~ 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/
6/3/08
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/
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
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/
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/
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 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
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
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
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
6/2/08
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
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
