Wrongful Seizure of Dogs Leads to $50k Attorney Fees

“THEY HAVE RIGHTS, WHO DARE DEFEND THEM”

We are very aware that many like to take the “credit” when things go right (think HSUS) and when others do not fight the fight, but just talk incessantly, and when time– do not do much—  then suddenly take “credit” for things— we realize why.

Human spirit wants others to always think WE are important..  Nearly all disagreement is founded upon the other person, the other entity, the other country, etc– making us feel like crap, like we are not important, we mean zero. Road rage, not “liking” someone on facebook, bullying, racial slurs, name calling, just about all of this is the flip side of being the shining star.

Just remember—- if you feel you have to take credit for something (and it was not really you or your group that actually did it) then look inside at yourself to see why. If it wasn’t about money then look even harder. This is universal law. Not our opinion.

Home » civil rights » Federal Court » News »

Judge awards $50K-plus in attorney’s fees, costs in improper dog seizure case against PSPCA

U.S. District Judge Berle M. Schiller

U.S. District Judge Berle M. Schiller

A federal judge in Philadelphia has granted an animal rescue group’s petition for attorney’s fees and costs in a civil rights case the plaintiff won against the Pennsylvania Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.

U.S. District Judge Berle M. Schiller, sitting in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, awarded Sixth Angel Shepherd Rescue more than $50,000 in lawyer’s fees and litigation costs relating to a suit it brought against the PSPCA and various officials in the spring of 2010 alleging the defendants improperly confiscated three of the plaintiffs’ dogs in violation of state law and the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.

The plaintiffs, who also included Sixth Angel founder Terry Silva, had asserted additional claims against the defendants for conversion and bailment based on the PSPCA’s failure to care for the “live property of the Plaintiffs.”

The April 2010 complaint alleged that the defendants improperly took possession of three dogs the plaintiffs were helping to temporarily care for after the animals were transported from out-of-state.

The defendants took the canines after Pennsylvania’s dog warden intercepted the April 10, 2010, transfer of the animals from those transporting them from down south to the plaintiffs, the suit stated.

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

Advertisements

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