cases based on unfounded allegations and with hardly any effort.

We were not intimidated. Of course, we realized that this biased, unbalanced, and inaccurate information that was being presented to the judge by those who knew practically nothing about birds was all the judge was hearing, and we realized that if we expected to prevail we needed an expert who knew about birds to testify - otherwise the case was going to be a "slam dunk" for the prosecution. We needed an avian specialist. Jan and I called veterinarians all over the state. Other members were working with their vets trying to get them on board. We were told that no vets could afford the time off from their practices to testify on the breeder's behalf. Many told us to walk away and let them have the birds - we were told "you can't win against the SPCA." Defense costs were already running into the thousands, and hiring an avian vet as an expert witness was beyond the means of this breeder.

Despite all the nay-sayers, and all the cautions that we could never win against the SPCA, we were not willing to abandon the breeder or our cause. Individual members of the Florida Federation of Aviculture started donating money for a vet. Two bird clubs in Florida, the Imperial Bird Club, and the Jacksonville Bird Club both donated $500.00 each for vet costs. To them I am eternally grateful. Some clubs and organizations refused to get involved, for fear of the SPCA or some other organization making them targets for harassment. This is another fear we breeders are now faced with. If we help, will we suffer too?

Then there were individuals that convicted this breeder because she was arrested. People put up signs at bird expos denouncing this breeder, although nothing had even gone to court yet. Bird clubs held meetings to decide whether this breeder should be allowed at any of their events, and then there were people that listened to the rumor mills, or just didn't like the breeder, and would not become involved. Many listened to what the news media had said about the breeder and based all their opinions on the biased news reporters.

Many aviculturists attended all four hearings. Dr. Margaret Wissman, a board certified avian veterinarian, agreed to be a witness for the defendant and testified at the last hearing. It is my belief that her testimony made it clear to the judge that the allegations which the SPCA had made about disease and perceived cruelty and neglect were not a truthful picture of the situation - Dr. Wissman made it clear to the judge that the breeder was not cruel or abusive or neglectful - and that her testimony is what turned the case in the breeder's favor. Although the judge had reached a verdict the last day of court, the SPCA attorneys failed to sign off for another two weeks. The petition from the SPCA was denied in its entirety - the SPCA lost on every count. The judge ordered the SPCA to return all of the birds and other animals to their owner.

Even when a defendant is found innocent of animal cruelty, they may still be ordered to pay all attorneys fees, court costs, and boarding, vet bills and food costs, as well as any other incidental costs, such as buying new perches, or food and water dishes. In this case the judge ruled against the defendant paying any of those fees. The judge also ordered the SPCA to pay back the loan given by the FFAI, to help the defendant with Dr. Wissman's payment for testifying, and cost of transcripts needed by Dr. Wissman prior to her testifying.

The supposedly abused conure had been vaccinated against polyoma (proven in court) just two days prior to the confiscation. When the attending vet did exams and tests on a few select birds, this one turned up with a high titer for polyoma. Of course the vet proclaimed the bird may be a carrier, or diseased bird. Polyoma is not dangerous to humans, so it was really a moot point. The fact that the breeder vaccinated all her birds against polyoma spoke volumes about her care of her birds. Rarely do breeders vaccinate all their birds against polyoma. The second polyoma test, taken weeks later, showed the same titer level, so disease should not have been an issue. Babies were hatching and thriving, and with no deaths of chicks or ill birds, it is almost a positive sign there is no pathogen present in the flock of birds. Dr. Wissman was able to show that this was indeed true.

The issue of e-coli was brought up, since trash with contents from the cage trays stored in a plastic bag for three days, cultured positive for e-coli. What the SPCA vet failed to relate was that it was of the strain mucosa, and non-pathogenic. Instead, she made the judge well aware that e-coli can kill birds as well as humans. With the recent scare in the news of e-coli sickness and deaths from contaminated spinach, this would make anyone sit up and take notice. The vet for the SPCA was presented a paper from one of the most well known avicultural vets in the country, entitled, The Truth About E-coli by Darrel Styles. The vet admitted to never having heard of him, and what he had written was wrong. Her belief was any gram negative bacteria found in a bird is bad.

Fortunately, Dr. Wissman made us aware of the strain of e-coli, and pronounced it as a wild strain, and definitely non-pathogenic. She also went on to tell about the other testing that would have been done, if indeed she thought it was a pathogen.

There was a concern that some of the birds had conjunctivitis when confiscated. In court there were no pictures to substantiate this claim, and again Dr. Wissman saw no evidence in any of the lab reports to support the conjunctivitis, and put that to rest.

The vet for the SPCA reported that the birds were low in calcium, and this was due to the breeder forcing them into excessive egg laying. She pointed out that during egg laying calcium levels are normally higher to help egg formation. Birds were treated for low calcium with supplements. Dr. Wissman showed that indeed yes the calcium level would be higher, but she pointed out that the SPCA was told (by their veterinarian) to remove the eggs already laid, and that the SPCA had already removed chicks from the parents. When clutches of babies or eggs are removed, or destroyed by predators, cockatiels start laying again to replace the lost clutch. This overtaxes the calcium level and the birds do indeed become low in calcium. This was not the fault of the breeder, but of the SPCA.

One bird with a wing injury was given steroids. Steroids are usually only given to parrots in life and death situations, since steroids break down the immune system and can cause death.

The issue of the bands being removed. Open bands if applied properly, do not cause a risk. If the SPCA vet saw any improperly applied bands, they could have been turned and refitted. At the very least, a smaller band applied to keep track of breeding records. The bands are made especially to guard against causing a risk when applied properly. There were years of genetic tracking dependant on the bands, and may now be lost forever. In past cases, birds worth hundreds even thousands of dollars can become worthless once the band is removed, unless the genetic line can be validated. Perhaps if they can't neuter the animals they remove the bands to devalue their blood lines, and make them worthless for breeding.

Existing law in Florida can be, and are, used to harm breeders and animal owners. We have a statute in Florida that gives any law enforcement officer the right to call any recognized agency (such as the SPCA, animal control, Humane Society, and even some rescues) to immediately confiscate animals, without a warrant and without a hearing, if they in their opinion, feel there is any animal neglect or cruelty. They do not have to call FWC, the only organization that has training in exotic animals here in Florida. This law creates a very serious situation for all of us - a situation that gives us all something new to fear. All of us who own birds and other animals now have to recognize that "public perception" may be the standard used to judge us when allegations of animal abuse and neglect are made against us by law enforcement or "animal welfare" personnel. "Public perception" may or may not be accurate or truthful, but it will be used by law enforcement and "animal welfare" personnel to make judgments in an area in which they have no training or expertise. "Public perception," when it is not based on fact, can wreak havoc on any enterprise, especially in the area of breeding birds.

We also must remember that most of the "animal welfare" organizations that claim to have the best interest of the animals first and foremost, are against breeding animals of any kind. Many of them support the philosophy of "animal rights," which contends that animals are not ours to use. They especially do not believe in breeding animals to be sold as pets. Many of them do not believe that we have the right to own or use animals of any kind for food, for fiber, for research, for entertainment, or as pets. Those same organizations, who have been given the power under existing law to allege animal abuse by their owners, and who have been given the power to confiscate animals from their owners without a warrant and without a hearing, are fundamentally and philosophically biased against breeders. Existing law allows these organizations to be our accusers, our judges, and our executioners, and they revel in that power - they are the poster children for the saying "Power Corrupts - And Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely." They have an absolute conflict of interest when it comes to any case involving breeders, and they should not be allowed to participate in any confiscation cases - yet the law allows them to freely operate and freely confiscate despite this clear conflict of interest. Of course these organizations will confiscate, at the mere hint of a dirty water bowl or recently spilled food. Many of these people see problems where none exist, or knowingly create them - as was done in this case. The sheriff's officer ordered the barking dogs (who had been found loose in the yard) to be tied up next to a dirty water bowl, then had photographs taken of the situation as "evidence" of their "abuse" by their owner. The sheriff testified in court there were cock roaches everywhere. The investigator for the SPCA said he never saw a cockroach. He added there were seed moths, and perhaps gnats. Of course, we all know that the presence of a seed moths in a bloom, indicates fresh seed, and is not an indicator of "filth."

I was there when the birds were picked up from the SPCA. When we arrived there, they did not know we were to pick up the birds, and made us wait about two hours before allowing us to enter their bird room. They only allowed three people to retrieve the birds, although when the SPCA took the birds, there were seven or eight people running in and out of the breeder's home and bird room. Looking back it is obvious they were trying to clean things up, and switching birds around before we were allowed to enter. They told us things had to be done quickly so as not to disturb the birds too much, but now we know now it was so we would not see some of the wrong doings that had been done. We didn't have time to investigate their condition, or housing. I saw dirty cages, and over crowding. Some cages that the breeder had only two birds in now contained five birds. Some missing birds were unaccounted for. Mates were switched, and although the vet for the SPCA was very concerned about the birds being low in calcium the SPCA put hens together causing excessive egg laying, of infertile eggs, naturally. It is scary to think the SPCA is unable to sex cockatiels properly, and do even more harm to the birds.

The ground quail that were confiscated were put on wire bottom cages, and this caused leg damage, even broken legs.

While retrieving the birds the SPCA did not allow the breeder to inventory the birds against the confiscation list. The SPCA stressed the need for quickly removing the birds as to not induce more stress. Once home and the breeder was able to compare the inventory against the confiscation list, it was found the most expensive breeder cockatiels were not there. Almost a year later they have not been accounted for. The following day a few birds were found dead in the cages. It became obvious (upon close inspection) this was due to the last minute switching around of birds, and putting birds in together that were aggressive, and they fought and killed each other. In some cases there are birds that should not be housed even near each other because of dislike for each other, and this induces stress. Breeders know which of their individual birds are prone to this, and place cages accordingly. One can't help but wonder how all the cages were housed together at the SPCA, and the stress induced there. Months after the release of the birds, a few have sporadically died of liver failure due to the SPCA over medicating the supposed sick birds. Breeders learned about over medicating and liver failure back in the 1980s, with birds coming through quarantine stations.

As we know, most organizations are legally exempt from any type of inspections. In most laws and statutes, most all animal welfare organizations are written in as being exempt from the same inspection laws that govern the owners or breeders of their animals. We ask ourselves why these organizations are above the law. Because the law says so.

So now, not only are we afraid to leave our birds at night, we cannot leave during the day either. In the event my dog would escape the yard and cause a car accident, a sheriff would come out to my property and up to my door. As he walked along the pathway, he may see a bowl full of water (changed an hour ago) just full of mushy pellets, and smelling like, well you all know what it smells like. He may see a bird in a small cage that is being medicated, or under veterinary care. What would his perception be, and would he call the SPCA or humane society, or even a rescue organization? When I would arrive back home from shopping for veggies and other good bird food, would my birds all be there, or would they have been taken to some secret place where I could not see, or find out about them?

Thank you AFA for Fred Smith. Thank you FFAI for your work in this and thank you, Imperial Bird Club and Jacksonville Bird club, for your monetary support in this effort. Thank you Dr. Wissman for your support of aviculture. We could not have done it without you.

Many people behind the scenes worked tirelessly on this case, and studied the FWC regulations as well as county and state statutes. I am very grateful to all that pitched in and did work and made donations in the name of aviculture. Many people from out of state gave their support and donations as well, and I thank all of you too.

After this experience, and seeing the support of the avicultural community, I know that yes, it is all worth it.

Click here to read Jean's original article.

DANGERS OF "ANIMAL CSI"/HSUS RAIDS--READ THIS!

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 20:41:00 +0000

Okay, we've all had a laugh over ASPCA's new "Animal CSI" van that they send out with their forensic vet into the field to gather and process evidence of animal abuse, but we'd better wipe the smiles off our faces.

Last night, I had a rather lengthy and chilling discussion with a person who was the victim of a joint Local Shelter/HSUS/ASPCA raid on his property. They told me that the 'raiders' had deliberately waited until nobody was home before they 'swooped in' along with local cops to execute their warrant. The dog owners came home near the end of the raid, and were prevented by police from going near their own property until all the dogs had been removed.

So, that's problem No. 1: if nobody is home, unless the animals are in imminent danger of death or injury, no warrant should ever be executed. Also, if you're not there, you can't verify that they properly executed their warrant in terms of where they looked, what was searched and what was actually taken.

But it gets worse! I was told that these people recently had a couple of litters on the ground and team found a dead puppy during their search which they immediately bagged and waved around, making certain it was well-photographed and filmed as "proof" of the "inhumane and filthy" conditions on this property.

Only one problem: the dead puppy was a different breed than any of those on the property.

That's right, folks, the dead puppy was planted during the raid!

I was told that based on what happened in this situation, several people who had been big HSUS supporters had finally seen with their own eyes the completely illegal and unethical tactics used against this person, and quit over the incident.

Someone came forward to say that HSUS and other agencies which participate in these raids come "armed" with dead animals, parts of dead animals or the bones of dead animals which they plant and then pretend to find during their raid

This also points to an extreme amount of collusion between the local shelter and HSUS/other extremist agencies coordinating raids ahead of time, because SOMEBODY had to have known about the recent litters so the dead puppy ploy could be used.

If ASPCA is on site with their clever little van, then they and NOT law enforcement have control of the evidence--real or otherwise--and you may have no way to protect yourself from being framed.

So, while we may groan over AKC's requirement to have our breeding adults DNA typed, doing so might literally save your rear end in court!

Once your dogs are seized, you'll never see them again and AKC's DNA typing might be the cheapest insurance policy you could ever have to prove that dead puppy didn't come from your kennel.

(As always, permission to cross post granted)

CONFISCATION OF DOGS RETURNS TO BITE COUNTY

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 15:15:00 +0000

By Shar Porier/wick communications
Published: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 10:36 AM CST

BISBEE - The seizure of a number of dogs from an Elfrida breeder in April 2008 by a county animal control officer has led to a tort complaint being filed against the county, the sheriff's office and members of an anti-puppy mill/animal rescue group.

Barbara and Bob Ratliff are suing the county, People Assisting Kindred Spirits (PAKS), Pencin Veterinary Clinic, Pantano Veterinary Clinic and various people accused of taking 29 dogs from their property based on a complaint of neglect that was several months old.

When the matter came before Judge David Morales on June 13, 2008, he tossed the warrant on the grounds of "staleness" and then stated that the dogs were to be returned to the owners.

The county appealed the decision by Morales, but Superior Court Judge Wallace Hoggatt upheld the decision Dec. 16, 2008.

On Feb. 9, 2009, Morales mandated the dogs be returned. The county failed to comply.

The Ratliffs' attorney Perry Hicks states in the tort claim, "It is obvious from the records attached to this claim there was never any intent to return the dogs to the Ratliffs, despite valid, lawful court orders. ... The dogs were farmed out and adopted off with the full knowledge and consent of (county animal control officer Crystal) Callahan, despite the dogs were in the custody and care of the Cochise County Sheriff's Office, were evidence in a criminal case and were subject to being returned to the Ratliffs if they prevailed. ... The loss of Barbara Ratliff's dogs is the direct result of the illegal search and seizure of the dogs and negligent acts of Cochise County, Officer Callahan, the sheriff's office and animal control, as well as the intentional acts of PAKS and members of PAKS."

The Ratliffs are now seeking damages from the county, the sheriff's department, the animal control division and Callahan. The Ratliffs allege unlawful search and seizure, wrongful taking of property, violation of the right to privacy, negligent entrustment and negligence as stated in the complaint filed Dec. 31 in Superior Court.

Also named in the suit are PAKS, Pencin Veterinary Clinic, Pantano Animal Clinic, Mary Pencin, Tipling, Donna Dunham, Karen Radcliff, Darlene Burnett, Mary Hinton, Sherry Hoard, Jenelle Rodenberg and associated people involved in allegations of civil conspiracy, malicious prosecution, and aiding and abetting tortious conduct.

Problems for the Ratliffs began in April 2008 with a search warrant. According to documents provided by Hicks, the warrant was based on a 4-month-old complaint made by Marjorie "Heidi" Tipling, a technician at the Pencin Veterinary Clinic in Willcox and a member of PAKS. Tipling stated in her complaint on March 31, 2008, to Callahan that the dogs were not being cared for, had no clean water, were infested with ticks, had eye and limb injuries, and had no food available to eat at the time of her "surprise shopper" visit in December 2007.

With the warrant in hand, Callahan took possession of four adult dogs and eight puppies on April 16, 2008, and transported the dogs to Pencin Veterinary Clinic in Willcox for evaluations. Callahan stated the dogs were suffering from "gum disease, eye problems, tick scabs, hernias and pale mucous membranes."

Callahan later returned and collected 17 more dogs from the Ratliffs on the grounds their medical health could not be determined without a "complete medical examination," documents show.

The Ratliffs requested the dogs be taken to their veterinarian in Bisbee, Dr. Charles Behney, until the matter could be resolved. Deputies told them the dogs would go to Pencin and transportation to Behney's could be arranged. But that didn't happen. Instead, six dogs were transported to Pantano veterinary clinic in Tucson and several were adopted out to other people involved with PAKS.

In an April 16, 2008, letter to the county, veterinarian Mary Pencin stated, "Today the Cochise County Animal Officer from Sierra Vista, Laurie, (no last name given), brought to the clinic and turned over to PAKS for treatment and adoption twelve dogs."

According to PAKS adoption agreements, adopters agree to "provide a foster animal with proper and routine veterinary care, including wellness exams, current required and recommended vaccinations and urgent emergency care as needed." The agreement also acknowledges that the owner of the animal has the "right to access the animal."

Copies of 10 foster care agreements from PAKS were provided to Hicks, but no other information was given about the whereabouts of the remaining 19 dogs.

In May 2008, the county filed a motion in Justice Court to have the Ratliffs forfeit the dogs.

But in June, Hicks filed a motion for dismissal of charges due to a "stale" search warrant. Tipling allegedly shopped Ratliff on December 20, 2007, yet waited until March 2008 to make a formal complaint. Then it took three more weeks for the animal control officer to act on the complaint.

Justice David Morales tossed the evidence found under the "stale" search warrant. He then dismissed the charges. He also ordered the county to transport the dogs to Behney's office at Ratliff's expense for examination and care.

The date of the transport of the dogs was set for June 27. However, Callahan stated in an affidavit that the dogs couldn't be transported because she didn't know where the dogs were.

The county appealed the decision by Morales and refused to return the dogs until the appeal had been heard. Superior Court Judge Wallace Hoggatt upheld the ruling by Morales in favor of the Ratliffs on Dec. 22, 2008.

Charges were dismissed with prejudice by the county attorney's office on Jan. 22, 2009.

The same day, Donna Dunham with PAKS wrote to Callahan stating, "All the dogs have expired." She stated that instructions were given not to provide "extraordinary care."

Copyright © 2010 - Arizona Range News

AWAKE CENTRAL

FORMER AC OFFICER ARRESTED FOR FRAUD AND SWINDLE

YOUR DOG'S BEST FRIEND MAY BE HIS ATTORNEY

How to prevent or deal with "animal cruelty" confiscation by animal control and animal rights terrorists.

YOUR DOG’S BEST FRIEND MAY BE HIS ATTORNEY

Warrantless seizures plague animal owners! If contacted by animal control authorities SEEK LEGAL COUNSEL IMMEDIATELY to prevent illegal confiscation and impoundment.

Trying Your Animal Abuse, Limit Laws, or Hoarding Case:

Fines, Fees, and Court Costs of Illegal Animal Seizures:

RESCUE RAIDS: CONFISCATION RACKET

Humane groups team with animal control to seize and sell valuable dogs, cats, birds, horses, etc. Legal advice and resources to prevent or deal with illegal animal seizure.

San Francisco Animal Control director fired and escorted out of the building

Activists Fight Back Against Animal Control Agencies with Lawsuit That Cites Corruption and Abuse

Famous SPCA Thug Gets His Due

I found this while browsing online. Click here for the original link. It was posted on July 14, 2005.

The True Story Behind the Raid at Frisky Felines Foundation

These are pix of the cats taken during the raid, tell me, do they look neglected, malnourished or sick?

"Animal Control" is Out of Control

THE STORY OF THE "OUR ANIMAL HAUS" ILLEGAL RAID AND SEIZURE

Your Miranda Rights-Show Me the Law

Idea Description (Originally Posted 5/2/08 on IdeaBlog)

1. Officer Truthfulness: Relevant Case Law

Comments from Contributor

Truth in Justice has this to say on their website: "Truth in Justice is an educational non-profit organized to educate the public regarding the vulnerabilities in the U. S. criminal justice system that make the criminal conviction of wholly innocent persons possible."

"Why should you be concerned about wrongful conviction? The cases here make the answer clear: it can happen to anyone, including you. What can you do? Educate yourself. Ask questions. Think. Stop rewarding malfeasance. It starts with just one person. It starts with YOU."

UNTRUE CONFESSIONS Prof. Paul Cassell

Tell Attorney General Holder to Keep His Hands Off the Miranda Rule

Original Link: http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202444486063&src=EMC-Email&et=editorial&bu=Law.com&pt=LAWCOM%20Newswire&cn=NW_20100225&kw=

Anonymous Call to New Animal Abuse Hotline Leads to Raid on Colorado Woman’s Rabbit Farm

August 10th, 2011

The Day of the Raid

$24,000 Per Month*

The ‘Official’ Story

Rabbit Experts?

The Next Step

DEALING WITH ILLEGAL ANIMAL SEIZURE, by Diane Amble

PETA KILLS ANIMALS

New Documents: PETA Killed a Near Record-Breaking 95 Percent of Adoptable Dogs and Cats in its Care During 2011

Pets Killed by PETA

Recent News

What is Peta Kills Animals?

Join Us on Facebook

Hitler and the Animal Rights dichotomy of Germany in the 30s

How the Nazis could Love Dogs and Hate Jews

Hitler would have approved of Peta, the creepy animal rights fanatics

Ed West is a journalist and social commentator who specialises in politics, religion and low culture. He is @edwestonline on Twitter.

ANIMAL RIGHTS USED TO FURTHER AGENDA 21

USDA Attacks Rural American With Smart Meters

ARCHIVE: Holocaust Imagery and Animal Rights

Adolf Hitler: The Ideological Forefather of PETA and Animal Rights Advocates

LEARN THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ANIMAL RIGHTS AND ANIMAL WELFARE!

Brooksville, Florida Animal Control too busy killing animals to talk to people who want to adopt

SPCA CONFISCATION

DANGERS OF "ANIMAL CSI"/HSUS RAIDS--READ THIS!

CONFISCATION OF DOGS RETURNS TO BITE COUNTY

UNTRUE CONFESSIONS
Prof. Paul Cassell