Southeastern Iowa Kennel Club
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 principlesapply.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) http://animalsclubfreedom.us/
“The truth is rarely pure and never simple.”
**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.
**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
__________________________________________
Your Dogs and Cats Belong to You, Not the Government – Maybe!
Dogs, cats, pets and other animals have never been more a part of our lives than they are today. Even though nearly 45 million American homes have at least one canine or feline family member, dogs are being forced out of their homes by various dog ban legislation, dog taxing licensing, and dog law tyranny through the mandatory requirements for home owner’s insurance outrageous premiums as a result of legislation dog insurance mandates.
These mandated dog insurance policies are being pushed by various animal rights activist groups, and law making people who ‘buy into’ the local media ‘hype’ when a dog bite incident occurs on private property or in the community.
The erosion of our freedom to own dogs, cats, pets and animals, rings true of the current political climate in the USA Today. We the People who own dogs, cats, pets and animals are especially struck by the public’s statements concerning agreement or apathy towards all the various government licensing to include that of our dogs, cats, pets and animals.
Definition of Licensing and the Misconceptions:
Most people seem to believe that a dog or pet license is a freedom, when in true fact, it is a taking.
A license is a temporary, revocable permit issued by government that allows the holder to have something or to do something that is otherwise illegal. For example, in the USA the licensing of firearms has virtually removed our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.
Any time a license is issued, a freedom is jeopardized. By the very act of licensing dogs, the act of owning or even possessing a dog has been made illegal.
Animals are traditional property, now legally having “Intrinsic Value:”
Animals are human-kind’s most ancient and traditional property. Before ever we settled down to a plot of land and threw seeds in the soil, we numbered animals as our most valuable possessions. Wealth has always been associated with the number of animals that a person owned, and kept.
Now animal ownership, use, and the ancient, honorable practice of animal husbandry are under global attack by dog laws, animal ID laws globally. It was initiated by the animal “rights” movement, and adapted by local, state, and federal governments throughout the world.
A Dog’s life has ‘intrinsic value,” New York judge finds:
Finding that a dog “is somewhere between a person and personal property,” a New York trial court said a pet owner whose dog died following unauthorized surgery may seek damages beyond the purchase price of the animal. “[A dog] is not an inanimate thing that just receives affection; it also returns it,” the court wrote, citing Corso v. Crawford, 97 Misc. 2d 530 (N.Y., Queens County Civ. Ct. 1979).
Doing Away with Dog Ownership:
All the dog legislation, animal control laws, dog ownership licensing, animal breeder licensing and animal ID programs will effectively do away with all but the largest commercial breeders and providers. When the small traditional owner and holder have been the basis for our animals and economy world-wide, it soon will end with all animals owned being controlled through licensing of many types and behaviors, as well as the food we all eat for life will be controlled by the seed products being copyrighted through large commercial concerns like Monsanto, and those of us who have traditionally grown our own food or owned animals personally for various reasons will be locked out or the owners will be locked up literally, also known as “Jail” or animal shelters, etc.
A Cursory Review of Animal Care and Control Tyranny in Animal Law.
Around the country, banning pit bulls has become the most popular answer to the potential ‘dangerous dog’ question. Many states and the municipalities alike, just like Omaha, Nebraska, and Mills County, Iowa, have now implemented major animal care and control legislation and these areas like the rest of the country have jumped on the animal rights dangerous dog ‘ban’ wagon. In Mills County, Iowa if your ‘harmless’ dog escapes off your property three times, the County will designate your dog as a “dangerous dog.”
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to realize this tyranny legislation is going to have a great economic hardship on the dog owner’s regarding pet licensing fees, and the home owner insurance premiums and even the dog, if the owner can no longer afford to keep the dog due to pet license fees, animal law fines, and potential confiscation and euthanasia of the dog. Additionally, a cursory review of the Mills County, Iowa animal care and control ordinance disclosed there is no lawful and constitutional ‘due process’ afforded in the legislation for proper hearings and testimony for the dog owner, before the county animal control authorities can ‘legally’ confiscate, seize or euthanize your dogs. Like Mills County, Iowa a vast majority of these ‘animal care and controlling’ dog ordinances and legislation ‘fail’ to implement any constitutional ‘due process’ what so ever in their animal control regulations. Instead these ordinances and legislation designate animal control authorities the ability to ‘make life altering judgments about your dogs, without fact or proven evidence’ to ‘label’ your dog as a ‘dangerous dog.’ Without any lawful and constitutional means of evidence or hearing to do so animal control can invoke search, seizure, confiscation, and euthanasia of your dog on private property without a criminal act having taken place.
These tyranny dog legislation and ordinances in all communities are insuring that any lawful attempt by you as good law abiding citizens to prevent access to your dogs on your private property can be overcome by animal control simply going to a magistrate and stating the owner refuses inspection access to their private property, in these tyranny animal ordinances. No evidence of a ‘crime’ need be presented to obtain a warrant to enter your private property anymore with this kind of tyranny in the legislation and ordinances. Good bye dog owners, if you resist, and goodbye to your dogs through fees, fines, confiscations, seizures, and dog euthanasia without any legal and proper constitutional hearing to prevent these ‘assassinations’ by animal control authorities nationwide. And if you manage to even get your confiscated dog back, it will cost you dearly, in fees, fines, RFID mandatory chipping, spay/neuter before they can be returned, license fees, and boarding for the animal, or you will ‘not’ get your dogs back from animal control and their humane society shelters. Essentially this is a ‘perverted’ legal maneuver for the county or municipality to ‘steal’ your dogs away from you, and sell them for a profit (as a rescue) while billing you for the expenses of the entire affair. The insurance companies making these dog ‘ban’ lists or ‘blacklists” of dog breeds may not be the direct ‘villain’ in these tyranny legislations, but they sure are playing directly into the hands of the law makers that are ‘mandating’ these tyranny insurance policies on owners of the newly designated ‘banned’ or designated ‘potentially dangerous’ dog breeds, which also include any ‘look alike’ dogs as well.
There are currently 75 restricted or banned dog breeds across the U.S. that are banned by various home owner insurance companies and Animal laws
1. AIREDALE TERRIER 2. AKBASH 3. AKITA 4. ALAPAHA BLUE BLOOD BULLDOG 5. ALASKAN MALAMUTE 6. ALSATIAN SHEPHERD 7. AMERICAN BULLDOG 8. AMERICAN HUSKY
9. AMERICAN PIT BULL TERRIER 10. AMERICAN STAFFORDSHIRE TERRIER 11. AMERICAN WOLFDOG 12. ANATOLIAN SHEPHERD 13. ARIKARA DOG 14. AUSTRALIAN CATTLE DOG
15. AUSTRALIAN SHEPHERD 16. BELGIAN MALINOIS 17. BELGIAN SHEEPDOG 18. BELGIAN TURVUREN 19. BLUE HEELER 20. BOERBUL 21. BORZOI 22. BOSTON TERRIER
23. BOUVIER DES FLANDRES 24. BOXER 25. BULLDOG 26. BULL TERRIER 27. BULL MASTIFF 28. CANE CORSO 29. CATAHOULA LEOPARD DOG 30. CAUCASIAN SHEPHERD
31. CHINESE SHAR PEI 32. CHOW-CHOW 33. COLORADO DOG 34. DOBERMAN PINSCHER 5. DOGO DE ARGENTINO 36. DOGUE DE BORDEAUX 37. ENGLISH MASTIFFS
38. ENGLISH SPRINGER SPANIEL 39. ESKIMO DOG 40. ESTRELA MOUNTAIN DOG 41. FILA BRASILIERO 42. FOX TERRIER 43. FRENCH BULLDOG 44. GERMAN SHEPHERD DOG
45. GOLDEN RETRIEVER 46. GREENLAND HUSKY 47. GREAT DANE 48. GREAT PYRENEES 49. ITALIAN MASTIFF 50. KANGAL DOG 51. KEESHOND 52. KOMONDOR
53. KOTEZEBUE HUSKY 54. KUVAZ 55. LABRADOR RETRIEVER 56. LEONBERGER 57. MASTIFF 58. NEOPOLITAN MASTIFF 59. NEWFOUNDLAND 60. OTTERHOUND
61. PRESA DE CANARIO 62. PRESA DE MALLORQUIN 63. PUG 64. ROTTWEILER 65. SAARLOOS WOLFHOND 66. SAINT BERNARD 67. SAMOYED 68. SCOTTISH DEERHOUND
69. SIBERIAN HUSKY 70. SPANISH MASTIFF 71. STAFFORDSHIRE BULL TERRIER 72. TIMBER SHEPHERD 73. TOSA INU 74. TUNDRA SHEPHERD 75. WOLF SPITZ
How’s that for scary? Are you as a responsible owner, of one of these dog breeds wide awake now? How about just owning a dog that looks like one of these restricted or banned dog breeds?
The disadvantages of dog “number limits” in homes by Animal Laws.
Dog owners in some communities face a limit on the number of pets they can own, but these limits, too, are counterproductive.
Laws that criminalize pet ownership based on numbers alone have been declared unconstitutional in some states because they do not address the need to control nuisances or provide for the health and safety of residents.
The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, the state’s highest court, has declared such a law unconstitutional in that state, citing a precedent in Kadash v City of Williamsport:
“What is not an infringement upon public safety and is not a nuisance cannot be made one by legislative fiat and then prohibited….
“Even legitimate legislative goals cannot be pursued by means which stifle fundamental personal liberty when the goals can otherwise be more reasonably achieved.”
A dog or pet limit ordinance is difficult to enforce without increased presence of animal control or police agencies and often leads to a decrease in pet licensing to prevent cross-referencing of license records. If the law is enforced only upon complaint, it becomes just another law for people to circumvent and further erodes confidence in legislative bodies.
Numbers have no relationship to nuisances. A person with one dog that runs loose or barks all night is a greater nuisance than a person with a dozen dogs that are quiet, clean, and kept at home.
Limiting people to four dogs (or fewer) puts an unreasonable strain on people who raise show dogs, compete in performance trials, participate in canine rescue operations, foster dogs for service dog organizations, etc. and can lead to those responsible dog owners leaving the community.
A number limit causes dog deaths by forcing people to give up dogs they own, thus causing crowding in local shelters; denying people the opportunity to buy an additional dog from a shelter or a rescue; and adversely impacting rescue groups and foster homes that help find new homes for dogs whose owners cannot keep them.
Your Pet Belongs to YOU, Not the government!
Animal laws are not always a result of state and federal battles. Squabbles between neighbors often erupt over animals, squabbles that often spill over into law enforcement or animal control filed complaints to local governments.
As an emotional result the local government greases the squeaky wheel complaints by citizens with even more stricter ordinances or other tacked on to the zoning code or the criminal codes to existing animal ordinances.
Dog limit ordinances are often passed out of frustration, with little consideration for the consequences or valid and factual basis to make any “positive or constructive” benefit to the community dog complaints, other than a government official “feel good” action giving We the People even more tyranny in our local animal control ordinances.
You dogs, cats, pets and other animals are the victims, not just of irresponsible breeders and pet or animal owners but of the violence that pervades our whole society.
No one in Animal law considers the ‘Intrinsic value’ established by precedent setting lawful court cases that establish dogs as being more than just ‘chattel.’ No lawful ‘due process’ is included in the animal control legislation that meet a constitutional challenge. Rather these tyranny animal care and control laws are approved ‘knowing’ that virtually no one owning a pet, can sustain a lengthy and costly court battle to establish the ‘unconstitutional’ provisions within these tyranny animal care and control laws on the nation’s various law books.
As a consequence of all the Animal care and control laws being imposed, it now begs the question: Does your dog, cat, pet or other animals still belong to YOU, or the government?
How Does Due Process Apply to Dog Confiscation, Seizure and Euthanasia Cases by Animal Control Authorities? Why was “Due Process” not afforded to ASHLEY NICOLE MILLER? Ignorance of the law or lack of “Due Process” in the law is NO EXCUSE!
The following legal brief is a synopsis of the evidence of alleged illegal, illicit and immoral actions taken by Killeen, TX Animal Control Authorities and possibly their Law Enforcement Authorities Assisting, in Killeen, TX governmental alleged “WRONGFUL TAKING AND THEFT” of Ashley N. Miller’s dogs, pets, and animals WITHOUT LEGAL “DUE PROCESS” as established by Case Precedent in the Law (detailed in this article).
Ashley N. Miller’s dogs 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 Ashley N. Miller?
The Supreme Court has promulgated a four prong test to determine this. In each situation, a court must weigh
A. the private interest affected by the official action
B. the risk of an erroneous deprivation of that interest through the procedures used,
C. the probable value of additional procedural safeguards, and
D. 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.
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 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.
ASHLEY NICOLE MILLER “stands her ground” and once again has provided the following information as follows:
QUOTE – I (ASHLEY) feel this has affected my reputation, my ability to obtain work, my income, and cost me my home. I would be greatly appreciative of any assistance you can provide to me in getting this matter resolved. I do not care about money, or publicity in regards to this case. In fact, no amount of money can replace my dogs that were taken from me as I would give my life for any of them just as I would any other member of my family. My animals are everything to me and I will do everything possible to get them home. I appreciate you are extremely busy, but please take me serious as this is very important to me. If nothing else, please just do this for my dogs and other dogs which are facing a similar fate. I am working on figuring out how to file a criminal complaint on each affiliation involved.
I am trying to get back the 5 dogs that were wrongfully taken from me. The dogs were sent to the following rescues:
Apollo – Heart of Texas Lab Rescue (Austin, Texas)
Koda – Texas Husky Rescue (Carrollton, Texas)
Phantom – Texas Husky Rescue (Carrollton, Texas)
Cowboy – Tails of Hope Pet Rescue (Waxahachie, Texas)
Scooby – Forever Homes Rescue (Kempner, Texas)
I have gone to great lengths and personal sacrifice to ensure the safety and safe return of my animals. As I am facing the gravity of false accusations and punitive actions I don’t deserve. Your consideration of this matter and expedient resolution would be greatly appreciated. Most importantly, I am a veteran of the Iraq War. I have fought for the right to protect the freedoms and liberties as defined in the United States Constitution, and I would hope that I can receive assistance in this matter to uphold those rights that I swore to defend. – UNQUOTE
“The truth is rarely pure and never simple.” ~ Dean A. Ayers
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 theNationalDogPress.us © and AnimalsClubFreedom.us news press services.
____________________________________________________
For full article go here: http://animalsclubfreedom.typepad.com/nationaldogpress/im-as-mad-as-hell-and-i-am-not-going-to-take-this-tyranny-anymore/
