Judge Finds HSUS Warrant Illegal, Seizure Illegal

http://www.keloland.com/NewsDetail6162.cfm?Id=99724

By Ben Dunsmoor
Published: May 4, 2010, 5:41 PM

PARKER, SD – It’s a decision Turner County dog breeder Dan Christensen calls a huge victory.  Not only has magistrate Judge Tami Bern ruled that the warrant used to seize 172 of Christensen’s dogs was illegal, Tuesday, she decided Second Chance Rescue Center can’t keep them.

The case dates back to September 2 when Second Chance Rescue Center and the Humane Society of the United States took the dogs from Hurley dog breeder Dan Christensen, claiming they were being abused and neglected. In February, Judge Tami Bern ruled that seizure was illegal, but last month, Second Chance argued a state law allows them to keep the dogs even without a warrant. Judge Bern denied that argument Tuesday.

The law Second Chance Rescue Center is referring to says a warrant is not necessary if any humane society in the state finds that an animal is so injured and diseased that it needs to be taken immediately.

In a ruling filed in Turner County Tuesday, Judge Bern said that the law does not apply in this case. That’s because the law says the agency has to show a judge evidence for why they took the dogs after the seizure happens. Judge Bern says Second Chance has failed to show that evidence as well as cause for retaining custody of the dogs.

That’s why she ruled none of the dogs can be used as evidence during a trial and that the dogs should be returned to their owner, Dan Christensen.  Christensen said he knew the raid was wrong from the beginning.  
“Second Chance Rescue and the Humane Society of the United States stole my dogs under the direction of the Turner County Sheriff,” Christensen told KELOLAND News.

As for when Christensen could get his dogs back that still could take awhile because there is still the possibility that prosecutors and Second Chance could appeal the ruling and keep the dogs while that process plays out. 

Review Judge Tami Bern’s latest ruling

Petdefense note:    Again—-how many more RAIDS  should  HSUS be allowed to carry out before the dummies out there get wise to their illegality????  HSUS is not the police, it is not the government, and it has no authority to barge into different states conducting raids with local authorities.
Advertisements

3 thoughts on “Judge Finds HSUS Warrant Illegal, Seizure Illegal

  1. What welcome and essential rulings. Now they need to be issued on a federal court level. We all know these illegal actions across the country and the grossly unconstitutional new law Maine’s governor, John Baldacci, just signed– permits agents to enter private property without complaint without court order on no more than fishing expeditions. The new law permits animal seizure on spot (also without court order) and was solely designed to abolish all articles and amendments to the US Constitution. This is NOT about animals. It is about eradication–one by one–of all constitional protections of our entire population. Maine’s new law is designed to grab any animal from a guppy in a bowl up, hold a kangaroo court ramrodded through “a possession hearing” on any seized animal within 7 days then permits the state or HSUS to sell or kill the animals which IS the “evidence” in the case. No owner can fight such takings even though they are without basis because there are NO lawyers that specialize in defending animal owners in the entire state. Just as America’s manufacturing and industries were pushed abroad, Maine’s one of the leading states behind pushing reproduction of pet and farm animals abroad to foreign nations for their foreign gain as to create a foreign monopoly on reproduction of pet and farm animals. It’s anti-American and an act of pure evil and malice toward all residents when any state takes such illicit through blatantly unconstitutional steps to eradicate Americans’ pets and farm animals and our citizen rights to due process.

  2. I am still fighting and the appellate court issued the opinion in March of 2010 that the state forfeiture 821 statutea in Texas did not and does not require a finding of any criminal activity connection before forfeiture can occur; and that violates the Texas Constitution Section 29 and therefore allows an Section 17 Cause of Action to be filed against the State. We will see how the Texas Constitution plays out in the Texas Courts and whether the Texas Constitution is upheld because Section 29 of the Constitution REQUIRES the Judiciary Branch to DECLARE Health and Safety Code 821.022 VOID because as it has been Interpreted by the Texas Courts it violates the Texas Bill of Rights and Section 29 of the Texas Constitution per the Interpretation of the Statute Given By The Fifth Court of Appeals Justice Myers on March 24, 2010.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s