Fighting AR Legislation: Rule #1..Do NOT Negotiate

NO, NO, NO,a million times ………..NO, NO, NO !!!!! Why? Mainly because in the end they will modify and dissolve your “exemptions” and then you are OUT. Or they will update the law with far more rigid terms. Don’t believe us? Look at petstores. First it was don’t sell dogs, then cats, then birds, now stop the hamsters, lizards, fish and others. In other words don’t sell any animals.

Well—- it seems that a rabbit group decided to ask the Pacific Legal Foundation about SB917, the law that makes selling, displaying and talking about selling an animal into a crime of animal abuse, unless you are an alleged “non profit”, and YES the law was written by HSUS person. We don’t know much about the PLF but supposedly it says it’s about Public Interest Law. Fine.

Well— the rabbit group didn’t need to ASK PLF anything, because long ago (several years) we answered that question. SB917 as written MAKES SELLING AN ANIMAL INTO A CRIME BUT NOT IF YOU ARE AN ALLEGED NON PROFIT.  That’s about as simple as it gets because the stupid so called “exemptions” really don’t mean squat because any damn fool or even any dumb attorney could easily squelch those crappy exemptions in about 30 seconds.

Why, why, why don’t people LISTEN when the people that actually understand this crap tell everyone:  YOU DO NOT EVER, EVER, EVER ATTEMPT TO NEGOTIATE WITH ANIMAL RIGHTS.  NEVER, NEVER , NEVER.

Animal rights legislation, unless it is not actually animal rights, needs to be completely quashed.  If it is ok legislation, and NOT animal rights, then that’s a different story.  The problem is that most people think animal rights legislation is animal welfare. NOPE.

You can read the horrific “ADVICE” FROM THE PLF as given to the rabbit group. Hell, they might as well become animal rights themselves with that kind of advice. Notice that the advice does not ever once say that the law could be unconstitutional, nor does it ever mention that creating a precedent against legal selling could set a horrific standard all over the USA.

Note: the entire memo has been condensed but if you would like to view it online,

NEVER ASK FOR EXEMPTIONS WHEN A LAW IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  There is no such thing as having an “exemption” for an UNCONSTITUTIONAL animal rights LAW !!!!

Legal Memo from Pacific Legal Foundation

[Note–the words below are all part of the memo until you reach the  sentence that says //end of memo]

December 12, 2011
FROM: Jennifer M. Fry
SUBJECT: SB 917Question: How will California law SB917 affect the sale of rabbits at rabbit shows when it goes
into effect on January 1, 2012?Short Answer:
Because the law does not specifically exempt rabbit shows, as it does dog, cat and bird shows, the law applies to the sale of rabbits at rabbit shows. However, there may be an exemption for sales of rabbits that take place at rabbit shows held on fairgrounds. Nonetheless, the only certain way to avoid liability under SB917 is to limit the sale of rabbits to private property exclusively.SB 917:
Governor Jerry Brown signed Senate Bill 917 into law on July 26, 2011, and it is set to come into effect on January 1, 2012. 2011 Cal. Adv. Legis. Serv. 131 (Deering).The Bill amends California Penal Code Section 597 to increase penalties for animal abuse. Id. Specifically, it increases the misdemeanor penalty for violating its prohibitions against animal abuse from a maximum of six months in county jail to a maximum of twelve months. Id. A misdemeanor charge may also include a fine of not more than $20,000. Cal. Penal Code § 597 (Deering 2011).
Violations may also be prosecuted as felonies. Id. If convicted of a felony, punishment could include imprisonment in the state prison, or a fine of not more than $20,000, or both. Id. …. [t]he Bill lists a number of exemptions from the prohibition on sales and display of sale offers.
Notably, it specifically exempts under sub-section (8) cat shows, dog shows and bird shows,provided they follow five specific requirements set forth in subsections (A)-(E):
(A) The show is validly permitted by the city or county in which the show is held.
(B) The show’s sponsor or permittee ensures compliance with all federal, state, and local animal welfare and animal control laws.
(C) The participant has written documentation of the payment of a fee for the entry of his or her cat, dog, or bird in the show.
(D) The sale of a cat, dog, or bird occurs only on the premises and within the confines of the show.
(E) The show is a competitive event, where the cats, dogs, or birds are exhibited and judged by an established standard or set of ideals established for each breed or species.
Normally, analyzing the meaning of a law involves examining how courts have interpreted that law. In this case, however, because the law will not come into effect until January 1, there are no court opinions on which to rely.
…”I then asked about the fact that the bill only purports to apply to animal sales on streets,highways, public right-of-ways, parking lots, carnivals, and boardwalks. I asked how the bill would affect a rabbit show if it were held at a public park, or in a field somewhere. She did not know.”
In applying these rules to SB917 and its named exemption for those four events, it is likely that a court would not find it “absurd” that the Legislature intended only to include those events. Because there is no ambiguity in the language of that provision, a court would likely simply apply the Plain Meaning Rule and find that independent rabbit shows held on state fairgrounds are not exempt from the law. Alan v. American Honda Motor Co., 40 Cal. 4th 894,902 (2007) (explaining that courts will not consider drafter’s intent where there is no ambiguity in the law as “[i]f the rule’s language is clear and unambiguous, it governs.”).
There is an additional aspect of SB917 which is much less clear.
..[t]here is simply no way to know definitely how the law affects sales of animals at animal shows, when those shows take place in an area that is not a street, highway, etc. Senator Lieu’s assistant did not know how to answer this question.]Because interpreting SB917 strictly to apply only to animal shows that take place on streets,highways, etc., might very well have the effect of rendering the exemption for dog shows, cat shows and bird shows unnecessary—because those shows rarely if ever take place on those designated areas—a court might very well avoid that interpretation and instead find that the law applies to sales of animals that occur at animals shows on all public property.
[Memo continued…………… ]Conclusion:
“Because the law is unclear and has yet to be interpreted by a court, the only certain way to avoid liability is not to sell animals in public.”  While it is fairly certain that the exemption for cat shows, dog shows and bird shows does not apply to rabbit shows, it is unclear exactly what that conclusion means for sales of rabbits at shows that do not take place on streets and the other designated places listed in the bill. Canons of statutory construction counsel, however, that a court
might find that the prohibition on animal sales is broader than those that occur only in those designated areas.”
//end of memo
JENNIFER M. FRYFellow, College of Public Interest Law
Pacific Legal Foundation
930 G Street
Sacramento, Ca. 95814
HERE IS THE So-called
     “ADVICE”  given to an animal group:

” A first step might be to ask for a meeting with Senator Ted Lieu with the aim of asking him to introduce legislation next term granting the same consideration to rabbit shows as his bill extended to cat, dog and bird shows…… ”  

OMG !!!!   Lieu buys right INTO animal rights legislation, he is an AR puppet for anyone who doesn’t already know!! That is exactly what you DO NOT want to do. Get exemptions for a law that violates the constitution?  Insanity.

We continue to cringe when we see “advice” like this. What this tells us is that some people who are giving others advice (as to animal legislation) do not have any knowledge or experience in the field . Begging for exemptions simply exacerbates an already flawed law.

Why should groups of people need exemptions when the law itself (as written)– is so seriously flawed it cannot be fixed no matter how many exemptions it had.  The law is to be properly drafted in the first instance, NOT pathetically pieced together with junk/worthless so called exemptions in order to make it viable, legal, or constitutional.

One of the very REASONS that this law would NEVER work is because it is based upon a faulty, untrue, and pretty much an animal rights “belief” that  over-prolific “pet abuse” is rampant everywhere OR that alleged commercial kennels or alleged “mills” are everywhere.

Such is not the case and has never been the case. That is PURE PROPAGANDA SOLD BY ANIMAL RIGHTS GALORE.

In fact all this so-called law does, is to set up a vertical sting operation just waiting for the snitches to start their motors. Animal rights snitch/complain; animal control executes invalid warrants; animal control holds hearing (if any); animal control testifies in admin hearing, or helps court (if any) find guilt.Anyone who actually understood animal legislation could see that this law was purposely devised to do just what we have stated over the years.

It IS purposely drafted and designed to set a LEGAL precedent such that “selling” in and of itself is “animal abuse” even where there is NO actual animal abuse!! (Remember, animal rights law is incremental and their own goal of the 12 STEPS of ANIMAL RIGHTS is what they use.)

It is knowingly designed (subterfuge) to make people believe that selling animals by those who are NOT “non profit”— is illegal, and is “animal abuse.” (Never mind the fact that you didn’t commit any abuse!!)

 This so called “law”  is pure insanity, as the Penal Code clearly holds anyone who is caring for an animal to the same regulation. This most definitely is applicable to all shelters, rescues, and anyone who is caring for animals, regardless of what they call their group, organization, non profit or NOT a non profit.  It makes no difference. That is the law statewide.  So this ridiculous law actually completely conflicts with the current Penal Code.

We believe that before anyone gives out legal advice to affected parties, they should know the subject matter beforehand, or become relatively proficient at it before giving out advice on the subject matter.

They should be aware of the 12 Steps ofAnimal Rights, they should understand how animal rights extremists have evolved, they should understand that HSUS/ASPCA are nothing but animal rights groups that lobby and use propaganda to get their messages out, using sick, or otherwise sad looking animals to gain customers.

They should have a CLEAR understanding that HSUS’ goal is NOT to save animals, but to make laws so people cannot own them due to excessive regulation, cost, and fear of breaking the law [which is exactly what we have here, in SB917.]

Telling people to ask for exemptions when a piece of garbage legislation is so inherently flawed is crazy—- the law not only conflicts with the actual Penal Code, it actually punishes legal behavior, while not punishing potentially illegal behavior, and does not require any scienter or intent to harm. It punishes people as “abusers” for doing a legal act.
Owners and businesses should realize that knowledge of animal rights does not necessarily turn one into a defense attorney, but a defense attorney seasoned in DEALING with animal rights law is what you will NEED—
you will need a litigator, not just a lobbyist.  A lobbyist is used to sway votes from legislators. When movants don’t hustle their people to the Capitol to oppose, or when the vote has been predetermined (party lines) you aren’t going to get much done.
Do not consult with an attorney with little experience, or those which
have no experience, no trial litigation, no law/motion tentatives in their favor, no ex parte hearings, no advocacy, no multiple party cross complaints, no summary judgment wins or oppositions, no set aside hearings, motions to vacate, motions to stay, no extensive discovery experience, no experience in the state or federal courtroom etc. Preferably, attorneys dealing with defense situations, criminal procedure and constitutional issues is best.
We are aware that even attorneys who are experienced in civil law and criminal law will not even SEE why certain laws are unconstitutional, because they don’t understand that the laws as written, have an ulterior purpose of designed subterfuge.

For example, in U.S. v Stevens (it’s linked at top of blog above courtroom photo) which is a United States Supreme Court case, the law involved “no animal cruelty depictions” can be sent via interstate commerce.

While on its face most people never raised objection, the fact is that it was specifically designed ONLY to apply to crush films.

Instead, the HSUS tried to have it applied to the historical video of old time dog fighting by Mr. Stevens,[which is still legal in countries outside the USA] and then the fight to challenge the statute ensued.  Of course, HSUS tried to mislead people (like animal owners) into believing the law was “constitutional” just because they got the statute passed.
Further, HSUS has tried to sue Amazon and the US Postal Service for allowing it [Mr. Stevens’ video] to be advertised and mailed. HSUS lost all of those cases in litigation. The statute was found to be wildly unconstitutional. WILDLY.

And definitely do NOT choose someone who is NOT a fighter, because  going against animal rights will require a person who is determined, focused, and not one to “settle”– but to win.

Engage the Circle the Wagons method. Gain better knowledge, become better informed, and tell everyone you know to read this blog. Gaining momentum against bad laws requires PROPER KNOWLEDGE. You will also need a TEAM.  You then need people to spread the word. You cannot possibly win cases, overturn bad laws, without a TEAM.

We suggest you look at
and help get the momentum rolling.
No divisive arguments.
One focus. One team. One goal.


Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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