This is a placeholder text
Group text
by Louise M. Penery on 05 February 2008 - 10:02
Please, for the sake of this and other breeds, protect your personal property, your constutional right against invasion of privacy, and your Fifth Amendment rights.
On the surface, Prop. 93 may seem like a good measure--in that it limits the the number of terms that politicians may be elected to the California State Assembly and Senate.
Please, heed this message (from the CApetlaw forum with permission to cross post):
Californians can vote anti-pet legislators OUT -- PLEASE CROSS POST
"As luck would have it, California will have an opportunity on Tuesday February 5 to help rid the state legislature of some of the worst proponents of anti-dog and anti-cat legislation. It is not just constituents in their legislative districts who can vote these extremists out. Every registered California voter has the opportunity to vote them out.
Now is a critical time for those who oppose the radical Animal Rights agenda to make it clear to politicians that we are a powerful constituency, and that legislators who pander to the extremist AR agenda will lose their jobs. We can send letters and faxes to make our case, but what matters most is how we vote.
A NO vote on Proposition 93 is a vote to make sure Lloyd Levine terms out at the end of 2008. Levine is the sponsor of the infamous AB 1634 mandatory spay/neuter bill.
A NO vote on Proposition 93 is a vote to make sure Fabian Núñez terms outt the end of 2008. Núñez is the Speaker of the Assembly. Had Núñez nottwisted arms before the "do over" vote in the Assembly, AB 1634 would have died for good last Spring.
A NO vote on Proposition 93 is a vote to make sure Loni Hancock terms out at the end of 2008. Hancock sponsored a failed bill to ban the several thousand year old tradition of field coursing with hounds.
A poll a few days ago showed Proposition 93 in a statistical tie. Californians are waking up to the fact that Proposition 93 is bad. Polls a few months ago had shown overwhelming support for it. But the more Californians learn about Prop 93, the less support it has.
If every Californian dedicated to preserving our rights as dog and cat owners votes NO on Proposition 93 on February 5, and spreads the word to others to do the same, that could be the decisive factor.
There are plenty of other good reasons to vote NO on Proposition 93:
- it is dishonestly worded to make it sound like it toughens California's term limits, when in reality it weakens them
- the leadership that is promoting Proposition 93 promised it would bepaired with reform of California's corrupt and broken redistricting process, but they broke that promise
- it has a sweetheart clause that allows even longer terms for Núñez and many others
- newspapers on the left and the right oppose Proposition 93
by angusmom on 05 February 2008 - 19:02
already voted no this morning
. what part of calif is allowing animal enforcement to come in, remove and sterilize one's dog?
by angusmom on 05 February 2008 - 20:02
thanks!
by Louise M. Penery on 05 February 2008 - 20:02
This forum is also worth joining: http://pets.groups.yahoo.com/group/pet-law/ 
I have been in private contact with people from both of these lists. This is how I learned more about my rights and the law when I let the assholes seize and quarantine my 12-year-old, spayed bitch last month. 
You folks who are content that nothing will happen to your dogs, WAKE UP. 
by Jyl on 05 February 2008 - 21:02
I already voted NO on 93 too. What part of California is alowing enforcement to come into the home and sterilize ones pets? I wasnt able to get yahoo to sign in, so I couldnt read the post.
by harddawg on 05 February 2008 - 21:02
"In another part of the state, effective July 2, 2009, animal enforcement is mandated to come into your home, remove your dog, and forcibly sterilize it as retribution for non-licensing of an unaltered pet."
That's just ludicrous.
by Louise M. Penery on 05 February 2008 - 22:02
harddawg: That's just ludicrous.
Ludicrous? Yes, I agree--unless, you're a fanatical, AR mole. This is California.
The makers of our Constitution undertook to secure conditions favorable to the pursuit of happiness. They recognized the significance of man's spiritual nature, of his feelings and of his intellect. They knew that only a part of the pain, pleasure and satisfactions of life are to be found in material things. They sought to protect Americans in their beliefs, their thoughts, their emotions and their sensations. They conferred, as against the government, the right to be let alone - the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men. To protect that right, every unjustifiable intrusion by the government upon the privacy of the individual, whatever the means employed, must be deemed a violation of the Fourth Amendment. And the use, as evidence in a criminal proceeding, of facts ascertained by such intrusion must be deemed a violation of the Fifth.
--Justice Louis Brandeis OLMSTEAD v. U.S., 277 U.S. 438 (1928)
Scenario: your bitchy neigbor files a complaint with Animal Control about barking (which may not even be your dog) and you suddenly receive an unexpected telephone call or a visit from an officer. "Oh, BTW, is your dog licensed?" BINGO!!
If your intact dogs are already "in the system" due to past complaints (even if not sustained), they will make easy targets. Keep them locked indoors when you are away from home.
My advice: do not let an officer (from either A/C or the police) see any of your dogs or enter any part of your property (house, yard, garage, kennels). Answer no questions--do not identify the names or your dogs--do not attempt to argue--until you are represented by an attorney.
Like any citizen, your rights are protected by the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the US Constitution. These officials do not have court-ordered search warrants. If they threaten you with "misdemeanor" charges, these must be sustained by a judge in a court of law.
by olskoolgsds on 06 February 2008 - 04:02
Louise,
Thank you so much for your ambitious response to prop. 93. I do not live in California, however I understand that if it passes in California it will have it's ugly foot in the door for other states.
My biggest fear for our breed and other breeds are the Animal rights activists. They masquerade as people that have a great love for animals and only want to help. They are misled in their thinking, have humanized animals, are decietfull, dishonest, and use sensationalism to reach the masses. They come across as the saviors of animals, but infact are ambitous, controlling people that will not be happy until they can control what you, me and every tax paying citizen are allowed to do with their animals. They will tear away at this freedom that our Constitution affords us, but will do it in such a slimmey underhanded way that it will go unrecognized if people don't wake up.
They are sick puppies. They have reached many unsuspecting folks, even on this board. Many people I know give money to them because they have no discernment as to what they are actually about.
I could go on all night in my distain for their lying, manipulative ways. So I will just say again that I hope every one in California and throughout this FREE country will recognize what is happening. Gee, isn't it nice that we have the American Kennel Club to help us? Not.
Good luck
Contact information Disclaimer Privacy Statement Copyright Information Terms of Service Cookie policy ↑ Back to top