Conflict of interest?

1. Gregan's wife is the business manager of The Last Post
https://thelastpostonline.org/About_Us.html

2. All seized animals from all raids done in the state of CT are unaccounted for. There is no paper trail. Despite the supposed "freedom of information act" neither I nor any of the many other victims I have spoken to, nor the press, nor several "officials" I had look into it have ever seen one shred of accountability of what has happened to the animals. Where they sold in the underground market to class B dealers? Wher they sold to one of the many labs that use them for experiments? Were they "adopted" out of The Last Post? Any scenario results in Gregan pocketing a huge profit. I was informed of this with the horse seizures years ago. Seems that people with valuable or large quantities of animals who do not have influential friends in the state are the victims. It is all about the profit margin.

3. I have removed cats from the homes of several hoarders, many of whom the state is aware of and chooses not to prosecute. these are the people with money and the right connections. This is how I got on their "radar" in the first place. I tried to report such a person and when they kept ignoring the situation, I went further up the ladder until I became a thorn in their side and I was threatened.

4. My organization's success at the Petco store cutting into the profits of the groups they had a vetsed financial interest in (such as The Last Post, in the same county as me and our org.) put me back on their radar.

Shady Backroom Deals

`````````
Lodging a Formal Complaint

To whom it may concern on the Connecticut Judiciary Committee:

Should a judge be able to see to it that citizens who wish to reform the judiciary and police in Connecticut are railroaded to prison to shut them up and preventing them from accessing and utilizing the legislative system?

Lawyers can be disbarred, and fined, just for defending their clients against the wishes of a judge.

Lawyers who break ranks with police, other lawyers, prosecutors, judges, connected legislators, syndicates, and “important” corporate people can end up arrested, disbarred, financially ruined, unable to get work, and sometimes even in prison.

http://judicialmisconduct.blogspot.com/

journalists know

Over the years as a journalist, I have written every story I could possibly find concerning animal abuse, gas chambers, shelters, and dog fighting rings.

Do you know how many, if not most, of the local "fighters" are trained? Pets throughout the country are frequently nabbed for "bait" used to train another dog's fighting instinct. The "bait" is mauled or killed in the process. This includes dog and puppies of all ages and sizes --- stolen from their yards, picked up along the roadside, bought from kennels and shelters --- and, sadly enough, obtained from

corrupt animal control officers.

On the ground at abandoned dog fighting sites I have seen little pink or silver or blue collars, some studded with rhinestones, not large enough to fit around a baby's neck. Throughout the area were tiny bones, larger bones --- and skulls, a reminder of a life that had fallen prey to dog fighting thugs.

How anyone could support Vick, especially anyone with a family pet, is beyond belief. Doesn't it make it sick on your stomach to think about your dog or any dog being used as bait? Well, friends, it can and does happen.

http://wwral.com/glol/blogspot/1742060

Letter to the Connecticut House Environment Committee Regarding HB 5827 “An Act Concerning Animal Shelters”

Letter to the Connecticut House Environment Committee Regarding HB 5827 “An Act Concerning Animal Shelters”

March 11, 2008

RESPONSIBLE DOG OWNERS OF THE WESTERN STATES
P.O. Box 1406
Newport, WA 99156
Web Site http://www.povn.com/rdows
E-mail US rdows@povn.com
Blog http://rdows.wordpress.com/
E-mail List http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rdows
Cherie Graves, Chairwoman, WA, (509) 447-2821
Judy Schreiber, Assistant to the Chair, Director at Large, rdows directoratlarge@chevalier-bullterriers.com
Elizabeth Pensgard, Executive Secretary, Illinois Director, bpensgard@yahoo.com
Hermine Stover, Media Liaison, Director at Large, CA, hermine@endangeredspecies.com
Mary Schaeffer, Finance Director, finedogs@hotmail.com
Arizona Director, John Bowen, johnalldogs@sprintmail.com
California Director, Jan Dykema, bestuvall@sbcglobal.net
Indiana Director, Charles Coffman, candkcoffman@comcast.net
Iowa Director, Leisa Boysen, rdows_iowa@yahoo.com
Mississippi Director, Dan Crutchfield, farmer1@telepak.net
Nevada Director, Ken Sondej, 4winds@viawest.net
Tennessee Director, Gina Cotton, ginacotton@msn.com
Texas Director, Alvin Crow, crobx@austin.rr.com

March 8, 2008

Dear esteemed members of the Environment Committee:

It was with great concern that I first learned of HB 5827.

Particularly worrisome is the provision in this bill that would allow the Department of Agriculture to make warrantless inspections of any private home caring for ten or more rescued animals (of any species) over six months of age, at any time of day or night.

Additionally, HB 5827 provides no clarity regarding standards of animal care to which rescuers would have to adhere, or what could constitute a violation, leaving rescuers wide open to arbitrary decision-making by the Department of Agriculture.

Rescuers who fail to purchase the required license allowing the Department of Agriculture unimpeded access to their homes, or who continue to rescue animals despite license suspension or revocation, would be subject to a fine of up to $1,000 and/or up to a year in prison.

This is excessive and insures compliance only through coercion, which can hardly be reasonable or constitutional since the 4th amendment guarantees “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures” which “shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the person or things to be seized.”

Because of these concerns I must ask that you not vote HB 5827 out of committee. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Respectfully,

Elizabeth Pensgard
Executive Secretary and Illinois Director, Responsible Dog Owners of the Western States
Director, Responsible Dog Owners Group of Illinois

http://www.povn.com/rdowshttp://rdows.wordpress.com
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BSL56-UAOA
http://www.unitedanimalownersalliance.com/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RDOWS

http://rdows.wordpress.com/2008/03/11/letter-to-the-connecticut-house-environment-committee-regarding-hb-5827-an-act-concerning-animal-shelters/#comment-327

Void for Vagueness Doctrine

A doctrine derived from the DUE PROCESS CLAUSES of the FIFTH and FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS to the U.S. Constitution that requires criminal laws to be drafted in language that is clear enough for the average person to comprehend.

If a person of ordinary intelligence cannot determine what persons are regulated, what conduct is prohibited, or what punishment may be imposed under a particular law, then the law will be deemed unconstitutionally vague. The U.S. Supreme Court has said that no one may be required at peril of life, liberty, or property to speculate as to the meaning of a penal law. Everyone is entitled to know what the government commands or forbids.

The void for vagueness doctrine advances four underlying policies. First, the doctrine encourages the government to clearly distinguish conduct that is lawful from that which is unlawful. Under the Due Process Clauses, individuals must be given adequate notice of their legal obligations so they can govern their behavior accordingly. When individuals are left uncertain by the wording of an imprecise statute, the law becomes a standardless trap for the unwary.

Second, the void for vagueness doctrine curbs the *ARBITRARY and discriminatory enforcement of criminal statutes. Penal laws must be understood not only by those persons who are required to obey them but by those persons who are charged with the duty of enforcing them. Statutes that do not carefully outline detailed procedures by which police officers may perform an investigation, conduct a search, or make an arrest confer wide discretion upon each officer to act as he or she sees fit. Precisely worded statutes are intended to confine an officer's activities to the letter of the law.

* The term arbitrary describes a course of action or a decision that is not based on reason or judgment but on personal will or discretion without regard to rules or standards.
An arbitrary decision is one made without regard for the facts and circumstances presented, and it connotes a disregard of the evidence. In many instances, the term implies an element of bad faith, and it may be used synonymously with tyrannical or despotic. http://law.jrank.org/pages/4415/Arbitrary.html

http://law.jrank.org/pages/11152/Void-Vagueness-Doctrine.html

Feudal Connecticut Topples A Chief

July 18, 2006

I say amend the state constitution. We don't need 13 minilords and a figurehead chief cluttering up the courts. Centralize control of the state's prosecutors: It will yield efficiency and savings.

Morano's sin? He tried to act like a leader. He was visible. He took risks. He created new units with new mandates. Put another way, he stepped on some toes. Hence the opposition to him without even the courtesy of a bill of particulars.

In the meantime, give me a call if you are looking for work, Chris. Plenty of work here on the darkside. As you know, some of the state's prosecutors swing first and ask questions later.

http://federalism.typepad.com/crime_federalism/2006/07/feudal_connecti.html

Live free or die?

Please understand that there is no need to stop your resistance activities at this point, it is too late. You have already been entered. However, you are always free to do so and it might help knock off a decade of internment.

On the other-hand, since you really have nothing left to lose but more freedom it might be wise to step up your resistance activities. The above can only occur if the present trend and the structure of the existing government continue unstopped. The authoritarian, fascist, mercantile domination of the American government is a systemic problem and CANNOT be solved from within or using the existing form of government. The system must be overhauled completely with new safe guards installed immutably to guarantee personal liberties.

The following is proof of the utter impotence of the existing structure to guarantee liberty. ALL they do is register an IMPOTENT protest while allowing the vivisection of YOUR lives, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

http://questforfairtrialinconcordnh.blogspot.com/

Family Rights Radio

Is a not for profit charitable independent webcast effort to educate the public, give compassionate understanding, embrace and voice to the innocent victims; and expose the damage to children and the human family caused by immoral bureaucracy and those exploitive individuals and professionals willing to use and abuse America's and anyone else's precious children, innocent parents and caring individuals; stealing away happiness, health, resources, money and real property while violating our God given Constitutional Rights for their own useless employment, corrupt control, heartless greed and vile profit! -- Listen, Learn, Participate and Empower Yourself with Knowledge!

http://www.uscdc.org/FamilyRightsRadio.htm

"DOMESTIC TERRORISTS", EXACTLY LIKE WHAT WAS DISCUSSED IN THE STOSSEL REPORT

It is very important to note that these people are NOT CONCERNED with the welfare of animals. They care only about control and money. They want to STEAL your property and control you. They have absolutely NO RIGHT to tell you how to sell your property...cats and dogs are your property. The US Constitution says it is our property and that nobody has the right to tell or force the property owner how to dispense of his or her own property. Yet these people rather than be concerned with the welfare of abused animals in the State of Maine like they were supposedly hired to do or I would have assumed by the job title, care only about seizing your animals, selling them within their organizations with kickbacks to crooked politicians and pocketing the rest.

http://downeastminiaussies.homestead.com/Animalracketeers.html

When Vultures Rule

It is estimated by one group in California that there are 30,000 victims of unconstitutional / illegal animal seizures and that number is growing daily.

If you have not yet been a victim of animal enterprise terrorism, the most important thing you can do to protect yourself is to buy Federal No Trespassing signs - cost is approximately $20 each - and post one at every entrance to your property.

These signs list the Criminal Code U.S.C. Title 18 Section 241. They also place the trespasser on notice of the protections of the U.S. Constitutional Articles. This sign lists the following paragraph:

“Any Officer, or other person at the direction of any Officer, whether an undercover agent or not, who attempts to enter these premises without a proper warrant or Judgment issued out of a Court which is a part of the Judicial Branch of the Government, & issued under the Seal of the Court & legally signed will be treated as any other trespasser or lawless intruder would be when attempting to break & enter an inhabited dwelling when warned not to do so. You will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.”

What this sign means to you in terms of protection for you and your property is that any local or state police, sheriff, FBI, CIA, etc. MUST be in possession of a legal warrant in order to cross the sign.

They must have a second, separate warrant in order to conduct a search of your property or to take your property.

Without both warrants in their possession, you can and should sue them in the United States District Court in your state. That is NOT the State District Court, that is the U.S. District Court.

.... One of the most prevalent ruses used by the domestic animal terrorists is that they received a complaint about your animals anonymously and are there to check out that complaint.

If you agree to waive your rights thinking that your animals are clean, well fed, healthy, it is a mistake of monumental proportions because as you will see in future articles, State officials have used photographs of animals and barns not belonging to the owner in question.

The complaint was that I supposedly had "sick and dying cats and kittens living in deplorable conditions and authorities needed to do something about it".

.... Typically there is no notice of any problem because there is no problem with your animals.

Jealously guard your United States Constitutional rights. They are all that stand between you and a jail cell.

How can judges ignore the law, make up laws, and enforce laws that do not exist, violate your U.S. Constitutional protections to a trial by jury and more?

Are you thinking that victims of animal enterprise terrorism/organized criminal racketeering should have asked for an investigation by: the Attorney General of their state, senators or representatives on the federal and local levels, the FBI and Homeland Security (since this is domestic terrorism), Justice Department, the Overseers of the Bar (for judges’ violations of the citizen’s due process rights), etc? Would it surprise you to learn that many did? They either never heard back from these people or they received letters saying no investigation would be conducted.

.... “official oppression” (quite illegal) to try to force me to give up my U.S. Constitutional rights to the animals. (When two or more persons conspire to deprive you of your legally owned property, the law labels that activity as Racketeering - - Look up the R.I.C.O. racketeering law.)

WHY are attorneys failing to represent their clients? The answer is rooted in the law. Please look up Section 7 C.J.S. (Corpus Juris Secundum) Page 802 (Attorney & Client) which in significant part says – and I quote: “His (attorney’s) first duty is to the courts and the public, not his client, and wherever the duties to his client conflict with those he owes as an officer of the court in the administration of justice, the former must yield to the latter.” In plain terms, your attorney will throw you under the bus if he is instructed to do so by the judge. And in animal seizure cases, that is exactly what happens. As you saw when you read John Stossel’s 20/20 report, animal seizure under color of law is a multi million dollar business for the States engaged in it.

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/31668

Animal Control Officer standards of care

http://www.kltv.com/Global/story.asp?S=3264020

Dead Dog Blues

Alan Weisenberg’s old pet Chihuahua was confiscated by Animal Control, and later died. He is now being charged with cruelty to animals for letting it live so long.

... under what circumstances a dog owner could be legally compelled to put his pet down, and were surprised to learn the answer is “none.” If a dog is violent the state can confiscate and destroy it, but the owner’s not obliged to do so. Therefore, if Jones tried forcing Weisenberg to euthanize the dog, she far overstepped her authority as an Animal Control officer.

http://www.hartfordadvocate.com/article.cfm?aid=5398
http://www.animalcontrolwatch.com/ct-dead-dog-blues

Constitutional Rights?

She said something like, “Your animals are all healthy, and they have adequate clean food and water, so my only question is why you do this.”

I agreed with her that it was a lot of work, and I certainly don’t get the food for free.

She said, “Well, if you’re doing this much work for this many animals, you must not have much of a life.”

Why do we do it?

Because we love animals, because we want to help animals, because it is the right thing to do?

What business is it of hers why we do it?

As for not having much of a life, well, we can all do the things we are able to do to try to have the kind of life we want.

At least, in the America I want to live in.

And getting feral cats TNRed deserves kudos, not criticism.

Again, in the America I want to live in.

http://www.animalcontrolwatch.com/

Help protect private rescue from government abuse

On the morning of Wednesday Feb 15th the State of Connecticut’s Department of Agriculture violently raided the Connecticut home of Ms. Koczur, an avid animal activist, rescuer and president of the nonprofit organization Alliance for Animal Rescue Society (AARS), seizing all of her personal cats. Christine personally saved each of the cats, barely surviving on the streets, from near death. She knows each one by name, and kept them healthy and happy. Each of the cats was spayed/neutered, tested for feline FeLv and FIV, vaccinated, well nourished (fed a high quality diet), and lived in a happy, healthy, loving and caring environment. In fact an independent Veterinarian visited the house only hours earlier examined the cats and found them to be in good health.

FACT: Ms. Koczur regularly traveled hours transporting every animal in her (and the organization's care) to obtain the best medical care available, including:

Tufts Small Animal Hospital (one of the best veterinary teaching hospitals in the country) http://www.tufts.edu/vet/sah/about.html,

The Cat Hospital of Auburn http://www.thecathospital.com/

CT Vet Center http://www.ctvetcenter.com/

Old Canal Veterinary Clinic http://www.vetcarepc.com/

VCA Northside Animal Hospital http://www.vcanorthsidect.com/

She could have just gone to one of the many local veterinarians in her town as she did when she first started rescuing animals in the early 90's. But Christine ws not an advocate of adequate, but superior care. If that meant driving over two hours each way to get one cat she found on the street half dead the help that it needed so be it. There were no lengths she was not willing to go to for helping one creature, making such a huge difference to one innocent needy life. If that fact made her "obsessed" then she proudly wore that label as a badge of honor.

The animal control officer was aware of this as the massive files of veterinary records which were seized from her home filled up three boxes. The prosecutor was made aware of this fact with the submission of these documents to him by the defense. Mr. Suarez even complained about the massive amounts of paperwork provided to him. The court was aware of this, yet the judge, for some unknown reason, did not allow these records to be submitted as evidence.

However, Dr. Dimmick's were. Yet even the Supreme Court of Connecticut chose to disregard this evidence as well as the numerous of pages of testimony proving that the cats did have medical care and were in compliance with the state law for rabies vaccinations. The cats were not "diseased" but had a wide range of chronic challenging medical conditions for which all were being medicated and treated by veterinary specialists. Most were disabled, elderly, had behavioral issues, or required special care (special needs cats). Despite the best care and conditions in Ms. Koczur's home, years scavanging for scraps, being without shelter or medical treatment living out on the street without the basic necessities wreak havoc on the body, rendering the animals with many lifelong health challenges. These animals were not "adoptable" yet they led quality lives because of the exemplory care provided to them.

These are obvious facts to ANYONE seriously involved in rescue. However, the judges were obviously not well-versed with any knowledge of animals. The trial judge stopped several times to clarify what a cat carrier was. Several people explained, but he still seemed baffled and asked again a few minutes later. By the time any technical questioning was going on, he was dozing off, looking out the window, or peering down the blouse of the ample intern seated in front of him.

Koczur case comments in Courant forum

~ doglover from Elkins, WV wrote ....

Cat rescue folks are the NEW targets of animal rights groups who want to take away our right to share our lives with pets

I guarantee you folks that if you went to ANY shelter at the right time of the day, you would find feces, filth, trash, smells, worms and god knows what else.

A raid can be orchestrated to occur at just the worst time of the day, such as early in the morning. Don't judge people so harshly. You don't know the entire circumstances of this persons life

The woman obviously was trying to do what was right and was overwhelmed. For the court to now assess her $100K in fines is indicative of a judicial branch --- and jurist --- wholly out of touch with reality. Grinding her into financial ruin is hardly what "justice and mercy" means.

.... Where in the world do you think SHELTERS put bodies of dead cat and dogs after they have killed them? IN THE FREEZER - they go in the freezer until the garbage truck hauls them to the land fill.


~ ricbee from Danbury, CT wrote ...

The elitest pig judge was wrong & I hope Ms Koczur proves her so.


~ Kelley from Austin, TX wrote

.... Is there a law against having a cluttered and dirty house in CT? Just curious, because there isn't one here.

.... I really wish people would learn what a hoarder is and is not. Hoarders, by definition, do not adopt out animals, and often resist attempts by others to help them get animals adopted. Therefore, anyone who is doing rescue on any serious level cannot possibly meet the definition of a hoarder. If this woman is a hoarder (which I doubt, just from reading the description, but can't be sure with so little information) she is mentally ill. Why would one fine a person $100,000 for being mentally ill?

.... What seems to be being debated in the comments section is whether or not she is a "hoarder." The animals of "hoarders" by definition are being kept in horrible conditions. If you have 200 cats but keep them all in pristine conditions you are not a hoarder. People seem to have picked up on this "buzzword" of hoarder and use it to apply across the board to mean "person who has more animals than I think is appropriate".

It seems likely to me that she was keeping the sicker cats at her home to ready them for being taken to the store to be adopted out. You can't take sick cats there. When you get cats from a shelter, they are often in horrible shape to begin with. They have been exposed to coronavirus, possibly giardia, ringworm, URI, fleas, etc etc, just from having been in the shelter. Rescuers realize this, but the general public does not.

It doesn't cost $100,000 to care for 47 cats over several months, or possibly even several years, unless they are all gravely ill and need massive amounts of vet care, so I am sure there were punitive damages thrown in there. I just did the math and could board 47 cats at my vet's office for $15,510 per month (not that I would want to do so, but that is what it would cost).Animal rescue is the only charity I can think of where one runs the risk of being jailed, fined, etc. Cases like this are putting rescue in grave danger, IMHO. I hope this does go to the Supreme Court and I hope it is reversed.

.... Actually, having gone back and read the article again, it says the $100,000 was "fines and other penalties." It says nothing about care of the cats whatsoever. Of course the news article could be incorrect. So basically this woman was fined $100,000 for doing charity work and saving animals from deaths in shelters or on the streets. Very scary.

.... I would likely be against such a bill (the proposed shelter inspection bill). If it meant some legal entity could go into people's homes at any hour of day or night without a warrant and "inspect" them I would definitely be against it.

.... unlike animal rescuers, polygamous cult members have lots of money, and are able to hire lots of good lawyers and PR firms. Therefore, unlike animal rescuers, they get their stolen children back.

.... They love to steal people's animals under color of law and sell them in TX (and apparently in CT as well). John Stossel did a piece on it. I can only imagine what they would do with such a bill here.

http://www.topix.net/forum/source/hartford-courant/T22KKUOHOF0BPRPLR/

Mr. William Doriss comments

It sounds to me as if Christine Koczur was convicted of CGA 53-247a, the misdemeanor portiion of the Ct. cruelty to animals statute. The misdemeanor portion of the statute is a continuous 191-word, run-on sentence. It is vague and broad, and difficult to read and comprehend. What exactly is it that is or is not forbidden?

It is therefore, as attorney Palmieri points out, "unconstitutional." The language is so archaic, from a careful reading, it would seem to be regarding a farm economy which certainly no longer exists in Ct. today.Who was the trial judge in this case? Where was the court? When was it decided? Was Koczur convicted by jury trial or by the bench? Which statute was she appealing the convictin of? Inquiring Minds want to know.

If Koczur was in fact convicted of 53-247a, she is only the second to be so convicted by trial in the history of Ct. jurisprudence. I am the first: Ct. v. Doriss, New Haven, 2002. This statute was apparently written for me and Christine Koczur! This law and these types of proceedings are abusive exercises of power by the sovereign State of Ct. They are used for no other purpose than to punish someone the state does not like for other reasons, but are unable to prosecute because the defendant has broken no laws which would hold up in a court of law.

This statute needs to be re-visited and updated by the legislature. Rep. Diana Urban, according to recent stories in the Courant, has been appointed to head a "task force" designed for this very purpose. Let's hope her committee looks at all of the issues in an unbiased, non-hysterical manner.All domestic pets are animals, but not all animals are domestic pets. I agree with some of the above comments regarding Ms. Koczur mental state. However, in the interest charity and goodwill toward all men, let us not make a mental defect or momentary lapse of reason a major crime. If that were the case here, the Court should have deferred to a psychologial evaluation before passing judgment.Man is also an animal.

The Supreme Court was wrong here, and attorney Palmieri's concerns are legitimate and entirely correct. The State of Corrupticut cares not one whit about cruelty to its subjects committed under color of the sovereign

Although Mass. is home to some notable judicial fiascos, things may in fact be better here. Anecdotally, the courts seem to be easier to negotiate and the sentencing more lenient.

On Cape Cod, there are three courts. Every single docketed case is duly reported in the Cape Cod Times, so that the citizenry can be apprised of the who, what, where, when, the disposition, and sometimes the why of every case. I don't believe this is done anywhere in Ct. at this time, and is a tremendous disservice to the public.

The public actually has no idea what goes on its courthouses outside of high-profile cases which may be reported in the press. For example, the State of Ct. hit me with 13 criminal charges and 69 years prison. I went thru a full-blown criminal trial in New Haven and never received one public notice. I have been in federal court over the same matters for over three years, and still have received not one public notice, in spite of my trying to draw attention to myself and the outrageous abuse of power by the Ct. state judiciary in Ct. v. Doriss.

Yesterday, The New Haven Independent posted a video of Justice Borden of the State Supreme Court calling for expanded videotaping of court proceedings in Ct. I wholly support any move in that direction. Shine the light of day into every corner of the courthouse and the judicial process, and maybe there will not occur the rampant abuses that pass for "justice" in Ct.

Borden is quoted as saying, "The judiciary belongs to the public, not to the judges and lawyers." Indeed, you could have fooled me. This is a tacit admission that the judiciary is out of control. How and when did these situations come about. The system certainly was not designed that way. And how and when do we correct it?

With respect to cruelty to animals, in Dennis a couple of years ago, a young boy was attacked and injured by a bull mastiff. 2nd offense, the owner was not arrested. It seems like he might have been, but I don't know all of the details. Was this good or bad? Who knows?

The CDC reported there were 4.7 million dog-on-human incidents in '06 nationwide. If you prorate that for 50 states, you get some large number, and if you then prorate that for each of the 169 cities and towns in Ct., you get another number in the hundreds. If the sovereign prosecuted each and every one of these incidents, it would not have time for any other business.

Notorious examples of judicial misconduct certainly exist in Mass. Leaving aside the Salem witch hunts, you have Sacco and Vanzetti, in the twenties. You have the Amirault/Fells Acre Day Care Center fiasco of the '80' and '90's, which has been definitively chronicled by Dorothy Rabinowitz in "No Crueler Tyrannies."

Recently I attended the miscarriage of justice in Mass. v. McCowen, which resulted in three questionable guilty verdicts. But overall, Mass. has a roughly 15% lower incarceration rate than Ct.(Unlike Ct., some Mass. prisoners are incarcerated on civil charges,... story in today's Globe.)

Does Ct. have a higher crime rate than Mass., or is it the case that Ct. is better at solving crime? Answer: Neither. The real answer is that Ct. has a better oiled Prison-Industrial Complex. It is fifth nationwide in terms of incarceration rate, which gives lie to the commonplace belief that the most of the "law and order" states are in the South.

For a thorough investigation and review of these matters, see Sasha Abramsky's book, "American Furies," 2007. It is a good read. I hope I answered some of your questions.

... My previous comments here were apparently received like a bucket of warm spit. Hey, I worked hard on those, and I believe I have something important to contribute to the dialogue outside of the issue of "hoarding."

Although I agree with the posters who say or imply that hoarding is not a crime, my main point--not touched on by anyone above--is that I view Ms. Koczur also a "victim," a victim at least as important as her victim-cats. After all, my father-in-law "hoarded" cows. He had 200 in another, midwestern state. He also "hoarded" cars. When he died, he left about 100 antique cars behind.(He was never arrested.)

Some people hoard antiques, jewelry, clothes, plants, paintings, etc. I suppose Warren Buffett could be accused of "hoarding" stocks and bonds--and in Russia under Putin, no doubt would be.

What was Ms. Koczur a victim of? A victim of a rogue law enforcement action and an overzealous, aberrant judiciary which did not consider the costs of this prosecution to society, neither to the defendant nor to the taxpayers of Ct. who are ultimately footing the bill

Hey,$100,000 is a lot of money, no matter how you slice it. Is it real money? Or is it judicial fiat money, with no basis in reality or to the marketplace, invented by some pie-in-the-sky, arrogant judge who never performed a hard day's work in his life? Will this fine/restitution ever get "paid"? By whom and to whom will it ever be paid?

As Andrew Jackson famously said regarding a decision he did not like, "Justice Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it."I do not believe Ms. Koczur is a wealthy woman or married to a wealthy man. I predict the "fine" will never be paid by anyone in her lifetime. This case reminds me of the Judith Scruggs case of a few years ago. Scruggs was convicted in Meriden Superior Court of "keeping a messy house," which allegedly endangered the "health and welfare of a minor," her teenage son who had been bullied at school and who ultimately committed suicide.

If I recall, her neighbors and friends rallied to her cause, marched in the street to the courthouse, where they demonstrated against this unjust ruling/verdict. The judgment was subsequently overturned at the very same courthouse, and not on appeal.

Maybe Ms. Koczur similarly kept a messy environment for her cats, which (apparently) annoyed the starched-shirt, anal-retentive judge in the case. With no sense of humor I might add. Perhaps that was her real crime: keeping a messy house.

It seems to me that some persons and/or agencies (the so-called Agriculture Dept., which surely has a lot to do in the non-agricultural State of Ct.) were out to get her.

And then, when the **** hit the fan, her friends and neighbors failed to rally to her defense. All of the animal rights people of one color or another made thmeselves noticeably scarce. Maybe she didn't have any friends, and that is indeed a serious crime in Connecticut.

Her cats were her friends. God knows, my dog which the City of New Haven executed, illegally and unlawfully on Nov. 26, 2002, was my best friend. He barked, but he didn't talk back. He licked my face, and he slept on my bed. My dog never attacked or hurt anyone in the six years of his life.

I had exactly the same problem in New Haven as Ms. Koczur had in Torrington. My family, my so-called friends, neighbors, associates and activists in the community (except Sally) failed to rally for me.No one could believe that the State could or would hit me with 13 criminal charges and 69 years prison over two dog accidents.

Wake up people! They could, and they did. These are the types of situations you wind up with when you have an unregulated, unaccountable police state acting in concert with a rogue judiciary. Ct. is also the "nanny state,"... another topic. Read Kathleen Dickinson's comments for further insight. I do not believe she is completely crazy at all. There exist a common thread between Dickinson, Scruggs, and now Koczur.

It's not about cruelty to animals or endangering the welfare at all. It's about the state victimizing its own vulnerable citizens and eating its young. These types of situations could have, and should have, been dealt with in a less invasive, more compassionate--and yes, more "Constitutional"--manner.

Less expensive as well. Unintended consequences and gross miscarriages of justice are what you get--and what you deserve--when you have a do-nothing legislature and an out-of-control judiciary. And you pay for it too,... far in excess of the $100,000 charged to Ms. Koczur.

... Who says the squeaky wheel doesn't get the grease? You asked about the "other side" to my story? There is no other side which is credible and not manufactured. Trust it! I know wherefore I speak. Thousands of pages,... and counting. (The "other side" can be googled, which you are disinclined to do. Ignorance is bliss.)

I still disagree with the ruling in Koczur. I do know which thread I'm on. I tried to take this dialogue in a certain direction, and failed. Parsing of the word, "hoarding," is interesting,... in Linguistics 101, but has little, if any, relevance to 53-247a and the Supreme Court Ruling upholding the conviction and fine.

...I do not know who the trial judge was, but is of course a matter of public record. I did speak to Koczur's attorney, Wm. Palmieri, and could have asked him but did not.

Since Ms. Koczur and I are (apparently) the only two people in the history of Ct. jurisprudence to have been convicted of 53-247a, I agree with you completely. Thanx for your input. I wish more people would have posted on this important and very bizarre story.

I have made yet another move in federal court over my own situations, but it does not look good. Check out the current Courant story regarding Avery Doninger, and comments, whose petition for immediate relief was denied by the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in N.Y.

See previous comments by me. Once again, this is a gross miscarriage of justice in Ct. And I am able to name a few more, which would be eliminated in short order if I were to post them on this forum.

... a tragic waste of public safety and judicial resources,... your taxpayer dollars at work. I hope everybody is happy that the true issues in this case have not been properly addressed or resolved. Not only that, but it is unlikey they ever will be, as everyone moves on without acknowledging or correcting past mistakes, errors and gross miscarriages of justice which are par for the course in Ct. these days.

http://www.topix.net/forum/source/hartford-courant/T22KKUOHOF0BPRPLR/

Ethical standards exemption-Connecticut

Does "knowingly" include the state's prosecutor hearing blatant lies told by an animal control officer's deposition and then again while he repeatedly perjured himself on the stand? Does sudden ignorance or amnesia when being caught telling a lie and called on it somehow excuse it? Apparently in Connecticut! Specific examples soon to follow here, stay tuned.....

Top Connecticut Lawyer Delineates Ethics Rules On Telling The Truth

Lawyers are mandated to inform the court that a witness, including their client, has offered false testimony.

Clearly that obligation imposes a duty of diligence upon an attorney, in the first instance, to understand the substance of intended testimony from any witness. Though powerful, the rule does not require the lawyer to judge credibility. In many trials witnesses tell divergent versions of an event. That does not equate to perjury. Honest mistakes and the frailty of human recollection, faulty at times, do not require an attorney to act under this rule. The rule does not make a lawyer a guarantor that each witness to be offered is completely truthful. What if a witness has consistently misled the attorney and then testifies in the same manner? Unless the lawyer has reason to know that the information about to be offered is untrue, he or she has not violated this ethical canon. The key word is "knowingly." As lawyers we pride ourselves on being better than average judges of human character, but our judgment is not infallible.

What happens if the attorney learns subsequent to testimony that his witness or even his client has lied under oath? This is where the rule has its greatest impact. The lawyer is mandated to remedy the falsity, even if it means informing the court that the client is lying. The ramifications for the client are considerable. At the very least the client is exposed by his own counsel to a charge of perjury. In the federal system the sentencing judge can increase the severity of the sentence based upon a theory that the defendant has obstructed justice by giving false testimony.

The rule is not limited to court proceedings but, ". . .applies when the lawyer is representing a client in an ancillary proceeding conducted pursuant to the tribunal's adjudicative authority, such as a deposition." The clear intent of the Commentary and Rule is to require the lawyer to protect any fact finding process from the intrusion of false testimony.

In addition, the rule provides that a lawyer shall not knowingly make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a previous false statement made by the lawyer. Thus it is not only truth by others, but as importantly, truth from attorneys that is mandated.

The Commentary that accompanies the RPC states provides greater guidance to the bar. Lawyers must attempt, first, to dissuade a client or witness from offering false testimony. Failing that, the rule allows an attorney to refuse to offer evidence that they know to be false even against the client's wishes. In instances where the lawyer subsequently learns of false testimony, he must first remonstrate with the witness in an effort to educate the witness on the need to be candid and to correct the misleading testimony. Failing cooperation from the witness, the lawyer then must act decisively and inform the court of the lies.

As the Commentary states: "The disclosure of a client's false testimony can result in grave consequences to the client, including not only a sense of betrayal but also a loss of the case and perhaps prosecution for perjury. But the alternative is that the lawyer cooperate in deceiving the court, thereby subverting the truth-finding process which the adversary system is designed to implement."Thus the integrity of the judicial process far outweighs any false sense of impunity when a client tells his lawyer that he intends to lie on the stand, or the lawyer subsequently learns that such has occurred. Trials are a search for truth, despite Hollywood misconceptions. Lawyers are first and foremost, officers of the court.

http://cooljustice.blogspot.com/2008/02/column-top-connecticut-lawyer.html

Long Beach Animal Control is Corrupt

The trial is now over and we begin the next stage of the fight. We knew that in a town as corrupt as Long Beach, California that we could not get a fair trial for Alex and Gloria. 13 felony charges and a quarter of million in bail??? Come on, Michael Vick was electrocuting dogs, drowning them and strangling them for fun and he wasn't as vilified! Mike Huckabee's son was hanging and shooting dogs with mange and Mitt Romney was cruising the highways with his dog strapped to the roof of his car -- and people are considering voting for them for president.

For those of us at the trial -- or rather the sidebar with an audience -- we were left totally perplexed by the judge. He truly should be ashamed as a representative of the legal system. In our opinion, he was not only crazy but clearly had accepted some sort of bribe. Even the prosecutor was shocked by the judge's behavior! The prosecutor was even more chagrinned that the judge decided to try the case for him -- give the guy a break!!! It was embarrassing to see the judge emasculate the poor guy over and over again. Even stranger was to have the judge sustain an objection when none had been raised. Wow! Suffice to say, the judge was not stellar! Too bad Judge Lord wimped out on trying the case, he at least had a shred of integrity. He'll probably leave Long Beach soon because you can't work in Long Beach if you can still look yourself in the mirror in the morning.

We all felt badly for the jury. Clearly the judge was doing every thing he could to keep the truth of obstruction and intimidation from coming out. They must have wondered when witnesses took the stand, barely got their name out and then the judge stopped them from testifying. For those of us who knew what those witnesses were about to testify to, we were truly stunned that the judge was in such a lather. The jury certainly got their exercise being removed from the court room over and over again!

Most of you also missed Lt. Quigley's strange little demonic dance in the court hallways. Dance now strange little woman, your jig will be short-lived. We won't get started on all the things that are hinkey about Quigley -- the press will share that with y'all soon enough.

Many of you have written to ask what's next? Is this it? HARDLY!

We bided our time through the trial to ensure that we could not do anything that would be fuel for the judge's fire. Trial's over!! Coming soon -- the truth about Long Beach Animal Control uncensored so you all can see what a ruthless animal killer Quigley is. As they say in the movies, "There Will Be Blood"... our goal is for Lt. Quigley to lose her job and never be allowed near another animal again.

http://najustice.blogspot.com/

ANIMAL CONTROL SHAKE-UP

A resignation, a suspension and an investigation

Animal Control’s top officer is gone, a shelter employee has been suspended, and the city has launched an investigation into charges of animal mistreatment at the city’s shelter following a District Weekly probe, city officials said today.

Animal Control facility manager Wesley Moore resigned Monday after Long Beach City Manager Pat West announced he’s investigating several reports of alleged animal mistreatment at the shelter. Moore resigned after the suspension last week of another shelter employee, Victor Martinez, for alleged animal cruelty involving the brutal March 13 killing of a vicious pit bull.

One thing is certain, officials told a press conference: new leadership is needed at Animal Control. The District investigation followed a shelter employee’s tip, and was based on another employee’s complaint of animal cruelty. That complaint documented the botched killing of a dangerous pit bull.

“The dog was flipping around and fighting so much that my syringe needle bent and I had to replace it before administering the drug,” the employee wrote in a formal complaint. “I lost my footing on a pool of blood as I walked across the room.”

The scene was so exceptionally gruesome that, when the dog was finally euthanized, workers hosed blood off floors, walls, doors, cages and cabinets in the euthanasia room, the complaint alleges.

West said “management issues” and “breakdowns in protocol and procedure” led to the inhumane deaths of the pit bull and feral cat. A former shelter officer told The District Weekly that the accidental euthanization of another dog due to misidentification was not an isolated event.

West promised several big changes are already underway. He’s asked an independent investigation firm to evaluate the shelter’s managers, and has temporarily hired two senior staff officials, along with Belmont Shore vet Dr. Loren Eslinger. She started Monday.

Lt. Michelle Quigley will act as the bureau manager until Roger Hatakeyama, a former shelter manager who helped design the shelter, returns next week to deal with employee and internal issues. West says he has asked Long Beach city audit manager John Keisler to deal with more “bureaucratic responsibilities.”

The high-profile press conference didn’t answer all questions. For several months, the shelter has been short of at least six staffers—an issue West said was unrelated to funding. Additionally, staffers say they’re overworked and that morale is in freefall.

“I can’t look you in the eye and tell you why this has happened,” West said. “It’s something the investigation team will have to look into.”

Contact reporter Heather Reger at hreger@thedistrictweekly

http://thedistrictweekly.com/daily/writing-shotgun/breakdowns-lead-to-animal-control-shake-up/

http://najustice.blogspot.com/

Ramifications of unqualified Animal Control

The brutal death of a pit bull suggests there’s trouble at Animal Control, a document obtained by the District Weekly suggests.

The March 15 report by registered veterinary technician Christine Culhno of Long Beach Animal Control describes an incident in which an untrained officer used a rabies pole to drag an out-of-control pit bull from its holding pen. The report alleges the officer inadvertently choked the dog until blood gushed from its mouth and nose.

“The dog was flipping around and fighting so much that my syringe needle bent and I had to replace it before administering the drug. I lost my footing on a pool of blood as I walked across the room,” Culhno wrote in the report.

The scene was so exceptionally gruesome that, when the dog was finally euthanized, workers hosed blood off floors, walls, doors, cages and cabinets in the euthanasia room, the complaint alleges.

A source said someone sent the report to members of the media and city officials just a day after Long Beach City Council members voted unanimously to ask Animal Control to enforce stricter regulations for so-called “dangerous dogs” and their owners.

The dog’s death “resulted from several breakdowns in protocol that cumulatively made for an unfortunate incident,” said Michael Johnson, acting press information officer for the Department of Health, which oversees the Animal Control division.

The incident is still under investigation.

The shelter typically requires employees to sedate dangerous dogs before they’re removed from their cages for killing. Johnson says the animal shelter lacks a designated veterinarian on site and has failed to post medical license. California state law requires both. The animal shelter has not had an on-site veterinarian or premise license since December, according to Johnson.

Culhno filed a separate consumer complaint with the state Veterinary Medical Board after the death of the pit bull. She alleges the city has not had a premise veterinarian since October.

Employees have been illegally administering controlled substances and vaccinations, an apparent violation of several codes of the state Veterinary Practice Act, according to the complaint.

Johnson said the agency is moving quickly to correct at least one problem. Loren Eslinger, a vet at the Belmont Shore Veterinary Hospital, verbally agreed this week to become the shelter’s premise vet, Johnson said. Eslinger was not available for comment.

http://thedistrictweekly.com/daily/writing-shotgun/%e2%80%98breakdowns%e2%80%99-led-to-brutal-death-of-animal-shelter-dog/#comment-3716

http://najustice.blogspot.com/

The Nation’s Top Ten Worst State Attorneys General

by Hans Bader January 23, 2007

State attorneys general are among the most powerful office holders in the country. Unlike governors and legislators, each state’s top elected lawyer has fewer institutional checks on his or her powers. Yet, with the possible exception of former New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, the power wielded by attorneys general receives very little scrutiny from the media, voters, and even tort reform advocates. The following discussion of the nation’s worst attorneys general is an effort to trigger much-needed attention to their most egregious abuses of power.

The historic function of a state attorney general (AG) is to defend the state in court and to give opinions to the governor and legislators on pending bills and policy decisions. In some instances, attorneys general have been entrusted by state legislatures with enforcing certain statutes, assisting district attorneys in prosecuting serious crimes, or disseminating information on legal issues confronting the state.

Like other government offices, the office of attorney general was designed to have limited powers, set forth by statute and constitution. Under all state constitutions, it is the legislature, not the state attorney general, which is vested with the authority to make laws and prescribe remedies for violations of the law. State constitutions give the attorney general no power to make or rewrite law. In fact, if the legislature has not conferred the authority on an attorney general to enforce a particular law, then the attorney general may well be exceeding his authority by bringing suit under it, violating constitutional checks and balances.

Federal law also limits attorney general power. If he attempts to regulate conduct in another state, that may violate not only state law, but also the due process and commerce clauses of the U.S. Constitution, which forbid any state to impose its laws on another state, or to regulate commerce among states.

Unfortunately, many state attorneys general today find those constraints inconvenient. Over the past decade, attorneys general have increasingly usurped the role of state legislatures and Congress by using litigation to impose interstate and national regulations and to extract money from out-of-state defendants who have little voice in a state’s political processes. The worst offenders flaunt such abuse of power, with the most notorious of the lot, Eliot Spitzer, boasting that he “has redefined the role of Attorney General.” This sort of activism may benefit the political and policy ambitions of the office holder and his allies, but it imposes real costs on consumers, businesses, the economy, and our democratic system. The wave of lawsuits brought by state attorneys general has fostered corruption, circumvented legislative checks on regulation, taxes, and government spending, made the workings of government less transparent, and diverted attention away from their core responsibilities—enforcing state laws, defending state agencies against lawsuits, and providing legal advice to public officials.

Although these abuses are widespread, some attorneys general are worse than others. Based on a set of explicit criteria—such as encroachment on the powers of other branches of government, meddling in the affairs of other states or federal agencies, encouragement of judicial activism and frivolous lawsuits, favoritism towards campaign contributors, ethical breaches, and failure to provide representation to state agencies or to provide legal advice—the following state attorneys general have earned the dishonor of being the nation’s Top Ten Worst:

1. Richard Blumenthal, Connecticut
2. Bill Lockyer, California
3. Eliot Spitzer, New York
4. Zulima Farber, New Jersey
5. Patrick Lynch, Rhode Island
6. Darrell McGraw, West Virginia
7. William Sorrell, Vermont
8. Lisa Madigan, Illinois
9. Peg Lautenschlager, Wisconsin
10. Tom Reilly, Massachusetts

http://cei.org/gencon/025%2C05719.cfm

What’s up with Nation’s 10 Worst Attorneys General?

Bader op ed in the Washington Examiner

by Hans Bader February 14, 2007

WASHINGTON - In recent years, state attorneys general have become increasingly powerful. Using lawsuits as a weapon, they have transferred billions of dollars from businesses and consumers to wealthy trial lawyers and political cronies.

Former New York Attorney General (and now Gov.) Eliot Spitzer, a frequent participant in such lawsuits, even boasted that he had “redefined the role of attorney general.”
Yet few have questioned claims by attorneys general like Spitzer that they are just looking out for the little guy when they bring lawsuits.

That may now change. “The Nation’s Top Ten Worst State Attorneys General,” a recent study I authored for the Competitive Enterprise Institute, takes a closer look at how attorneys general use their power to encroach on the authority of other branches of government and enrich their friends at society’s expense.

Spitzer, who was rated the third-worst state attorney general by the study, claims to be the scourge of wealthy “economic royalists.” But when rich trial lawyers demanded a staggering $625 million for bringing New York’s copycat lawsuit against the tobacco companies — at a rate of $13,000 an hour — Spitzer supported them, even though they began work only after tobacco companies had already given in to lawsuits brought by two other states. When a New York trial judge issued an order blocking the award on ethical grounds, Spitzer helped them get the order overturned based on a technicality.

Even worse is Connecticut’s Dick Blumenthal, rated the nation’s worst attorney general. Blumenthal was front and center in the scheme to create the Master Settlement Agreement, a nationwide tobacco deal that taxes low-income smokers to put $14 billion in the pockets of wealthy trial lawyers.

The lawyers he selected to profit from the deal included his own former law firm, a law school classmate, and the lawyer for the state’s governor, who was subsequently convicted of corruption in another matter.

In return for this deal, Blumenthal and other attorneys general dropped lawsuits they had filed against the big tobacco companies in the 1990s. Those suits claimed tobacco companies lied to smokers about the dangers of smoking. But smokers — not tobacco companies — pay for the deal, which is funded by a charge on every cigarette they buy.

Blumenthal justified his suit by claiming that it would help anti-smoking programs. But in many years, Connecticut spends nothing at all on preventing smoking, while much of the money has gone into lawyers’ pockets.

The second-worst state’s attorney general was Bill Lockyer of California, who recently became state treasurer. He turned a blind eye to campaign finance violations by political allies. Yet he meddled in other states’ affairs by suing out-of-state businesses, like Pepsi, which he sued over labels used on sodas in Mexico.

Lockyer repeatedly sought to stretch the legal definition of fraud to make it easier for lawyers to bring lawsuits. An appeals court rebuked him for that, noting that under his definition, a foolish consumer could sue for fraud after ordering a Danish pastry, solely because it was not baked in Denmark.

Historically, attorneys general performed valuable services like defending state agencies against lawsuits and giving legal advice. Today, they are more likely to bring lawsuits of their own, with greed and hunger for power, not public service, seeming to be behind many of those suits.

http://cei.org/gencon/019%2C05773.cfm

A LIMBO OF INDIFFERENCE AND DISSEMBLING

by Henry Berry May 27, 2008

The newest chapter in my book-in-progress on ongoing, systematic, expansive criminal activity and corruption in the Fairfield County, CT, public and private legal systems is titled "A Limbo of Indifference and Dissembling." In this chapter, my criminal complaint for theft of close to $6,000.00 of medical films of mine by attorneys James T. Shearin and Timothy A. Bishop of the Pullman and Comley law firm passes back and forth among the Bridgeport Police Department, me, and persons at the Fairfield County State's Attorney's office.

The two previous chapters relate incidents during the procedure of filing the criminal complaint, notably assistant state's attorney John Smriga's flat-out stonewalling concerning my criminal accusations of theft by asserting "no they didn't" when I told him attorneys had stolen medical films of mine. This was one of the first attempts at a cover-up of the theft. The cover-up would mushroom immeasurably beyond this to involve others at the Pullman and Comley law firm, high-ranking officials throughout the Fairfield County and Connecticut Chief State's Attorney's offices, employees at the Bridgeport Superior Court, and the judges L. Scott Melville, Thomas Nadeau, and probably others who will be linked as I dig further into the events.

Following the peregrinations of my criminal complaint in the Connecticut criminal-justice system, this newest chapter "A Limbo of Indifference and Dissembling" eventually comes to the point where I have two odd brief phone conversations with assistant state's attorney Linda Howe prompted by a letter from her filled with misreadings of evidence, erroneous conclusions, and flights of fancy. This letter was sent to me as a supposedly serious, professional, honest look at my criminal complaint by the Fairfield County State's Attorney's office; but it was in fact simply an empty motion handed out to me like a lollypop handed to a cranky child. My two brief phone calls with assistant state's attorney Linda Howe are an early sampling of the perverted way the Connecticut state law-enforcement officials would deal with my accusations of theft arising from clear-cut evidence and also a hint of the malevolent elements conspiring in the Fairfield County State's Attorney's office and the Pullman and Comley law firm to defame me, subject me to witness intimidation including an eventual death threat, and engage in forgery, perjury, subornation of perjury, and witness tampering in an effort to cover-up the theft and the crimes surrounding it.

In general, my (as yet untitled) book is about how government and legal corruption works. Many astute, awakened citizens realize that there is considerable government and professional crime and corruption; but they do not grasp how it works. My book, a classic expose which I describe as first-person investigative journalism in the manner of creative nonfiction, narrates this latter topic of how the crime and corruption take place. Earlier chapters are found at my website henryberrywritereditor.com in the section Corruption in Connecticut.

http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977355123&grpId=3659174697244816&nav=Groupspace

When Vultures Rule

One has to wonder why the federal government (Department of Justice, FBI, Homeland REFUSE to investigate and put a stop to this domestic terrorism against citizens. The answer may be laughably simple. Ask yourselves where the money taken by the racketeering enterprise is going. Remember per John Stossel´s 20/20 report (Cruelty to Pet Owners?) just ONE SPCA in Dallas, Texas pulled in SIX MILLION DOLLARS in just ONE YEAR by stealing animals from their legal owner, begging the public for donations and selling the animals. Multiply that amount by the number of SPCA´s across this country. This type of racketeering is going on in every state. How many trillions of dollars are being taken in? Who is getting all that money? In light of the federal government´s refusal to stop domestic terrorism in the United States while homes, businesses, animals, and more are being stolen from citizens unconstitutionally, you really must wonder if the federal government is taking a big slice of the pie to be used to support the Bush war(s).

Please keep in mind that you are living in states and a country where there are no laws, the U.S. Constitution is NOT being enforced and where elected officials simply ignore whatever stands in the way of their racketeering enterprise´s activities

Please remember that if you do not stand up and fight for your rights, you have none.

http://www.americanchronicle.com/viewByAuthor?authorID=1941

Cruelty to Pet Owners

Some Owners Accuse Their SPCA Chapter of Taking Their Pets and Selling Them

Commentary By John Stossel June 3, 2005

SPCAs have an image of being animal rescuers. And there's no question that the many Societies for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals around the country do a lot of good work, rushing in to save animals from abusive people.

But some people who've had animals taken away by animal rescuers say some SPCAs have acted like petty tyrants on power trips. They say they use their police powers to take away people's animals, even when the animals don't need rescuing.

I found that hard to believe, but lots of people have been saying that their local SPCA has wrecked their lives.

We spent a year investigating the SPCA, looking at 50 cases from New York to California. Many people think that SPCAs have a national headquarters, but SPCAs are really separate, independent operations located in towns across the country. Some animal owners claimed that when they became overextended in caring for their animals, an SPCA accused them of neglect, confiscated their animals and sold them.

The SPCAs then keep the money.

'Equine Shopping Mall'

One case we followed involved a New Jersey SPCA office accusing horse owner Joe Stuebing of starving his animals.

He said the horses had lost weight simply because they were sick and he was overwhelmed. But a local SPCA filed charge after charge against him for what it said was inhumane treatment. Then they took custody of his horses, some of which were champion bloodlines valued together at almost $1 million.

Stuebing says that the day after the SPCA took custody of his horses at Stuebing's own barn, they invited people to his farm to take his horses out from under him. "This was like an equine shopping mall. Like it was ripe for the pickings," Stuebing told "20/20."

"They are a self-righteous group of people that are in it for money," said Stuebing. "They don't care about the horses. They don't care about anything else, except money."

That's a charge we heard repeatedly from people who lost animals.

Sometimes the owners hire lawyers and file appeals, but they rarely win. Judges usually side with the SPCAs. After all, the animal rescuers are the experts, aren't they?

SPCA Leader Crafts Media Image

Dave Garcia has confiscated thousands of animals in several states. He heads rescue operations for the Dallas SPCA, one of the biggest such organizations in America.

You get a sense of how important he considers his work when you listen to his opinion about the kind of people who abuse animals.

"If they beat a dog to death, then it's just a step up to beat a co-worker, or beat a classmate or and then a step up to … kill someone and then a step up to do a mass murder," Garcia told "20/20."

On local television, Garcia is often portrayed as a savior rescuing animals. And he has saved a lot of animals from abusive people.

"I should not have to warn someone to take care of their animals," said Garcia. "If they're here to make money with them, then take care of them."

Garcia led an effort to get Texas politicians to pass a law saying once a Justice of the Peace approves one of the SPCA's confiscations, an owner can't do anything about it.

Under Garcia's leadership, the Dallas SPCA has seen penalties against animal owners quadruple.
The SPCA invites television crews along on their raids confiscating animals. Such broadcasts spur the public to make big donations -- a total of $6 million in 2003 to the Dallas SPCA -- which helps pay Garcia's $80,000 annual salary.

One of those raids occurred at Renee Moore's dog kennel, with TV reporters stating 120 dogs lived in deplorable conditions.

But Moore's dogs are show dogs. Some of them were thin, she said, because they were nursing large litters of puppies. Vets and breeders told us it can be normal for a dog's ribs to show when a dog is nursing lots of puppies.

But the SPCA took custody of all of Renee's dogs, including award-winners -- worth up to $600 each. After the radio, her vet wrote that while "housing and sanitation needed improvement" and suggested a cutback in the number of animals, he also said "Moore does care about and care for her animals no starvation was evident." A judge upheld the confiscation.

Unable to afford a lawyer, Renee wrote her own lawsuit charging the SPCA with stealing, but the suit was dismissed. Renee's livelihood was destroyed. She and her husband were forced to sell their home and move into a trailer.

"I would like to see them punished for what they've done," said Moore. "And they humiliated me on TV and I'd like them to apologize to me on TV."

'20/20' Follows Garcia on a Raid

All this made us want to see firsthand how Garcia works. So we asked and received permission to go along on an SPCA raid.

Garcia didn't know that our cameraman was a veterinarian, Dr. Gaylon TeSlaa.

Early one morning last September, "20/20" accompanied Garcia as he went with a police officer to a Justice of the Peace to get the warrant needed to raid a dog kennel.

He claimed the owner didn't provide adequate food, water and shelter, and showed photos of what he said were filthy kennels.

After a brief informal hearing, Garcia got permission to raid, which meant he and an armed police officer could go to the kennel without any warning.

Garcia told us to expect to see animals that were urine soaked and fecal stained. "20/20" didn't see that.

TeSlaa said, while there was some neglect because the owner had been away for four days, it was correctable. Since her being away was an unusual event, and she says she'd returned each night to feed her animals he saw no cruelty and certainly no reason to confiscate the dogs. But Garcia saw cruelty and said the dogs needed to be saved.

"Under Texas state law, these animals have been cruelly treated. The definition of cruelly treated is having to live in your own feces, unsanitary conditions, no food or water," said Garcia.
But when people keep animals, there's routinely feces found in the cages. "That's part of having an animal," said TeSlaa.

Moments after the SPCA finished collecting the dogs, the owner arrived. Pam Chennault said she couldn't believe her dogs were being taken, including her favorite, Gidget.

Despite her protests, she was given an immediate court date and was not allowed to go to the van that held Gidget and her other dogs.

"She was my very first dog," Chennault said while crying.

Challenging the Raid

After raiding her kennel, Garcia took the dogs to the SPCA where the workers cited problems like fleas and mange.

Not that the technicians are experts. In fact, our vet was the only veterinarian in sight. "These pets were not abused. They were not in poor health. None of them were in life-threatening conditions," said TeSlaa.

When I mentioned there was no vet there during the raid, Garcia replied: "We had vets there."
But he didn't. The Texas SPCA later e-mailed us admitting that it didn't, but said in this case that vets weren't needed.

Chennault hired a lawyer and tried to get her animals back, but the court gave her only two hours to prepare her case. She was advised to settle and give her dogs to the SPCA. She did. Most of the dogs were adopted, a few were put to sleep. We don't know what happened to Gidget.

When I told Garcia that our vet didn't think the animals should have been taken, he said, "The judge did."

But the judge permitted the raid because of the data Garcia brought to them. I suggested that he "spins" the evidence. "No, I don't spin them," said Garcia. "The judge looks at the facts. Looks at the probable cause, and the judge makes the decision."

I asked him about the claim that he steals people's animals.

"No, I'm not stealing no one's animals," said Garcia.

He said he dismisses most complaints without any confiscation. Garcia said, "It's about the welfare of an animal."

Tell that to the 50 people we talked to who lost animals to Garcia and other SPCAs.

Joe Stuebing is fortunate that he doesn't keep his horses in Texas, where he would be under the thumb of the Texas no-appeal rule Garcia lobbied for. After a court ruled the SPCA could take his animals, he appealed, and won, because his farm was raided without a warrant. The SPCA still says he was abusing his horses, but today he has his horses back.

In Texas, Moore could not appeal, and she said she'll never get over what Garcia and the SPCA did to her.

"I was a dog breeder. I was a dog shower," said Moore. "My dogs were my life."

Remember, when considering donations: each SPCA is separately run. Also, the ASPCA is a different organization.

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Story?id=817494

Little Cat Feats

Little Cat Feats, a 501(c)(3) (charity) dog and cat shelter that was established several years ago by Doug and Despina Harris in Milford, Connecticut has been raided!

On August 20, 2002, representatives of the state and animal control officers from various towns arrived at this sizeable residence with local police armed with a search and seizure warrant obtained on the basis of a lone, unsubstantiated allegation that, in some unspecified way, animals had been abused or treated cruelly there.

The owners were not even allowed to call a lawyer.

They were given an abbreviated "receipt" for items taken from them, and promised a detailed receipt "in two days". As of September 13, Doug and his wife still did not have this receipt.

The warrant was directed specifically at Doug Harris and not, as would logically have been more appropriate, at Companion Animal Therapy Advocates, Inc., the Connecticut corporation of which Little Cat Feats is "the rescue and adoption mission". The warrant authorized the taking of "every animal, living or dead". Every single animal was taken from there - including the Harris's personal pets (a dozen-plus cats and three dogs), for a total of 79 cats and three dogs.

Supposedly in connection with this investigation into alleged animal abuse, the raiders took - among other inappropriate items -- all animal adoption records going back three-plus years. Also taken - without authority of the warrant - were various personal photographs and mementos of now-dead-and-buried personal pets. (As well as being an illegal seizure of the Harris's personal property, this represented a gross affront to them personally and - like so much of the rest of what's been happening here - a vicious violation of this society's standards of human decency.)

The day after this raid, Doug Harris was served papers for a civil suit against him by the city relative to a long-simmering zoning issue.

The suit mentioned above also makes the following (and other) claims:

1. That they "either relinquish ownership of the animals to the State of Connecticut, Department of Agriculture, or post a surety bond or cash bond with the State of Connecticut, Department of Agriculture, in the amount of $450 per animal for the Department's reasonable expenses in caring and providing for such animals…"

2. Once permanent custody has been granted to "the Department", its representatives shall, with the blessing of the court, "order the humane destruction of such animals as are so injured or diseased that they should be destroyed…"

3. That we be ordered "to pay the State (etc.) an amount equal to $15 for each animal which was seized, pursuant to the search warrant, for each day from the date that the animals were seized until the date that ownership of the animals was vested in the State."As of September 13, it is believed no charges were pending, other than zoning-related ones.

An hour before the August 20 raid, a regular check was performed, and every animal was alive. So far absolutely no information has been given to Little Cat Feats as to why the Harris's personal animals - or any of the others -were hauled out of their home only to be caged - a condition some of the animals have never known and none deserve. Also, the present status and condition of the majority of the animals remains unknown.

But a civil action against Doug Harris filed by the State Department of Agriculture on August 28 noted that "of the cats taken, three have died and one had to be euthanized."Harris is in contact with the ASPCA and their attorneys, and they are well aware that the first priority in Doug's mind is to secure the freedom of ALL the confiscated animals - "alive or dead". Still, Harris and others fear that not even all remaining animals will long survive the cruel, heartless and illogical incarceration they've now suffered for nearly three weeks - while NO criminal charges of any kind have ever been filed against Little Cat Feats or Doug Harris. No cruelty charge - no abuse charge - nothing!

This could happen to ANYONE - and this possibility must be prevented by taking action NOW!

http://www.geocities.com/helpcatrescuer/lcf.html

letter to the ACLU

I urgently require assistance regarding the blatant abuse of my civil rights by the State of Connecticut Department of Agriculture. My case unfortunately is just one example of the many victims, whos lives were ruined by harassment, deception, slander, manipulation, and gross negligence by this department. Accountable only to the Governor’s office, they exercise absolute power. Apparently, the procedure for investigating complaints is by forwarding them to the offenders so they may deal with at their own discretion. This practice perpetuated “the list” (as referred to by dept. staff)-handy source of easily accessible personal contact information for their next targets. I respectfully request your prompt assistance in this important matter. Enclosed is a brief summary, including several Connecticut state statute violations. Upon request, additional detailed materials will be provided. Your assistance is essential in order to help prevent another gross miscarriage of justice, further waste of taxpayer money, and the suffering and torment of the animals by of the very department supposedly responsible for their protection.

The officers, in the course of their investigation, clearly illustrate malfeasance by their:

Failure to substantiate validity of any statements made in complaints

Blatant disregard for the totality of the circumstances, specifically all relevant evidence advantageous to defendant, no matter how credible

Trespassing defendant’s property repeatedly without disclosure

Demanding immediate entry to defendant’s home for mandatory inspection

Denoting any failure to comply with demands, no matter how unconstitutional, or unreasonable would be perceived as admission of guilt to indeterminate crime

Unprofessional, inappropriate, disrespectful, threatening, manipulative, dishonest, cruel, and excessively forceful conduct toward defendant and her animals

Threatening and executing severe, excessive retaliation for non-compliance

Refusal to disclose the nature, cause, or source of the complaint, what law was violated, or any information in writing, (despite defendant’s repeated requests)

Refusal of defendant’s numerous good faith efforts to prove compliance with the law and establish open communication in an effort to resolve the issue in accordance with the law, in the best interest of the animals, and with respect for her civil rights.

Failure to interview multitude more likely credible readily available sources

Failure to consider evidence (which they originally requested) submitted by primary care veterinarian detailing conditions of all animals (personal and org.)

In the application for the search and seizure warrant, the officers, (with the explicit intent to mislead the judge and defame the defendant:)

improperly cite complainants statements-implying they are factual information derived from proper investigation rather than unsubstantiated hearsay (constituting the substance of the content in the application for warrant)

Purposefully omit any relevant evidence in support of defendant

Creatively spun summation of trespassing encounter with defendant

Misrepresent highly questionable sources as “credible and prudent” (volunteers recently dismissed from minor roles with the non-profit org. run by the defendant due to issues involving their incompetent, manipulative, dishonest behavior)

In the execution of the search and seizure warrant, the officers:

Violated CT statute Chapter 959 Sec. 54-33c… “A copy of such warrant shall be given to the owner or occupant of the dwelling”…and….”Within forty-eight hours of such search, a copy of the application for the warrant and a copy of all affidavits upon which the warrant is based shall be given to such owner” (After 10 weeks, court motions, requests by letter, phone and fax, still awaiting majority of……)

Despite the absence of exigent circumstances, officials did not knock and announce, but rather attempted breaking down the front door to no avail. They (admittedly) gained entry breaking a (new) window.

violated CT statute Chapter 959 Sec. 54-36f. Receipt for seized property to be given by law enforcement officials. Whenever property is ...seized pursuant to a search warrant without an arrest, the law enforcement agency seizing such property shall give a receipt ….at the time of such seizure

seized personal financial documents and personal prescription medication not pertaining to the case

destroyed personal articles and damaged several areas of my home

coerced a city official into making false claims

Refused to allow me to match health records with the correct animal, so that the handicapped and those needing medication could receive proper care.

Following the seizure of my animals until present, the officers:

refuse to disclose the condition or location of my animals

will not disclose important information needed to properly prepare defense

shared private, detailed evidence about case with complainants (have reason to believe actively coached prior to official statements

CT Dept. of Agriculture practices

A state agency requiring closer scrutiny for unscrupulous activity is the CT Department of Agriculture. Years of zero accountability have culminated in a department fraught with negligence and incompetence, to say the least.

This agency’s Animal Control office has a history of harassment, deception, slander, manipulation, and gross negligence targeted against animal rescue organizations whom they label as ‘hoarders’ in order to justify their actions; all the while failing to address real cases of animal abuse. I am but one of many of their recent victims. I believe their overzealousness was fueled by revenge for my repeated complaints made about their lack of response in many reported severe animal abuse cases. Asserting my civil rights and refusal to take their abuse further exacerbated their invasion.

Due to Connecticut’s system of political patronage, this department lacks necessary accountability to any authority for their actions. The Governor’s office - supposedly concerned with fighting corruption, and the only authority this department is accountable to - is merely forwarding complaints to the very department under scrutiny! We have found references to similar complaints, and similar lack or action, dating back to the late 1980’s. Many persons and organizations have stated that they fear speaking out, due to possible retribution; some cite direct threats and/or odd, coincidental occurrences.

Is this how our taxpayer dollars should be spent? Salaries for individuals who waste funding on fruitless pursuits and execution of personal vendettas are not the only cost. Innocent animals executed, good Samaritans lives annihilated and deterioration of our moral standards are priceless commodities.

Following is a summary, including several Connecticut state statute violations. Upon request, additional detailed materials will be provided. Your assistance is essential in order to help prevent another gross miscarriage of justice, further waste of taxpayer money, and the suffering and torment of the animals at the hands of the very department responsible for their protection.

The officers, in the course of their investigation, clearly illustrate malfeasance by their:

* failure to substantiate validity of any statements made in complaints;

* blatant disregard for the totality of the circumstances, specifically all relevant evidence advantageous to defendant, no matter how credible;

* exclusively targeting defendant’s personal pets, despite complaint supposedly being related to pet adopted from the organization;

* complete and willful failure to examine or investigate pets at pet store or in custody of other organization members;

* demand for immediate release of confidential veterinary records by phone;

* complete and willful failure to pursue officially published “long standing policy of attempting to work with animal owners;”

* trespassing defendant’s property repeatedly without disclosure;

* demanding immediate entry inside defendant’s home for “mandatory” inspection;

* claiming any failure to comply with demands, no matter how unconstitutional or unreasonable, would be perceived as admission of guilt to indeterminate crime;

* unprofessional, inappropriate, disrespectful, threatening, manipulative, dishonest, cruel, and excessively forceful conduct toward defendant and her animals;

* threatening and executing severe, excessive retaliation for non-compliance;

* refusal to disclose the nature, cause, or source of the complaint, what law was violated, or any information in writing, (despite defendant’s repeated requests);

* refusal of defendant’s numerous good faith efforts to prove compliance with the law and establish open communication in an effort to resolve the issue in accordance with the law, in the best interest of the animals, and with respect for her civil rights;

* failure to interview much more credible and readily available sources; and

* failure to consider evidence (which they originally requested) submitted by primary care veterinarian detailing conditions of all animals (personal and org.)

-In the application for the search and seizure warrant, the officers,
(with the explicit intent to mislead the judge and defame the defendant:)

* neglected to mention their motivating factor for urgently obtaining the warrant was an effort to preempt primary care veterinarian’s disclosed upcoming house call visit;

* purposefully mislead-improperly cited complainants statements, implying they were factual information derived from firsthand knowledge rather than unsubstantiated hearsay (constituting the substance of the content in the application for warrant);

* purposefully omit any relevant evidence in defendant’s favor;

* creatively misrepresented summation of trespassing encounter with defendant;

* misrepresented highly questionable sources as “credible and prudent” (volunteers recently dismissed from minor roles with the non-profit org. run by the defendant due to issues involving their incompetent, manipulative, dishonest behavior).

-In the execution of the search and seizure warrant, the officers:

* violated CT statute Chapter 959 Sec. 54-33c… “A copy of such warrant shall be given to the owner or occupant of the dwelling”…and….”Within forty-eight hours of such search, a copy of the application for the warrant and a copy of all affidavits upon which the warrant is based shall be given to such owner” (After 10 weeks, court motions, requests by letter, phone and fax, we are still awaiting the majority of this information);

* despite the absence of exigent circumstances, officials did not knock and announce, but rather attempted breaking down the front door to no avail, then (admittedly) gained entry by breaking a new window;

* violated CT statute Chapter 959 Sec. 54-36f. Receipt for seized property to be given by law enforcement officials. “Whenever property is ...seized pursuant to a search warrant without an arrest, the law enforcement agency seizing such property shall give a receipt ...at the time of such seizure” ;

* seized personal and financial documents and personal prescription medication not pertaining to the case and not permitted by the warrant;

* destroyed personal articles and damaged several areas of defendant’s home;

* coerced a city official into making false claims; and

* thwarted defendant’s attempt to match health records with the correct animal (so that the handicapped and special needs animals could receive proper care.)

Following the seizure of the animals until present, the officers:

* refuse to disclose the condition or location of the animals;

* refuse to disclose information necessary to properly prepare defense;

* may have concealed or destroyed vital evidence in order to prejudice the case;

* shared private, detailed evidence about case with complainants (and may have actively coached them prior to official statements);

* have made multiple false and defamatory statements to the press about the case, in what can only be considered a smear campaign; and

* may have used illegally seized private information to damage defendant’s financial status.

In summary, the Connecticut State Animal Control Office of the Department of Agriculture has repeatedly denied me the right to face my accusers, the right to due process, the right to privacy, the right of free expression, the right to equal protection under the law, and the right to petition for redress of grievances. In addition, they have engaged in slander, conversion of private property, and the intentional infliction of emotional distress. Both I and others who would support me have been harassed, intimidated, and threatened into silence.

http://www.geocities.com/helpcatrescuer/index.html