Pet Owner Wins Post seizure Hearing but AC Pressing Charges Anyway?!

YES, you read that correctly!!

Apparently in SO CAL, especially Los Angeles……………
when there is not exigency, and they have no warrant, then it’s still “OK” to keep all of the animals for evidence, and to press criminal charges.  Hmm…….the finding of the post seizure hearing was in client’s favor with a finding that it was a non-exigent situation.  BUT we got it through the grapevine, that supposedly AC or whomever is presiding over the issue, believes the hearing  resulted in “misapplication” of the law so that makes it—what? Invalid, an error, an appealable loss for the government? Hard to believe.

WOW. Now you can see why California HSUS penal code law is so bad. They wrote the damn laws then don’t even uphold it.

Seizure of animals which is questioned via the post seizure hearing, usually  results in AC winning, because they will make up or distort anything and everything, including even misrepresenting photos and more.  For example, the cat lady from Oakland who took care of the feral cats, even hospiced them, was popped after her cleaner did not clean but went to the house/took pictures of the uncleaned areas? He then sent the pics to AC. You smell a rat, right?  Also, the feral cat rescuers did not like that cat lady had won the IRS ruling, enabling volunteers to deduct off their own taxes, expenditures on 501(c)(3) rescued cats. In fact, the rescue, at least one, published that it would refuse to cooperate with such situations, in other words, those wanting to write off their donated efforts used for such cats, would not get any information from the cat rescue?

The case is currently on appeal for cat lady who is an attorney, and who will be a staunch advocate against AR nonsense when this is finally over. With a large number of feral cats, she was convicted on ONE count of neglect or alleged abuse. First trial was hung, second resulted in Judge finding guilty on ONE count. THEN, the State Bar decided that ONE count of alleged neglect means one cannot practice law????  Hard to believe, since the issue is one of moral turpitude according to the State Bar…since we all know that many “guilty” verdicts are given out to innocent people.

We have animal rights extremist and their laws to thank for all of this.

And in places like the Bay Area AND So CAL, that’s where you really find some horrific handling of such cases.

 

 

Advertisements