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.

Go Back

I notice how none of you people have a single productive thing to say in response to anything. Calling BS on someone, or bragging that you went to school (big fucking whoop), or saying "I see an ARF showed up to spew HEARSAY and hate" when there was not anything mean or rude in the first post. It makes you look like you can't have a reasonable conversation with ANYONE unless they are blowing sunshine up your ass. Go ahead and prove me wrong by responding to this without a single bashing word. You know, like an adult? It won't happen. So this is me sinking to your level. All I see is a post stating an opinion, followed by OMG U H8R, U DUNNO WAT U TALKZ ABOUT U ARF HEARSAYER DERPDERP. Cause, even if you were for something I supported 100% [like eating burgers, or the right to be able to breed dogs without people bitching and calling you a "puppymill"], I would still want to punch you all in the face after reading even one reply. It gives me a headache just knowing you exist in the world and that it's not legal to just put you on a little island in the middle of the ocean and bomb you all. And WTF is with you and your obsession with people drinking koolaid? You're all, what? 50 year old ladies, trying to be all hip? Shaking my head, Poosinger, shaking my head.

wouldn't it be lovely if you could follow your own advice? I mean place all of us on an island and bomb us? Punch us in the face? The facts of this case/Story is that the local ACO/Sheriff, humane society and even judge have conspired to violate the constitutional rights of the kennel's owners. This case is crucial to all people who own, use or have contact with animals. This case is crucial to those people who still believe we live in a representative republic based on the Constitution.
Terry made comments and was called on the factuality and validity of those comments. Terry failed to provide any supporting evidence and well, out and out lied. Why did Terry lie? Because it's part of the AR agenda. The problem is, the people here KNOW that agenda and aren't fooled by the screams and demands of AR supporters.
PJ uses this forum to post critical issues and disseminate fact from fiction. That's something almost NONE of the current media and internet outlets will do. Isn't it amazing that PJ can do this without punching someone in the face or threatening to bomb them into non-existance for disagreeing with them?

The fact is that the dogs do NOT have Constitutional rights. We do (or are supposed to). The Constitution is there to protect all of us (humans). The Smiths' Constitutional rights have been violated, pure and simple. It doesn't matter HOW they treated their dogs - they are STILL guaranteed the same Constitutional rights that every one of us is supposed to have.

ANYONE who can read the linked documents and say with a straight face that the Smiths' Constitutional rights were not violated ...well, I don't know what to say - I read every page as my jaw dropped further and further open in disbelief.

There is no law in Texas that says that your property is subject to "inspection" at any time by a group of volunteers. That's part of the protection afforded all of us by the Fourth Amendment.

If you read the linked documents, you will see that not only were the Smiths' 4th Amendment rights violated, but their Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights as well. I have no idea how they treated any of their animals. I do know that their rights were violated, it is VERY clear from reading the court documents. We either all get these rights or none of us do.

BTW, Parvo is NOT 100% preventable, and nothing else is either. Prior to weaning, immunity is passed through the dam's milk - so separating those puppies from their dams may well have killed them. At six weeks of age one quarter of puppies can be immunized successfully. At nine weeks of age forty percent of puppies can be immunized successfully. By sixteen weeks sixty percent of puppies can be immunized successfully and by eighteen weeks ninety-five percent of puppies can be immunized successfully. Note the "95%" - because nothing is 100%!

I shouldn't have been, but was surprised to find that several dogs were summarily executed on the day of the raid, apparently without even a passing glance from a vet.

So anyone who doesn't share the point of view of Boogerslinger is just plain wrong? Well you shit stirrers are gonna love me then.

I love how all of you idiots are jumping to the side of the Smith's when clearly they neglected these animals. Not that I disagree their rights may have been violated.

But let's be honest here for a minute. They let the media and the sheriff on their property. They allowed the inspection no matter how unlawful it was. They admitted they told them they could enter the property. They never once on camera said get off my property, nor did they say it off camera. But the Smith's both gave on camera statements. Admitting they let the place get away from them. Don't come on my land, never mentioned by any of the residents. None of that. So poor poor people boo hoo. They were found out to be cruel to their purported pets.

They don't deserve to run a kennel in those conditions, bottom line. You bleeding heart ignorant assholes are what give Texans a bad name. You say, why didn't anyone come to their aid before the dogs were taken? Well why didn't they ask for help? Why didn't they go on tv and ask for the community to help them?

They should be taken out and shot for what they did to these dogs. Money grubbing, dog abusing assholes. Every last one of them, no two ways about it.

I agree with Terry and it's a shame none of you would listen to what she said about the dogs. I believe someone who actually has these animals over any of you biased against the government ranters. And before you accuse me of being Daizy, or even Terry, I don't know these people the same as I don't know any of you. I do however know how to listen to the tv and how to read newspapers and court documents.

If you'd read the court documents line by line as you said then you'd see they were all checked by vets and only the animals that needed to be put down were.

Nowhere does it say the puppies were removed from their mothers nor does it say they weren't allowed to nurse them. Yet another idiot spouting off without knowing a blessed thing.

It's a good thing for these dogs that the case was moved out of Floyd county if this is the level of intelligence they could expect on the jury, at least without you numb skulls the dogs may have a fighting chance.

Before you jump on my ass Boogerslinger, I read your mastubation about me page, no one cares about all that shit. Who did you write that for? You may have worked as a secretary but that doesn't make you a lawyer. It makes you someone who thinks they know more than they do. It also shows you for what you are, a deadbeat trying to live off the government instead of getting and keeping a ob. How lucky for you that all your ailments are "unable to be proven". Wow you did learn you a thing or two working for real lawyers didn't you, you know how to work the system to draw a monthly paycheck from the tax payers of this great state.

What a lowlife.

Throwing food on the ground and splashing water in a bucket covered in algae is not kindness. Being sprayed with a hose for barking is not kindness.
Let us just say this could be true. It would be good if we heard it in court and not by rumor. I believe what we are talking about is a right to trail. It has almost come down to human rights for animal owners when we find so many of these cases are going to trial for illegal tresspassing, for falsifying facts on a warrant and in those cases it is sometimes thrown out because in essense the tresspasser is the "criminal". It simply has turned in to a witch hunt how believe that animals need not to be in the cold or heat and on and on. Think about it when dogs become illegal and are set free, and out of human hands, out in the woods, well there exists a jungle and I would give my dog's life maybe 4 or 5 weeks if he had to compete on the food chain with other animals in the wild. They will not fare as well, and it will not be pretty. To think that Feare was brought in as an attorney in this case is demeaning to what many would like to think the justice system should be. Just wonder where all of tomorrows dogs are comming from in the future?

Sadly what most opposers are dismissing is the fact that no ASPCA, HSUS or Animal Control Agency - EVER, EVER seizes "animals" that are well looked after.
As a matter of fact, there are more compliants that animals - weren't seized and allotted time to repair/correct or clean up....

They don't just walk into a facility and start taking~!!!! There is a procedure that needs to be followed
- "if" they feel that somethings need to be changed/corrected, then they allot a certain amount of time to make the changes and come back for an inspection.... to assure the corrections have been made.
- if they feel that the situation is out of control, they seize!
I realize that many may know the Smiths or are the same multi-fashioned breeders and are defending them, therefore emotions are high... but remember, dogs are suppose to be bred to be - sociable family pets - they aren't to be manufactured!!! They aren't products.
New law changes that will come into effect, won't come as a surprise to some, but to others it will come as a shock as laws change to hinder Breeders from "manufacturing animals" The trend is not half as popular as it use to be and breeders who live solely off of breeding will be forced to get jobs - real jobs.
Stats clearly show that 4 in every 5 bred animal ends up in a shelter or a breed specific shelter - do breeders give a rats ass about that? No, all they care about is getting paid - however, tax payers who are paying for AC & euthanasia - do care!
Breeders should not be permitted to breed more than 5 animals a year and not more than once a year - each puppy born should be immediately registered and Vet checks to verify that the pups are healthy and that the female is being bred according to law - get over yourselves people, there is no market for them anymore and those who breed on farms, shoot, burn & bury the unwanted... then breed more!
The Smiths have seemingly lied to paint a pretty picture and nobody likes their business poked into - if there's nothing to hide, then there's nothing to worry about...
Fact remains that it doesn't matter how many customers come forward to say what lovely dogs they got from them, what matters is how they are "produced" and the conditions they live in... that's all that matters!

As a person who loves animals and knows it is hard to care for large number of animals, have yet to see facts to support either side of this story. I have heard stories from both sides until I see proof I will give the kennel owners the benifit of doubt as I have lost a dog due to a neighbor calling a shelter because I left town for two days and the person I hired to come care for my animals did not do thier job. I did not have the money too fight them and get my animals back. I am a foster for my local shelter, and have seen animals in poor health. Even with large number of animals they should be cared for properly, if you can not do this on your own you should hire help or volunteers. As far as animals being sick or dead. Any animal on the property sick should have vet records showing they are being treated. As far as dead dogs thier is no excuse for rotting bodies, if they di