How ARs Raise $$$$: They Claim Everything is “Animal Abuse”

Note: we added Penal Code law down below on negligence, criminal negligence and legislation pushed by the AR faction to further erode owner rights, such as SB1500

Maybe the average non-Southern CA, non San Francisco, non-animal rights citizen …has no clue what animal rights has done to our country.  Maybe most people don’t realize, the social media, advertisements, commercials, dog foods, dog magazines, animal videos, animal propaganda, animal related online crap—– is simply just one more of millions upon millions of items of propaganda thrown out in the Internet. And the bulk is by animal rights galore.

If they have spellbinding, eye candy beautiful photos; if they have alleged abused animals; if they are asking for money and showing animals that need surgery, the chances are— it’s animal rights. Beg, beg, beg, beg. Always. Using any type of ploy.


Using lies if needed.  Getting rid of animals in shows. Outlawing livestock exhibits. Outlawing livestock and the baby livestock. Outlawing animals being outside. Outlawing ownership of animals if YOU don’t follow THEIR code of how to treat animals.  Accosting and surveilling owners and breeders.

Despite the financial backing of both agriculture, the meat and food industry and the pet trade, animal rights and their never ending tirade of crap continues to make headway because ordinary citizens don’t help to fight back. Ordinary citizens don’t even know what animal rights people DO.

If you want any grand children to know real animals, own animals and have the ability to buy an animal which isn’t from a shelter, which isn’t already sick, which has not had 5 owners before you buy it, may we suggest that you simply keep telling more people to make people aware of what is REALLY happening. What is happening is your rights are being slowly dismantled without you knowing it.  Forward this blog. Forward  Forward    One does not understand how ARs work unless one is educated on the subject.

It is a fact that MORE people care about animals than children. People usually just blame the children’s parents. For animals, they most definitely blame the owners even when THEY DON’T EVEN KNOW THE FACTS.

This is delusional because all criminal conduct generally has some criminal intent, or at least gross negligence– not just negligence.  Negligence is not gross negligence. For a jury to find abuse against an animal owner or keeper, they must find gross negligence.

Gross negligence is whatever someone believes it is. So if we were to believe it is gross negligence for a horse to trot in a circle with a child riding it, then that person who owns the horse is then guilty of animal abuse.  If people believe it is gross negligence to leave a dog outside, then that owner is guilty of animal abuse.  For some reason, people do not believe that’s the way it works. In fact, that is how it works.

There are no general jury instructions for animal abuse, that we are aware.  If some new instructions were made, we would have to find them.Conceptually, almost ANYTHING could be construed as “abuse.”  And trust us, nearly everything usually is called abuse [by ARs] even if it is not abuse.

As stated on the Shouse site, if Judge failed to give a unanimity instruction–

Violations of California’s animal cruelty laws can be prosecuted based on

  1. Continuing offenses (such as allegations that you failed to provide appropriate care for your animal(s) by depriving them of food, water, etc. over a period of time), or
  2. Specific instances of conduct (such as allegations that, for example, you kicked your dog on one occasion and struck it on another).

When the case is based on specific instances of conduct, the judge must instruct the jury that they must unanimously agree on which instance (if any) qualifies as animal abuse.  The jury is not permitted to convict you of animal cruelty unless they unanimously agree on the specific instance that violates the applicable law.

If you are convicted of animal abuse based on specific conduct…and the judge did not instruct the jurors that they had to agree unanimously on the specific conduct that violated the law…you should seek help from an Appeals attorney.


We will tell you one of the problems all defendants face. Often AR activists do these things:

1. Get “rescue” people in place in advance, using them as shills to set up sting operations for lack of a better word, for the AC who will then call Sheriff; or for the local humane officer to make the “affidavit” of probable cause

2. Get homeless people and pay them to make anonymous calls, or (for example) have criminal pour acid on an animal tie to a post and then run to call 911 and claim I saw an owner do this!

3. Get anyone they can, to come in after the seizure to take pictures AFTER making a mess with the garbage, throwing around everything and anything, grinding feces into the wood floors, and smearing it anywhere possible. Emptying garbage and recycle bagged items and throwing them everywhere, tipping everything over, including new bags of food, fertilizer, etc. to make the photo or video

4. Get fake testimony from rescuers, who then become unidentified informants

5. Have the informants secretly surveill the actions of defendant(s); subvertly get their own people into any animal business, and then ruin the business by  doing #3 above, and then calling AC who then seizes everything in sight, creating the legendary forfeiture provision of the “animal abuse” section of the Penal Code.

6.  Fail to follow the Penal Code, seize animals which are not under exigency and where there is no warrant, and where they are not abandoned

7.  Claim “abandonment” where there is no abandonment

8. Fail to set up opportunity for a pre seizure or post seizure hearing, or claim there was some type of abandonment and not need to set up any hearing

9. Misconstruing elements of the Penal Code such that it creates more harm, costs more money, and seizes ALL animals when NOT necessary, in order to copy the child Welfare Code in California.

What we believe has not been tested in California, is whether liened animals seized under the Penal Code abuse section, if not paid for in timely fashion, become unsecured since the collateral is forfeit, if Defendant is in bankruptcy. We know of two cases where this has happened, and suspect that although the lien is clearly tied to each animal, failing to pay forfeits the animal. Normally this means in a general sense, that each animal is collateralized. Collateralized property (the animals are property) would seem to indicate a situation e.g,  your car is used for a title loan, or your car is security against the loan to buy it (they repo it) or your house is tied to a mortgage loan. In these events of non payment, the property can be forfeit.

Under the Penal Code,  — we believe that non payment of such liens tied to the animals is then termed “abandonment”  and the AC can keep the property. But has the property been legally abandoned, physically abandoned, or some other type of same? In 2011-2012, the AR faction apparently did pass in California, SB1500 and AB1162.

SB1500, promoted by Lieu (an HSUS cohort)– pushed the bill and it basically stated  in cases of dogs/cats, a seizing agency or DA could ask the criminal court for hearing to FORFEIT the animals PRIOR to the disposition of the criminal charge. This would end up meaning that the defendant would not even GET his/her full due process rights heard necessarily, since AC, seizing agency or DA could just petition to take animals mid-stream. See:

PC 597.1

(j) No animal properly seized under this section or pursuant to a search warrant shall be returned to its owner until the owner can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the seizing agency or hearing officer that the owner can and will provide the necessary care for the animal.
(1) In the case of cats and dogs, prior to the final disposition of any criminal charges, the seizing agency or prosecuting attorney may file a petition in a criminal action requesting that, prior to that final disposition, the court issue an order forfeiting the animal to the city, county, or seizing agency. The petitioner shall serve a true copy of the petition upon the defendant and the prosecuting attorney.
(2) Upon receipt of the petition, the court shall set a hearing on the petition. The hearing shall be conducted within 14 days after the filing of the petition, or as soon as practicable.
(3) The petitioner (which would be seizing agency or DA) shall have the burden of establishing beyond a reasonable doubt that, even in the event of an acquittal of the criminal charges, the owner will not legally be permitted to retain the animal in question. If the court finds that the petitioner has met its burden, the court shall order the immediate forfeiture of the animal as sought by the petition.**
(4) Nothing in this subdivision is intended to authorize a seizing agency or prosecuting attorney to file a petition to determine an owner’s ability to legally retain an animal pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (l) if a petition has previously been filed pursuant to this subdivision.


(1) Upon the conviction of a person charged with a violation of this section, or Section 597 or 597a, all animals lawfully seized and impounded with respect to the violation shall be adjudged by the court to be forfeited and shall thereupon be transferred to the impounding officer or appropriate public entity for proper adoption or other disposition.
A person convicted of a violation of this section shall be personally liable to the seizing agency for all costs of impoundment from the time of seizure to the time of proper disposition. Upon conviction, the court shall order the convicted person to make payment to the appropriate public entity for the costs incurred in the housing, care, feeding, and treatment of the seized or impounded animals. Each person convicted in connection with a particular animal may be held jointly and severally liable for restitution for that particular animal. The payment shall be in addition to any other fine or sentence ordered by the court.

As seen above, restitution “for that particular animal” is in ADDITION to the fine or sentence. We read this to mean that the so called “costs” for impoundment are dumped on the owner or keeper, AND restitution if found guilty. So if one did not get charged with an abuse charge, and did not bail out the animals and did not have a pre seizure or post seizure hearing, and never went to court– what type of bill is assessed upon the owner? and if the owner is in bankruptcy??

** We are aware of a case where dogs were seized and the AC attempted to take the dogs using this section. The Judge refused to allow the petition to go forward.