Comments on: Unconstitutional in Louisville, Kentucky and Everywhere Else

By: Nelson Abdullah

Nelson Abdullah — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 15:10:26 +0000

I was advised of this court ruling last night and just finished reading the full 25 page decision. I am bewildered at how anyone can boast a victory for dog owners when the two most important rulings went in favor of the City of Louisville. I am referring to section 1. "Dangerous" and "Potentially Dangerous" Dogs, subsection B and C.

The case as filed by Plaintiffs apparently never mentioned any facts on the testing of all breeds by the American Temperament Test Society.

By: Laura J.

Laura J. — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 02:14:16 +0000

AR is most likely paying for any appeal…..of course under the table or providing an attorney. It would be difficult for them to let this one slip by but don’t think they have a leg to stand on and probably why “Metro” is considering an appeal. Remember AR filed two briefs for this case, they were denied. Be interesting if this comes to be what group of attorneys handle the case. Of course I am sure AR is already thinking of what they can come up with during 2010 for Louisville and if our government officials will buy into it.

By: stanford harvard

stanford harvard — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 00:19:48 +0000

Just the tip of the iceberg! I don't like dog or cockfighting, yet I do believe in a persons rights. We live in a nation that glorifies injury inevitable sports involving juvenile children in public venues, yet have felony laws prohibiting injury inevitable sports involving animals in a private venue. At some point the 14th amendments equal protection clause will be used to challenge the constitutionality of such conflicting laws. That's when you will see the HSUS sweating bullets for sure. Just a thought?

By: EdenSprings

EdenSprings — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 23:48:35 +0000

Curious with all the positive spin by Metro why they are now considering an appeal? Is it because they don't think the citizens of Jefferson County are entitled to their Constitutional Rights, or does it have to do with heavy pressure from a certain A/R group that's sweating bullets over this decision??

By: Phil Eason

Phil Eason — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 15:55:06 +0000

People really need to educate themselves about organizations like HSUS and PETA. They give nothing for the care of animals, and any that is taken are immediately killed. They have 0 facilities for animals, they just rob old unsuspected people of money, and spend it trying to pass stupid laws sush as these.

By: Judy Sumpter

Judy Sumpter — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 14:08:50 +0000

Maybe now the H$U$ will stop backing these stupid laws and go back into the woodwork where they belong!

By: Tracy

Tracy — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 12:27:23 +0000

HSUS is going to wear out its welcome with lawmakers. Let's hope it happens sooner than later (we need to inform our local lawmakers every time there is a successful 1983 judgement). They come in and say "write this law, we will help". Then they send in their assistance on "busts", a la Pat Patrick in Arizona. It may take time, but keep an eye on all of the past and present "Humane Law Enforcement" award winners. When these awards are consistently followed 2-5 years later with a 1983 judgement, HSUS should ultimately be recognized for the scourge that they are.

In fact, all of congress and President Bill Clinton himself are going to take a big hit when the SCOTUS upholds for the defendant in US v. Stevens. That is why HSUS has taken the fight so high…their credibility with lawmakers is totally on the line.

By: EdenSprings

EdenSprings — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 07:41:42 +0000

Also, under 1983, you get to sue not only the governing body (city/county/state), but also AS INDIVIDUALS anyone who participated in the seizure: the ACOs who took your pets, their supervisor. For good measure you can throw in any GROUP that participated in any way and–indivdually–any of their members who did. Maybe when things get really expensive & embarassing, people will come to their senses.

By: EdenSprings

EdenSprings — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 21:14:31 +0000

Re: Judge Simpson's decision only being valid in Western District. While that is technically true, the situations wherein due process is being denied are so egregious, you will see this decision widely used. Not even a nod to due process in the Indiana tax case or the Houston SPCA ordeal.

First use will likely be in N. KY on a federal cased filed in Feb. where cruelty was alleged, a Beagle pack seized & all euthanized when $11,000+ bond not met, then cruelty charges immediately dropped.

By: EdenSprings

EdenSprings — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 20:45:43 +0000

Couple other things to note:

1. The decision included two injunctions (no inspections of enclosures and no seizure bonds. Even if the decision is appealed, those injunctions still stand.
2. There is no statute of limitations under Section 1983 actions.