On Friday at 2 PM, Attila the Prosecutor (aka Linda Geffin) will likely be the one arguing that the Gracias should pay thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands, of dollars for the "care" their animals received while this case has been pending.
Has everyone seen the Harris County's "news release" issued after the end of the trial? Quite a little read, I must say!
"A jury found today that 1,077 animals... were cruelly treated". Not really possible since quite a few animals died in and possibly at the hands of the County and HSPCA but... And how many did die while in "custody"? Oh, yeah, they don't like to cough up that information. Well, that statement is actually a blatant lie because the jury returned some animals to the Gracias. Can't Attila subtract??? Oh, that's right, if Attila coughed up all the numbers, it wouldn't look so good, especially in a case that didn't even allow them to keep all the animals they were able to keep alive.
"The jury found that one dog, which was the family pet, was not cruelly treated." True but LEAVES OUT THAT THE JURY RETURNED OTHER ANIMALS TOO.
They reference the JP judgment, yet again and despite the FACT that it is VOID: "ordered the owners to pay the Houston SPCA $18,166.00". I suppose that's intended to lead the public to believe that will be what they ask for this time around. Yeah, sure... We ALL know better than that, right?
Sure is a good thing they don't have to swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth over at the Harris County Prosecutor's office, isn't it? I wonder if Judge Smith knows what a manipulative bunch of liars there are at the Harris County Attorney's office.
Since being called "Attila" seems to hurt Prosecutor Geffin's feelings, I briefly considered dropping the nickname but, after seeing her bad manners all over this case, I'll be sticking with Attila the Prosecutor until she shows she has some ethics. How about it Attila? Want to stop spinning the info and sticking to the truth, seeking justice instead of persecuting?
Well, Gracia hearing Friday at 2 PM and we'll see whether or not Attila steps up to the bar of truth and ethics, or not.
On another front, it seems the Second Chance Rescue, who instigated the raid on Dan Christensen and where the judge rightfully tossed some of the evidence (too bad Texas trial judges don't seem to read Constitutions) obtained by/with Second Chance Rescue, is in a bit of difficulty: "lost animal control contracts with Sioux Falls and Minnehaha County" (gee, that happens when one blatantly ignores the law); "donations have dropped off dramatically because of the economy" (yeah, sure, it's the economy rather than the law breaking and thieving ways you practiced); "is on the verge of closing" (YIPPEE).
"Dan Christensen is suing the shelter". YIPPEE except that just won't cut it; it's not enough. These massive animal seizures MUST be stopped. The Attila's out there need to be forced to prove up their cases before snatching up people's property, their animals.
"The current 1876 Constitution... Most of the amendments are due to the document's highly restrictive nature – the Texas Constitution states that the State of Texas has only those powers explicitly granted to it; there is no state equivalent of the Necessary and Proper Clause contained within. Thus, the Texas Constitution functions as a limiting document." Anyone want to take the challenge on of showing me where the Texas Constitution grants the government authority to regulate privately owned animals that aren't in the food chain? (Not the statutes because we've got plenty of those that blatantly violate the Texas Constitution but just haven't been declared violative yet.) Attila??? Surely, if it is in the Texas Constitution, surely Attila has it right at her fingertips, or at least she should have. Maybe one of her fans will drag it out of her and post it in the comments, if it exists, that is.
Come on Attila, that's an easy question, surely you'll cough up what authority you think the state/county can act under, constitutionally speaking... Oh, that's right, it SHOULD be in the Petition, er, whatever you ended up calling that thing that you consider an equivalent thereof. I can't wait to go read it! Will it meet the minimum requirements for a petition under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, every which requirement is the minimum necessary to due process? Does it sound like even minimal due process to those of you reading if you don't get to see the "petition" until after your second trial has begun?
As you tuck your kids in bed, please read to them; teach them to think for themselves and follow it up with critical thinking abilities because they will be our jurors and judges tomorrow.