HSUS laws found to be thrown out, lost in court, or unconstitutional down below
HSUS already lost their “chicken” case in San Francisco Federal Court, shortly before they did Prop 2 in California, they have appealed it [case claimed that the slaughter of chicken should go under a different law than the specific law designed for poultry], with HSUS using Bay area residents as the “Plaintiffs” with “standing”— nothing but bull….
HSUS will be facing stiff opposition on the CA Prop 2 regs for shelled eggs/hens, as a huge $6million infusion has financed a scientific study on hen welfare, involving UCD scientists and other qualified stakeholders from the farm and food industry, including egg industry.
Not surprisingly, the results will be completed a year before the time that HSUS wants enforcement of the regs in 2015, giving rise to the distinct possibility that HSUS will NOT be getting cage free hens in production facilities. In fact we almost guarantee it…….There have been many, many decades of research already done in the area of raising/genetics of production birds that are usually raised indoors to avoid vermin, disease, insects and predators; the study will focus on about 5 areas which does include worker safety, animal safety,etc.
HSUS already LOST their alleged “puppymill” case against Hunte in Arizona Federal Court awhile back, the Court completely dismissed the HSUS “Plaintiff” complaint [which HSUS trolled for online on their website]; HSUS lost 29 of 31 provisions in the Petland case in AZ, with only 2 counts that remained; HSUS is currently accused of RICO violations in the elephant case with Barnum/Bailey, having known that they paid certain attorneys for the ARs, who were funding the fake Plaintiff during the NINE year court case. Humanewatch has the pleadings at humanewatch.org for most cases.
HSUS Sponsored Law Found Unconstitutional
In the recent past, the Supreme Court has ruled on the Stevens case (see on Petdefense near top of blog) involving alleged animal abuse; the case involved historical view of dog fighting worldwide on tape, sold in interstate commerce. HSUS was the main sponsor of that statute and no one had ever been prosecuted on it, as its main target was to stop the “crush” videos.
The Court found that the law was completely unconstitutional and even violated legal conduct as applied. Also the Court realized that animal “abuse” portrayed in media would have constituted a violation of the law (such as the movie Bambi) and that application of the law to reality was completely untenable, and that such portrayal of alleged animal “abuse” did not fall under one of the free speech exceptions such as that for trafficking in child pornography.
HSUS Sponsored Law re “Violent” Videos Games for Kids–Will Likely Lose when Supreme Court Decision is announced
You may recall that the “violent” kid video games law out of CA had been accepted/already heard by the Supremes. This case was partially drafted by a CA attorney general who has shilled for HSUS in Sacramento during legislative hearings, on HSUS cronie sponsored laws………same AG put in his 2cents worth to the Supremes.
Since the Supremes accepted/heard the violent video case, it is believed by most constitutional writers, that the Court intends to toss that out as well. In other words, we cannot carve out “child abuse” provisions when people want to buy violent video games aimed at, or possibly sold to people who have kids. The law required that the sticker be placed on each video labeling it as violent or something close.
But MOST people don’t see what HSUS is REALLY doing. HSUS is plainly pushing laws that keep pandering “animal abuse” and they push other laws involving kids so that a platform can be used to ADD the animal laws by basing it on the laws involving children.
This has already been done by making animal “welfare” laws based on laws involving children and CPS and the dependency system, children and restraining orders, children and stay away orders, children and domestic violence (which now covers the “animals” listed on the petition re domestic violence–yes that was HSUS), children and neglect, children and abuse, you name it. HSUS also passed a CA law allowing people to WILL their money into a trust for the ANIMAL. This has not gone un-noticed by us.
In fact nearly ALL animal abuse laws are patterned after CHILD Dependency Neglect-ABUSE STATUTORY PROVISIONS.
Because ARs keep saying that owning, buying, selling, showing, kenneling, etc is ALL “abuse” —then clearly HSUS is saying that animals are not property. When Grimes (dogs Deserve Better President) stole that family’s dog while it was tethered outside– HSUS never said that it was a crime to steal/keep the dog. Of course not. HSUS probably helped Grimes buy the house that Vick used to own.
It is the opinion of Petdefense that such laws (violent videos) have nearly always been struck down and since HSUS sponsored this law it will likely be struck down. The Feds have no great liking for those who created the necessity for amping up the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act. haha!