Seized Kitties Need Your Help

December 4, 2013

There are still about 35 cats/kittens (and these are mostly kittens under a year old) that need rescue commitment. We all know their fate if they stay in a kill shelter. Here's the plea from the owner (Weatherford, TX is a few miles west of the Dallas/Ft. Worth Metroplex):

Dear Rescue Friends,

I am in a desperate situation and am looking for assistance from every resource possible... as a possible help for cats taken from my home. I have been doing rescue and foster work for the last couple of years and this year became overrun with kittens and was well over my legal limit for my municipality and have had all animals (even my personal pets) seized from my home.

I have been told by Animal Control police that if I surrender the foster cats to the Weatherford Shelter, then registered 501c3 organizations can pull them from the shelter. These cats are all social, and some have been completely vetted (tested, spay/neuter, full vaccinations, very healthy), but I have had a hard time with adoptions this summer - my last adoption was in March of this year.

Is there any way that your group could pull even 2-3 cats from this shelter and place them with your foster homes? I am trying to line up as many groups as possible to contact the shelter to let them know that you will take a specific number of cats once they are signed over to the shelter.

The investigating Animal Control Officer is Joe Davis and the shelter director is Dustin Deel. Groups can call and leave their information on the general information voicemail and Dustin will get the messages. The shelter phone number is (817) 598-4111; if someone does answer, which they might because they are working this case, you can ask for Joe Davis, Dustin Deel or Steve Bates. This is a desperate situation, as none of these cats needs to be put down, but the total number is far more than the shelter has room, budget, or staff for and they are of course a kill shelter. If you are interested in particular types of cats, I can send you a list of those that need claiming, with physical descriptions of the cats, their medical status, personality traits, and gender/age - let me know if you would like this list.

Thank you for any assistance you can offer. Feel free to pass this plea along to any other groups you know, even if you think they can only take one cat. Also feel free to pass along my contact information, which is below.

Thank you,

Amy Justice
(682) 564-4386
Please contact Amy directly for information. Seized cats don't usually go on the "kill list" at all. They're just summarily killed once they are surrendered. If you can help, please do so quickly.

Murder via Rescue

August 15, 2013

"Police: Man killed son, self... Williams and his wife, Cynthia Williams, bred Great Danes at their former home in Wilson County. Sheriff’s deputies raided the property last year and seized more than two dozen dogs, claiming animal cruelty and related violations. A judge threw out the search warrant and dismissed criminal charges against the couple, but their legal troubles continued in a series of lawsuits against two animal rescue groups involved in the raid."

Time and again, alleged "rescuers" have been allowed to use law enforcement or, worse, been allowed to act on their own to swoop up animals that belong to others and destroy the reputations and lives of those owners along the way. Increasingly, we are seeing reports of those who simply couldn't withstand the torture even after their cases were thrown out because those same "rescuers" are often able to continue the harassment endlessly. This is one such case and this situation deserves to be memorialized in case the original becomes unavailable as so often happens with local news articles.

This may be classified as a murder/suicide. To my thinking, both these people were killed by the alleged "rescuers" who thieved their dogs, refused to return them even after the charges were dropped, and continued to harass them with a lawsuit and, no doubt, on the internet and through other channels.

Joseph Williams, may you and your son, Bobby, find peace on the other side of the rainbow. No doubt some of your beloved dogs died at the hands of the "rescuers" and were there to meet you. Here's the rest of the story:

Police: Man killed son, self
Attorney: Raid, lawsuits put family in distress

The bills were mounting. The lawsuits wouldn’t stop. The family’s business was ruined. And 53-year-old Joseph Williams had faced an overwhelming sense of pressure in recent months to provide for his wife and children, his attorney said.

"Every time he felt like he was getting ahead, he felt like there was a hurdle he had to cross,” said Williams’s attorney, Will Farris of Farris & Farris in Wilson. "And it caught up with him.”

Police said Tuesday that Williams shot his 10-year-old son Bobby and himself before setting fire to a back bedroom of his Nashville duplex Monday afternoon. Autopsies showed that the man and boy died from gunshot wounds and severe burns, Nashville Police Chief Thomas Bashore said.

"The Nashville Police Department and all emergency responders offer their heartfelt condolences to the family of this tragic event,” Bashore said in a Tuesday evening statement.

Williams and his wife, Cynthia Williams, bred Great Danes at their former home in Wilson County. Sheriff’s deputies raided the property last year and seized more than two dozen dogs, claiming animal cruelty and related violations. A judge threw out the search warrant and dismissed criminal charges against the couple, but their legal troubles continued in a series of lawsuits against two animal rescue groups involved in the raid.


Williams died on the way to the hospital and Bobby Williams died at the University of North Carolina Jaycee Burn Center in Chapel Hill. Police said Williams set fire to the back bedroom of the 239 N. Lumber St. duplex shortly after 12:30 p.m. Monday.

The flames had fizzled out when Nashville firefighters arrived.

"You’ve got to hurry, ‘cause there’s a child in there,” a woman calling to report the fire told emergency dispatchers.

The Trinity Retirement Villas employee called 911 after seeing black smoke at the duplex across the street. She indicated she heard what sounded like shouting from the apartment.

"They’re hollering in there — what in the world?” the caller said. "Please hurry. Ooh, please, Lord, hurry.”

The State Bureau of Investigation’s arson unit helped Nashville police and Nash County sheriff’s deputies investigate the apparent murder-suicide, Bashore and SBI spokeswoman Noelle Talley said. Police and sheriff’s cars lined Lumber Street as detectives swarmed in and out of a duplex ringed with yellow crime scene tape late Monday.

Nashville police closed Lumber Street at its intersections with Pine Street and Lloyd Park Drive for several hours as authorities investigated the shooting and fire. The burned duplex is located near Forest Hill Cemetery in northern Nashville near U.S. 64.


Farris said Monday’s turn of events may have been set in motion by the financial and emotional pressure of past and current litigation involving the Williamses’ Great Dane breeding facility that was at one time on Evansdale Road outside Wilson. Farris said public scrutiny of the family, their business and how they took care of the dogs they loved put an enormous amount of stress on their lives.

"This is just the accumulation of everything that has happened to them over the last year and a half,” Farris said. "The financial, emotional and physical stress of the court battles that continue today has been overwhelming for every member in the family. The overwhelming negative pressures and harassments by several animal rights groups contributed to this tragic event.”


Wilson County sheriff’s deputies executed a search warrant nearly a year ago at the couple’s Evansdale Road home and seized 28 dogs. Both were charged with several counts each of misdemeanor cruelty to animals. Those charges were eventually dropped when a judge ruled the search warrant executed in the raid to be invalid.

But the family faced more legal troubles. The Great Dane Rescue Alliance filed a civil suit against the Williamses. The group wanted a judge to terminate the couple’s ownership rights of the dogs seized. After hearings, testimony and a preliminary injunction granted to the rescue group in November, the parties involved reached an agreement. The Williamses were able to reclaim one of the 28 dogs deputies had seized, a Doberman pinscher.

But the damage had already been done to the couple’s business, Farris has said. The rescue groups had claimed the couple was running a puppy mill. Farris so strongly rejected that claim, he accused the dog rescue groups of slander in legal action he took on behalf of the couple.

While the Williamses received an undisclosed amount of money from the dog rescue group, Farris has said the settlement amount wasn’t insignificant.

The couple faced an additional lawsuit in Wake County. Raleigh attorneys William and Cathryn Little sued the couple for nearly $3,000 and legal fees after a Great Dane puppy they bought from the Williamses in March 2012 was diagnosed with parvovirus a week after the sale. The Williamses contended that the puppy contracted parvo after they sold it to the couple. The case, which Farris is handling, is still active.

"They believed there were groups that were still out to get them and targeting them as a result of past litigation,” Farris said. "When the sheriff’s department executed a search warrant (in August 2012), it started a complete unraveling of their family and their lives.”


The family moved away from Wilson County to start their lives over, Farris said.

"They ended up coming back to Nashville to stay with family because of financial constraints,” he said.

Williams’s wife, Cindy, was running errands on Monday when she got a call from her sister-in-law who told her the smoke detector at the Lumber Street duplex was going off, Farris said.

"When she (Cindy) got back, she was trying to get into the house but couldn’t get in,” Farris said. "That’s been the hardest part for her.”

Farris said the women couldn’t get in the front door and headed to the back door. They were trying to save Joseph Williams and his son from the fire, Farris said.

Farris said Cindy Williams is devastated over the loss of her husband and child.

"She’s a really strong woman, but she is torn out of the frame as any mother or wife would be,” he said.

Farris said Joe Williams never said anything cross.

"He was always a gentle man,” Farris said. "Everyone who knew Joe knew he was a good man of strong faith. They are devastated by the loss of him and Bobby. Bobby was a strong boy who really loved his family and contributed greatly to his family structure.”

Williams, who was on disability due to health problems, thought it would be better to stop the disability payments so he could provide more financial support to his wife and children, who were struggling to make ends meet, Farris said.

"His checks were small,” Farris said. "But he was trying his hardest to get re-licensed for refrigerator repair so he could support his family.”

Farris added that Williams had an "extreme concern” over his family and children.


The children, including Bobby, were traumatized by the sheriff’s office raid and had been in counseling as a result of the public and personal "scrutiny” on the family’s lives, Farris said.

In an April interview with The Wilson Times, Farris said Bobby was especially affected by the sheriff’s office raid on the family’s home last year.

"Their kids had to go to counseling, because there were two deputies standing outside one of their kids’ doors with their hands on their guns when they did the search,” Farris previously said. "One of the kids was traumatized by that. He locked himself in the room and would not come to the door and would not come out of there because he didn’t know who the heck was out there even though they were yelling, ‘Sheriff!’ He did not trust that.”


Williams stopped by Farris’s downtown Wilson office this past Thursday just to say hello.

"He talked about coaching football, supporting his family,” Farris said. "He checked on me and my family.”

Williams also gave Farris a card and hat from a recent military mission to Guam his older son had been on. Farris said the tragedy has taken a toll on his office staff as well.

"Everyone here was familiar with the family,” he said.

Farris said he became close with the Williamses over the past year. He even has a picture of Bobby smiling with his dogs hanging up in his office.

"When you go through the amount of litigation we’ve gone through, it becomes hard not to form a friendship,” Farris said. "I definitely consider them to be a part of the family at our office.”


Farris has spoken out previously about the family and how the raid and legal challenges changed their lives.

"My folks are still mad,” Farris previously said after the settlement was reached. "I’m sure the other side is, too. The Humane Society of North Carolina ditched this once they saw we were fighting. Once they realized we were putting up a fight, they left Great Dane Alliance holding the bag, this tiny little organization.”

"They can go in, take somebody’s animals, say they incurred all these bills and then just take off, and that’s what they do sometimes,” Farris said. "The breeding facility operated by the Williams family in 2012 had been approved both by the American Kennel Club and the local sheriff’s office prior to the illegal search of their property, which resulted in the illegal seizure of their animals in August of 2012.”

And the couple’s reputation was damaged, he said.

He said Cindy Williams really loves animals. She and her husband originally went into the business as rescuers, he said, and later became breeders.

Joe and Cindy Williams both stated in affidavits that they had previously allowed deputies to come to their home over a period of time and inspect their dog kennel and "followed every recommendation” deputies had given them.

The couple previously made more than $15,000 in improvements and changes to their kennel and property based upon those recommendations, according to a previous motion.

"When they first voluntarily gave up animals, a lot of the animals were rescue,” Farris said.

Farris said he believes that some groups’ goal was to put them out of business.


No Excuses, Animals First

August 22, 2012

"There is absolutely no excuse for not being able to get the dog down. What a POS!"

Little Sadie jumped in the water. Her 64 year old owner went in after her and, when he struggled, his 61 year old wife (who could not swim) went in after him. Sadie, like Missy on the mountain, survived. Sadie's owners were not so lucky.  Donald and Patricia Cyr are dead.

The opening quote is one of a multitude of similar comments spewed across the net about the owner of a dog left on a mountain. The dog's owner opted to save his human companion and get himself down from the mountain and was unable to get their hiking companion, his dog, down with them.

Well, KUDOS to the raving lunatics who are supporting the concept that animals should come first. You're getting your wish. A dog survived and 2 old humans are gone. I'm sure you're all thrilled!

Words have meaning, they create feelings and beliefs. They are spewed and externalized and internalized and taken to heart by others.  Two HUMANS are dead.

I really can't sufficiently express my utter disgust with those who would genuinely insist that another human put an animal's life before that of any human.  If you want to put an animal's life before your own, please, feel free.  However, expecting that of others, promoting that concept is demeaning, despicable; INHUMANE.  Going beyond that to take such a concept and use it for grounds to spew hateful concepts and even lies about a particular individual across the net is even worse.

"Slander is murder with words. It can lead to social death for its victims...

"I’m not talking about venting to your best friend or your spouse over your dreadnought of a boss. I’m also not talking about idle gossip. What I mean here is the deliberate, malicious verbal destruction of another person for gain, pleasure, entertainment or self-righteous self-satisfaction. I mean slander.

"We, as a society, have become so inured to slander that we actually indulge in self-righteous anger at those who won’t join us in our verbal slasher parties."

I won't go so far as to call defamation a "murder" but it is abominable and damaging to HUMANS.  Think your spewed comments are a freebie?  Maybe not. We're beginning to see some rather hefty legal judgments handed down.  Think your comments are anonymous?  So did some of the people who will be paying those hefty judgments.  OK, so you don't care about the damage you do to others.  How about the possibility of a judgment you'll be paying out over the rest of your life?

Oh, yes, I'm fully aware that someone crazy enough to die to save an animal might well be willing to pay over a lifetime.  However, I suspect that's an even smaller minority.

I would like to think that much of the hate mongering I see on the net would go away if people thought their closest loved ones were looking over their shoulder, seeing what they spew.  I have my doubts though.  On a more fundamental level, I simply don't understand the thrill in tearing someone down.  Oh, hey, I prefer my cats and dogs BY FAR to most of the humans on the planet!  That part I understand.

There's all this blather out there about a direct connection between animal cruelty and human abuse.  If it's at all true, then it says that abuse/cruelty are rather contagious.  Animal cruelty allegations sure seem to prove THAT point as they've become an easy excuse for abusing the human accused of such and it is much to easy to make the accusation.  One merely alleges the owner was less than stellar which becomes neglectful which morphs into CRUEL. SOMEBODY CALL THE POLICE.  No need to wait for facts, let alone consider those facts; besides, one can't believe an abuser anyway and the accused was convicted by the forum before any facts were even presented.  The thread about Missy started with a presumption that she was deliberately abandoned.  When someone mentioned that there might be an injured human hiker, the dog's owner, up there too; that concept was utterly dismissed.  Help the dog, screw the human.

Seriously? We're becoming an every human for themselves and "oh, the poor little animals" society?  Shame on us.  All that accomplishes is a hateful, self centered society and THAT will be bad for ALL the animals too.  They are more at risk than we and, the more isolated we become from one another, the more at risk they are too.  If cruelty is indeed contagious, cruelty to one another will have a push down effect on pets.  We cannot improve things for animals by dehumanizing ourselves.  It's that simple.

There were a few rays of hope on as well.

"if only society had as much love for their fellow human beings as they do for dogs would the world be a better place" ~ ajkagy

No excuses, HUMANS first.

AWA Original Intent

June 7, 2012

Many of you are considering how to respond to the APHIS proposal. In doing so, have you stopped to consider from whence the AWA came?
"the stolen pet never made it upstate. Pepper had been sold instead to a research hospital... Resnick introduced a dog-napping bill... wanted government licensing for the dealers and laboratories that traded in dogs and cats, and proposed that the theft of these animals be made a federal offense"
That's right. The Animal Welfare Act (AWA) was to protect personal property rights, to deal with animals being stolen from owners and sold for profit by thieves. We, the PEOPLE, have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (property). We, the PEOPLE, have the right to be secure in our homes, papers, and property; secure from unreasonable searches and government intrusion.

APHIS has created a rule that puts us at risk from the thieves who would enter our homes or, in the alternative, we must endure excessive and unreasonable government intrusion. The proposed APHIS rule puts our fundamental rights second to its whims. I hate to be simplistic but we, the PEOPLE, have current rights to our animals. They the public have no rights whatsoever until and if they purchase an animal. It, the government, has the duty to protect OUR rights and OUR property, not from us but from they, the public. The government has the duty to assist in keeping strangers and potential thieves OUT of our homes. The government has the duty to stay OUT of our homes and we have the right not to self incriminate, not to "speak" at all. These proposed rules turn the law on its head, reversing all the rights, duties and obligations.

The AWA was intended to protect property from others, including the government; to provide penalties for violators. APHIS must be reminded of this Constitutionally viable purpose.

APHIS must also be reminded that the government may not peek into our bedrooms to see with whom we sleep or into our homes to spy upon our children or our parenting methods, much less peek into our homes for the far lesser purpose of observing how we treat our animals. When the government arrives, it must have it's viable allegations already in hand. It is not permitted to pry open our doors and peep. The currently proposed rules are the crowbar that pries open our doors for peeping by the public and the government. Not only does this not protect our property rights, it puts them at great risk and accomplishes exactly the opposite of the AWA's original intent. APHIS should be reminded and then encouraged to restore the original intent by drafting rules in accord with that intent.

"a dog-napping bill... proposed that the theft of these animals be made a federal offense"

We have been asked to be polite in our responses. I'm not sure about the rest of you but there's only so much I can take from the government before going postal (or at least using some colorful language) and we're fast approaching that point for me. (Yes mother. I can hear you from across the veil... Use my words. Yeah, well, I'm going to use ALL my words shortly on this one.)

Deplorable! FILTHY! Yeah, AND???

June 3, 2012

We see it all the time in allegations of animal abuse. The animals were in "deplorable conditions" and it was "FILTHY" and the animals are just "infested" with... (you name it, they've got it all). And every time I see it, my response is: Yeah, AND??? So what? Are the animals reasonably healthy? The inference is that they aren't but one can rarely tell that from appearances alone and tests take time but they are standing there making these allegations minutes after arriving "at the scene" so they don't know diddly shit yet except about appearances and appearances don't mean squat!

The reality is we are all living in "squalor" and merely maintaining appearances to the contrary.  Every study that comes out about the filth in our offices and homes proves it just as this latest one does:

Researchers looked at bacteria levels on chairs, phones, desktops, computer mice and keyboards from 90 randomly selected offices in New York City, San Francisco and Tucson. Through swab tests, the researchers identified 549 different kinds of bacteria in these offices, most of which came from human skin from the nose, mouth or intestinal cavities.  "We also found a surprising number of bacterial genera associated with the human digestive tract," the researchers, led by Dr. Scott T. Kelley, an associate professor of biology at San Diego State University, wrote in the study... all surfaces were contaminated.

From the "human digestive tract"?  Yep, meaning from human PUKE, PISS, or CRAP.

But as gross as intestinal bacteria may sound, the researchers said most people who spend all day in an office won't become sick from it unless they have a severely weakened immune system.

Got that? The mere presence of GROSS isn't a problem except for those with weakened immune systems.  Think you can tell which humans or animals have weakened immune systems?  Sure, sometimes one can... SOMETIMES.  But that would be the exception, not the rule.  Status of an immune system takes TESTS which take TIME.

Kelley told the New York Times that people should not be worried by his study's findings, but rather it's a glimpse into our working surroundings.  "It's a baseline of what a healthy, normal situation is like," Kelley said. "These were just regular office buildings, where we have no evidence that people are getting sick. But if we do have a sick building, we can now look at what's going on there."

Where is the baseline of what's healthy for dogs, cats, rabbits, horses, or other animals seized?  THAT should be the basis for comparison for animals that are seized and I have yet to see a single case where such a comparison was made!

The animals were wallowing in their own crap!  Yeah, AND???  Apparently so is every person working in an office!  Many animals (as well as humans) like to go roll in the dirt and come back stinking to high heaven.  As a social requirement, we expect humans to clean up regularly.  However, the mere presence of filth and stink if humans chose not to do so would not inherently be indicative of health problems.  Even if they are filthier than the baseline, it's indicative of NOTHING!

Next time you see an animal seizure case with flaming generalized allegations of "FILTH", please respond with: Yeah, AND??? What's the environmental baseline and how did their environment compare based on scientific tests?  What's the health baseline and how did these animals compare to that baseline?  What precisely were the animals "infested" with and how heavy was the load and what did it take to treat the "infestation"?  Are infestations normal and requiring periodic eradication?  Did it require more than the norm to treat these animals?  Or normal and requiring no treatment at all?

If we're going to permanently deprive someone of their rights to their property, their animals, shouldn't we at least expect some objective scientific tests?  I certainly think that's not too much to ask before stripping someone of a fundamental property right!


Studies of office building air have detected as many as 106 bacteria per cubic meter [2], and the constant influx of microbes brought in with office workers likely makes for a dynamic microbial environment [3]. Human skin, as well as oral and nasal cavities, harbor trillions of microorganisms that may be shed and accumulate in offices [4][6]. Microbes from soils or other environments can also be vectored by office workers or be carried on dust particles from the outdoor air [7]. Moreover, indoor office buildings offer unique chemical environments not encountered in the natural world that may enrich for particular microbes [8].

"Men’s offices have more bacteria than women’s offices."  Gee REALLY?  Oh, come on, nobody's surprised! Right?  Now, given that most animals haven't learned how to turn on the faucet and take a bath and even the ones who can might still use their tongues to clean their "privates" it sure shouldn't be a surprise that animal areas might have more bacteria than offices.  Yeah, AND???

Linda Geffin, Wayne Dolcefino starts digging

May 3, 2012

No evidence she was attacked by an "enemy"?

Time sheets altered?

"Wait 'till you see what her emails reveal."

Tonight at 10...

$19.00 a Month

April 21, 2012

For $19.00 a month, you too can help HSUS hire more lawyers to promote killing animals...

HSUS: PETA in suits with deodorant.

Linda Geffin, Victim or Karma?

April 20, 2012

"Assaulted in her home as she slept one Saturday afternoon, government lawyer Linda Geffin was beaten senseless by an unidentified intruder who left her skull cracked and bleeding, an eye blackened and massive fist-sized bruises on her chin and chest.
"The still-unidentified assailant neither robbed nor raped her..."

Linda Geffin, often referred to here as Attila the Prosecutor.  I find myself struggling to find compassion for her since I never saw one iota of that FROM her for the animal owners she persecuted and thieved animals from.  When Harris County was largely done persecuting animal owners, Geffin moved to torturing those alleged to have committed "nuisances" with the exceedingly heavy hand of government and a bent to take or threaten to take their property...

The article blathers on about "human trafficking" but that is just the latest mostly hate and fear mongering name the government has given to justify seizure and forfeiture of property.  Perhaps Geffin pissed off a really, truly "bad" person.  Unfortunately, I think it may be even more likely that she sent some decent human being completely off the deep end with one of her persecutions, err..., prosecutions.  Well, like many abusers, Geffin likes to portray herself as the victim...

While she, with the backing of the county's budget and the support of an entire office staff AND the resources of the Houston SPCA at her disposal, went after a small family business, that of the Gracia family who raised some birds on the side, and brought full forces to bear; on the Gracia side of the table, were 3 volunteer lawyers and piddly blogger me.  Geffin portrayed herself as "besieged by a community of bloggers and electronic message board participants that she said have cast her and the Houston Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals as villains".

Geffin is NO victim at the courthouse.  Like all too many prosecutors, she tortures and torments with no regard to the law or truth or justice.  Still, no one deserves to be assaulted and abused in their own home... Still, Geffin has certainly participated in doing just that to untold numbers of people in Harris County Texas.  So I struggle to find some compassion for her and can find little.  Karma's a bitch and I can only think it jumped up and bit her.

And perhaps our government which is increasingly out of control and bent on treating us all like less than citizens of the Crown we turned away from more than 200 years ago would do well to consider the consequences of continuing to escalate violence against us all.  Whether they are taking our animals or shooting our dogs in the street or forfeiting the money we have in our pockets while on the way to an auction or shooting innocents while executing warrants at the wrong location...  It's all symptomatic of the same disease; a government wildly out of control and a growing population of those hiding behind government credentials who think they can do as they please with impunity.

Eventually, the oppressed and persecuted begin to strike back.  Maybe Geffin was attacked by a truly bad actor, perhaps it was just another random crime, or maybe she got back some of what she dished.  If the government wants the citizenry to behave in a civilized manner, it would do well to set that example.  If the government wants escalation to war in the streets, it need only continue escalating and we will eventually get there.

The animal rights activists are growing fond or promoting violence to get their way and so it seems is government generally.  Keep it up and you will turn many to violence in response.  The populace will endure a lot but eventually...

As a youth, I remember a detestable person who died and the community literally inventing a person in memory that bore no resemblance at all to this dead person in life.  While my mother explained the phenomenon, she also pointed out that one need not comply with this custom.  If a person is detestable in life, they do not become less so simply for having died or suffered some tragedy of their own.  Linda Geffin, Attila the Prosecutor, become a victim?  Perhaps. Surely she will be portrayed that way even if it turns out her own wrongful actions lead to her assault.  My opinion of her has not changed simply because of these events, especially given that the article uses it as a promo for the government to continue its and perhaps escalate its "human trafficking" efforts.

Message from Jennifer Gaut

January 23, 2012

Ms. Jennifer Gaut was one of the three attorneys who represented the Gracias in their civil forfeiture cases in Harris County and is representing them on appeal from the second judgment.  Their animals are gone but the fight goes on and, as she and I have often discussed, we know the public does not understand what goes on behind the scenes in these cases.  She wrote me a very kind email in response to my last blog entry which includes an explanation of some of those issues and has consented to publication.

Thank you PJ for posting this [AlphaTex need YOU].  People truly have no idea how huge this victory is. More importantly, they have no idea how much blood, sweat and tears have gone into this victory. For the most part, it started back in July 2010 with the Gracias.  We ultimately lost but we fought the good fight, made the county attorney's office work harder than they've had to work on one of these cases, and managed to scare the HSPCA just a bit.

What Paul and Jessica have done is amazing but people should understand, their victory didn't happen overnight.  They've had two trials in less than 3 months....Most civil cases never even make it to trial but when they do, it's after at least a year or two of languishing around with discovery, motions, mediation, etc.  In addition to the two trials, Paul & Jessica had numerous hearings where they challenged everything from jurisdiction, venue, the lawfulness of the seizure, the judge, and even Feare.  For there to be hearing, a motion has to be filed. After the motion is filed, the other side responds, then you respond to their response (sometimes with less than a day until the hearing).  The ruling on the motion usually results in more motions being filed. Motions require arguments which require case law which requires research.  Just preparing for one hearing (which includes drafting the motion and a response) can take hours. Preparing for a trial takes days and weeks. And it also takes money....lots and lots of money. 

An attorney of Paul's caliber can easily charge $250 to $300 an hour (or more, he is certainly worth it). When an attorney bills for a civil case, he (or SHE!) can and does bill for everything .... every phone call, every email, every typed word, every minute of research, every minute spent in court, every minute drafting a motion, every minute reading a motion, every minute conferencing with opposing counsel, every minute spent with a witness, every minute spent with the client, every minute spent investigating, and every minute his / her associate, his receptionist, and his / her paralegal works on the case (this includes time spent making copies, making phone calls, faxing documents, dealing with exhibits, etc)....EVERY SINGLE MINUTE (in fact, every 10th of a minute!) CAN AND DOES GET BILLED. 

In a case like this, a win does not bring attorney fees (unlike a win in a personal injury case or something like that). This means the attorney has to bill the client.  But in these type of cases, billing the client isn't feasible.  For instance, in the Gracia case, I got retained on Sunday July 18th, I worked almost nonstop on the case Mon - Thurs (while also trying to deal with my other cases), and then we started  trial on Friday July 23rd.   Luckily Martin and Leira joined me in trial.  To have 3 attorneys in trial, at what should have been $500 an hour ($125 an hour for me, $125 an hour for Leira, $250 [at least] an hour for Martin) for 5 FULL Days  (approximate 40 hours) would have been $20,000....and that would have just been for the JP trial! It doesn't include all the hours put in on the case the 4 days before trial, every night after trial, and the two weekends during the trial.  Conservatively, we are talking another $20,000.  (so $40K just for the JP portion of their case).

As you remember, after the JP proceedings, we had multiple hearings etc and then TWO FULL WEEKS OF TRIAL in October.  After the trial, there were several post-judgment hearings (3 hearings on the issue of damages, two hearings on the motion for new trial, and two hearings on the indigent issue for the appellate transcript).  A defense for this kind of case can quickly cost at least $150,000 to $200,000.  And people forget that we still have expenses that must be paid. We still have to pay our receptionist, our law clerk, our office overhead (monthly rent, phone, internet, copies, etc), as well as all  fees directly associated with a case. For instance, every time I want someone served with a subpoena, I have to pay a process server anywhere from $75.00 to $100.00 (per subpoena).  Every time I go to court in Harris County, I have to pay for parking (while in trial, I always had to park in the garage @ $8.00 / day because we had to lug boxes back and forth AND you can only park 2 to 4 hours at a meter - so for the 3 of us @ $8.00 / day for  the 12 days of trial was $288.00 - plus we all had to buy food at the courthouse every day since we were there at 8:30 a.m. and usually left somewhere around 6:00 p.m.). Every time I file a motion in court, I have to either use gas and time to drive to the court house to file it OR I have to pay a $16.00 electronic filing fee. I have to pay for every copy I make, every long-distance fax, every document sent to opposing counsel by CMRRR, every bit of supplies, etc, etc, etc.  In our case, we had to hire a translator for Bertha when she testified.....that bill was close to a $1000.00.

In addition to the time he spent on this case, which is invaluable, I know Paul spent an enormous amount of money on this case (not necessarily because he wanted to but because he had to....winning ain't easy OR cheap). Just filing the Federal lawsuit cost several hundred dollars in filing fees (and does not include the cost to serve the opposing parties). And what no one seems to think about or remember is this: Paul is solo practitioner.  This means he is not collecting a paycheck every two weeks like the goons at the county attorney's office. The Attorneys at the county attorney's office get a paycheck no matter what happens in the case AND they don't have to personally  foot the bill for anything (in fact, their parking is reimbursed, their lunches during trial are reimbursed, etc)....Guess who foots the bills for the county attorney's office to fight these cases? The citizens of that county.  But when we (Paul, Jessica, me, Leira, Martin, etc) handle one of these cases, we aren't getting a paycheck from anyone and generally, we aren't getting paid by our clients (for the reasons mentioned above, not because the clients don't want to).  So our expenses skyrocket while our income plummets.  It took me and Martin several months after the Gracia trial to recover financially.....Because of all the work we had to put into the case and all the time spent in court in trial, our practice basically came to a screeching halt; afterwards we were exhausted, swamped with back-logged work, and broke.

I hope that people take what you posted to heart and DONATE.  As a person who's been through this (and still going through it  [but on a smaller scale] since I'm appealing the Gracia case), I know the financial and emotional toll this kind of case takes on an attorney.  I know people think we (attorneys) are made out of money but we aren't.  And many of us, especially those that choose to practice criminal defense like myself and Paul, don't do it because we think we are going to get rich.  Rather, we do it because we are believers in the constitution, and we want to fight for those who often can't fight for themselves.  I did not take the Gracia case b/c I am a lover of birds (in fact, you know I knew very little about birds), and Paul didn't take the Smith's case b/c he's a lover of dogs (although I know he is). We did it because we were incensed at the injustice and blatant violation of people's constitutional rights.  There are very few attorneys who will even take one of these cases,  fewer who know how to handle this type of case, and even fewer who will actually fight it the way it must be fought.

Paul is a rare breed (no pun intended), so I hope and pray people will support him by donating money to the cause.... People never know when they might end up on the other side of the fence and will need someone like Paul to step in and defend their constitutional rights.  I know people are struggling financially but every little bit matters, every little bit counts, and every little bit is appreciated.  You know I'm broke, but I'm going to put in my few dollars so he can continue to fight the good fight......Every victory matters, and his win today is a win for all of us.

Take care,


Jennifer R. Gaut

PJ's footnote: There is no ACLU for animal owners to turn to.  All those who have worked on the AlphaTex and Gracia cases are that rare breed who cared enough about property rights, about constitutional rights and protections, to step up but they cannot do this alone.  For them, this is a profession, how they feed their families.  Ms. Gaut isn't joking about being broke.  She's a young, new lawyer who has contributed her own time and reached into her own pocket to fund the Gracia case and is now helping fund the AlphaTex case.  WE own the animals and it is grossly unfair to expect these professionals to fund these cases.  It's time for us to do our part or resign ourselves to summary loss of our rights and property.

AlphaTex Needs YOU

January 20, 2012

Were all of the AlphaTex animals cruelly treated? NO. Were ANY of the AlphaTex animals cruelly treated? NO. So says a unanimous jury.  Today, in west Texas, a team won a huge victory for all of us, human and animal.  But this fight is far from over and YOUR help is now needed.

"The six-person Randall County jury decided no cruelty had occurred at the kennel located near Aiken and that the close to 200 animals seized almost four months ago by the Floyd County Sheriff’s Department should be returned to Mark and Sandra Smith."

The Smiths and their attorneys, Paul Holloway and Jessica Casenave-Skinner, have done an absolutely incredible job in defending their (and all of our) constitutional rights to own and keep animals without a summary taking by the government being allowed to impinge those rights.  The rest of us are at less risk every time an owner wins the right to make the decisions for their animals without the type of draconian interference that was imposed on the Smiths at their AlphaTex Kennels.  The Smiths have their civil judgment for return of their animals but NOW those who took the animals simply MUST be held accountable.

The Smiths have already filed their federal lawsuit and each and every one of us needs to pitch in every penny we can to help that suit be successful.  Lawsuits are EXPENSIVE.  The Smiths do not have that kind of money, most of us don't.  When lawyers like these are willing to front their TIME, the least the rest of us can do is help fund the actual costs which can easily run into the tens of thousands.  Every time we help fight back lessens the chances of someone knocking on our doors and deciding they can let the media and a bunch of untrained volunteers trample through our homes on a mission of death and destruction of our lives and those of our animals.

Three of the Smiths dogs were summarily killed during the raid.  "three dogs euthanized the day of the six-hour seizure.  Smith said one of those, Comet, suffered from hair loss due to a thyroid problem, not mange as was speculated. Another euthanized dog, Morgan, had been kicked by a horse, while another, a black German shepherd puppy, had a hard time walking but was on the road to recovery and was to be adopted by former AlphaTex employee Rebekka Terrell."  This was NOT "euthanasia" which is the killing of an animal to prevent suffering.  This was blatant wanton killing of their dogs without consent, without any rational basis at all.

Time for each of you to step up and help; to make a commitment to give what you can now and commit to making a gift toward this case each and every month until it is won and these killers are held as fully accountable as possible.  If you own animals, your rights are on the line too.  No excuses, make your gift today and every month hereafter to protect us all.  Go to Assisting AlphaTex Kennel Owners for updates, to make your gift, and PLEASE share this with everyone you know and encourage and cajole them to pitch in.

"First they came for.. Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me."  If you own animals, they are coming for YOU.

You need to speak with your voice and your dollars or there may be no one to speak for you.


The info to pitch in contributions is at Assisting AlphaTex Kennel Owners

But a friend has asked me to add it here too:

Contributions to fund the case against Floyd County, TX (and in support of all owners and their rights) can be sent via mail to:

Jessica Casenave
207 E. 6th St,
Plainview, Texas 79072
Please note AlphaTex on your check!
or via Paypal to  Please send contributions through Paypal as a "gift" and note AlphaTex on them.


Animals Have NO Rights

January 11, 2012

I just attempted to post a link to a blog on this topic to Facebook only to be informed that the item has been flagged as "spam" which is most certainly is not. Please share through your email contacts as FB is blocking a fine blogger!

When you attempt to post this link on FB:

You will probably get a warning box indicating it has been flagged as "spam". Please click the "let us know" that designation is error box at the bottom and identify the item as a blog entry, give the url, and let them know you are a regular reader or know the blogger, if you do.

Sadly, while Mark Zuckerberg (FB founder) is learning about slaughtering his own food, his staff is allowing animal rights activists to set the agenda on Facebook.  They set up hate pages to flame and are permitted to hide behind them anonymously as a "cause" and they are permitted to gang up on everyone else by stomping on their "report" buttons. IF Facebook is to become what Zuckerberg wants, he should certainly remember that we ALL have the right to speak out and his staff needs to find a way to stop the bully behavior by Batshit Crazy Activists that are trolling Facebook!

AlphaTex Dared To Speak Out

December 5, 2011

Most animal seizure/forfeiture cases begin with Trespassing and end with Conversion.  They start with activists who have recruited law enforcement to aid them in invading one's privacy and home, often dragging the media along and allowing them to also freely traipse into your home.  This was the topic of my blog entry To Trespass or Not to Trespass a few weeks ago.  The trespassing is followed by a media blitz by the activists to smear the animal owners publicly and attempt to shame them into silence.  That is usually followed by summary judicial proceedings to rubber stamp thieving of the animals and other property by the government from the true owners.  And THAT is often followed by criminal charges that the government swore it would bring if only the owner gave up their property without a fuss.  The owner having done so, the government then proceeds with criminal charges ANYWAY.  The whole bloody thing is an absolute abomination of "justice".

The case against the owners of AlphaTex Kennels in west Texas is no less of an abomination but they have refused to be shamed, give up their animals, and crawl off in silence.  They have found some great lawyers to assist them too.  Everyone in an animal seizure/forfeiture case most certainly needs to rally the troops because there is inevitably some lunatic like "Daizy" willing to start a hate group like Animal lovers against AlphaTex Kennels within minutes of the media blitz.  People like Daizy don't care about fairness or a fair process.  They summarily "convict" and proceed to spew their hate instantly; no need to wait for facts.  Fortunately, we live in a country where the dictatorial Daizy types haven't won out yet.  We can and MUST fight back against their desire for Star Chamber treatment of these cases.

Last year, the owners of AlphaTex Kennels spoke out publicly in defense of all our rights to own animals without excessive government interference.  No doubt in my mind that doing so is exactly what put them on the Animal Rights Fanatic (ARF) "target list" and led to the recent seizure of their animals.  They spoke out for us and now it is time for us to support them, both in their defense in state court and in support of their already filed federal case which will attempt to regain our rights being so blithely ignored should we dare to "own" animals in defiance of the ARF wishes.

Some of the documents in the AlphaTex federal case are now readily available.

I would especially like to draw your attention to page 5 of the order where the federal judge refers to Don Feare as a "prosecutor" and makes reference to the potential of a "valid conviction".  These 2 terms taken together persuade me that the federal judge has not yet wrapped his head even around the fact that this is SUPPOSED to be a CIVIL case.  That these cases are indeed more criminal than civil AND often followed by further criminal proceedings is one of the very important issues that needs to be sorted out by the courts as criminal cases should and do come with special protections from Constitutions while these cases tend to be summarily decided and then used to bootstrap the later criminal cases.

Jessica Casenave is a young lawyer assisting Paul Holloway in representing the Smiths, owners of AlphaTex Kennels.  Contributions to fund the case against Floyd County, TX (and in support of all owners and their rights) can be sent to: through

Please send contributions through as a "gift" and note AlphaTex on them.

Small donations do add up so please don't hesitate to help even if you can only afford to make a small contribution.

These cases are expensive; well beyond the means of just about any individual.  As usual, the attorneys are trying to cover OUT OF POCKET costs and aren't ensured they will be paid at all for their services.  For all our sakes, we NEED to contribute and help put a stop to these summary proceedings that deprive owners of their most fundamental rights and property.

PS: The Gracia case is still pending on appeal.  Legal process can be slow but we're beginning to make a dent.  The animal owners and lawyers need to hear from us both in voice and dollars.  Freedom is never free.

The owners of AlphaTex dared to speak out, to use their free speech to defend our rights.  That is something we should all be able to do without fear that our property, our animals, will be seized and summarily forfeited to the government to be given to strangers who will profit greatly from them.

The $50 Dog Myth

December 2, 2011

The recent Medlen decision has once again raised the issue of how to put a dollar value on an animal.  If you do a bit of internet searching the popular belief you will find is that a dog is worth its replacement value which is alleged to generally be about $50; that it has always been thus in American law.  It's a lie.

Old Drum was shot by a neighbor in 1869.  "The farmer (Burden's brother-in-law) had previously announced his intentions to kill any dog found on his property; the dog's owner was suing for damages in the amount of $50, the maximum allowed by law... Vest won the case (a possibly apocryphal story of the case says that the jury awarded $500 to the dog's owner) and also won its appeal to the Missouri Supreme Court."

Well, there indeed is your $50 cap but that is $50 in 1869.  There's a little thing accountants call the "time value" of money.  Just as the price of postage stamps has gone from a single penny many years ago to 44 times that amount today, $50 in 1869 would have a current value of $808.82 in 2010 which is considerably less inflated than those postage stamps.  I don't know if the story of the jury award is true but, if it is, then they found Old Drum to be worth $8,088.24 in today's dollars.  These calculations are quite simple and based merely on inflation over the years.  There's an easy website if you'd like to run the calculations yourself.

And things have rather changed since 1869.  Prior to 1900 and well into the 20th Century and even today, animal care is primarily performed by owners.  However, the veterinary profession has been growing since it struggled into existence in about 1761 when the first "organized teaching" of the subject was established in Lyons, France.  While the modern veterinary professionals would have us believe that their profession has a long history in pet care, this is simply untrue.  Their focus until very recently was on human health and our food supply.  It is only the last few decades that the concept of medical care for animals by veterinarians has come into being and it didn't spring into being by accident.

A century ago, some 50 years after Old Drum was killed, there was no rabies vaccine as we know of today; infected animals were killed and human wounds were cauterized.  "The first rabies vaccine was developed in the early 1960’s" and it certainly wasn't common to vaccinate pets until long after that.  I grew up in a world where we watched animals closely for signs of rabies and animal bites were cause for fear.  It was during this time that the concept of "indoor only" for cats was born; it was the safest way to protect them from contracting rabies and reduced the chances for a bite to harm a human because, as ever cat owner knows, cat's bite even to show affection.  It was also a world where few confined dogs, especially pet dogs.

With a rabies vaccine came protection for the pets and humans.  Those in animal husbandry or with more than a few animals could vaccinate their own.  We more wimpy owners took our pets to friends or veterinarians.  I still remember the veterinarian we went to when I was a kid after we moved to Oklahoma in 1970.  We were the yuppies of the day, PET OWNERS who were incompetent to provide basic shots to our cats.  It was cause for embarrassment to us and always grins and giggles for the veterinarian and staff who were more accustomed to handling horses and cattle.  We all changed over the 4 decades since then.  Many owners are still quite capable of tending their own animals but there are way more of us less competent "mere" pet owners and the veterinary profession has evolved to provide the services we want but they are also looking after their own interests.

The veterinary profession has promoted laws that mandate ONLY they should give rabies vaccinations.  There is NO good reason for this other than their desire to have a monopoly that is foisted upon us all.  Most owners are quite capable of administering the rabies vaccine to their pets and it was done by many owners before these mandates.  It's quite simple but many of us are too wimpy (or uninformed) to do it.  Arguably, taking away the mandate would open the door to wider vaccinations at community clinics and by individuals so more animals would be vaccinated without that extra charge for a veterinary "exam" (that is often nominal, at best).  But, for now, the reality is that the veterinary profession has acquired something of a monopoly on giving rabies vaccinations to pets and that opened a HUGE door for them.  Veterinarians suddenly had access to enormous numbers of new mandated clients.

Veterinarians have used that access to encourage use of their services and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that...  Well, nothing wrong until they want to mandate use of their services at great cost to owners while simultaneously wanting to keep the value of animals at $50, stuck at the 1869 rate without even an allowance for inflation.  They would have us buy into the concept that even the costs they encourage us to incur should be disregarded in the valuation of our pets; that acknowledging the very real existence of these costs as part of our investment in our pets is somehow error.  You see, these very real costs are an inherent part of what is being called "sentimental" value in the Medlen case.  More than that, we invest our time, our attentions, our feelings and the veterinarians encourage this too; it's a big part of how they persuade us that we should incur $15,000 to attempt to save an injured or seriously ill pet.  But still they want the pet to be valued at $50 at the courthouse.

That we have feelings for our pets is nothing new at all; nor is the concept that a dollar value can be placed on them in a courtroom...  Nearly 150 years ago, there was a hunting dog shot by a neighbor.  The dog's owner sued (and won).  Here is part of what the owner's attorney said in closing argument to the jury.

Gentlemen of the jury: A man’s dog stands by him in prosperity and in poverty, in health and in sickness. He will sleep on the cold ground, where the wintry winds blow and the snow drives fiercely, if only he may be near his master’s side. He will kiss the hand that has no food to offer, he will lick the wounds and sores that come in encounters with the roughness of the world. He guards the sleep of his pauper master as if he were a prince. When all other friends desert, he remains. When riches take wings and reputation falls to pieces, he is as constant in his love as the sun in its journey through the heavens.

If fortune drives the master forth an outcast in the world, friendless and homeless, the faithful dog asks no higher privilege than that of accompanying him to guard against danger, to fight against his enemies, and when the last scene of all comes, and death takes the master in its embrace and his body is laid away in the cold ground, no matter if all other friends pursue their way, there by his graveside will the noble dog be found, his head between his paws, his eyes sad but open in alert watchfulness, faithful and true even to death.

This is Old Drum and many of our pets today too.  The veterinarians run businesses but they can't have it both ways.  They can't mandate their services be purchased by us and prey upon our sympathies to increase their income while simultaneously devaluing our pets.  Some now argue that Medlen is attempting to overturn 100+ years of settled law on the liability when an animal is injured or dies and the valuation of that animal.  This too is n untruth; every bit as untrue as the myth that dogs were worthless in 1869 or that owners didn't love their animals in 1869 and long before that.

Perhaps I will take a closer look at the claims made by those asking the Medlen court to reverse itself on another day...

To Trespass or Not to Trespass, That is the Question

November 17, 2011

Time and again the media traipses in with the "authorities" to take pictures and video and broadcast it to support their sensationalized versions of events.  Yesterday, KCBD was sued and for doing just that and, today, their defense is "no one told us to leave".  WELLLLL, no one has to do that.  Since the Texas media seems to be wholly unaware of the Texas Criminal Trespass statute, I'm going to publish a bit of it here:

Sec. 30.05.  CRIMINAL TRESPASS.  (a)  A person commits an offense if the person enters or remains on or in property of another, including residential land, agricultural land, a recreational vehicle park, a building, or an aircraft or other vehicle, without effective consent and the person:
(1)  had notice that the entry was forbidden; or
(2)  received notice to depart but failed to do so.

See that great big OR between those 2 subsections? Nobody has to tell you to get the hell out if you had notice you weren't supposed to be there in the first place.  What's "notice"?  That one is pretty simple too.

"Notice" means:
(A)  oral or written communication by the owner or someone with apparent authority to act for the owner;
(B)  fencing or other enclosure obviously designed to exclude intruders or to contain livestock;
(C)  a sign or signs posted on the property or at the entrance to the building, reasonably likely to come to the attention of intruders, indicating that entry is forbidden;  
(D)  the placement of identifying purple paint marks on trees or posts on the property, provided that the marks are:
(i)  vertical lines of not less than eight inches in length and not less than one inch in width;
(ii)  placed so that the bottom of the mark is not less than three feet from the ground or more than five feet from the ground;  and
(iii)  placed at locations that are readily visible to any person approaching the property and no more than:
(a)  100 feet apart on forest land;  or
(b)  1,000 feet apart on land other than forest land;  or
(E)  the visible presence on the property of a crop grown for human consumption that is under cultivation, in the process of being harvested, or marketable if harvested at the time of entry.

Fencing "OR OTHER ENCLOSURE", signs, certain other markings OR crops and you should stay the hell off of private property unless you are invited; otherwise, you are probably guilty of CRIMINAL trespass.  On the civil/tort side (that's what is involved in the lawsuit linked above), the rules are even simpler.


Trespass to real property occurs when a person enters another's land without consent. Rankin v. FPL Energy, LLC, 266 S.W.3d 506, 509 n.4 (Tex. App.--Eastland 2008, pet. denied); Wilen v. Falkenstein, 191 S.W.3d 791, 797-98 (Tex. App.--Fort Worth 2006, pet. denied).

SUING FOR DAMAGES FOR TRESPASS ON LANDTo recover damages, a plaintiff must prove that: (1) the plaintiff owns or has a lawful right to possess real property; (2) the defendant entered the plaintiff's land and the entry was physical, intentional, and voluntary; and (3) the defendant's trespass caused injury to the plaintiff. Rankin, 266 S.W.3d at 509 n.4; Wilen, 191 S.W.3d at 798.SOURCE: 04-08-00171-CV (7/8/09) (San Antonio Court of Appeals)

Um, hey, KCDB it looks to me like you're pretty well screwed both criminally and civilly on this one.  And I think you know it too.  How many times do we see the media at a distance using telephoto lenses or flying overhead?  Yeah, you guys know damn good and well that you aren't supposed to be traipsing onto private property BUT, in these animal seizure cases, you've just gone BONKERS.  You seem to think that the law is turned on its head, that the property owner has the burden to oust you when, in fact, YOU have the burden to seek and obtain permission to enter BEFORE doing so.

It's pretty simple in Texas, we property owners don't have an obligation to hover over our property 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks of the year in order to be present to tell those without authority to GET THE HELL OUT because the law tells them NOT TO ENTER.  But please don't forget this IS Texas and we recently boosted the stakes with a Castle law, we just might shoot you instead of telling you to GET THE HELL OUT because we know the law tells you NOT TO ENTER.  In all honesty, I'm not really worried about trespassing media members getting shot.  They really do know better so, if they get shot, that's on them and pretty much falls under the good old "deserved killing" clause.  I am, however, worried about the animal "rescuers" on this point.

I attended a little animal law seminar held at South Texas College of Law recently and got to hear the touted "animal law expert" Don Feare speak.  He stood before a room of mostly volunteers and some lawyers and told them that, if they were on someone's property at the behest of law enforcement, they were safe from liability.  I really, REALLY, urge those in the "rescue" community to seek out a second legal opinion on that topic from someone in criminal and/or property law, someone without the myopic "animal law" perspective.  You need to make sure you've got a real "deal" with that law enforcement agency, otherwise, your asses might not be covered.

There are indeed some defenses to the criminal trespass law.  Here's some of them:

(e)  It is a defense to prosecution under this section that the actor at the time of the offense was:
(1)  a firefighter or emergency medical services personnel, as defined by Section 773.003, Health and Safety Code, acting in the lawful discharge of an official duty under exigent circumstances;
(2)  a person who was:(A)  an employee or agent of:(i)  an electric utility, as defined by Section 31.002, Utilities Code;(ii)  a telecommunications provider, as defined by Section 51.002, Utilities Code;(iii)  a video service provider or cable service provider, as defined by Section 66.002, Utilities Code;(iv)  a gas utility, as defined by Section 101.003 or 121.001, Utilities Code; or(v)  a pipeline used for the transportation or sale of oil, gas, or related products; and(B)  performing a duty within the scope of that employment or agency; or
(3)  a person who was:(A)  employed by or acting as agent for an entity that had, or that the person reasonably believed had, effective consent or authorization provided by law to enter the property; and(B)  performing a duty within the scope of that employment or agency.

That last one MIGHT cover you "rescuers" on criminal liability (if you're absolutely sure whoever you are working with won't throw you under the bus if push comes to shove).  At a minimum, you should really consider getting something in writing (you know, a contract or something) that says you're an agent of that governmental entity that's asking you to rush in with them and that specifies what you may do and what the rules are for any property you help to remove and you damn sure want to now what, if any, authority you have over property (animals) that you take custody of because you almost certainly do not own them at that point.  Even then, I'm not sure your asses are covered on the civil/tort liability for trespass which is more straight forward. And there are SO many other potential liability issues I'm not even going to try to touch on them here.

Mr. Feare did have one other little tidbit of advice at the seminar that I found interesting.  Some of the "rescuers" were complaining that owners of dogs they had pulled from shelters were showing up and demanding their dogs back.  Did they have to give them back and, if so, couldn't they at least demand some compensation for what they had spent on the dogs (pull fees, vet costs, food/shelter, etc.)?  Mr. Feare started with the general rule that one can only sell what one owns.  If that shelter didn't own that dog, then the "rescue" doesn't own that dog.  Give the dog back!  Nope, you have NO right to get paid.  I agree with Mr. Feare on this one and what he didn't say is YOU are trafficking in STOLEN property.  Yeah, give it back and pray you don't get prosecuted or sued!

Good old Mr. Feare did take his advice on this point one step further in encouraging the "rescuers" to promote city's passing ordinances (and county's passing resolutions) that specify that animals in their shelters automatically become forfeit to the shelter at some point; some "law" that they can hang their hat on to says the shelter "owns" the animal so then the "rescue" will be able to take ownership.  That shelter can only sell what it owns, remember.  I questioned this at the seminar.  Can cities simply declare they "own" your found vehicle after 3 days?  In response, Mr. Feare pointed out that cities have deals with tow companies and vehicle storage companies who are the ones that pick up those found vehicles and then apply for new titles under a specific state statute.

Yep, indeed those tow companies and vehicle storage lots do and I'm pretty sure that's because the Texas property laws are pretty damn stringent on NOT forfeiting property to the state (or its subdivisions: counties, cities) except when there is a specific law permitting it and I have yet to find one that would allow the summary forfeiture of foundling pets.  There are statutes that cover estray wildlife and livestock but not pets.  Is that a glitch in the law?  Maybe but, without such a statute (one that is constitutionally valid), best I can tell under general Texas property laws, it would take about 3 years for a foundling animal to become "forfeit" and even then there would be ownership issues.  Is that a bad outcome for pets?  Yeah, I think so.  My question is this: Why haven't the "animal law experts" like good old Don Feare taken note of this and proposed some legislation to deal with it?  I mean, seriously, y'all have high paid lobbyists and you're so damn super smart so SURELY you haven't simply missed such a simple issue!

Well, in good old Don Feare's defense, his excuse probably goes back to his history as a cop.  Cops just want a written law they can hang their hat on along with their "official immunity".  But Don, dearest, you're a lawyer now and you're advising average lay folk at these seminars.  They aren't cops and they may not be entitled to any immunity at all (despite your declaration to the contrary at the seminar).  Or do you just not mind throwing them under the bus "for the sake of the animals"?  Are you that big of a liberal animal rights activist?  Oh, my, there I've gone and done it.  I called Don Feare an activist and I hear he finds that offensive and tends to sue people over it.  Hey, Donny boy, bring it!  Are you afraid of a little old blogger just like Attila the Prosecutor in Houston?

Thievery by Houston Beagle and Hound Rescue

August 12, 2011

"We have this seven days statue law and we follow it very closely. It not our first rodeo on people surfacing later and so we can't hold onto a dog indefinitely," said Sandra Kos of Houston Beagle and Hound Rescue.

“It is not our burden to find the owners,” said Becky Agen, an HBHR volunteer.

In an email to The Villager, Sandra Kos, founder of HBHR, said her organization does its best to reunite families with their lost pets. However, she said, once volunteers accept ownership of a stray dog, they move forward...

OK, you scuzzy broads, you at least need to get your story straight!

There's a statute? REALLY? Get your scuzzy butts over here and post a link or citation. I dare you. I double dog dare ya! (Nobody hold their breath.  There ain't no such statute!)

Can't hold a dog indefinitely? Not your burden?  If you put your freaking paws on someone else's property, it damn sure is your obligation to return that property to the owner or turn it over to authorities!

Once volunteers "accept ownership"? WTF? Can I accept ownership of your car? How about your house?  ACCEPT OWNERSHIP??? I can't stop laughing at the very concept!  Where I come from, that's commonly referred to as a 5 finger discount.  The law calls it STEALING.

Sandra says this is not their first rodeo.  THAT I believe to be absolutely true.  I am quite certain this is not the first time they have sold someone else's dogs for their own benefit and profit.  It's so much easier to find healthy, well cared for, loved pets who have strayed from home and then sell them than to do the real work of rehabbing animals in true need.

The very, very sad truth is that there are few ethical people in animal "rescue".  Most "rescuers" simply presume they have the right to do whatever they want with an animal in their possession and the owner's rights be damned.  If your pet got loose, it is YOUR fault and you no longer deserve that pet.  Circumstances don't matter and animals disappear after each and every natural disaster into the hands of "rescuers" who will transport them miles away and sell them with little or NO effort to reunite them with their owners.

After Hurricane Katrina, pet owners had to battle to get pets back for years and the rescue community promised to do better "next time".  After Hurricane Ike, they didn't do better.  After a tornado wiped out Joplin, again the "rescuers" swooped in and animals, from beloved pets to livestock, vanished.  This poor family would still dearly love to Bring Hanah Home.

You'd think your pet would be safe and get returned if picked up by a government shelter or animal control but you shouldn't.  Can you Help Bring Smokey Home? And Where's Kapone?  Your government animal control authority probably has some "rule" about how long they hold your animal before selling or killing it.  Here in Texas, each shelter makes up their own, sometimes supported by local ordinance but more often just whatever they pulled out of their butts - like the 72 hour rule.  No matter that pets are property and state law is rather clear.  These shelters will "accept ownership" just like the "rescue" above and it's where these "rescuers" learned such utter disregard for YOUR property rights.

In some shelters and "rescues", they simply hold your pets hostage for outrageous fees.  You could be facing a bill for thousands of dollars to get your pet back but they will gladly sell them to someone else for a MUCH lower price.

"It not our first rodeo on people surfacing later...," said Sandra Kos of Houston Beagle and Hound Rescue.

“It is not our burden to find the owners,” said Becky Agen, an HBHR volunteer.

Can you see the disdain for owners and their rights in those words?  I mean, seriously, how dare you, the owner "surface"? It's not their "burden"!  To them, YOU have no rights at all.  These are the words and feelings of arrogant, sanctimonious control freaks.  On the one hand, they go around spouting off about how important and precious these animals are, so important that you should give them boatloads of money to tend the animals.  On the other hand, they are of so little value to you, the true owner, that you have no rights.  The property rights you have as set forth in statutes and constitutions are as nothing to them.  These animal rights activists and "rescuers" are complete scofflaws.

The type of thievery here by Houston Beagle and Hound Rescue and so common in the animal "rescue" community MUST cease and desist immediately!

To Texas Husky Rescue

July 28, 2011

Hey, you scuzzy thieves.  You have dogs that belong, per Texas property law and the US Constitution, to Ashley.  GIVE THEM BACK.

I am sick to death of people who claim to be in "rescue" who go around thieving loved, owned, cared for animals from owners on any flimsy excuse and/or false accusation while killing the animals who actually need helped.  It may be efficient and it may make you all oodles of money in donations but it is utterly DESPICABLE!

Your lawyer can contact me at if they'd like to send me a cease and desist letter (which I can assure you will instigate me to escalate against you as will any contact from any of your internal dweebs and I may escalate anyway out of disgust for you).

Killeen Animal Control, you is already be on my big *S* list so don't EVEN start.  I got some BIG news for your pissy little city council.  They do NOT get to override Texas statute with their whimsical city ordinances and they damn sure don't get to trump the Texas and US Constitutions!

Foundling Puppy Somewhere in Texas

July 5, 2011

Is this your lost puppy?  If so, Ann C. Harlan has her somewhere in Texas and has recruited the fans at Pawsitively Texas on FB (who indicates this puppy is in the Houston area) to help her find your dog a NEW home.

The photo above was posted by Ann C. Harlan on July 1, 2011, on Facebook so she's had this puppy at least that long.

"This sweet, sweet doggy was scavenging for scraps by the side of the road - she ran across BUSY traffic to meet me as soon as she saw me, before I actually tried to beckon her; I screamed and covered my eyes - and she made it! Came right to me, tail wagging. Hard to tell for sure the breed(s?), looks like a juvenile with a ways to grow. We'll get her cleaned up but need to find her a home. She's SOOOO sweet and playful!! Serious inquiries please email me at I really want to find her a home!"

"Please, please share with anyone you know who may be interested. A lovebug like this one should not be homeless, she will bring somebody a lot of joy."

"she has a wonderful temperament and loves to play, but lays down at my feet and dozes between romps. She's learning the house rules, her housetraining is coming along pretty well considering she's only been with us for 2 days. I need to make a decision about her soon. Hoping to find her a home today!"

What we have here is a sweet, adorable puppy who hasn't been on the streets long enough to know that cars kill and runs toward the first person looking their way.  Sure sounds like a lost puppy to me.

Pawsitively Texas: "Can Anyone Help? Stray Dog in the HOUSTON Area - Good Sam Ann has kept since Friday, but MUST find a place for her to go today. Click her photo below, then click through the album to see more photos. She is a BEAUTIFUL dog. Please help find a place for her to go; no kill rescues have all responded they're FULL. CONTACT:"

Ann C. Harlan: "Ann C. Harlan thanks everyone - I've received a couple of inquiries, but no commitments yet; keeping our fingers crossed!"

"I am going to have her checked for a chip and get a basic examination in the morning. I can't put much money into this but I'll find out what I can. I've had a couple of emailed inquiries, no commitments yet. *Please* email me if you are interested, even if you're in another city. I don't mind driving a fair distance to get her to a good home. If there's hope that I have a place for her, I have a little more leeway to get it taken care of.... She's such a sweetie, you'd go "wugga-wugga-wugga" and tickle her tummy if you could see her right now! In fact, I'll do it for you~! share this, please or email me if you want this luvamuffin!!"

Yes, a decent person absolutely snatches up a puppy who is loose on the streets and THEN they do their damnedest to find the owner and get that puppy HOME to its OWNER; decent people respect the rights of others.  Here we have someone who has had this puppy for several days and began looking for a person to give the dog to immediately and is finally going to get around to checking for a microchip TODAY.  In the meantime, there is probably a puppy owner out there desperately searching for this dog; calling shelters, perhaps putting up fliers, walking through neighborhoods calling this puppy's name...

The primary purpose of community animal shelters is so that owners who have lost a pet have a centralized location to look for their missing pets.  Ann has clearly decided not to take this puppy to one of those shelters, choosing instead to find it a new home.

"Pearl Boosinger Is she at least registered with local shelters so her real owner can find her if they're looking?"  I posted this on the Pawsitively thread about this puppy.  Frankly, I'm not expecting to see much of an answer (except perhaps flames for having dared ask such a question).

You see, we have a growing contingent in this country who think any foundling animal was "dumped" or that any owner whose pet gets away from them is a BAD owner who has forfeited their rights.  Should your beloved lost pet be found by one of these people, it will be given (or sold) to someone based upon those presumptions and in complete derogation of your rights as an owner and the laws governing property.

If you want to “save” or “rescue” that dog or cat you find along the roadside in Texas, that’s wonderful but you are taking on the obligations without the benefit or rights of ownership.  There are LAWS to abide as you do so.  We're not 5 year olds claiming "Finder's Keepers" and there is no "72 hours and I can do what I want" law, we're adults who should and must respect the ownership rights of others.  If your community has a government shelter, take that found pet to the shelter!

Yeah, yeah, I am fully aware that MANY government animal shelters/pounds STINK.  If yours is one of those, then you should get actively involved to help clean it up, perhaps create an alternative where foundling animals are kept by those who find them but registered at the shelter.  There are many options you could help create but "think I'll just keep the dog/cat or find it a new home" is NOT acceptable.  Keeping the animal or giving it away or selling it is theft and trafficking in stolen property.  It's a CRIME, plain and simple.

There is NO law in Texas (or the vast majority of states) which says "found it, get to keep it", Wink, Wink, it's especially OK to do that if the found item is a dog or cat.  Not only that but I think it's great if I get on a social networking website and advertise my crime!  SERIOUSLY?  Would you get on Facebook and say "I found this beautiful leather wallet and would love to find it a new home, please network for placement of this valuable item"?  Hell, no.  That wallet belongs to someone and so do those foundling dogs and cats and each and every one of you reading this knows that.

Stealing and calling it "rescue" is a CRIME. Stop it.

But What About the Animals?

January 29, 2011

Houston Humane Society (HHS) KILLS 86% of the animals taken into their shelter.  Well, that was their kill rate before the economy soured and they increased their RAIDER activities.  Yesterday, through a settlement agreement between Harris County, HHS, and an owner from whom they had seized nearly 250 dogs and cats; the HHS became owners of those seized animals.  The media refers to "custody" of the animals and future "adoptions" but we're really talking about stripping a rightful owner of property rights and handing those rights over the HHS who may sell the animals (calling it "adoption") or who may kill them, who may already have begun killing them.

Whenever I defend the rights of owners, the biggest criticism I hear is "but what about the poor animals?"  WELL, what about the poor animals in this case?  According to HHS, "For years the dogs have been living inside the residence in severely unclean and deplorable conditions."  (No mention of the cats AT ALL.)  They never seem to tell what "deplorable conditions" means but there sure are plenty who like to toss that term around.  OK, so let's say they were living in complete and utter filth but the thing is they were LIVING.  Are they alive now?  If so, for how long?

You can scroll down the HHS page linked above and see how poorly they work to give updates about animals after seizure, after they become owners; leaving old information hanging out there with their plea for your money but no further information about the animals, no self accountability at all.  No doubt the same will happen to these animals.  The pleas for your money will continue but the animals have already disappeared into their black hole shelter.  Oh, sure, in a week or 2 or 3; they will trot a couple of them out and onto TV, rehabbed in mere days (bathed, shaved, nails trimmed, vaccinations and altered because that is ALL the rehabbing one can do in mere days), ready for adoption, and yet another plea for YOUR MONEY.  That plea will most certainly imply that all the animals were tended, sheltered, cared for, alive and to be "adopted" but don't you believe it for a moment.  HHS KILLS 86% of the animals who cross their threshold.

Better DEAD than DIRTY.  Is that the HHS mentality?  Perhaps it is and I guess that's to be expected from a group "honest" enough to call it's "officers" RAIDERS.


If animal welfare is so important to our society that the government is contracting with organizations like HHS, so important that law enforcement,  court and attorney time and our tax dollars are to be spent on these cases (while we cut social services for human children), then we all damned sure have a right to know the outcome for the animals rather than just the outcome of the hearings.  So, I wrote a little email to the local media yesterday:

HHS (last known kill rate of 86-89%) received ownership of 240+ animals in court today. Clearly your station has a close relationship with and supports HHS. Today you report some of the animals will be available for adoption soon. How about, just this once, you follow every single animal and disclose what happens to each and every one of them. If any of them die or are killed, disclose why they died or were killed. Everyone starts off in these cases saying "what about the poor animals"? Well, what about the animals? Will you at least tell what happens to them? Or will this be about the last we ever hear on these?
Local 2 Investigates

Unless you too believe animals are better dead than dirty, please join my plea to the media to follow these animals and account for them; to end the black holes where 86%+ of the animals are killed without any notice at all while the NPOs like HHS continue their pleas for donations (essentially for the dead, to pay for their efforts to seize more animals to kill).  Demand that all animal shelters account publicly account for each and every animal that comes through their doors.  Is that too much to expect from those who claim to be "humane" or claim to be "preventing cruelty"?

Battery By Horse

January 18, 2011

If you were shoved, even poked, by someone 10 feet tall and weighing 1500 pounds, would you consider that offensive? I damned sure would, even considering it a criminal battery, but it's become a common occurrence that is often lauded by the public.

Battery is a criminal offense involving unlawful physical contact, distinct from assault in that the contact is not necessarily violent. In the United States, criminal battery, or simply battery, is the use of force against another, resulting in harmful or offensive contact. It is a specific common law misdemeanor, although the term is used more generally to refer to any unlawful offensive physical contact with another person, and may be a misdemeanor or a felony, depending on the circumstances. Battery was defined at common law as "any unlawful touching of the person of another by the aggressor himself, or by a substance put in motion by him." In most cases, battery is now governed by statute, and its severity is determined by the law of the specific jurisdiction.  Each jurisdiction will be slightly different but that definition will do for discussion's sake.  And now on to the horses used for battering...

The expertise of a mounted unit officer in crowd control is renowned. The officers are used extensively at concerts, parades, sporting events, demonstrations and other events that take place throughout the year. It has been estimated that one mounted officer on horseback has the effect of ten officers on foot. A mounted officer can be seen for blocks, presenting a greater crime deterrent; every mounted officer is 10 feet tall. Being on horseback enables a mounted officer to see at greater distances as well as over privacy fences and other tall barriers. Mounted officers are also able to ride on horseback into areas where a squad car cannot go.

One mounted patrol officer and his/her horse has been compared to the effectiveness of 10 to 12 police officers on the ground in crowd control situations... Although a mounted officer on horseback may be intimidating while in crowd control situations the general public sees him/her as very approachable.  Indeed and therein lies a problem.  If you touch the horse, you may be accused of battery yet these mounted horse patrols are often used to batter the citizenry in the name of "crowd control".  That we laud this says we let our love of animals override our good sense because we do not understand how these animals are truly used.

Crowd control techniques were introduced... More experienced horses and riders practiced pushing human volunteers out of the way. "It's what we call 'soft intimidation,' " said [Milwaukee Police Sgt. Fred] Tice.  A properly trained and mounted officer becomes one with the mount.  That officer becomes 10 feet tall, weighing 1500 pounds or more.  The officer can then stride into a crowd of us normal under 6 foot tall, under 200 pound folks.  How the hell being pushed by 1500 pounds of 10 feet tall creature can be call "soft" is beyond me!

In fact, there is nothing "soft" about it.  Montrose resident Kirste Reimers, 50, is recovering from being trampled by Kato, a 1,200-pound gelding. She might need plastic surgery to repair the damage to her chin, face, mouth, jaw and teeth... Reimers was probably less than a foot away from Kato when she turned into the horse as he took a step forward. “They basically collided,” Wallace said.  Lt. Randall Wallace was head of the Houston Police Department’s mounted unit and riding nearby at the time.  Let's take what he says at face value and say it was a mere collision.

He [Wallace] said there is no reason to re-evaluate the use of horses for crowd control. “It is not uncommon for us to bump into or brush up against people when they fail to obey verbal commands in the presence of the horse,” he added. “The alternative is officers with nightsticks jabbing and pushing, and we can avoid all that with officers on horseback.”  So, basically he's saying it's better to be trampled by a horse than beaten by a nightstick as if those were the only alternatives and as if this poor woman would obviously have deserved a nightstick beating for failing to instantly obey police commands.  That does indeed seem to be where all too many law enforcement members now stand on these issues.

If you or your animal fails to instantly obey their commands, even if they are on YOUR property for no decent, let alone good or legal reason, you and/or your animals are subject to beating or shooting even unto death.  If you're lucky, you will merely be accused of having a dangerous animal, fined outrageously, and subjected to onerous and expensive requirements for fencing, muzzles, confinement, and/or insurance.  Many communities are now seeking to put such onerous requirements even on those owners of "potentially" dangerous animals.

On the flip side, Mounted Horse and K-9 Patrol have become all the rage in law enforcement.  They are even quite popular with children, so many of these websites say. These fine animals deserve protection and laws to do that are proliferating rapidly.  It is now a crime in many jurisdictions to intentionally do them harm and I wholeheartedly approve.  Yet these fine animals are increasingly used as a form of abuse of police powers.  In doing that, the animal handler is the one harming the animal and it is that officer who should be held fully accountable.

The top priority in using working animals is having rational owners/handlers of those animals.  When K-9 are sent after subjects with low flying helicopters interfering with handler/dog communications, there is nothing rational going on; merely a fiercely trained tool loosed on a citizen.  When a mounted officer uses his/her horse to shove humans without good cause, there is nothing rational going on; simply a battery of a citizen by a law enforcement officer who either hasn't got control of his/her mount or is intentionally abusing his/her power and using his/her bloated presence as one with the horse to do so.

When a mounted officer has his/her horse shove their face into a human's face, it is natural and to be expected that the person will push the horse's face away.  In fact, it is normal and to be expected that a person may be so startled that they would strike out at the sudden appearance of a horse in their face in the midst of a metro area. As noted in so many of the law enforcement websites I visited, the mounted officer has a large and intimidating presence so it should not be necessary to get up close to anyone unless one's intent is to cause a problem and it should certainly not be common to "bump into or brush up against people".  Not only are these encounters not a battery of the horse, it is a battery by the mounted officer of the citizen.  Battery by horse should be every bit as unacceptable to the citizenry as battery by nightstick.

And LEOs, you simply can't have it both ways.  You can't treat our animals as disposable while seeking extraordinary protection for yours.  It is the height of hypocrisy and irrationality to do so.  Either animals are of value and to be understood and treated rationally or they are disposable.  Choose.  It certainly seems to me that you've chosen the latter so far when you shoot dogs basically on whims and put your own highly trained animals in harm's way by using them to abuse your powers.  You have the power but do you have the authority?  Do they still teach that phrase in law enforcement academies?  Do they remind you that to keep respect, you must stay within the bounds of authority rather than power?

Tribute to a Foxhound

January 17, 2011

Nearly 150 years ago, there was a hunting dog shot by a neighbor.  The dog's owner sued (and won).  Here is part of what the owner's attorney said in closing argument to the jury.

Gentlemen of the jury: A man’s dog stands by him in prosperity and in poverty, in health and in sickness. He will sleep on the cold ground, where the wintry winds blow and the snow drives fiercely, if only he may be near his master’s side. He will kiss the hand that has no food to offer, he will lick the wounds and sores that come in encounters with the roughness of the world. He guards the sleep of his pauper master as if he were a prince. When all other friends desert, he remains. When riches take wings and reputation falls to pieces, he is as constant in his love as the sun in its journey through the heavens.

If fortune drives the master forth an outcast in the world, friendless and homeless, the faithful dog asks no higher privilege than that of accompanying him to guard against danger, to fight against his enemies, and when the last scene of all comes, and death takes the master in its embrace and his body is laid away in the cold ground, no matter if all other friends pursue their way, there by his graveside will the noble dog be found, his head between his paws, his eyes sad but open in alert watchfulness, faithful and true even to death.

The dog he was specifically speaking of was Old Drum, a foxhound, who is permanently memorialized in Warrensburg, MO with a statue of his likeness.

Harley, a foxhound mix, was recently shot TWICE by a law enforcement officer in Lee County, FL.  The officer was searching for someone, apparently not a criminal, just a girl who fled from a domestic situation nearby.  No apparent reason to search this particular fenced yard other than the officer WANTED to.  The officer claims to have knocked on the door and not gotten a response.  (I don't believe he did and, even if he did, none of us has an obligation to answer a knock at the door and it is absolutely NOT a requirement to do so in order to protect our property.)  A neighbor warned of the dog's possible presence but the officer entered anyway.  The officer claims the yard gate was standing open.  (I don't believe that for one single second either.  Frankly, wouldn't matter to me if it was standing open though.  Officers have no business traipsing around private property without permission or a warrant, particularly not within a clearly delineated fence line.  If a dog stays within it's own property lines, it should be safe to do ANY damn thing it pleases.)

So this pissy officer goes traipsing into a fenced area without permission, without a warrant, without any circumstances that actually justify his trespassing which means he is simply a trespasser AND with knowledge that there's probably a dog in the yard.  Harley starts to bark and this pissy officer should have backed his happy ass out of HARLEY'S yard; PERIOD.  But, no, he stands his ground and shoots Harley, TWICE.

Now the PISSY authorities add insult to injury.  First, they claim Harley is an aggressive Pit Bull who charged.  I don't know what is in the "mix" for Harley and I really don't care.  He could be a full blooded Pittie and I'd feel the exact same way.  Harley was in HIS yard and this pissy officer was a TRESPASSER who had no business being there at all.  Harley was doing his job and doing it correctly. The officer, on the other hand, was NOT doing his job properly.  It is long past time for law enforcement to CEASE and DESIST with calling every dog a "Pit Bull" as code for "justified shoot" because that is NO kind of justification at all and it is perpetuating a fraud upon the public in multiple ways.

Second added insult to injury: "Lee County Domestic Animal Services fined Bonelli $268 for what they called, Harley's 'Threatening/menacing' behavior. They are now looking into why the gate door was not secured, although Bonelli maintains the gate was shut."  The latter with the very likely intent to assess further fines.

In my little old opinion, every official in Lee County, FL needs to be sent to a class on the United States Constitution, forced to read and memorize it at a very minimum.  Or maybe we should just send them back to Kindergarten for a refresher on keeping your hands and feet to yourself, keeping your paws OFF other people's property.  You know, those very basic concepts of respecting what belongs to OTHER HUMANS and is NOT yours to play with and destroy upon a whim.

Lee County, FL officials are far from being alone.  I don't know if the number of animals being harmed or killed by law enforcement is truly on the rise or these cases are just getting more attention/press these days.  I don't care which but it needs to STOP and it needs to stop NOW.

To law enforcement and all other government officials out there: CEASE and DESIST, stop killing and maiming our animals.  Don't mess with US; Don't mess with our CRITTERS!

Ditto to those of you humaniacs who think you have some authority to thieve animals via false accusations and seizures.

Note to ALL of you crazies who dismiss the value of our animals to US, the owners, who think you can maim, kill, steal what belongs to us and has value to us; WE outnumber you vastly and we're getting PISSED off.  We are rising up, joining together, and we can and will make the last elections look like a kindly Tea Party by comparison to what we can do with our rank and file of animal owners.  We animal owners are approximately 200 million strong in the US which simply dwarfs HSUS's claimed ranks of 11 million (which we know to be a grossly inflated number).  We represent not only pet owners but the entire animal owning and using group in the US which is some 300 million strong.  And we're rather done with ignorant people who know nothing of animals deciding on laws and rules for the care of them.  Just check out what is going on in Missouri and you'll know what will sweep the nation soon enough.

Don't mess with US; Don't mess with our CRITTERS!

View older posts »

Deer Tasered, Tranqued, Tasered;

FDA Pet Widget

Grandma refuses to kowtow to LEO.  Fat, lazy, bully LEO throws tantrum, throws ticket book to ground, shoves Grandma, Tasers Grandma to the ground, and Tasers her multiple times thereafter.  SHAMEFUL LEO!

2 CHUBBY LEOs, sitting on kid, Taser scrawny kid while other LEOs watch at a charity event! Tasered in custody, locked room, multiple officers present, one victim present.

Mostly Garbage Dog Food.  This exemplifies what I hear whenever there's a commercial dog food commercial playing :)

4 days after Vet care

Here's what my girl looks like 4 days after the vet "fixed" her up for a tiny dog bite.

In the News

Avoid Dangerous Vets

Queen Sheba with Lady Bryde, Shiba Inu and Choc Lab, raised together and sharing a birthdate.
Glenda's newest suitor
Go Vote for a PSA













NAIA Alerts