Originally posted in 2009, updated, attempted murder incident occurred several years before….plus advocate’s involvement as expert in U.S. Supreme Court case v. HSUS law, HSUS lost case also….
The alleged warm-fuzzy animals rights extremist mantra: “Save the animals, spay and neuter, spay and neuter”, don’t buy a puppy, apparently isn’t what it appears.Saving animals was not on the agenda when several animal rights extremists purposely targeted a canine advocate via home invasion. The extremists were seen on surveillance equipment and the canine advocate called 911 at least three separate times. When sheriff deputies arrived, they could not locate the criminals on the heavily wooded property. We were actually on the phone with expert late at night in April, several years ago, when the criminals were outside his rural home.
After several hours of casing the victim’s residence in the rural setting, the extremists broke into the residence and attempted to kill their target [the dog expert] and first tried to shoot one of the dogs inside….. A gun battle ensued. Both ARs, in their 20’s, were armed. One AR perpetrator [the survivor], was arrested and subsequently convicted about a year later, of attempted murder. 20yr jail time is what we were told…..The other AR perpetrator was killed in self defense by expert. And why have we mentioned this? Because we have worked with the expert for years, and realize that ARs consider us a target because we stand up for what we believe are our rights, and the rights of clients. [*see below for expert’s role in the Supreme Court case against HSUS law, HSUS lost big time]
We have been criticized because we worked with the expert. We have been threatened because we represent clients that people do not like. We have been targets of computer hacking, credit card hacking, email hacking, court document fraud (by other attorneys) and widespread nonsensical misrepresentation. Gossip and retaliation type online postings are not uncommon. Even animal fanciers (dog-cat) and Kory Nelson [attorney in Denver, CO] like to criticize us, calling us straw men for dogfighters, animal terrorists, and the like. In fact, we forced Kory Nelson to remove defamatory postings online. As you may know, Kory Nelson says it is ok to shoot/ kill a pitbull that is loose in the street.
All because we stand up for what we believe, and United States laws state that all defendants are innocent until proven guilty by beyond a reasonable doubt. Not by probable cause, as HSUS loves to use. We will fight some of the most insane AR laws pushed by HSUS and their friends. Many breeders, including but not limited to AKC related, are both fearful and elitist. This is proven by noting that some AKC breeders are now working with HSUS in their alleged good breeder information services deal. We wouldn’t work with HSUS for any amount of $$$.
Working WITH HSUS ————- is not the answer.
HSUS is being investigated by the IRS, is accused of violating RICO laws (racketeering) and has lost 3 key United States Supreme Court cases (Stevens case, CA violent video case, and CA downer animal case, 2010, 2011, 2012) HSUS is also a defendant in the Feld Entertainment Federal case (Barnum Bailey Circus) and is facing, in 2012, Federal sanction attorney fees, punitive damages, and inherent authority of the court sanctions, after LOSING the 11 year case in total, along with other named AR groups, including ASPCA, API/Born Free and more…….
In addition, in Arizona, HSUS has lost lawsuits against Hunte and Petland in Federal Court. But you don’t see HSUS bragging about losing do ya?
That is why HSUS keeps going to each state to make new laws. They cannot win a new Federal case against breeders and owners. Recall that HSUS already lost the case when they tried to say that home breeders are really commercial kennels. (Doris Day AR case)
HSUS can puppy*mill* their way across the USA but they will not get a Federal law to change the legal status of commercial kennels. Commercial kennels, pet stores, and selling of animals are no doubt interstate commerce issues. HSUS is trying to shut them all down by using STATE LAWS and paying donations to legislators, hosting their fund raising, etc.
We can change NOTHING by cowering in fear. Oppression against breeders and owners is designed to CREATE fear. Forfeiture and Seizure is designed to create FEAR. All AR laws are designed to create FEAR that one might be “caught” in the AR web and go to jail or lose animals via seizure. Standing strong is our right and our passion. You do not obtain/maintain your rights by being fearful. Remember, it took one woman, Rosa Parks, to NOT give up her seat on the bus. It takes this type of action to fight ARs. No fear.
The HSUS Losing Case of Depictions of Animal Abuse
The *same canine advocate above, testified as an expert for the defense , Mr. Stevens, the winner in the case, who sold historical documentation of the history re dog fights; expert is totally against the practice of illegal dog fighting. Many amicus briefs were filed on behalf of the defense, in supporting the U.S. Constitution. For example, one can see on the nature channel and on National Geographic, tons of animals being killed by each other, which is both common and an element of nature, and in some case, humans are killing the animals legally…. Such depictions, even if real, would have been illegal according to the HSUS law, and so would most movies showing animation (such as Bambi) ……….. So if such depictions of animals being killed were filmed and sold as a factual and historical accounting, HSUS law would make those videos illegal. However we all know that HSUS uses tons of “undercover” videos of farming and “mills” to gain donations, right? Then why wouldn’t their own videos be illegal, since they are used to gain donations?
HSUS law involved “no animal abuse depictions” but was allegedly, specifically targeting crush films— yet HSUS used the law against Mr. Stevens on historical documentation of dog fights; HSUS also tried to sue Amazon and the U.S. Postal Service for allowing magazines or newsprint to be carried into interstate commerce with ads for alleged “cock fighting” paraphernalia or similar. HSUS lost those Federal cases on commercial speech grounds.
Stevens is one of BIGGEST wins in constitutional law against HSUS ever in the history of the United States.
U.S. v Stevens, 130 S. Ct. 1577, see http://4lawnotes.com/showthread.php/2051-United-States-v.-Stevens [easy to understand] and ……
Here’s an outline of the Court’s reasoning:
1. The statute is not limited to speech that fits in a historically recognized First Amendment exception (more on that in another post). Though animal cruelty has been banned for a long time pretty much throughout the country, depictions of animal cruelty have not been.
2. The statute is very broad, covering not just depictions of activity that is illegal pretty much everywhere in the U.S. (note the distinction from child pornography law in this respect), but also depictions of hunting, agricultural practices, and other things that are legal in some places but illegal in others.
3. The statute should be read as broadly as its written, rather than assuming that prosecutorial discretion will limit it to depictions of “‘extreme’ cruelty.” Prosecutorial discretion is not a sufficient protection for free speech. (See here for a more extended quote.)
4. Nor does the exception for speech with “serious value” sufficiently narrow the law. Even speech that has merely modest value is constitutionally protected (setting aside the traditionally recognized exception for obscenity).
5. Because “the Government makes no effort to defend the constitutionality of § 48 as applied beyondcrush videos and depictions of animal fighting,” and because the law does indeed reach a lot of speech beyond those narrow categories, there’s no discussion of whether even such a broad law would be constitutionally defensible (perhaps on the theory that, despite its breadth, it’s necessary to serve a compelling government interest). But the implication, I think, is that the Justices do indeed see this law as being unjustifiably broad.
and by another online review………………
But the court said the legislation passed by Congress was far too broad. Anyone who “creates, sells or possesses a depiction of animal cruelty” for commercial gain can be imprisoned for up to five years. A depiction of cruelty was defined as one in which “a living animal is intentionally maimed, mutilated, tortured, wounded or killed.”
Justice Roberts wrote that the definition was so loose that it could include all depictions of wounding or killing animals, even hunting videos or magazines, movies, books, online videos,etc. He said the law’s exemption for works of “serious religious, political, scientific, educational, journalistic, historical or artistic value” was not enough protection, and the court was not reassured by the government’s argument that prosecutions were rare.
“We would not uphold an unconstitutional statute merely because the government promised to use it responsibly,” he wrote.
of saying they want to END all dog breeding, they then try to pass a law outlawing dog breeding with very, very minimal exceptions. They DON’T WANT ANY ANIMALS SOLD OR PURCHASED. They want to force people to give away any puppies for free. [This is documented in the June 2007 draft version of AB1634, CA, the proposed law pushed by animal rights groups and the groups they have manipulated.] UNLESS the ARs are doing it, then they want to charge for the dogs.
Instead …..of helping to pass dog safety education programs nationwide, they instead embark on a massive, deceptive campaign to alter every dog/cat alive, claiming this will make them “safe.” This is completely untrue. 2012–ARs are trying to get a Federal law mandating the altering OF EVERY DOG AND CAT ever sold or owned???