The 2 current SPCAT snatchings in Kaufman County are really very disturbing, especially for their lack of even minimal due process.
“The SPCA recently rescued three abandoned dogs from a filthy trailer in Kaufman County, northeast of Terrell.” Well now, that does indeed sound like a very good thing for the SPCA to do. Not so much as it turns out. It appears this was a seizure of these 3 dogs although I have yet to figure out under what law such a seizure could viably have been made.
Now just imagine you live alone and have pets. Something bad happens to you and you end up in the hospital. If you think one of these humane societies or SPCAs is going to step in to help you, help your pets until you can be reunited with them, you need to rethink that. No, what they’re probably going to do is what was done here. Knowing you are in the hospital, the po po (yep LEOs, I’m rapidly losing respect for any who participate in takings like this) and SPCA will leave notices on your home’s door and, when you don’t respond, they will decide it’s OK to trespass on your property, take your animals (your property), and hold a hearing you can’t attend because YOU”RE IN THE HOSPITAL.
“On Tuesday, the SPCA of Texas gained permission to enter a Dallas residence and remove three dogs from inside a trailer.” Um, gained permission from whom and by what authority did the grantor give such permission?
“The dogs had been abandoned in a trailer on the property for an unknown period of time. Adult Protective Services contacted the Kaufman County Sheriff’s Department and the SPCA of Texas after the person living at the property was removed to a hospital” REALLY????
I find that “unknown period of time” to be disingenuous, at best. Did anybody involved in this bother to ask Adult Protective Services (APS) when the person was hospitalized? Ask if the person has an ad litem appointed to handle their affairs (that would usually include all property, including animals)? If the person is able to handle their own affairs, was ANY attempt to contact them or give notice to them at the hospital attempted? I’m guessing the po po and SPCAT decided that leaving notes on the door was more than sufficient. God forbid you should actually attempt to contact the owner if you can avoid it!
“Abandonment. The surrender, desertion, relinquishment, disclaimer, or cession of property or of rights. Voluntary relinquishment of all right, title, claim and possession, with the intention of not reclaiming it… It includes both the intention to abandon and the external act by which the intention is carried into effect.” Black’s Dictionary of Law. I utterly fail to see how having to go to the hospital is an abandonment. Nothing in the 3 published items I’ve found shows there is any intent by the owner of these animals not to return or reclaim the animals. If APS is involved, it’s entirely possible that this person currently lacks the capacity to take ANY legal action and that would include both elements of abandonment. Whether the lack of capacity is due to illness, injury, or mental issues, it may well be temporary.
Is there some Texas law other than the “Seizure of Cruelly Treated Animal” statute that permits trespassing and taking of animals? If so, I’ve been unable to find it so far. For analysis sake, I’ll assume that is the law being used to take these animals (as surely any other relevant law would provide at least the nominal requirements set forth in this law). OK, so let’s look at what that statute says, in part:
It’s a simple statute that ignores the majority of people’s fundamental and other rights. Tag the animals as fitting one of the categories in the definition, get a warrant to seize the animals and obtain a hearing date, seize the animals and give written notice of the hearing to the owner.
I reiterate that I fail to see how these dogs were abandoned. But the dogs can’t be simply abandoned, they must be “unreasonably abandoned”. Unreasonable has it’s ordinary meaning: not suitable UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES. If one has to go to the hospital and lives alone with pets, the options may suck but I fail to see how being unable to come up with a plan for the animals from a hospital bed constitutes “unreasonable abandonment”. Seems to fall more under the heading of “shit happens” than some intentional act.
Did they get a warrant? No mention of it so I have my doubts. Clearly before seizing the dogs they had been trespassing on the property repeatedly to feed the dogs. How were they getting access? Did they break into the home? If so, did they secure it when they left?
“give written notice to the owner…” That doesn’t say “leave notes on doors” or “try” to give notice. It’s a mandate to give ACTUAL, WRITTEN notice to the OWNER. I can’t see from the published materials that ANY even NOMINAL attempt to get notice to this owner has been made.
“After reviewing the case, the Sheriff’s Department concurred with the SPCA of Texas that it was in the animals' best interest to remove them from the property.” I’m already getting SICK of seeing the “best interest” phrase in these snatching cases. Sounds like a kidnapper claiming they took children because they know how to care for them better than the parents; a way to justify the kidnapping or, in the case of animals, the theft. Nowhere, NOWHERE, in the statutes on seizing property is there reference to taking property because it is in the “best interest” of the property to be taken. I have a friend with some beautiful antiques but she doesn’t saddle soap them as she should. It would certainly be in their “best interest” to be at my house where they’d be better treated and cared for. Can I set up an NPO and start snatching up neglected antiques? I mean, seriously, they do breathe and they have to be fed and oiled so…
Supposedly there’s a hearing set about all this: “A custody hearing has been scheduled for Wednesday, April 28 at 10 a.m. at the Kaufman County Justice of the Peace, Pct. 2 Courthouse located at 200 E. Main St. in Forney, TX, Judge Don Cates presiding.” SPCAT probably thinks posting that on their website is “sufficient” notice to someone confined to a hospital and unlikely to have internet access. And, "hearing", sure but "custody hearing", not so much but again with the family law terminology, of course.
Doesn’t a person have SOME right to not have their animal snatched up because they had to go to the hospital?
CLEARLY Kaufman County and SPCAT have taken 3 dogs from a disabled person, very probably an elderly disabled person, in this case and violated that disabled person in MULTIPLE ways. With a little luck, one of the organizations that actively defends the rights of the disabled and elderly will get wind of these animal snatchings under color of law and decide to take on these “authorities”. I’ll be putting a buzz in a few ears. Maybe you should too.
As we know, the hearings on these animal snatchings are held within 10 days of the snatching. In the case above, the snatching took place last Tuesday and the hearing is set for the coming Wednesday. That’s 8 days (as lawyers count). Last Thursday, SPCAT participated with Kaufman County again to snatch up numerous animals from an elderly woman but that hearing is set for the coming Tuesday. She’s not in the hospital. She might try to fight back. I see a distinct trend in these cases where those who might fight back have their animals seized on Thursday or later in the week and the hearing is set for early the next week; giving them VERY little opportunity to find a lawyer or even gather their wits. And I think that’s exactly the intent! Oh, but this one is worse than just giving from Thursday to Tuesday morning… as notice.
They seized the animals on Thursday. “Details on the custody hearing will be determined on Friday morning.” WTF??? That makes it rather clear they certainly couldn’t have given her a written notice of the hearing at the time of the snatching, doesn’t it? If, IF, they got the notice to her early on Friday, that gave her 1 full day and 1 partial day to try to find an attorney and that full day is the day immediately preceding the hearing. Next to no chance of finding competent counsel under these circumstances and leaving little to no time for the attorney to prep for the hearing. Of course, an attorney could request a continuance but I suspect it would be denied; if it isn't, that would add to the legal fees because then there would be 2 court appearances right off the bat.
Did they even get a warrant? I have my doubts as no mention of one is in any of the published materials that I’ve seen. However, SPCAT has admittedly been harassing (stalking?) this woman for a while.
“The SPCA of Texas received anonymous complaints about the animals' conditions. After the first complaint, an SPCA of Texas investigator visited the property and observed the horses, two dogs and one cat on the property… arrangements were made for the investigator to return at a later date… The animals on the property all appeared to have food, water and shelter. When the investigator returned for the scheduled follow-up, the owner refused to let the investigator on the property.”
Let me guess. Someone showed up at this woman’s property without an appointment or previously contacting her, demanded entrance under threat of seizing her animals, coerced her to show them around so they could gather evidence, demanded to set an appointment to come back; all in the guise of “helping” her. After she’d gather her wits and recovered, she was prepared the next time and told the person who showed up to go blow. (Good for her. Too bad she didn’t do it the first time! No doubt if one refuses, they’ll lie to get their warrant but I’d still refuse them entry to my property. Hey, once it becomes clear that po po or these ARAs are stalking you and that they will lie and cheat to get what they want [your animals for resale or killing], what’s the sense in letting them in to gather evidence?)
“After receiving another complaint, the SPCA of Texas investigator again visited the property and discovered the approximately 30 cats cruelly confined in a room in the barn.”
DISCOVERED??? Clearly she’s no longer granting you access to her property so about the only way you could “discover” something is by TRESPASSING, as in CRIMINAL TRESPASS. Did you threaten to help have her civilly committed too?
“The investigator attempted to outline a compliance agreement with the owner…” Uh, more coercion??? “but the owner refused.” Can’t say I blame her one bit. By this point, I’m sure SPCAT had made their intentions to take her animals, her PROPERTY, by hook or by crook. Compliance agreement? Yeah, sure, you mean the dictated list of unreasonable and unobtainable demands you demand an animal owner comply with that includes granting access to one's property on a regular, recurring, and without appointment basis?
“At that point, the SPCA of Texas contacted the Kaufman County Sheriff's Department with the new information.” The information obtained while CRIMINALLY TRESPASSING?
“After reviewing the case, the Sheriff's Department concurred with the SPCA of Texas that it was in the animals' best interest to remove them from the property.” And again with the NONSENSE “best interest” of animals as if that were a legally viable concept that overcomes fundamental property rights when it isn’t even a legally viable concept AT ALL.
In case you haven’t guessed, this is the case I was last ranting about in Stench of it ALL at SPCAT and there’s an interesting update on the SPCAT website: “In one bedroom in the house, where the caged cats were kept, the ammonia level was 42 parts per million” Now I KNOW there is a record out there of the comments that the meter maxed out at “27” so how did you get a reading of “42” from a meter that maxes out at “27” and how is ANY reading “off the chart” if it didn’t max out the meter? Everybody, including wfaa.com, want to bet I can’t dig up an archive of that record? Willing to bet you won’t be caught committing a fraud upon the court? Certainly, wfaa.com can lean on its First Amendment protections to some extent but to the extent of helping to perpetrate or cover up a fraud upon the courts and public? I’m not so sure about that. Anything that's been published pretty much loses those privilege exemptions. Changing a posted version of a story sure looks like some for of collusion to me…
In neither of these Kaufman County cases was the owner named. I’d like to think they are getting wiser and actually trying not to defame people but I just don’t believe that when they publish photos and videos of people and their homes and give fairly specific information on location. I think they’re trying to make it harder for supporters of the victim owners to reach out to them; make it harder for those victims to find the stories that might support them.
While we don’t have the name of this second elder victim, we do have the name of a neighbor who was interviewed by wfaa.com and identified herself as a friend of the animal owner: Mary Stephens. I think this is Mary C. Stephens of 13480 County Road 4012, Mabank, TX 75147-3142. I hope anyone who is in that area and willing to reach out to the animal owner to lend some moral support will be able to find her with that tiny bit of information.
So, for the rest of us awaiting the crazy ARAs to appear at our homes, where does this case leave us?
“SPCA of Texas Seizes 39 Cruelly Confined Cats, Six Horses, Three Dogs and Two Squirrels”
Can’t confine cats to a room in a barn. They also took the cats confined to cages in the house so can’t confine to cages in the house. They took the cats allowed to roam free in the house. So can’t confine to a house. We know we shouldn’t let them roam free because we’ve been pounded for three decades with the potential health and other hazards for them of doing that. Sounds to me like they’re saying we can’t confine cats at all unless they have an “escape” readily available. Is it still confinement if they have an escape readily available? And we know better than to let them roam free. Huh, sounds like we can’t own cats any more since ANY form of confinement is “unreasonably confined”.
Ditto for horses, dogs and squirrels. At least that’s what it looks like when they specifically say the animals have food, water, and shelter but cats are still “cruelly confined” by any form of confinement from barn room to cage to free roaming a home that doesn’t provide for ready escape!
I know some of us are not surprised! But seriously, what of the hospitalized owner of those first 3 dogs? How traumatic to be in the hospital and find out your animals were snatched and sold while you were incapable of objecting? We know of the health and psychological benefits of pets to owners and the damages from losing them to natural causes. Surely the loss of them like this would be incredibly traumatic to an owner in a hospital or just come home from one. When did it become OK to abuse the elderly and disabled; so very OK that it is publicized and touted as a success for someone?
Seems overly obvious to me that we need to get back to the drawing table and hammer down those HUMAN RIGHTS, including the human right to protect and defend our property, real and personal, especially animal!