PJBoosinger

"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
By Olivia Neeley and Corey Friedman | Times Staff Writers

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.

SBI STEPS IN

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.

‘ACCUMULATION OF EVERYTHING’

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.”

CHAIN OF EVENTS

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.”

FAMILY SOUGHT FRESH START

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.

CHILD COUNSELING

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.”

VISIT TO LAW FIRM

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.”

SPEAKING OUT

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.

Source: http://www.wilsontimes.com/News/Feature/Story/Police--Man-killed-son--self

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"
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/pepper/2009/06/pepper_goes_to_washington.single.html

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.)

No evidence she was attacked by an "enemy"?

Time sheets altered?

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

Tonight at 10...

"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.

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 Jessica@caprocklawyer.com  Please send contributions through Paypal as a "gift" and note AlphaTex on them.

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.

• Complaint: https://docs.google.com/open?id=0ByA4izQLD4H7MDhhNmQ4ZWYtNzhjYS00NDJkLWIwY2MtOWU2OGM0MDM3OGVk
• Brief: https://docs.google.com/open?id=0ByA4izQLD4H7Zjc1OTI4YjQtYTg5Ny00YTkxLWFkNjgtZjJjOTE2YjY2Njlh
• Order Denying TRO: https://docs.google.com/open?id=0ByA4izQLD4H7ZWU4NDE4NWUtNDI1Ny00ZGM2LTg2N2MtYTc0Zjc3ODRhZmQ4

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: Jessica@caprocklawyer.com through PayPal.com

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.

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.

WHAT IS TRESPASS TO REAL PROPERTY?

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?

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 PJBoo9@yahoo.com 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!

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.

BUT WHAT ABOUT THE ANIMALS???

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?
http://www.click2houston.com/contact/index.html
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"?