Hello all,
Please don't depend on someone else to ask this question of your state Attorney General. Get with your legislator and tell him you would like this question asked and an opinion from the AG's office. The Animal Welfare Act was never intended to apply to livestock but it has been amended and is being used against livestock owners and our animal agriculture industries.
The federal court ruling below displays the law enforcement officers and court can not make you pay for taking your livestock and keeping your livestock. See the last e-mail I sent out for more explanation.
The attachments regarding the two Federal Court rulings (10th circuit and Prop 8) along with this federal court ruling below should be considered in conjunction with everything I written explaining the unconstitutional aspects of the Animal Welfare Act. The HSUS is using this Unconstitutional Act as a basis for enacting various policies and regulations that drive up the cost of agriculture production in their effort to accomplish their self professed agenda to "abolish all animal agriculture industries" and "to end all sport hunting in the United States" . The HSUS is using these animal laws to seize private property and resell the property for their own financial gain.
At this time the HSUS is sponsoring a Horse Slaughter bill which is being introduced in Washington DC. This bill will make it illegal to slaughter older horses and force horse owners to either kill the horses or put them out to pasture and let them die in their fields.
So I'd like to know:
Is the Animal Welfare Act actually unconstitutional? I find no where in our U.S. Constitution does the constitution provide our elected officials the authority to grant or award rights to our animals and livestock and then use the 'rights' they've unconstitutionally granted to animals to send law enforcemeent officers out to enforce a law which creates a danger to human lives, seize our property and arrest US Citizens to protect animals. Affluent well connected Socialite's of the animal rights extremists organizations seem to be using this unconstitutional Act to assault, attack criminalize and destroy America's animal agriculture industries and thereby adversely damage and economically destroy rural Americans lives. This unconstitutional Act must be repealed before the people in these left leaning animal rights extremist organizations that receive part of their funding from George Soros are allowed to use this unconstitutional act to destroy our American animal agriculture industries and America"
Repealing and/or rejecting this "unconstitutional law" which is the basis for all of these attacks against our various agriculture industries across the US would have the effect of nullifying all of the livestock protection laws that are being used to destroy America.
I would like to thank you for your time,
B.L. Cozad Jr
PO Box 136
Indiahoma, OK 73552
U.S. District court in Kentucky has ruled against a basic tenant of the
Animal Rights agenda. The historic challenge against Louisville Law
<A
HREF="http://www.thedogpl ace.org/PROJECTS /State/V1- 1-14-NPP- Louisville- Law.asp">
http://www.thedogpl ace.org/PROJECTS /State/V1- 1-14-NPP- Louisville- Law.asp</A> wins rights for all pet owners.
Compiled by Barbara Andrews C TheDogPress <A
HREF="http://www.thedogpr ess.com/">http://www.thedogpr ess.com/</A> 10|20|09 - Barbara Haines, Louisville
Kennel Club, has been waiting for this decision for almost a year. The
December 2007 suit by the LKC was joined by veterinarians and concerned pet
owners. The Federal ruling sets a precedent with far-reaching implications, and
sets the stage for class-action lawsuits nationwide; anywhere similar
ordinances have been enacted and Constitutional rights of pet owners have been
violated.
Highlights of the FEDERAL ruling:
* Pets are personal property, under the Constitution. Due process, search
and seizure, i.e. all protections provided by Constitution apply to pets. The
ruling reaffirms you are the OWNER of your pets, not a "guardian" as in the
state having the right to take you pet away as can be done with your child!
* Requirements for housing and care cannot be legislatively mandated as
different for intact dogs vs. altered dogs.
* Seizure bond is illegal and unconstitutional because it constitutes
unlawful taking of personal property. If, after a search warrant is obtained, a
person is arrested and their dogs are seized, their dogs must be held AS IS
(cannot be sterilized while held, cannot be sold, transferred to anyone or
euthanized) unless the owner is found guilty after trial. If they arrest you
for commission of a crime involving your automobile, they can impound your
car but if you are found innocent, it must be returned to you in the same
condition in which it was seized. You are not charged storage fees. The same
applies to your dogs. You do NOT pay for their care, until/unless found
guilty of the charges.
This is major relief for pet owners as just the thought of their dogs being
euthanized or sold, and then being assessed thousands of dollars for
boarding and/or hysterectomy and castration has held owners in abject fear.
The plaintiffs prevailed on virtually every essential violation of the
Federal Civil Rights act asserted. As regards a provision that allows the city
to take away dog licenses for state or federal crimes not even related to
animals, U.S. District Judge Charles Simpson stated in his ruling, "This
section is more problematic than those discussed above, because it appears to
allow the director (of Metro Animal Services) to impose a civil punishment for
any reason at all, leaving citizens unaware of what actions
might constitute grounds for license revocation."
No longer can LMAS (Louisville Metropolitan Animal Services) inspect your
property and decide if you can own an unaltered dog. No longer can Louisville
authorities require a seizure bond where failure to post it makes you
forfeit your animals without a finding of guilt.
There is a case currently in Kenton County where 10 years ago, a woman's
beagles were confiscated on a nuisance issue and recently they came back and
asserted cruelty. When she could not post the seizure bond, they said the
animals became their property and they euthanized all of them including 10 year
olds. They then dismissed the cruelty charges. This case is in Federal
Court in Northern Kentucky on a challenge to the seizure bond and a violation of
her civil rights. This decision by Judge Simpson holds that the conversion
of her animals without a finding of guilt violates her due process rights.
This type of thing is happening all over the county and this decision will
have a huge impact. While the search and seizure issue was dismissed because
the city agreed with us, the Judge went on and discussed violations of the
Fourth Amendment and clearly indicated that the provision in the Ordinance
which allegedly permits seizure for any violation of this chapter (a
provision used by LMAS to seize puppies because of an alleged violation of the
Class A Kennel License), requires a warrant for seizure.
Info courtesy of AnimalConcerns. org <A
HREF="http://www.animalco ncerns.org/">http://www.
How Animal Rights influence local government revealed in Man Bites Dog <A
HREF="http://www.thedogpl ace.org/PROJECTS /BBR/V1-1- NPP-05-Man- Bites-Dog. asp">
http://www.thedogpl ace.org/PROJECTS /BBR/V1-1- NPP-05-Man- Bites-Dog. asp</A>
<A
HREF="http://www.thedogpr ess.com/Columns/ Editorials/ 09102-ED- Animal-Rights- Terrorists- Lose-Appeal_ bj.asp">
http://www.thedogpr ess.com/Columns/ Editorials/ 09102-ED- Animal-Rights- Terrorists- Lose-Appeal_ bj.asp</A> AR Terrorists
Lose Appeal A landmark Federal Court
ruling in Kentucky.
AR Terrorism <A
HREF="http://www.thedogpl ace.org/PROJECTS /Federal/ Animal-Enterpris e-Terrorism_ KSnider.asp">
http://www.thedogpl ace.org/PROJECTS /Federal/ Animal-Enterpris e-Terrorism_ KSnider.asp</A> first-person account of armed
break in, federal suit, FBI, etc.
<A
HREF="http://www.thedogpr ess.com/SideEffe cts/09111- Breeders- Damaged_McCricka rd.asp">
http://www.thedogpr ess.com/SideEffe cts/09111- Breeders- Damaged_McCricka rd.asp</A> Breeders Damaged by Animal Rightist Groups Actions
And summing it up, this from the AKC: American Kennel Club - Tuesday,
October 06, 2009 - Late Friday, United States District Court Judge Charles R.
Simpson, III, of the Western District of Kentucky issued his decision in the
case of the Louisville Kennel Club, Inc. v. Louisville/Jefferso n County Metro
Government. A significant victory
for the Louisville Kennel Club, the judge's decision features two key
rulings that may also prove to be of great importance for dog owners nationwide.
First, Judge Simpson held that there was no rational basis why owners of
unaltered dogs should be treated differently than the owners of altered dogs.
This declared the part of the ordinance that required owners of unaltered
dogs to get the Director's written approval for those dogs' enclosures (owners
of altered dogs did not have such a requirement) as an unconstitutional
violation of Equal Protection and Substantive Due Process.
Reiterating another court's earlier decision that recognized that dogs are
personal property, the judge further held Louisville's seizure bond
requirement as an unconstitutional violation of procedural due process rules. This
requirement, which required anyone accused of animal cruelty to post bond for
the care of their seized animals, would have resulted in the forfeiture of
animals if they were not able to pay for the bond regardless of whether or
not they were later determined to be innocent.
"We congratulate the Louisville Kennel Club and their co-plaintiffs on
their leadership in opposing the Louisville ordinance," said Dennis Sprung,
President and CEO of the American Kennel Club. "We are confident that this
decision will encourage communities to consider the interests of responsible dog
breeders and owners when making changes to their animal ordinances."
For more information, contact AKC's Government Relations Department: (919)
816-3720, go to the website, or e-mail <A HREF="mailto:doglaw@akc.org">
doglaw@akc.org</A>
Animal Rights agenda. The historic challenge against Louisville Law
<A
HREF="http://www.thedogpl ace.org/PROJECTS /State/V1- 1-14-NPP- Louisville- Law.asp">
http://www.thedogpl ace.org/PROJECTS /State/V1- 1-14-NPP- Louisville- Law.asp</A> wins rights for all pet owners.
Compiled by Barbara Andrews C TheDogPress <A
HREF="http://www.thedogpr ess.com/">http://www.thedogpr ess.com/</A> 10|20|09 - Barbara Haines, Louisville
Kennel Club, has been waiting for this decision for almost a year. The
December 2007 suit by the LKC was joined by veterinarians and concerned pet
owners. The Federal ruling sets a precedent with far-reaching implications, and
sets the stage for class-action lawsuits nationwide; anywhere similar
ordinances have been enacted and Constitutional rights of pet owners have been
violated.
Highlights of the FEDERAL ruling:
* Pets are personal property, under the Constitution. Due process, search
and seizure, i.e. all protections provided by Constitution apply to pets. The
ruling reaffirms you are the OWNER of your pets, not a "guardian" as in the
state having the right to take you pet away as can be done with your child!
* Requirements for housing and care cannot be legislatively mandated as
different for intact dogs vs. altered dogs.
* Seizure bond is illegal and unconstitutional because it constitutes
unlawful taking of personal property. If, after a search warrant is obtained, a
person is arrested and their dogs are seized, their dogs must be held AS IS
(cannot be sterilized while held, cannot be sold, transferred to anyone or
euthanized) unless the owner is found guilty after trial. If they arrest you
for commission of a crime involving your automobile, they can impound your
car but if you are found innocent, it must be returned to you in the same
condition in which it was seized. You are not charged storage fees. The same
applies to your dogs. You do NOT pay for their care, until/unless found
guilty of the charges.
This is major relief for pet owners as just the thought of their dogs being
euthanized or sold, and then being assessed thousands of dollars for
boarding and/or hysterectomy and castration has held owners in abject fear.
The plaintiffs prevailed on virtually every essential violation of the
Federal Civil Rights act asserted. As regards a provision that allows the city
to take away dog licenses for state or federal crimes not even related to
animals, U.S. District Judge Charles Simpson stated in his ruling, "This
section is more problematic than those discussed above, because it appears to
allow the director (of Metro Animal Services) to impose a civil punishment for
any reason at all, leaving citizens unaware of what actions
might constitute grounds for license revocation."
No longer can LMAS (Louisville Metropolitan Animal Services) inspect your
property and decide if you can own an unaltered dog. No longer can Louisville
authorities require a seizure bond where failure to post it makes you
forfeit your animals without a finding of guilt.
There is a case currently in Kenton County where 10 years ago, a woman's
beagles were confiscated on a nuisance issue and recently they came back and
asserted cruelty. When she could not post the seizure bond, they said the
animals became their property and they euthanized all of them including 10 year
olds. They then dismissed the cruelty charges. This case is in Federal
Court in Northern Kentucky on a challenge to the seizure bond and a violation of
her civil rights. This decision by Judge Simpson holds that the conversion
of her animals without a finding of guilt violates her due process rights.
This type of thing is happening all over the county and this decision will
have a huge impact. While the search and seizure issue was dismissed because
the city agreed with us, the Judge went on and discussed violations of the
Fourth Amendment and clearly indicated that the provision in the Ordinance
which allegedly permits seizure for any violation of this chapter (a
provision used by LMAS to seize puppies because of an alleged violation of the
Class A Kennel License), requires a warrant for seizure.
Info courtesy of AnimalConcerns. org <A
HREF="http://www.animalco ncerns.org/">http://www.
How Animal Rights influence local government revealed in Man Bites Dog <A
HREF="http://www.thedogpl ace.org/PROJECTS /BBR/V1-1- NPP-05-Man- Bites-Dog. asp">
http://www.thedogpl ace.org/PROJECTS /BBR/V1-1- NPP-05-Man- Bites-Dog. asp</A>
<A
HREF="http://www.thedogpr ess.com/Columns/ Editorials/ 09102-ED- Animal-Rights- Terrorists- Lose-Appeal_ bj.asp">
http://www.thedogpr ess.com/Columns/ Editorials/ 09102-ED- Animal-Rights- Terrorists- Lose-Appeal_ bj.asp</A> AR Terrorists
Lose Appeal A landmark Federal Court
ruling in Kentucky.
AR Terrorism <A
HREF="http://www.thedogpl ace.org/PROJECTS /Federal/ Animal-Enterpris e-Terrorism_ KSnider.asp">
http://www.thedogpl ace.org/PROJECTS /Federal/ Animal-Enterpris e-Terrorism_ KSnider.asp</A> first-person account of armed
break in, federal suit, FBI, etc.
<A
HREF="http://www.thedogpr ess.com/SideEffe cts/09111- Breeders- Damaged_McCricka rd.asp">
http://www.thedogpr ess.com/SideEffe cts/09111- Breeders- Damaged_McCricka rd.asp</A> Breeders Damaged by Animal Rightist Groups Actions
And summing it up, this from the AKC: American Kennel Club - Tuesday,
October 06, 2009 - Late Friday, United States District Court Judge Charles R.
Simpson, III, of the Western District of Kentucky issued his decision in the
case of the Louisville Kennel Club, Inc. v. Louisville/Jefferso n County Metro
Government. A significant victory
for the Louisville Kennel Club, the judge's decision features two key
rulings that may also prove to be of great importance for dog owners nationwide.
First, Judge Simpson held that there was no rational basis why owners of
unaltered dogs should be treated differently than the owners of altered dogs.
This declared the part of the ordinance that required owners of unaltered
dogs to get the Director's written approval for those dogs' enclosures (owners
of altered dogs did not have such a requirement) as an unconstitutional
violation of Equal Protection and Substantive Due Process.
Reiterating another court's earlier decision that recognized that dogs are
personal property, the judge further held Louisville's seizure bond
requirement as an unconstitutional violation of procedural due process rules. This
requirement, which required anyone accused of animal cruelty to post bond for
the care of their seized animals, would have resulted in the forfeiture of
animals if they were not able to pay for the bond regardless of whether or
not they were later determined to be innocent.
"We congratulate the Louisville Kennel Club and their co-plaintiffs on
their leadership in opposing the Louisville ordinance," said Dennis Sprung,
President and CEO of the American Kennel Club. "We are confident that this
decision will encourage communities to consider the interests of responsible dog
breeders and owners when making changes to their animal ordinances."
For more information, contact AKC's Government Relations Department: (919)
816-3720, go to the website, or e-mail <A HREF="mailto:doglaw@akc.org">
doglaw@akc.org</A>
No comments:
Post a Comment