PETA Intervenes in Arlington Case, Oh Yes They Did

This is a quickie update on the City of Arlington v. U.S. Global Exotics civil case.

Not only can the government summarily snatch up all your animals then hold a pro forma hearing to permanently deprive you of your property but, if you dare appeal, you may well find PETA intervening to claim you have no such right (you know, that silly due process thing - the right to a fair and reasonable hearing of your case and the right to appeal, especially when the property is valuable [personally, I think value can be non-monetary too; my animals mean a LOT more to me than their “replacement” value]).  Why am I not surprised that PETA uses its constitutional rights to deprive others of theirs?

Well, of course, being up against the full force of the governments’ nearly unlimited assets isn’t enough; just wait for PETA’s big pocketbook to pile on, adding expense and time for all parties.  The City has legal representation and could have filed whatever they wanted.  Perhaps they even disagree with PETA on this one.

Mind you that PETA “pledged” some $200,000 to care for these animals but the SPCA of Texas is claiming the cost will exceed $300,000 and somehow they’re having to foot the bill for $150,000.  So SPCAT is circulating a newsletter asking for donations.  Did PETA not cough up its pledged money?  Maybe they put $50,000 toward a lawyer as their idea of hands on animal care.  Or is SPCAT just lying with numbers?

Wow, with the City of Arlington’s AC, SPCAT, and PETA involved, it starts becoming difficult to tell who’s lying about what!

So, anyway, PETA might want to read Section 11 of SB 408: “Subsection (a), Section 821.025, Health and Safety Code, is amended to read as follows: (a)  An owner divested of ownership of an animal under  Section 821.023 [ordered sold at public auction as provided in this  subchapter] may appeal the order to a county court or county court at law in the county in which the justice or municipal court is located...”  Sure looks to me like that became the law on September 1, 2009, according to the Legislative History and it looks like it was signed on June 19, 2009.

Can’t wait to see if they cited the old (now defunct) law since that’s what is still up on the State of Texas website or if they’ve come up with some new and unique reason why the foregoing isn’t the current law.

Of course, I think this piddling appeal isn’t nearly sufficient but it sure looks like it does indeed exist currently.

Is it just me or does this case look more and more like PETA v. USGE?  And that PETA wants to play WITNESS, prosecutor, judge, jury, AND (oh yes) executioner?

Go Back