National Dog Press "FREEDOM" Magazine - "Brothers, what we do in life, echoes in eternity." BOYCOTT CHINA Skinning Dogs ALIVE for Fur!

Dog Owner “due process” is not contained in current Animal Law – The Questions and Answers

Dog Owner “due process” is not contained in current Animal Law – The Questions and Answers

Due process is ‘not’ provided to dog owners in animal control ordinances before government authorities remove or euthanize their dogs from private property.

 

By Dean A. Ayers

Lead Investigative Reporter

NationalDogPress.us  ©

 

28 May 13

How Does Due Process Apply to Dog Seizure/Euthanasia Cases?

Despite the fact that animals are still considered property in all legal jurisdictions today, due process, whether rooted in the federal or state constitutions, extends to life, liberty, or property. The more complicated issue, however, is how much process is due?

The Supreme Court has promulgated a four prong test to determine this. In each situation, a court must weigh:

-the private interest affected by the official action

-the risk of an erroneous deprivation of that interest through the procedures used,

-the probable value of additional procedural safeguards, and

-the government interest involved.


Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335 (1976).

Does Due process requires the opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner?

Rabon v. City of Seattle (Rabon II), 107 Wash.App. 734, 743 (2001) (citing Mathews, 424 U.S. at 333). Thus, when individuals can show they will suffer irreparable harm from a post-deprivation hearing, courts has recognized that a pre-deprivation hearing is necessary. In the case of orders to euthanize pets, many courts have considered the loss to the pet owner as irreparable.


Before any court hearing can dog owners file a Petition for a Preliminary Injunction?

Dog owners should file a petition for an injunction to delay the killing of the dog until they have had the chance to be heard in court (For an actual example, see Petition for Preliminary and Permanent Injunction in the case of Wilson v. City of St. Louis (1990), which involved a Pit Bull named "Max" who was impounded and classified as dangerous because he allegedly killed the neighbor’s dog. The Circuit Court found that the plaintiff would suffer irreparable harm if the preliminary injunction was not granted and enjoined the city from killing or otherwise harming Max. The court ordered the city to release Max and change his dangerous designation to potentially dangerous.)


Is there any way of overriding a bad decision by a petition for a writ of Mandamus?

Due process includes more than just going through the motions of a hearing. In fact, even after hearings have been granted, decisions can be challenged as a prejudicial abuse of discretion that is not based on findings of fact or law. (This is what the owners of Boo, a bull mastiff who allegedly bit a child, argued in Williams v. Orange County Animal Control (1996)). In this case, owners should file a Petition for a Writ of Mandamus, a judicial remedy issued by a superior court to compel a government officer to do or forbear from doing a specific act, to delay the euthanasia order until the appeal can be heard. This writ of mandamus applies in any situation in which the euthanasia should be stayed, including scenarios in which an original hearing was never given.


What are the minimum standards of Due Process for a hearing for dog owners?

It is now also clear that hearings must meet certain minimum standards. Informal reviews that animal control agencies frequently provide upon the dog owners request often do not fulfill these requirements, because the decision-maker may not be qualified to render the judgment or may not be impartial if he also made the original decision to euthanize the dog. For example, in Phillips v San Luis Obispo County Dept., 228 Cal.Rptr. 101 Cal.App. (2 Dist., 1986), the owners of Missy, a black lab known to have a bad habit of biting children, contested the city’s decision to euthanize her. The amicus brief filed by Joyce Tischler of the Animal Legal Defense Fund pointed out the Municipal Codes at issue did not provide for the Animal Regulation Directors orders to be reviewed by the Chief Sanitarian of the County Health Department or the supervising environmental health officer, the two individuals who presided over the first and second hearings.


Are there any challenges to the animal ordinance itself?

In fact, many city ordinances are flawed in that they fail to specify that owners are entitled to hearings before their pets are euthanized. These municipal codes can be challenged as unconstitutional and, even if the city already granted hearings that met minimum due process standards, the decision to euthanize the pet would still have to be overturned. Otherwise, whether dog owners generally would receive due process would be at the whim of the animal control agency, and the city could avoid having to correct its municipal codes simply by voluntarily giving all dog owners a hearing. The court of appeals in Missy's case agreed, concluding that the ordinances here are unconstitutional for failure to provide for notice and a hearing either before or after the seizure of an uncontrollable biting or vicious dog.

Most recently, in a landmark case, the court of appeals in Mansour v. King County, 128 P.3d 1241 (Wash.App. Div. 1, 2006) held that due process required even more than offering owners a hearing, ordering that an agency seeking to enforce a removal order must prove both the violation and the remedy it has imposed by a preponderance of the evidence. This is the same standard of proof imposed on the government when it attempts to temporarily remove a child from the custody of his parents. By instituting a burden of proof on the city, the court was essentially finding that the dog must be presumed innocent until the city can prove otherwise. Previously, there had been no standard of proof, and reviewing courts would only look to see if Animal Control had acted arbitrarily or capriciously. Thus, even the most minimal evidence that a dog should be removed would suffice, and owners would bear the burden of proving their pets innocent. Moreover, the court found that due process attached not only for orders to euthanize an animal, but also for orders of removal outside the county (Peter Mansour had been ordered to remove his dog from the county or turn his dog over to the city to be euthanized after his dog was accused of killing a cat).

Finally, the court held that due process required Mansour to have the ability to subpoena records and witnesses in his defense, and that the Notice and Order of Violation had to specify exactly what code provisions had been violated. Merely issuing a brief and concise description of the conditions for finding the violation is insufficient. Mansour was entitled to know ahead of time exactly what the County needed to prove at the Board hearing. If in fact it could not prove that Maxine violated a code provision that supported the removal order, he [Mansour] was entitled to know that in time to move for a dismissal at the Board level. Source Reference: Animal Legal and Historical Center.


Are there some significant problems with animal care, control, and dangerous dog laws and euthanasia execution solutions?

1. They do not reduce the number of neglect, abuse, or dog bite incidents that are legitimate in law. By focusing on the after-effects of the animal complaint of alleged neglect, abuse or a dog bite, these laws do not take any measures to prevent future neglect, abuse, animal care, pet owner control, or prevent dog bites. In theory, the risk of animal care and control ordinance punishment is for a motivation to change behavior. But most dog owners do not believe their dogs to be dangerous or the owners to be abusive or neglectful. So the perception is that these animal care and control laws are for 'other' dogs, problem dogs, but not their dog. Then, when a dog complaint, incident or dog bite allegedly occurs, that particular dog owner may face additional liability, but his/her friends and neighbors will not change their habits regarding their own dogs. These animal care and control laws 'do not' work as a viable solution.

2. The animal laws do not take into account the severity of the incident. Most animal care, control and dangerous dog laws cover a huge range of behavior from "threatening displays" to actual bites to simple care, and control of the dog(s). What this means is that you may be as liable for your goofy social dog rushing out the door and charging gleefully at a neighbor as another owner is for an under socialized, aggressive dog who bites a child on the face. Are these equal? Under many dangerous dog laws, they are. Additionally, animal care and control laws are intentionally 'vague' and 'interpretive' by animal control authorities. Thus the facts of alleged animal care and control, is rarely 'pure' and never 'simple.' And may not even be factually the 'truth' except by a personal (opinion) 'interpretation' of the animal control authority.


What does a lack of “due process” for dog owners come down to?

Dangerous dog laws, and animal care and control laws are a feel-good attempt to show the community that that authorities are taking action, even with a simple animal care or control complaint or a dog bite incident.

Unfortunately these animal laws do not provide any protective effects to change animal - owner behavior, merely punishment after the fact. There are many things that a community can do to prevent dog bites, animal neglect, animal abuse, or other care and control issues, including educating dog owners, parents, rural families or farmers, and citizens how to supervise and when to intervene in kid-and-dog, or dog-and-dog, interactions, teaching dog owners how to socialize and train their dogs with methods that encourage friendly behavior and providing some basic animal education about canine body language so the many misunderstandings we have with dogs each day can be reduced in their care and control issues.


Dog owners need to learn how to defend their dogs from ‘rogue’ Animal Control Authorities before they are confiscated, seized, and euthanized before you (as the dog owner) can obtain Legal Counsel.

 

 

More questions and answers we need to ask about “Due Process”.

 

DUE PROCESS is what is missing from the ordinance of animal laws, which are in force in most jurisdictions today.

 

1. IF YOU ARE FACED WITH CONFISCATION OR EUTHANASIA ISSUES CURRENTLY OR BEFORE. 

 

 It is necessary that you seek counsel from an attorney BEFORE you allow any authority to confiscate your dogs, pets, or animals, and ask the attorney to intervene with authorities to stop the process, based on a review of their animal laws being used, that DO NOT contain DUE PROCESS for the pet owners according to law case precedent established in this article and case law. In this way it is very likely the confiscation can be stopped or overturned, based on an unconstitutional law.

 

2. HOW OT ESTABLISH "DUE PROCESS" WHEN NOT IN A PRESENT DOG CONFISCATION CASE.

 

It is necessary to make enough flack or waves, thru getting the word out to your local animal control legislators for the jurisdiction you are in, to make them see the light, that current animal control laws and ordinances are UNCONSTITUTIONAL, as they DO NOT contain the lawful DUE PROCESS established by these case precedents in this article containing the case law establishing the requirements for DUE PROCESS before confiscation or euthanasia. It will take aggressive campaigning and raising the flag to the locals to get a campaign going for animal control law reform in your local town, county, and state. But this needs to be done, to change the law to protect the pet owners from the current level of tyranny without law controls on THEM.

 

3. MOST NEEDED, BUT COSTLY TO THE POCKET BOOK.

 

 The fastest and most public attention gathering method to change the animal laws to include the DUE PROCESS in this article is to have an attorney file a lawsuit against the jurisdiction, CHALLENGING THE CONSTITUTIONALITY of the animal law currently in force. When you establish thru evidence of the LACK OF DUE PROCESS IN THEIR ANIMAL LAWS, in court in a law suit, the Judge will have no alternative but to OVERTURN the current animal law, and it will be thrown out (the law will be) like the dish water for being Unconstitutional and vague. Thus the animal law is nullified, and no longer in force, at that moment, and the legislators will have to START OVER in creating a new animal law, that INCLUDES the ruling of a need for Constitutional DUE PROCESS included in the local animal law.

 

4. It is not as simple as just telling an animal control authority, that there is no Due Process.

 

Animal Control like cops will do ANYTHING they DAMN WELL PLEASED to you, UNTIL, and UNLESS, you OBTAIN AN ATTORNEY, to establish legal precedents to stop them. It ALWAYS comes down to working thru an attorney, BEFORE the pets or animals are confiscated or euthanized.  The word needs to spread, that people, need top have A PLAN OF ACTION, and ATTORNEY AT HAND, BEFORE they are ever faced with Animal Control, in order to stop them from tyranny. If Animal Control, knocks on your door, and you refuse them entry. You have only the amount of time, it takes for them to obtain a search and seizure warrant from a judge, and their time to come back to you, in order for YOU TO GET AN ATTORNEY AND START THIS NEGOTIATION PROCESS OD DUE PROCESS, if your animal laws do NOT contain the Proper Due Process in the current Animal Laws (which almost every Animal Law in the nation does NOT have).

 

5. This is what must be done, by every citizen with a pet, to get DUE PROCESS in their jurisdiction.

 

First off, GET AN ATTORNEY, to represent you, in each case listed above. Preferably an Attorney at Law WITH some experience in Animal Law.

###

Nicole Zorn, Club Model, and Dean A. Ayers, Director, Animals Club Freedom Inc.

 

Dean A. Ayers is a prior United States Air Force Special Agent for the AFOSI. His duties included that of law enforcement specialist, criminal, fraud, and counter-intelligence. He was assigned to felony crimes in federal government, fraud, waste and abuse investigations of the military branches of service, and counter-intelligence in overseas locations. Dean was also a former Texas State Commissioned Alamo State Park Armed Ranger. Dean is currently Director, Animals C.L.U.B.- Freedom National Organization Incorporated (Nonprofit) and Dean is also a Lead Investigative Reporter for the NationalDogPress.us Headline News © and AnimalsClubFreedom.us news press services.

 

 

When Police or Animal Control Come Knocking On Your Door; What Every Dog Owner Needs to Know

When Police or Animal Control Come Knocking On Your Door; What Every Dog Owner Needs to Know

By NationalDogPress.us and AnimalsClubFreedom.us

 

6 Oct 2012

 

Dog owners and ethical breeders are increasingly being targeted. Disgruntled neighbors may retaliate against dog owners and may other reasons drive complaints, and anti-dog enforcement action, which many times may be conducted illegally.

The following text outlines methods of inquiry and enforcement which may be used by local officials in attempts to enforce ordinances in your community and suggested techniques of response. These techniques are entirely legal and based upon the rights of citizens as stated by the U.S. Constitution.

No breeder wants to have Animal Control come knocking on the door...but if they do, it will help if you know what your options are.

Remember, Animal Control is law enforcement. They are bound by the same Constitution as any other government agency. To protect yourself, you need to know your rights. These vary slightly one jurisdiction to another, but some general principles apply. One rule applies everywhere: never physically resist an officer.

 

When Police or Animal Control is At Your Door:

Do not let them in, no matter how much they ask. Animal Control generally cannot enter your home without a warrant, or your permission. While regular police can enter in emergency situations when human life is at risk (i.e. they hear gunshots and a scream inside), there are few, if any, situations in which Animal Control can enter your home without a warrant. Simply tell them they may not come in.

 - If you let them in, anything they find in "plain sight" can be used against you. In some circumstances Animal Control officers, unable to find a legitimate reason to make an arrest, have reported building or zoning violations. This may include caging you attached to a wall without a building permit, that extra outlet in the puppy room, having more pets than allowed by zoning, even extension cords in violation of fire codes! No matter how clean your kennel, if they want to find a violation, they will. 

 - Do not talk to them from an open doorway. Step outside and close (and lock if possible) the door behind you. This is necessary because:

A) Anything they see through the open door is "plain sight" and may be the basis for an arrest, or probable cause for a search warrant.

B) If they make an arrest or even feel threatened they are usually permitted to search for weapons in your immediate area. Do you keep a baseball bat inside the door for your protection? Even if you don't, once they step inside to look, they are in your home and may continue to search.

C) It is hard not to be intimidated by someone in authority. Some animal control is even done by local police, who carry guns. It is easy for them to get "in your face", causing you to back up into the home. Once you go in, it will be interpreted as an invitation to follow.

 - If they claim to have a warrant, demand to see it. In general, a search warrant must be signed by a judge. A warrant to search your home for dogs does not include an inventory of your jewellery box. A warrant to search your kennel in the garage or in the barn does not include a search of your home.

 - In some locations dog owners may have obtained special "breeder permits" that stipulate that Animal Control has your permission to enter at any time. If you have signed such a permit they still cannot enter against your wishes, since you can revoke the permission at any time. However, if you refuse permission it may allow them to cancel your breeder permit, so you have to weigh the consequences.

- Warning - anyone in lawful possession of the premises may be able to give permission for a search. Make sure your roommate, babysitter, dog-sitter, housekeeper and other know that they should not let animal control into your home or on your property (i.e. backyard, garage, etc.).

How to Handle Questions:

Don't answer any questions beyond identifying yourself for the officer. Anything you say to the officer in your defence cannot be used in court (hearsay). Anything you say that is harmful to you will be used in court (confessions are not considered hearsay). You cannot win, except by remaining silent.

 - Be polite but firm. Do not argue, bad-mouth, curse, threaten or try to intimidate the officer.

 - Do not lie to an officer, ever. However, it is NOT a lie to exercise your right to remain silent.

 - Keep your hands in plain sight. People have been shot by police when common objects, such as a wallet, were mistaken for a gun.

 - Do not touch the officer in any way. Do not physically resist an officer, no matter how unlawful his or her actions.

 - Don't try to tell your side of the story, it cannot help.

 - Do not threaten the officer that you plan to file a complaint for their actions.

- If the questioning persists, demand to speak to a lawyer first.  Repeat as necessary.

 

Gathering the Facts:

Get the name and badge number of each officer involved. If he/she does not volunteer this information, ask.

- Ask the name of the agency they represent. Different agencies have different enforcement responsibilities.

- Ask why they are there. Request the factual basis of the complaint and the identity of the complainant.

- If they have other people with them (Humane Society, press, etc.) get the names and organizations for all present.

- Note the names (and addresses) of any witnesses to the encounter.

- If you are physically injured by an officer, you should take photographs of the injuries immediately, but do not forego proper medical treatment first.

- Write down all of the information, as well as the date and time of the incident immediately, while details are fresh in your mind.

- If you rights are violated, file a complaint with the appropriate body.

 

If You Are Arrested:

 Remain silent. Answer no questions until you have consulted with a lawyer.

- Don't "explain" anything. You will have time for explanations after you have talked to a lawyer.

- Within a reasonable time they must allow you to make a phone call to get a lawyer or arrange bail. They are not allowed to listen to your phone call to your attorney, but they may "monitor" the rooms for "your protection". Do not say anything you do not want them to overhear; save that until after you are out on bail.

 

Telephone Inquiries or Threats:

You may receive telephone inquiries concerning the number of dogs you own and whether any dogs or puppies are for sale. Other questions may also be asked.

Your response should be to inquire "Are you interested in a puppy?". If the answer is "yes", ask that person for his/her name, address and phone number. Suggest that you or a responsible breeder will contact that person at a more convenient time for you.

If the answer is friendly and genuinely inquisitive, invite the person to look at your puppies.

If the question asked is "What is the price of each puppy?", simply say that puppies of this type are being sold for between "X" and "Y" dollars. Never say that you are selling them.

If the question asked is "Are these your puppies?", you should ask, "Why do you want to know?".

If you conversation indicates that the person is representing the county clerk's office or allegedly representing an official body, ask the caller for:

• Full name, title and phone number

• Agency's full name and full address

• Their supervisor's full name and phone number

• Nature of the inquiry (what it is about)

• Why the inquiry is being made

• How your name and phone number were obtained

• Ask that all future questions from that agency be submitted in writing

   

Preventative Measures:

Always keep you kennel clean and take good care of your animals.

- Consider a P.O. Box or other address for business cards and advertisements. Keep descriptions of your location general (i.e. Southern California, rather than the name of the city where you live). The internet can provide anonymity for initial contacts. You can even buy a "remote prefix" to get a number from a nearby community forwarded to your phone or to a voice mail. Avoid local newspaper classifieds, they are often monitored.

- Screen any potential puppy buyers carefully. Always be alert that they may be Animal Control or even Animal Rights working under cover.

- Don't allow strangers into your home until you have screened them.

- Be fair and honest in all of your dealings, and be on good terms with your neighbors. Most animal control contacts are complaint-driven. Some complaints may arise as harassment by people with unrelated grievances against you. It may be a disgruntled dog buyer or a cranky neighbor who doesn't like you parking in front of his house.

- Anything about you that can be observed in "plain sight" from the street or sidewalk can become probably cause for a warrant. Even areas on your property open to visitors can be dangerous. Be aware of which areas of your home are visible from the outside and plan accordingly.

- If you are confronted by Animal Control and turn them away, assume they will be back. Use the time available to make sure everything is clean and presentable. If you are over the limit on the number of pets, find friends who can provide temporary shelter for your dogs.

- Whatever you do, stay calm and keep your wits about you.

- Just say "no", no matter what threats or promises of leniency they make.

- When in doubt, say nothing and speak to a lawyer afterwards.

### 

Animals C.L.U.B.- Freedom National Organization Incorporated (Non-Profit)
 
"The truth is rarely pure and never simple."


PLEASE DONATE to Animals C.L.U.B.- Freedom National Organization Incorporated (Non-Profit)BY CLICKING ON THE PAYPAL LINK:

Click Here to 'DONATE' to Protect Pet Owners with Animals C.L.U.B.- Freedom Nat. Org. Inc.  


Fair Use Notice: Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C. 107, other copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, research, critical comment, or debate without profit or payment. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for your own purposes beyond the 'fair use' exception, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
 
Legal Disclaimer: The information, articles, or links (posted, embedded or otherwise) to the above postings are provided to give readers more information on general dog-related or associated subjects and are not intended as legal advice. All individuals are urged to contact licensed attorneys in their states regarding specific legal issues.
 
Copyright © 2006-2012,  Animals C.L.U.B.- Freedom National Organization Incorporated (Non-Profit) Iowa 2009,NationalDogPress.us News, All Rights Reserved

ADVERTISEMENT

 

Are YOU a Loving Animal Rescue or No Kill Animal Shelter or the SCAM of an Animal Rights Activist Agenda (VIDEO)

 

Are YOU a Loving Animal Rescue or No Kill Animal Shelter or the product of the SCAM of an Animal Rights Activist Agenda (VIDEO)

When Police or Animal Control Come Knocking On Your Door; What Every Dog Owner Needs to Know

When Police or Animal Control Come Knocking On Your Door; What Every Dog Owner Needs to Know

By NationalDogPress.us and AnimalsClubFreedom.us

 

24 June 2012

Dog owners and ethical breeders are increasingly being targeted. Disgruntled neighbors may retaliate against dog owners and may other reasons drive complaints, and anti-dog enforcement action, which many times may be conducted illegally.

The following text outlines methods of inquiry and enforcement which may be used by local officials in attempts to enforce ordinances in your community and suggested techniques of response. These techniques are entirely legal and based upon the rights of citizens as stated by the U.S. Constitution.

No breeder wants to have Animal Control come knocking on the door...but if they do, it will help if you know what your options are.

Remember, Animal Control is law enforcement. They are bound by the same Constitution as any other government agency. To protect yourself, you need to know your rights. These vary slightly one jurisdiction to another, but some general principles apply. One rule applies everywhere: never physically resist an officer.

When Animal Control is At Your Door:

Do not let them in, no matter how much they ask. Animal Control generally cannot enter your home without a warrant, or your permission. While regular police can enter in emergency situations when human life is at risk (i.e. they hear gunshots and a scream inside), there are few, if any, situations in which Animal Control can enter your home without a warrant. Simply tell them they may not come in.

 - If you let them in, anything they find in "plain sight" can be used against you. In some circumstances Animal Control officers, unable to find a legitimate reason to make an arrest, have reported building or zoning violations. This may include caging you attached to a wall without a building permit, that extra outlet in the puppy room, having more pets than allowed by zoning, even extension cords in violation of fire codes! No matter how clean your kennel, if they want to find a violation, they will. 

 - Do not talk to them from an open doorway. Step outside and close (and lock if possible) the door behind you. This is necessary because:

A) Anything they see through the open door is "plain sight" and may be the basis for an arrest, or probable cause for a search warrant.

B) If they make an arrest or even feel threatened they are usually permitted to search for weapons in your immediate area. Do you keep a baseball bat inside the door for your protection? Even if you don't, once they step inside to look, they are in your home and may continue to search.

C) It is hard not to be intimidated by someone in authority. Some animal control is even done by local police, who carry guns. It is easy for them to get "in your face", causing you to back up into the home. Once you go in, it will be interpreted as an invitation to follow.

 - If they claim to have a warrant, demand to see it. In general, a search warrant must be signed by a judge. A warrant to search your home for dogs does not include an inventory of your jewellery box. A warrant to search your kennel in the garage or in the barn does not include a search of your home.

 - In some locations dog owners may have obtained special "breeder permits" that stipulate that Animal Control has your permission to enter at any time. If you have signed such a permit they still cannot enter against your wishes, since you can revoke the permission at any time. However, if you refuse permission it may allow them to cancel your breeder permit, so you have to weigh the consequences.

- Warning - anyone in lawful possession of the premises may be able to give permission for a search. Make sure your roommate, babysitter, dog-sitter, housekeeper and other know that they should not let animal control into your home or on your property (i.e. backyard, garage, etc.).

How to Handle Questions:

Don't answer any questions beyond identifying yourself for the officer. Anything you say to the officer in your defence cannot be used in court (hearsay). Anything you say that is harmful to you will be used in court (confessions are not considered hearsay). You cannot win, except by remaining silent.

 - Be polite but firm. Do not argue, bad-mouth, curse, threaten or try to intimidate the officer.

 - Do not lie to an officer, ever. However, it is NOT a lie to exercise your right to remain silent.

 - Keep your hands in plain sight. People have been shot by police when common objects, such as a wallet, were mistaken for a gun.

 - Do not touch the officer in any way. Do not physically resist an officer, no matter how unlawful his or her actions.

 - Don't try to tell your side of the story, it cannot help.

 - Do not threaten the officer that you plan to file a complaint for their actions.

- If the questioning persists, demand to speak to a lawyer first.  Repeat as necessary.

 

Gathering the Facts:

Get the name and badge number of each officer involved. If he/she does not volunteer this information, ask.

- Ask the name of the agency they represent. Different agencies have different enforcement responsibilities.

- Ask why they are there. Request the factual basis of the complaint and the identity of the complainant.

- If they have other people with them (Humane Society, press, etc.) get the names and organizations for all present.

- Note the names (and addresses) of any witnesses to the encounter.

- If you are physically injured by an officer, you should take photographs of the injuries immediately, but do not forego proper medical treatment first.

- Write down all of the information, as well as the date and time of the incident immediately, while details are fresh in your mind.

- If you rights are violated, file a complaint with the appropriate body.

If You Are Arrested:

 Remain silent. Answer no questions until you have consulted with a lawyer.

- Don't "explain" anything. You will have time for explanations after you have talked to a lawyer.

- Within a reasonable time they must allow you to make a phone call to get a lawyer or arrange bail. They are not allowed to listen to your phone call to your attorney, but they may "monitor" the rooms for "your protection". Do not say anything you do not want them to overhear; save that until after you are out on bail.

Telephone Inquiries or Threats:

You may receive telephone inquiries concerning the number of dogs you own and whether any dogs or puppies are for sale. Other questions may also be asked.

Your response should be to inquire "Are you interested in a puppy?". If the answer is "yes", ask that person for his/her name, address and phone number. Suggest that you or a responsible breeder will contact that person at a more convenient time for you.

If the answer is friendly and genuinely inquisitive, invite the person to look at your puppies.

If the question asked is "What is the price of each puppy?", simply say that puppies of this type are being sold for between "X" and "Y" dollars. Never say that you are selling them.

If the question asked is "Are these your puppies?", you should ask, "Why do you want to know?".

If you conversation indicates that the person is representing the county clerk's office or allegedly representing an official body, ask the caller for:

• Full name, title and phone number

• Agency's full name and full address

• Their supervisor's full name and phone number

• Nature of the inquiry (what it is about)

• Why the inquiry is being made

• How your name and phone number were obtained

• Ask that all future questions from that agency be submitted in writing

  
  

Preventative Measures:

Always keep you kennel clean and take good care of your animals.

- Consider a P.O. Box or other address for business cards and advertisements. Keep descriptions of your location general (i.e. Southern California, rather than the name of the city where you live). The internet can provide anonymity for initial contacts. You can even buy a "remote prefix" to get a number from a nearby community forwarded to your phone or to a voice mail. Avoid local newspaper classifieds, they are often monitored.

- Screen any potential puppy buyers carefully. Always be alert that they may be Animal Control or even Animal Rights working under cover.

- Don't allow strangers into your home until you have screened them.

- Be fair and honest in all of your dealings, and be on good terms with your neighbors. Most animal control contacts are complaint-driven. Some complaints may arise as harassment by people with unrelated grievances against you. It may be a disgruntled dog buyer or a cranky neighbor who doesn't like you parking in front of his house.

- Anything about you that can be observed in "plain sight" from the street or sidewalk can become probably cause for a warrant. Even areas on your property open to visitors can be dangerous. Be aware of which areas of your home are visible from the outside and plan accordingly.

- If you are confronted by Animal Control and turn them away, assume they will be back. Use the time available to make sure everything is clean and presentable. If you are over the limit on the number of pets, find friends who can provide temporary shelter for your dogs.

- Whatever you do, stay calm and keep your wits about you.

- Just say "no", no matter what threats or promises of leniency they make.

- When in doubt, say nothing and speak to a lawyer afterwards.

### 

Animals C.L.U.B.- Freedom National Organization Incorporated (Non-Profit)
 
"The truth is rarely pure and never simple."


PLEASE DONATE to Animals C.L.U.B.- Freedom National Organization Incorporated (Non-Profit)BY CLICKING ON THE PAYPAL LINK:

Click Here to 'DONATE' to Protect Pet Owners with Animals C.L.U.B.- Freedom Nat. Org. Inc.  


Fair Use Notice: Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C. 107, other copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, research, critical comment, or debate without profit or payment. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for your own purposes beyond the 'fair use' exception, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
 
Legal Disclaimer: The information, articles, or links (posted, embedded or otherwise) to the above postings are provided to give readers more information on general dog-related or associated subjects and are not intended as legal advice. All individuals are urged to contact licensed attorneys in their states regarding specific legal issues.
 
Copyright © 2006-2012,  Animals C.L.U.B.- Freedom National Organization Incorporated (Non-Profit) Iowa 2009, NationalDogPress.us News, All Rights Reserved

 

Before animal control authorities remove your dogs from private property, demand “due process”

Before animal control authorities remove your dogs from private property, demand “due process”

Due process is ‘not’ provided to dog owners in animal control ordinances before government authorities remove or euthanize their dogs from private property. 

By Dean A. Ayers

Lead Investigative Reporter

NationalDogPress.us  ©

 

21 Feb 12

How Does Due Process Apply to Dog Seizure/Euthanasia Cases?

Despite the fact that animals are still considered property in all legal jurisdictions today, due process, whether rooted in the federal or state constitutions, extends to life, liberty, or property. The more complicated issue, however, is how much process is due?

The Supreme Court has promulgated a four prong test to determine this. In each situation, a court must weigh

-the private interest affected by the official action

-the risk of an erroneous deprivation of that interest through the procedures used,

-the probable value of additional procedural safeguards, and

-the government interest involved.


Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335 (1976).

Due process requires the opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.

Thus, when individuals can show they will suffer irreparable harm from a post-deprivation hearing, courts has recognized that a pre-deprivation hearing is necessary. In the case of orders to euthanize pets, many courts have considered the loss to the pet owner as irreparable. Rabon v. City of Seattle (Rabon II), 107 Wash.App. 734, 743 (2001) (citing Mathews, 424 U.S. at 333).


Before the Hearing: Filing a Petition for a Preliminary Injunction

Dog owners should file a petition for an injunction to delay the killing of the dog until they have had the chance to be heard in court (For an actual example, see Petition for Preliminary and Permanent Injunction in the case of Wilson v. City of St. Louis (1990), which involved a Pit Bull named "Max" who was impounded and classified as dangerous because he allegedly killed the neighbor’s dog. The Circuit Court found that the plaintiff would suffer irreparable harm if the preliminary injunction was not granted and enjoined the city from killing or otherwise harming Max. The court ordered the city to release Max and change his dangerous designation to potentially dangerous.)


Overriding the Decision - Petition for a Writ of Mandamus

Due process includes more than just going through the motions of a hearing. In fact, even after hearings have been granted, decisions can be challenged as a prejudicial abuse of discretion that is not based on findings of fact or law. (This is what the owners of Boo, a bull mastiff who allegedly bit a child, argued in Williams v. Orange County Animal Control (1996)). In this case, owners should file a Petition for a Writ of Mandamus, a judicial remedy issued by a superior court to compel a government officer to do or forbear from doing a specific act, to delay the euthanasia order until the appeal can be heard. This writ of mandamus applies in any situation in which the euthanasia should be stayed, including scenarios in which an original hearing was never given.


Minimum Standards of Due Process for the Hearing

It is now also clear that hearings must meet certain minimum standards. Informal reviews that animal control agencies frequently provide upon the dog owners request often do not fulfill these requirements, because the decision-maker may not be qualified to render the judgment or may not be impartial if he also made the original decision to euthanize the dog. For example, in Phillips v San Luis Obispo County Dept., 228 Cal.Rptr. 101 Cal.App. (2 Dist., 1986), the owners of Missy, a black lab known to have a bad habit of biting children, contested the city’s decision to euthanize her. The amicus brief filed by Joyce Tischler of the Animal Legal Defense Fund pointed out the Municipal Codes at issue did not provide for the Animal Regulation Directors orders to be reviewed by the Chief Sanitarian of the County Health Department or the supervising environmental health officer, the two individuals who presided over the first and second hearings.


Challenges to the Ordinance Itself

In fact, many city ordinances are flawed in that they fail to specify that owners are entitled to hearings before their pets are euthanized. These municipal codes can be challenged as unconstitutional and, even if the city already granted hearings that met minimum due process standards, the decision to euthanize the pet would still have to be overturned. Otherwise, whether dog owners generally would receive due process would be at the whim of the animal control agency, and the city could avoid having to correct its municipal codes simply by voluntarily giving all dog owners a hearing. The court of appeals in Missy's case agreed, concluding that the ordinances here are unconstitutional for failure to provide for notice and a hearing either before or after the seizure of an uncontrollable biting or vicious dog.

Most recently, in a landmark case, the court of appeals in Mansour v. King County, 128 P.3d 1241 (Wash.App. Div. 1, 2006) held that due process required even more than offering owners a hearing, ordering that an agency seeking to enforce a removal order must prove both the violation and the remedy it has imposed by a preponderance of the evidence. This is the same standard of proof imposed on the government when it attempts to temporarily remove a child from the custody of his parents. By instituting a burden of proof on the city, the court was essentially finding that the dog must be presumed innocent until the city can prove otherwise. Previously, there had been no standard of proof, and reviewing courts would only look to see if Animal Control had acted arbitrarily or capriciously. Thus, even the most minimal evidence that a dog should be removed would suffice, and owners would bear the burden of proving their pets innocent. Moreover, the court found that due process attached not only for orders to euthanize an animal, but also for orders of removal outside the county (Peter Mansour had been ordered to remove his dog from the county or turn his dog over to the city to be euthanized after his dog was accused of killing a cat).

Finally, the court held that due process required Mansour to have the ability to subpoena records and witnesses in his defense, and that the Notice and Order of Violation had to specify exactly what code provisions had been violated. Merely issuing a brief and concise description of the conditions for finding the violation is insufficient. Mansour was entitled to know ahead of time exactly what the County needed to prove at the Board hearing. If in fact it could not prove that Maxine violated a code provision that supported the removal order, he [Mansour] was entitled to know that in time to move for a dismissal at the Board level. Source Reference: Animal Legal and Historical Center.


There are some significant problems with animal care, control, and dangerous dog laws and euthanasia execution solutions.

1. They do not reduce the number of neglect, abuse, or dog bite incidents that are legitimate in law. By focusing on the after-effects of the animal complaint of alleged neglect, abuse or a dog bite, these laws do not take any measures to prevent future neglect, abuse, animal care, pet owner control, or prevent dog bites. In theory, the risk of animal care and control ordinance punishment is for a motivation to change behavior. But most dog owners do not believe their dogs to be dangerous or the owners to be abusive or neglectful. So the perception is that these animal care and control laws are for 'other' dogs, problem dogs, but not their dog. Then, when a dog complaint, incident or dog bite allegedly occurs, that particular dog owner may face additional liability, but his/her friends and neighbors will not change their habits regarding their own dogs. These animal care and control laws 'do not' work as a viable solution.

2. The animal laws do not take into account the severity of the incident. Most animal care, control and dangerous dog laws cover a huge range of behavior from "threatening displays" to actual bites to simple care, and control of the dog(s). What this means is that you may be as liable for your goofy social dog rushing out the door and charging gleefully at a neighbor as another owner is for an under socialized, aggressive dog who bites a child on the face. Are these equal? Under many dangerous dog laws, they are. Additionally, animal care and control laws are intentionally 'vague' and 'interpretive' by animal control authorities. Thus the facts of alleged animal care and control, is rarely 'pure' and never 'simple.' And may not even be factually the 'truth' except by a personal (opinion) 'interpretation' of the animal control authority.


What it comes down to is this.

Dangerous dog laws, and animal care and control laws are a feel-good attempt to show the community that that authorities are taking action, even with a simple animal care or control complaint or a dog bite incident.

Unfortunately these animal laws do not provide any protective effects to change animal - owner behavior, merely punishment after the fact. There are many things that a community can do to prevent dog bites, animal neglect, animal abuse, or other care and control issues, including educating dog owners, parents, rural families or farmers, and citizens how to supervise and when to intervene in kid-and-dog, or dog-and-dog, interactions, teaching dog owners how to socialize and train their dogs with methods that encourage friendly behavior and providing some basic animal education about canine body language so the many misunderstandings we have with dogs each day can be reduced in their care and control issues.


Dog owners need to learn how to defend their dogs from ‘rogue’ Animal Control Authorities before they are confiscated, seized, and euthanized before you (as the dog owner) can obtain Legal Counsel.

 

###

 

Animals C.L.U.B.- Freedom National Organization Incorporated (Non-Profit)

"The truth is rarely pure and never simple."

 

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Dean A. Ayers is a prior United States Air Force Special Agent for the AFOSI. His duties included that of law enforcement specialist, criminal, fraud, and counter-intelligence. He was assigned to felony crimes in federal government, fraud, waste and abuse investigations of the military branches of service, and counter-intelligence in overseas locations. Dean was also a former Texas State Commissioned Alamo State Park Armed Ranger. Dean is currently Director, Animals C.L.U.B.- Freedom National Organization Incorporated (Nonprofit) and Dean is also a Lead Investigative Reporter for the NationalDogPress.us Headline News ©, and AnimalsClubFreedom.us news press services.

 http://www.linkedin.com/in/AnimalsClubFreedom

PLEASE DONATE to Animals C.L.U.B.- Freedom National Organization Incorporated (Non-Profit) BY CLICKING ON THE PAYPAL LINK:

https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=6721925


Fair Use Notice: Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C. 107, other copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, research, critical comment, or debate without profit or payment. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for your own purposes beyond the 'fair use' exception, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
 
Legal Disclaimer: The information, articles, or links (posted, embedded or otherwise) to the above postings are provided to give readers more information on general dog-related or associated subjects and are not intended as legal advice. All individuals are urged to contact licensed attorneys in their states regarding specific legal issues.
 
Copyright © 2006-2012,  Animals C.L.U.B.- Freedom National Organization Incorporated (Non-Profit) Iowa 2009, NationalDogPress.us News, All Rights Reserved

 

 

CLEAN DIRT WILL WASH OFF - BSL and Animal Rights Dirt Won't Wash Anymore

 

 CLEAN DIRT WILL WASH OFF - BSL and Animal Rights Dirt Won't Wash Anymore

This country was built by people who got dirty, but in a clean way. Dirty old men with calloused hands and dingy overalls and women with food stains and baby spit-up on them were responsible for this nation's Golden Age, not some starch-collared, manicured  animal rights activist groups "perverting" the natural God given laws of animal husbandry

 

By Dean A. Ayers

Director

http://AnimalsClubFreedom.us

and

http://NationalDogPress.us/

 

5 Feb 12

 

This country was built by people who got dirty, but in a clean way. Dirty old men with calloused hands and dingy overalls and women with food stains and baby spit-up on them were responsible for this nation's Golden Age, not some starch-collared, manicured NAIS influenced commodities trader, or an animal rights activist legislature, mayor, or animal rights(AR) activist groups "perverting" the natural God given laws of animal husbandry, while these "judgers of people’s  lives" sit at a computer all day and trade ordinances, laws, and regulations about pets, dogs, cats, horses, cattle, sheep, goats, beans, gold, oil, timber and other things.  Animal Law makers and Animal Rights groups have no idea how to produce animals or produce on farms or in loving pet owner homes, in a traditional and natural god given manner, independent of government intrusion or violation of the U.S. Constitution. The best people I've ever known had hands that looked like well-worn leather with cracks and crevices that crisscrossed their palms with tributaries of topsoil with a bunch of loving pet dogs of all breeds, even “bully” breeds running beside them thru the fields, and towns where they live and own property or on their premises. They are traditional farmers and producers, pet lovers, and family people, who worked all day in the fields or at their jobs and got so dirty when they came home at night they had to undress outside because they had a quarter-acre of soil in their boots.

 

These people may be what some might call dirty? But it's a clean kind of dirt, acquired in honest work. I guarantee once they get hosed off they are cleaner beneath their rough veneer than the bungling USDA, PETA and Animal Rights Groups, Animal Humane Society (HSUS), or City, State, and Federal Congressional bureaucrats and paper-pushers who waste away in offices all day with hardly a need to wash their hands; too good to get their hands dirty with a pet dog of any breed at their side at home or in the field. Working animal’s behavior traits for the good of all people, loved by their owners, to be peaceful and loving pets and animals, not for show or prejudice abuse.

Where's the documented “evidence” (not FEAR mongering propaganda) that BSL outlawing “bully breeds” and “look alike” dogs under these animal laws pushed, did anything that day worth bragging about, except to destroy this Nation's freedom, security, and pet ownership in a loving family unit, along with destroying American’s civil rights and freedoms to be free from government intrusion and violation to freely raise their "OWN" pets and animals on their "OWN" property called a premises.  Breed Specific Legislation (BSL) or the National Animal Identification System (NAIS) or other animal laws or city pet ordinances are “tyranny” on the American people and their dogs, plain and simple!

 

THE PROBLEM

An animal law proposal not even completed or enacted, yet thousands are being spent in 50 states to implement this perverted way of thinking in ordinances and programs of "Stamping Out" our own animals, at the choosing of the USDA "animal death squads" or Metro Animal Shelter Storm Troopers, or Perverted Citizens stealing pets from Private Property by Perverted Samaritan Laws, to allegedly stop disease or save something, not really true, accurate, or substantiated.  Like adopting out, euthanizing and killing healthy pets and animals taken from an innocent loving pet owners home, because they had a large number of healthy pets in the home. These pets “stolen” by perverted seizure ordinances, just lead to unjustified killing of healthy BSL and “look alike” loved pets, for the sake of enforcing the law, without thought, proof, justification or merit of the SPIRIT of the law, only the letter. I give this a letter "F" for failed law enforcement thinking about family pet ownership and their animal identification based upon the dog’s physical “look”. Where has all that good ole fashion "common sense" in Police and lawmaker's gone? To Hell I guess!

 

The dirty boots and clothing of the HSUS, AR, or USDA premises inspectors or the "death squads" sent to kill or cull or seize all your pets and animals, while they continue to "track" the disease known as "DEATH" into the next premises of upcoming euthanized animal death.  All in the name of an Animal's Right? To what end; be murdered by a syringe, instead of what; a loving family environment?  It's Perverted thinking at best, evil at worst, and all in the minds of sick, demented people known as potential terrorists to pets, owners, and life itself. There is no good solution except to RESIST perverted thinking and Take back our animal laws, to restore them to natural god given “animal’s husbandry” laws. Because killing healthy pet animals like blood-sport, or scorched earth policy of a BSL Nuke strike, is NOT a solution either. You would think intelligent college educated people, mayors, councilmen/women, state governors, congressional members, and animal Vets supporting questionable government facility practices, could use their "Brains" and still save lives, not "destroy" them.

 

But alas, you are dealing with the Animal Rights Perverts, USDA, Mad Cow Government, and maintaining a need for dead animal euthanized profits from rendering companies, or overseas animal, cattle, and horse meat profits, or simply to “kill” BSL dogs in general and their “look alike” dogs,  are allegedly the name of the game.

Life has no meaning of interest to these people. That is exactly what you can call "dirty dirt."

Some of the cleanest living people I've ever met didn't take a shower or a bath for a week. Or maybe even two. They were cowboys out with the wagon where the only water available was for drinking. Their hat bands may have been sweat-stained and their chaps smeared with mud and blood but they lived cleaner lives than most Wall Street CEO's who only get their three piece suits dirty when they spill Hollandaise sauce on them. Or accidentally soak their silk ties in some twenty dollar bowl of soup. I realize that grimy oilfield roustabouts or drilling rig roughnecks, or even mud covered farmers with pet dogs at their sides, wouldn't be welcome in the mansions of congressional billion-Aires, or Big Agro-Biz-like conference rooms, or PETA parlors, or in the city animal shelters or their dog rescues, or state legislator's offices, but at least when Freedom loving dirty people with clean dirt on them, finally get a chance to clean up - their dirt will wash down the drain.

 

The collective conscience of the Big Agro-Biz sheiks, monopoly Agro- CEO's and incarcerated agricultural energy traders, AR groupies, or legislators following perverted animal ownership thinking groups, wouldn't come clean with a box of Brillo pads and a high pressure hose. Your tractor mechanic or pet owner down at the small country garage fixing things, may be smeared with grease but at least his/her dirt will clean off with a little Lava and hand cleaner, and the dog playing in the mud will clean up too. Not so the dirty government agency dictator(s) making Anti-Pet ordinances, BSL,  and "mandatory" spay/neuter laws, who lives like a King in a mansion with fifteen bathrooms and a bidet, but not a dog in sight, in that house inside.  She/he may not have dirt under his/her fingernails but they will still be dirty when they step out of their gold encrusted shower.

 

The bloodstained independent farmer or local farm producer, iron-smudged welder, soot-covered fireman, saw-dusted carpenter, pet owner working on his/her home, repairing a dog house in the city or in the farmer's barn, and coal-smeared miner digging coal (not "data-mining" the Internet and private information of the American Pet owners and animal owners), are all cleaner than the stylish and well coined businessmen who “steals” from his/her neighbor's property, their pet,  dog, cat, or horse by implementing “unconstitutional”  animal laws.  That's filthy all right. And the smooth-skinned, payola packing, perfumed Congressional Federal, State, and city or town politicians, he/she has in their pocket of the Big Agro-Biz and Animal Rights "profiteers" smells far worse than the tar splattered laborer, the septic tank pumper or the hog farmer, or pet owner with 25 pets on an independent traditional farm, kennel, or private property premises.

 

Like I said, there is clean dirt and there is dirty dirt.

Soldiers do our dirty work in jungles and deserts all over the world. They may not shower daily, get pedicures or moisturize, but the dirt they wear is a badge of honor.  I guarantee that even the most hygienically-challenged soldier is cleaner than the NAIS-dodging, BSL Animal Rights pushing politicians with blood-sport "profiteering AR and NAIS lobbyist's agro-biz money" on their hands. Their hands can never come clean. So, to those folks who look down their snooty noses at people who get dirty working for a living, I'd suggest that if they wanted to feel the cleanest they've ever been that they should go get dirty.

 

Get filthy, serving your nation in the military, or serving in civilian life, in productive and constructive animal and farming related businesses or just by playing with your dog in a mud puddle; muddy up your life by producing something of value; work so hard that you smell; clean up someone's mess and in the process get dirty yourself.

 

I think you'll discover what the soiled among us have always allegedly known:

That dirt acquired in honest labor has the power to cleanse the soul and wash away blood-sport "profiteering" filth, like the various Animal Rights Activist groups, the National Animal Identification System (NAIS), and their "Oppressors" of freedom, liberty and the demise of the U.S. Constitution in the name of rural and city Anti-Pet Ownership protection  regulations, ordinances and laws as a result of one thing, which is: People in authority of 'perverted' agendas, are so "addicted" to exaggeration in everything they do or say, that they cannot tell the truth without a lie.

 

I say: “We the People have the Right to Bear "F…ARMS." WITH PETS and ANIMALS!

Citizens of America, DO NOT Be Afraid

Do not be afraid

3 December 2011 (NationalDogPress.us)

In October 1979, one year after he became Pope, John Paul II visited Battery Park and gave a speech about freedom. My mother stood in the rain for hours with thousands of New Yorkers to see the Polish Pontiff. When he finally arrived, hundreds of immigrants began chanting in Polish, "Long live the Pope." Swallowed by the multitude, my mother cried out, "Long live Poland!"

When he heard her, Pope John Paul stopped in his tracks and made his way through the crowd. He took my mother by the hand, looked into her eyes and said, "Long live Poland."

At that point, despite its democratic history, Poland was still stuck behind the Iron Curtain. This was a moment when two people who had suffered through the destruction and occupation of their homeland, first by the Nazis and then by the Soviet Union's communist regime, expressed hope that someday Poland would again be free.

With the Statue of Liberty as his backdrop, the Pope said in his speech: "On this spot, I wish to pay homage to this noble trait of America and its people: its desire to be free, its determination to preserve freedom, and its willingness to share this freedom, to remain a moving force for your nation and for all the nations in the world today!"

A few months before his visit to New York, the Pope, born Karol Wojtyla (pronounced Voy-ti-wah), visited his native country and told the Poles, "Do not be afraid." The message was a call to action.

The following year, Poles rose up against the atheist regime and created the Solidarity trade union to challenge the totalitarian system imposed on them. Eventually, the Kremlin told its puppet regime in Warsaw that unless they crushed Solidarity, Soviet troops would. When John Paul II learned of this threat, he sent then-Soviet President Leonid Brezhnev a letter that said if the Russians moved against Poland, he would "lay down the crown of St. Peter and return to his homeland to stand shoulder to shoulder with his people." To avoid a bloodbath at the hands of Soviet troops, Polish generals cracked down on the union. Union leaders were thrown in jail and Solidarity was outlawed.

In 1981, in a desperate attempt to stop this Polish Revolution, the Russian KGB ordered the assassination of the Polish Pope. John Paul II survived the shooting and became more determined to speak up for freedom.

Karol Wojtyla and Solidarity inspired me so much, that after graduating from journalism school in 1985, I went to Poland to delve into my Polish roots. There I saw what my mother and the Pope had known for years: Communism was a cruel joke being played on mankind, and it had to be abolished. The only things communism created in abundance were poverty and indignity. Store shelves were nearly empty. Ration cards were required to buy meat or sugar. Toilet paper was nonexistent. The currency was worthless. The press was censored. The communist bureaucracy was so paranoid that people had to fill out forms just to make a Xerox copy. Yet there was one injustice that the overpowered Poles would not stand for ^× they would not succumb to the Soviet system's atheism.

Christianity has been dominant in Poland for a thousand years. Poles would die before giving up their religion. The Catholic Church was Poland's second government, and mass was still the one place Poles could pray for freedom.

As he imposed communism on Eastern Europe, Soviet dictator Josef Stalin talked about forcing atheism on people who were willing to die for their religion. He said, "How many divisions does the Pope have?" Eventually, the Poles proved that it does not take tank divisions to overthrow tyranny. It takes solidarity.

I interviewed the Solidarity leaders inspired by the Pope. They told me that their belief in God helped them to use passive resistance the same way that Gandhi and Martin Luther King did to fight injustice in their own countries. Solidarity founder Lech Walesa told me that he could not compete with Soviet tanks, so he worked to change his country through evolution, not revolution. In his apartment he had pictures of the Pope, and he wore a pin with the likeness of Jesus and the Black Madonna on his lapel. Solidarity was down, but not out. Freedom would not be denied.

In June 1987, John Paul II made his third trip to Poland since becoming Pope. The communist authorities publicly warned that it would not tolerate any protests by Solidarity activists.

The Pope stuck it to them.

I attended a large open air mass in Gdansk, where a large altar in the shape of a wooden ship was built in a field near Walesa's apartment building. From this ship hung two large anchors, reminiscent of the symbol Poland's underground army used when it fought the Nazis and Soviets in World War II. The acronym that symbol stands for: "Poland Fights On!"

In his homily, the pontiff extolled the virtues of free speech, pluralism and human rights. The Pope used the word "solidarity" seven times and urged the Poles. During this mass, a sea of worshippers unfurled hundreds of red Solidarity banners.

By the end of the decade, the Poles had thrown off the shackles of communism. This anti-communist revolution spread throughout Eastern Europe, ending with the Germans tearing down the Berlin War. Make no mistake about it, John Paul II ended the Cold War and saved the world from nuclear annihilation.

John Paul II urged Poland to follow the path of dignity, respect and freedom. In fact, he did that in each of the 129 nations he visited as Pope. Millions of people around the world have attended masses celebrated by this Pope. Each one of them will remember him for addressing injustices that affected them. He also addressed issues that transcended Catholicism. John Paul II was the first Pope to enter and meditate in a synagogue and a mosque. He reached out to build bridges between the world's cultures and religions. He was respected by Christians, Jews and Muslims alike.

The world has never seen such a champion of peace and human rights. For that, John Paul II will be remembered as the most significant figure of the 20th Century. And to that, I say, long live freedom. Long live dignity. Long live the memory of the Polish Pope. (Alex Storozynski Editor in Chief amNewYork 145 West 30th Street, 9th floor)

Citizens of America...

We the People "SHOUT OUT" to all criminal government tyranny in our Police State called America.

We the People Hereby State, "Mr. President, Congress, Government Criminals, Thugs, and Corporate - Banker - Federal Reserve Mafias, We the People who are Citizens of America, will no longer be afraid!"

"YOU BE AFRAID!"

Citizens of America, "We the People" have THE RIGHT to Bear Arms and DEFEND ourselves from tyranny foreign and domestic, just as they did in 1776.

"DO NOT BE AFRAID!" - "NO QUARTER!"

"Brothers, what we do in life, echoes in eternity."

###

Dean A. Ayers is a prior United States Air Force Special Agent for the AFOSI. His duties included that of law enforcement specialist, criminal, fraud, and counter-intelligence. He was assigned to felony crimes in federal government, fraud, waste and abuse investigations of the military branches of service, and counter-intelligence in overseas locations. Dean was also a former Texas State Commissioned Alamo State Park Armed Ranger. Dean is currently Director, Animals C.L.U.B.- Freedom National Organization Incorporated (Nonprofit) and Dean is also a Lead Investigative Reporter for the NationalDogPress.us Headline News © and AnimalsClubFreedom.us news press services.

Please "SHARE" this article with all of America and the People of Planet Earth! Before it is too late to act.

 

Dog Owner “due process” is not contained in current Animal Law – The Questions and Answers

Dog Owner “due process” is not contained in current Animal Law – The Questions and Answers

Due process is ‘not’ provided to dog owners in animal control ordinances before government authorities remove or euthanize their dogs from private property.

 

By Dean A. Ayers

Lead Investigative Reporter

NationalDogPress.us  ©

 

2 Dec 11

How Does Due Process Apply to Dog Seizure/Euthanasia Cases?

Despite the fact that animals are still considered property in all legal jurisdictions today, due process, whether rooted in the federal or state constitutions, extends to life, liberty, or property. The more complicated issue, however, is how much process is due?

The Supreme Court has promulgated a four prong test to determine this. In each situation, a court must weigh:

-the private interest affected by the official action

-the risk of an erroneous deprivation of that interest through the procedures used,

-the probable value of additional procedural safeguards, and

-the government interest involved.


Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335 (1976).

Does Due process requires the opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner?

Rabon v. City of Seattle (Rabon II), 107 Wash.App. 734, 743 (2001) (citing Mathews, 424 U.S. at 333). Thus, when individuals can show they will suffer irreparable harm from a post-deprivation hearing, courts has recognized that a pre-deprivation hearing is necessary. In the case of orders to euthanize pets, many courts have considered the loss to the pet owner as irreparable.


Before any court hearing can dog owners file a Petition for a Preliminary Injunction?

Dog owners should file a petition for an injunction to delay the killing of the dog until they have had the chance to be heard in court (For an actual example, see Petition for Preliminary and Permanent Injunction in the case of Wilson v. City of St. Louis (1990), which involved a Pit Bull named "Max" who was impounded and classified as dangerous because he allegedly killed the neighbor’s dog. The Circuit Court found that the plaintiff would suffer irreparable harm if the preliminary injunction was not granted and enjoined the city from killing or otherwise harming Max. The court ordered the city to release Max and change his dangerous designation to potentially dangerous.)


Is there any way of overriding a bad decision by a petition for a writ of Mandamus?

Due process includes more than just going through the motions of a hearing. In fact, even after hearings have been granted, decisions can be challenged as a prejudicial abuse of discretion that is not based on findings of fact or law. (This is what the owners of Boo, a bull mastiff who allegedly bit a child, argued in Williams v. Orange County Animal Control (1996)). In this case, owners should file a Petition for a Writ of Mandamus, a judicial remedy issued by a superior court to compel a government officer to do or forbear from doing a specific act, to delay the euthanasia order until the appeal can be heard. This writ of mandamus applies in any situation in which the euthanasia should be stayed, including scenarios in which an original hearing was never given.


What are the minimum standards of Due Process for a hearing for dog owners?

It is now also clear that hearings must meet certain minimum standards. Informal reviews that animal control agencies frequently provide upon the dog owners request often do not fulfill these requirements, because the decision-maker may not be qualified to render the judgment or may not be impartial if he also made the original decision to euthanize the dog. For example, in Phillips v San Luis Obispo County Dept., 228 Cal.Rptr. 101 Cal.App. (2 Dist., 1986), the owners of Missy, a black lab known to have a bad habit of biting children, contested the city’s decision to euthanize her. The amicus brief filed by Joyce Tischler of the Animal Legal Defense Fund pointed out the Municipal Codes at issue did not provide for the Animal Regulation Directors orders to be reviewed by the Chief Sanitarian of the County Health Department or the supervising environmental health officer, the two individuals who presided over the first and second hearings.


Are there any challenges to the animal ordinance itself?

In fact, many city ordinances are flawed in that they fail to specify that owners are entitled to hearings before their pets are euthanized. These municipal codes can be challenged as unconstitutional and, even if the city already granted hearings that met minimum due process standards, the decision to euthanize the pet would still have to be overturned. Otherwise, whether dog owners generally would receive due process would be at the whim of the animal control agency, and the city could avoid having to correct its municipal codes simply by voluntarily giving all dog owners a hearing. The court of appeals in Missy's case agreed, concluding that the ordinances here are unconstitutional for failure to provide for notice and a hearing either before or after the seizure of an uncontrollable biting or vicious dog.

Most recently, in a landmark case, the court of appeals in Mansour v. King County, 128 P.3d 1241 (Wash.App. Div. 1, 2006) held that due process required even more than offering owners a hearing, ordering that an agency seeking to enforce a removal order must prove both the violation and the remedy it has imposed by a preponderance of the evidence. This is the same standard of proof imposed on the government when it attempts to temporarily remove a child from the custody of his parents. By instituting a burden of proof on the city, the court was essentially finding that the dog must be presumed innocent until the city can prove otherwise. Previously, there had been no standard of proof, and reviewing courts would only look to see if Animal Control had acted arbitrarily or capriciously. Thus, even the most minimal evidence that a dog should be removed would suffice, and owners would bear the burden of proving their pets innocent. Moreover, the court found that due process attached not only for orders to euthanize an animal, but also for orders of removal outside the county (Peter Mansour had been ordered to remove his dog from the county or turn his dog over to the city to be euthanized after his dog was accused of killing a cat).

Finally, the court held that due process required Mansour to have the ability to subpoena records and witnesses in his defense, and that the Notice and Order of Violation had to specify exactly what code provisions had been violated. Merely issuing a brief and concise description of the conditions for finding the violation is insufficient. Mansour was entitled to know ahead of time exactly what the County needed to prove at the Board hearing. If in fact it could not prove that Maxine violated a code provision that supported the removal order, he [Mansour] was entitled to know that in time to move for a dismissal at the Board level. Source Reference: Animal Legal and Historical Center.


Are there some significant problems with animal care, control, and dangerous dog laws and euthanasia execution solutions?

1. They do not reduce the number of neglect, abuse, or dog bite incidents that are legitimate in law. By focusing on the after-effects of the animal complaint of alleged neglect, abuse or a dog bite, these laws do not take any measures to prevent future neglect, abuse, animal care, pet owner control, or prevent dog bites. In theory, the risk of animal care and control ordinance punishment is for a motivation to change behavior. But most dog owners do not believe their dogs to be dangerous or the owners to be abusive or neglectful. So the perception is that these animal care and control laws are for 'other' dogs, problem dogs, but not their dog. Then, when a dog complaint, incident or dog bite allegedly occurs, that particular dog owner may face additional liability, but his/her friends and neighbors will not change their habits regarding their own dogs. These animal care and control laws 'do not' work as a viable solution.

2. The animal laws do not take into account the severity of the incident. Most animal care, control and dangerous dog laws cover a huge range of behavior from "threatening displays" to actual bites to simple care, and control of the dog(s). What this means is that you may be as liable for your goofy social dog rushing out the door and charging gleefully at a neighbor as another owner is for an under socialized, aggressive dog who bites a child on the face. Are these equal? Under many dangerous dog laws, they are. Additionally, animal care and control laws are intentionally 'vague' and 'interpretive' by animal control authorities. Thus the facts of alleged animal care and control, is rarely 'pure' and never 'simple.' And may not even be factually the 'truth' except by a personal (opinion) 'interpretation' of the animal control authority.


What does a lack of “due process” for dog owners come down to?

Dangerous dog laws, and animal care and control laws are a feel-good attempt to show the community that that authorities are taking action, even with a simple animal care or control complaint or a dog bite incident.

Unfortunately these animal laws do not provide any protective effects to change animal - owner behavior, merely punishment after the fact. There are many things that a community can do to prevent dog bites, animal neglect, animal abuse, or other care and control issues, including educating dog owners, parents, rural families or farmers, and citizens how to supervise and when to intervene in kid-and-dog, or dog-and-dog, interactions, teaching dog owners how to socialize and train their dogs with methods that encourage friendly behavior and providing some basic animal education about canine body language so the many misunderstandings we have with dogs each day can be reduced in their care and control issues.


Dog owners need to learn how to defend their dogs from ‘rogue’ Animal Control Authorities before they are confiscated, seized, and euthanized before you (as the dog owner) can obtain Legal Counsel.

 

 

More questions and answers we need to ask about “Due Process”.

 

DUE PROCESS is what is missing from the ordinance of animal laws, which are in force in most jurisdictions today.

 

1. IF YOU ARE FACED WITH CONFISCATION OR EUTHANASIA ISSUES CURRENTLY OR BEFORE. 

 

 It is necessary that you seek counsel from an attorney BEFORE you allow any authority to confiscate your dogs, pets, or animals, and ask the attorney to intervene with authorities to stop the process, based on a review of their animal laws being used, that DO NOT contain DUE PROCESS for the pet owners according to law case precedent established in this article and case law. In this way it is very likely the confiscation can be stopped or overturned, based on an unconstitutional law.

 

2. HOW OT ESTABLISH "DUE PROCESS" WHEN NOT IN A PRESENT DOG CONFISCATION CASE.

 

It is necessary to make enough flack or waves, thru getting the word out to your local animal control legislators for the jurisdiction you are in, to make them see the light, that current animal control laws and ordinances are UNCONSTITUTIONAL, as they DO NOT contain the lawful DUE PROCESS established by these case precedents in this article containing the case law establishing the requirements for DUE PROCESS before confiscation or euthanasia. It will take aggressive campaigning and raising the flag to the locals to get a campaign going for animal control law reform in your local town, county, and state. But this needs to be done, to change the law to protect the pet owners from the current level of tyranny without law controls on THEM.

 

3. MOST NEEDED, BUT COSTLY TO THE POCKET BOOK.

 

 The fastest and most public attention gathering method to change the animal laws to include the DUE PROCESS in this article is to have an attorney file a lawsuit against the jurisdiction, CHALLENGING THE CONSTITUTIONALITY of the animal law currently in force. When you establish thru evidence of the LACK OF DUE PROCESS IN THEIR ANIMAL LAWS, in court in a law suit, the Judge will have no alternative but to OVERTURN the current animal law, and it will be thrown out (the law will be) like the dish water for being Unconstitutional and vague. Thus the animal law is nullified, and no longer in force, at that moment, and the legislators will have to START OVER in creating a new animal law, that INCLUDES the ruling of a need for Constitutional DUE PROCESS included in the local animal law.

 

4. It is not as simple as just telling an animal control authority, that there is no Due Process.

 

Animal Control like cops will do ANYTHING they DAMN WELL PLEASED to you, UNTIL, and UNLESS, you OBTAIN AN ATTORNEY, to establish legal precedents to stop them. It ALWAYS comes down to working thru an attorney, BEFORE the pets or animals are confiscated or euthanized.  The word needs to spread, that people, need top have A PLAN OF ACTION, and ATTORNEY AT HAND, BEFORE they are ever faced with Animal Control, in order to stop them from tyranny. If Animal Control, knocks on your door, and you refuse them entry. You have only the amount of time, it takes for them to obtain a search and seizure warrant from a judge, and their time to come back to you, in order for YOU TO GET AN ATTORNEY AND START THIS NEGOTIATION PROCESS OD DUE PROCESS, if your animal laws do NOT contain the Proper Due Process in the current Animal Laws (which almost every Animal Law in the nation does NOT have).

 

5. This is what must be done, by every citizen with a pet, to get DUE PROCESS in their jurisdiction.

 

First off, GET AN ATTORNEY, to represent you, in each case listed above. Preferably an Attorney at Law WITH some experience in Animal Law.

###

 

 

Dean A. Ayers is a prior United States Air Force Special Agent for the AFOSI. His duties included that of law enforcement specialist, criminal, fraud, and counter-intelligence. He was assigned to felony crimes in federal government, fraud, waste and abuse investigations of the military branches of service, and counter-intelligence in overseas locations. Dean was also a former Texas State Commissioned Alamo State Park Armed Ranger. Dean is currently Director, Animals C.L.U.B.- Freedom National Organization Incorporated (Nonprofit) and Dean is also a Lead Investigative Reporter for the NationalDogPress.us Headline News © and AnimalsClubFreedom.us news press services.