Tuesday, July 30, 2013
Just in case you didn't catch this over the weekend...
FABULOUS editorial in the NY Times this past Sunday, by a writer who really sees the big picture. YAY!!! Read it here...
Friday, July 12, 2013
Harbinger of change?
As someone who's actually litigated one of these awful cases, I was encouraged to see that an article of this nature appearing in Law Enforcement Today. Not that an article is enforceable, but hopefully it is at least a sign that the culture of shoot-first-ask-later may be ready to change...
Friday, July 05, 2013
Tuesday, June 04, 2013
Mo' great animal welfare news! - Pigs
The Canadian Pork Council and the National Animal Care Council have agreed to phase out the use of all gestation stalls for pregnant sows in Canada by
the year 2024. Read more in today's Food Safety News...
Lots of great animal welfare news today! - Horses
Yesterday, the U.S. House of Representatives passed - without opposition - a measure to protect a wild herd of horses that roam along North Carolina's Outer Banks. The Sacramento Bee has more...
Thursday, May 30, 2013
Illinois House ok's so-called puppy lemon law
Pet owners who unknowingly purchase a sick dog or cat would have new
consumer protection measures on their side under a new bill that was
approved by the Illinois House Monday.Read more in this Huffington Post article...
Thursday, May 23, 2013
A view from the front lines...
Apologies for the gap in blogging... been busy with putting together the Animal History Museum fundraiser and then we were invited to exhibit at WorldFest in LA...
Anywho, great article on hopefully how the tide is turning in the ag-gag saga from LA Weekly today.
Thanks much to blog reader Bruce for the heads-up!
Thanks much to blog reader Bruce for the heads-up!
Wednesday, April 24, 2013
Adam Karp does it again!
Read more in today's Seattle Times...
And here are some excerpts from a transcript that should hopefully go down in history as an animal law classic:
(Background: On Jan. 29, 2013, the Wrights accepted an Offer of Judgment for $51,000. Defendants continued to haggle over certain points and filed a brief.)
On
Apr. 1, 2013, United States District Court Judge for the Western District of
Washington James Robart asked for oral argument. He began by asking defense
counsel to respond to four issues: (1) that the Wrights failed to comply with a
condition precedent (i.e., not dismissing the officers before judgment was
entered); (2) the lodestar multiplier for the exceptional result; (3) the
impact solicited donations have, if any, on the motion for fees; and (4) that
the officers were not subject to a criminal charge.
On
the first issue, the court said: "It seems to me that this is your
language. You wrote it, and it doesn't put any temporal dimension to it. And
now you are saying he is in violation of something that doesn't exist."
On
the second issue: "And I believe that a limited lodestar addition is
appropriate. And, therefore, I am ordering 1.3 times the $38,000 number, for
total fees and costs, inclusive of everything, of $50,162.78."
On
the third issue: "I don't believe that the solicitation of public
donations makes any difference in this. Counsel's argument under the Corder
case ignores the fact that what the court said was, 'non-settling defendant is
entitled to offset attorney's fees owed by the amount already paid by settling defendants.'
That is a double recovery rule, and that is not the situation we have here,
where people wish to contribute to a fund to finance litigation in support of
the principles that they believe in, namely, don't shoot dogs."
On
the fourth issue: "It is not uncommon in this court for a person who
brings a 1983 claim against the police to simultaneously file an investigation
charge and ask the police accountability board to investigate and then use that
as evidence in their 1983 action. That happens all the time. And so I don't
think I follow your argument on this. ... You challenged that as
unconstitutional and got slapped down immediately. But what other mechanism
does someone have when they believe that the police are not enforcing the law,
they are operating above the law? And now you say, well, when they did that,
that is completely outside the bounds of a claim against them."
On
the issue of Mr. Karp's fee: "I have considered the question of hourly
rates. And I was unimpressed with the claim that Mr. Karp ought to get paid the
same as someone who is working for the City. I would suggest that Ms. Ragonesi
is probably underpaid, most likely on a billing rate arrangement that is
between her law firm and her client."
And
defense counsel's argument in briefing that the Wrights failed in their
"unsupported, unnecessary, and unsuccessful private
criminal persecution against Officers Graddon and Wieland" drew this:
"Persecutions, you know, let's go back in history here. The treatment of
the Jews by the Pharoahs in Ancient Egypt, that was a persecution. What Nazi
Germany did in the Third Reich, that is a persecution. The expulsion of the
Acadian people out of Nova Scotia, that is considered a persecution. The
treatment of the Aborigines in early Australia, that is a persecution. Ethnic
cleansing is a persecution. When someone seeks to believe, rightly or wrongly,
that they are attempting to bring these people to justice, that is not a
persecution. If you read the word in the in the dictionary, it stands for a
systematic attack based on a belief. What belief did the police have? I read
your stuff carefully. The front page uses the words 'overreaching,'
'unjustified,' 'artificially inflated,' 'outrageous,' 'unsupported,'
'unnecessary,' 'unsuccessful,' and 'persecution.' Counsel, that is just
terrible writing. It shows a lack of civility. And I am surprised at you, and I
am disappointed. That is not how you conduct yourself around here. I mean, what
are you trying to accomplish with those words?"
In
conclusion, the court awarded $50,162.78 in fees and costs to be paid in
fifteen days of his ruling. Within two days, the Wrights were then to dismiss
the officers.
On
Apr. 15, 2013, the Washington Cities Insurance Authority paid $101,162.78.
Saturday, March 30, 2013
Monday, March 18, 2013
Art Night & Auction!
More information about the event is on our webpage. If you're too excited and feel the urge to skip straight to buying tickets (and by all means, don't resist the urge!), tickets are available on Eventbrite. Even if you're not going to be in California, please considering supporting the Animal History Museum. A gift in any amount is always welcome; and since AHM is a registered 501(c)(3), all donations, ticket sales and art purchases are tax deductible to the fullest extent of the law.
Tuesday, March 12, 2013
Thursday, February 21, 2013
Proposed Conn bill would allow some animals representatives in court
Some Connecticut lawmakers are proposing a measure to allow animal advocates to act on behalf of an animal in court. At the moment the legislation seems to be limited to Department of Ag vets, but it includes both civil and criminal proceedings, including animal cruelty cases, so at least that's a start.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
