Comments on: Did The Indiana AG Office Violate Garwood Search Warrant Terms?

By: Laura

Laura — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 22:05:05 +0000

When the news broke on this Indiana raid, I phoned various offices in Indiana and no one could answer as to WHY those dogs were going to shelters and then to adoption. This is a case of authorities taking property and dispersing property…while the property was supposedly taken because of back taxes owed to the state. If that were the case, WHY would those dogs be given away instead of being sold? Would that not prevent the animals owners from being able to use the sale of those dogs to cover their tax bill? I asked in my questions…what if this was an auto sales business…would they have given away the confiscated autos? Or sold them to pay the tax bill? I think the answer is obvious. The question remains…WHY are animals taken and then given away when those animals are just as much property as an auto in an auto dealership! Wouldn’t this be called illegal behavior on the part of authorities?

By: rmemazz

rmemazz — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 16:18:03 +0000

SARAH,
In the instance of ‘jeopardy tax assessment’, where the taxes due are considered to be in jeopardy, the DA may confiscate the subject’s assets to be sold to PAY THE TAXES DUE~!

In the case above it is dubious what happened to the money from the sales of those animals.

Often the police ’strong-arm’ the subjects with ‘threats’ so that the subject will sign over/reliquish the animals to be taken by the AC to be disbursed how ever……If the people would tell the ‘raid’ officers that they want to call their lawyer at the instant of contact, they would be better off having their lawyer at their side during the service of the warrent & confiscation. Perhaps the raid could have been negotiated.

Everyone needs to keep their lawyer on speed dial~!

By: Tracy

Tracy — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 15:51:23 +0000

Have the accused been heard from? I’d imagine that they were talked into an owner surrender, under color of law. “You’re going to jail, so sign here so that we can take care of your animals”.

People need to be aware of their rights, and not sign over their property. It’s the only plausbile explanation for the seizure and immediate adoption of the animals.

By no means am I suggesting this is *right*, just that it may be what happened. Would love to know!

By: Sarah Deen

Sarah Deen — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 15:30:27 +0000

you still have not read the full jeopardy assessment. please it and you will see why the sale was permitted.

By: ESaunders AR-HR.com

ESaunders AR-HR.com — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 15:10:25 +0000

I do not support animal abuse OR tax evasion.
However, I do support due process for all. No one should be above the law or the orders of the courts, not even legal professionals

By: Nancy

Nancy — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 15:08:09 +0000

Maybe everyone should read a copy of the US Constitution before violating peoples’ rights…such as the right to be innocent until PROVEN guilty in a court of law. We have only the word of HSUS and the Indiana AG, both whose conduct in this are in question by many following the story, that there was abuse of any animals. Of course the state has the right to impound property in a case of alleged tax evasion, but I didn’t see anywhere that anyone has the right to dispose of evidence before anything is proven. If the warrant states that the property is to be seized and not even the property owner has the right to grant permission to sell it, why are the AG, HSUS, and shelters doing that very thing? If the intent in seizing property for tax evasion is to sell it towards the goal of collecting those taxes, will all those shelters being turning over any income from those animals to that purpose IF or WHEN they are proven guilty? If they are proven not guilty or aquitted due to wrongful tactics, will the income from those animals be returned to the owners? The handling of this entire situation has been highly questionable from the beginning.

By: Dixie Bitch

Dixie Bitch — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 15:05:59 +0000

Sarah, maybe you better research the law on warrants and due process before you defend the law breakers yourself. And maybe you should take off your animal rights rose colored glasses before you look at animals that were not abused. No way that “abused and neglected, inbred animals with medical problems” could have been adopted out in less than two weeks unless you have a miracle worker that can fix genetic faults overnight. The warrant was specific in what it said, the judge was specific. The dogs where sold for good money to get rid of evidence that should have been used at the trial unless there was NO EVIDENCE OF ABUSE AND NEGLECT. But, how will we ever know since that EVIDENCE HAS NOW BEEN DESTROYED. And by the way since when has the H$U$ EVER helped on a tax evasion case? Only when they want to pass a law to get rid of hobby breeders.

By: Sarah Deen

Sarah Deen — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 14:01:02 +0000

Maybe everyone should receive a copy of what the law states under jeopardy tax assessment before you stand up for people who abuse animals and try to evade the State of Indiana tax requirements.

By: kt

kt — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 04:31:32 +0000

I am just wonering if the attorney general were called to investigate HSUS on say, tax evasion on a tax exempt lobbying agency, would he?
When the Attorney General aligns himself with and animal rights activist organization, what says the other 90 percent of the population of the USA who are not animal rightist but animal welfarest? Animal rights – people believe that animals have the same rights as humans, event to sue in court, there is no difference in animals and people regarding differences in rights and are against animal ownership no matter the animal, it is all animals, especially those used for food.

Animal welfarest beleive that animals should be treated humanely and believe that animals do not have the same rights as humans.

I am concerned if this attorney general knows the difference between animal rights or animal welfare. He may as well help PETA as HSUS because both have the same agenda – no more animals used for entertainment, food, clothing, or pleasure – that means little Rover -too – no more dogs – Period!

By: LSC

LSC — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 17:02:01 +0000

Because they believe they are above the law. I would like to think the judge that signed the search warrant is aware of the dispersal of the property which goes directly against their orders.