Animal Laws and Rights - Page 11

https://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_welfare/downloads/breeders/dogs/8-Housing-Part-1-3-2016_Slides.pdf. As you can see, the minimum according to the law doesn't provide enough, and some rescues do not meet this standard. 

    If a municipality had to foot the bill before they prosecuted a commercial operation, 98% of the US would be immune to animal seizure prosecutions. I am sure prosecutors weighed the possibility of losing Randy's case before they decided to proceed with the prosecution. If Randy were able to post the bond and he won his case, it would hurt. That is not a rich county, the dog warden and humane society have a combined budget of $80,000. Someone would get their ass chewed or lose their job for pushing a case like this if it were not warranted.

Yes, there are Shelters that do not fulfil the standards of animal housing described in those videos provided by Markobytes. I know that to be the case over here, have seen some with my own eyes, so do not doubt that many US rescues fall short.
But while the descriptions of 'ideal' dog kennels, and the debate on crating methods, are of importance and great interest, let's not lose sight of what Randy told us in his OP:
His dogs were indoors, in ROOMS of his house, the smallest of which was 12 ft x 12 ft. The couple who had contracted to 'kennel sit' for him while he was away admitted to not cleaning up as they should have done. Even so, if his description is accurate, the standard of cleanliness wasn't exactly awful, a couple of piles of fresh-ish poop is NOT the same as a floor 2 inches deep in old walked-in shit.
He denies that there is any truth in the 'hungry dogs eating a dead dog' element of the reports. He denies he saw any search warrant.
Now, I don't know whether he is telling us 'the truth, the whole truth, & nothing but the truth', in his description; but it seems to me from the order of events that it IS clear the legal system is not operating in a particularly fair manner in this and similar cases. What has been said ^^^ still applies: setting aside the question of co-ownership, should these dogs have been removed ? Were they really in imminent danger ? Should someone being charged with cruelty have an early opportunity to contest their innocence and keep their dogs until a criminal hearing 'proves' them unfit to keep animals ? Should a lack of kennel space in Rescue be an excuse for re- homing dogs immediately, before that due process has had the chance to take place ? (If there is so little space available, and the dogs are not in danger but rather somewhat neglected, should they be removed at all, prior to any 'guilty' verdict ?)
Still too many unanswered questions.

And i have read via many Facebook posts people who know him, and have recently been to his place and seen his dogs and have had their dogs their for various reasons that he took great care of his dogs and theirs as well.
Look at the palm beach case different licensed vets look at same dog (s) and see different things.
This I's a great miscarriage of justice.
Our country our rights are founded in due process guarantees
If everyone sits back and says nothing who will help you when/ if someone complains on you.
And many of these dog wardens really are not even fit to be pooper scoopers.
They will always take the side of those signing his paycheck, ALWAYS
I hope that he sues the crap out of every last one
I would love to see the intake reports on every dog and puppy dated the day they seized them
And no state can make their own law s that do not comply with the US Constitution
It is there to protect its citizens from government interference into our lives,
Do you think it was written without insight as to the corrupt nature of our government?
That is who it is protection from!

Hexe,

I know you posted the reference to the USCA Executive Board's vote to suspend Randy without comment, but apparently,it sailed right by folks. The EB used their brand spanking new provision adopted just last November that circumvents the Board of Inquiry, affords NO due process and allows the EB to suspend a member, without any hearing, or affording an opportunity for the target. Obviously, Randy cannot be bothered at this point about his USCA membership, when he may be looking at incarceration. I will simply note that I was, and am, unalterably opposed to this provision, and note that similar action by USRC several years ago nearly led to the organization's destruction, because the target in that instance had not only the fight and fortitude that precluding rolling over, she also had the financial resources to do battle. In fact, she had greater financial resources than the organization, as well as a better legal team. It is just USCA' s good luck that Randy lacks the wherewithal to fight.