HSUS+Animal Law,Constitution,Property “Webinar”

See PD comments after the HSUS Advertisement…

Animal Law and the Constitution:
Property, Preemption and Police Power

Wednesday, April 16, 2014
1:00pm—2:30pm Eastern
Audio Webinar

“Join the TIPS Animal Law Committee for this convenient and valuable webinar that will cover the many ways that animal law intersects with the constitution. A panel of legal experts will discuss the constitutional issues that arise in cases related to factory farming, dangerous dogs, police shootings of dogs, and religion; specifically as they relate to free speech, due process, takings, and the Commerce Clause.”

 Program Faculty

Moderator

Peter Brandt, Senior Attorney, Farm Animals Humane Society of the United States, Washington, D.C.

Faculty

J. Scott Ballenger, Partner, Latham & Watkins, LLP,Washington, D.C.

James Oleske, Assistant Professor of Law, Lewis & Clark Law School, Portland, OR

Francesca Ortiz, Professor of Law, South Texas College of Law, Houston, TX

Program Topics

  • An overview of animal law issues involving the Free Exercise Clause, free speech, the Commerce Clause, dangerous dogs and police animal shootings
  • A discussion of Supreme Court cases, including Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah* and United States v. Stevens
  • An overview of legislation that has faced constitutional scrutiny, including the Federal Meat Inspection Act
  • Strategies in constitutional arguments in dangerous dogs cases, police shootings, and advocacy

===================================================================

PD:

As can be seen in the above information, much of what HSUS does involves constitutional law, which is why HSUS continues to have attorneys draft laws for them.

We are familiar with at least THREE major cases that went to the United States Supreme Court where HSUS LOST– and HSUS is who sponsored those laws. There are others but these are quite important on First Amendment issues and preemption:

1)   Violent video law case CA—injunction grated…….. LOST at SCOTUS. First Amendment issues.  A huge LOSS for HSUS. In fact Leland Yee, former CA senator who was recently indicted on corruption charges, and kicked out of the Legislature, sponsored this bill for HSUS.  https://petdefense.wordpress.com/2011/12/29/hsus-loses-again-ca-violent-video-law-struck-down-just-like-u-s-v-stevens-case/

2)   U S v Stevens, an unconstitutional “crush film” law was applied to historical video on history of  dogfighting— law likely drafted and pushed by HSUS was in place nearly 10 years, then used on Mr. Stevens errantly—- lost at SCOTUS– First Amendment issues… a HUGE loss for HSUS.

3)   Downer cow law, CA, attempted application to pigs–injunction granted; HSUS LOST at SCOTUS– preemption (Federal law prevailed over HSUS law)

Another KEY case, Doris Day v Veneman, https://petdefense.wordpress.com/doris-day-hsus-v-veneman-case/    which established that home breeders do not fall under commercial kennels regulations in 2003, was lost by AR groups including HSUS when they exhausted all their appeals and the SCOTUS would not hear the case.

HSUS subsequently in 2012 and 2013, worked with former HSUS attorney who got a job in APHIS and ended up transforming the APHIS “rules” into the current debacle that now exists, claiming that all hobby breeders with more than 4 intact animals is a commercial kennel and [by default] may have to end up following commercial kenneling regulations.  In other words, HSUS could not win in Court on the hobby breeders, and could not get Congress to pass their PUPS bill, so they attacked in another way: APHIS infiltration.

This has resulted in a federal challenge in D.C. to the APHIS rule implementation, claiming that APHIS did not follow acceptable protocol in the implementation, ignored thousands of members of the public with boan fide issues, failed to clearly state terms and instead used vague wording such that it is not possible to ascertain how the rules would be applied, and far more.

All of that and more is typical of HSUS drafting– their drafting tends to be either overinclusive (sweeping up that which should not be included)  or underinclusive (leaving out that which should be included.) Specifically, HSUS usually drafts laws which claim “commercial” entities are all “for profit” and non commercial entities are all “not for profit” and then gives the “not for profit” the right to exceptions for everything, and  blames the “for profit” or “commercial” groups for anything that can go wrong.

*Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993),[1] was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that an ordinance passed inHialeah, Florida, forbidding the “unnecessar[y]” killing of “an animal in a public or private ritual or ceremony not for the primary purpose of food consumption”, was unconstitutional. The law was enacted soon after the city council of Hialeah learned that the Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, which practiced Santería, was planning on locating there. The church filed a lawsuit in United States district court for theSouthern District of Florida, seeking for the Hialeah ordinance to be declared unconstitutional.

If any law devised by HSUS is at issue, such as Prop 2, which allegedly covers chicken cages, be sure to understand that HSUS will ALWAYS claim it’s all about the animals.  However, what it usually is about is the ability of HSUS to use it as a springboard stepping stone to eradicate any rights of producers, owners, business owners and the like.  To squelch the animal and pet trade, to assault agriculture and economic efforts in the trade.  To ensure there is less profit to be made involving any animal related industry. In other words, the 12 Steps of Animal Rights. It bears repeating— national attorney industry has stated that HSUS is an animal rights organization.

And for those that do not know, the national ASPCA is joined at the hip with HSUS. If you don’t believe it, go look at the site.  ASPCA recently paid out more than $9 MILLION in fees to the circus Plaintiffs in the RICO lawsuit.  HSUS and others have so far refused to pay a reasonable amount. (RICO is racketeering…)

Advertisements