On April 27, 2010 the HSUS filed a ‘color of Law’ suit against Ohio Secretary of State, Jennifer Brunner, in conjunction with Michigan lawyer Beatrice M Friedlander.  The basis for the  alleging Ms. Friedlander’s rights are being violated because the Ohio state Constitution requires that signatures on ballot initiatives must be collected by Ohio residents.

Suddenly the HSUS is concerned with preservation of an individual’s Constitutional Rights? Did I miss a memo, or a press release?

What about the property rights of individuals who are having animals seized and dispersed by HSUS teams led by Scotlund Haisley, who has openly declared, “I want the scum to think we are law enforcement”. (Endorsed by HSUS CEO Wayne Pacelle, “I like his (Scotlund’s) cowboy ways”)

• What about the rights of Norman Pang in Hawaii? (currently suing the HSUS for action “under color of law” citing violations of Mr Pang’s rights under the First, Fourth, Fifth & Fourteenth amendments)
• What about the rights of Dan Christiansen in South Dakota? (172 dogs seized by the HSUS “in conjunction with Second Chance Rescue and the Turner County Sheriff’s Department” on September 2, 2009 and ordered returned by the judge on May 4, 2010 because the dog’s were deemed taken illegally)
• What about the rights of Virginia Garwood in Indiana? (241 dogs seized with HSUS assistance on the premise of tax issues with a warrant ordering ‘seize such property, or any part thereof, found during such search and hold said property pending further order of this Court”  Yet the dogs were sold to the HSUS within 24 hours and subsequently dispersed.  This case is still before the courts)
• What about the rights of Louisville, Kentucky residents who were subjected to seizure of animals and loss of them if they couldn’t post the mandated seizure ‘bond’? (Struck down as illegal) The Louisville ordinances were used as a springboard for similar legislation that has been passed or is pending across the US.  This has lead to significant speculation that the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) was heavily involved in the drafting of this legislation; especially since the HSUS regularly announces its involvement in the drafting in legislation across the US and dedicates significant resources to legislation and legal action.

All of these examples are cases involving (alleged) violations of FEDERAL constitutional rights with significant HSUS involvement.

So … is the HSUS only concerned about constitutional rights at the state level?  Or do they only look to overturn constitutional law when their goals are affected? Are they going to change their actions to ensure that they respect the constitutional rights of individuals in their own actions? Are they going to assist the individuals above in defending their constitutional rights?

Anyone care to volunteer their thoughts on these questions and propose their own?

Then you need to know about the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA).

All of the aforementioned groups (and more) frequently suffer harassment, threats, trespass, property damage/loss and false allegations on a frequent basis.  The ability of the targeted to combat these actions is typically limited by one single factor, money.  Most of the affected groups put all their extra financial resources into their animals, it leaves little to throw into lawsuits that can drag on endlessly.  Its like the old joke, “How do you earn a small fortune with horses?  Start with a large one”

The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA) levels the playing field. It shifts the burden of the cost of the pursuit of a case from the individual to the federal government.  It also contains both a scalable penalty system and a means of ordering restitution to the affected parties when there is a course of conduct (pattern) of 2 or more acts violating the AETA which include bodily injury (serious or substantial) or economic damage.

The scalable penalty system is especially interesting as it allows a scope to deal with a range of events from the small scale to the large without the penalty necessarily exceeding the injury.

If you have been targeted in ways that appear to violate the AETA, please contact me.  I will be happy to put you in touch with people who are happy to provide more information and help guide you through the process.

The AETA, its not just for the protection of the ‘big guys’ but the ‘little guy’ too.

Arizona HB2375, Possessing Dangerous Wildlife Prohibited

The title sounds great doesn’t it?  Let’s take a look at the animals that are included in clause “a person shall not own, possess, keep, harbor, import or transport into this state, have custody or control of or propagate dangerous wildlife” As written in the bill “For the purposes of this section, “dangerous wildlife” means the following animals and all hybrids, whether bred in the wild or in captivity”:

• All species of the order carnivora.  Common names include: carnivores, skunks, raccoons, bears, foxes and weasels.: What the bill doesn’t point out is that the order carnivora also includes ALL DOGS AND CATS!
• All species of the following families of the order artiodactyla. including the family bovidae.  Common names include:  bison (buffalo), duiker, antelope, gazelles, goats and sheep: What the bill doesn’t point out is that bovidae also includes COWS as well as goats and sheep! (Although there is an exception for Water Buffalo, Bison, American Bison & Buffalo
• Don’t forget that the bill also includes practically every variety of non-mammalian pet

I don’t know what possibility is more frightening.   Do the bill sponsors not understand the consequences of the legislation they have put forth? Or do they understand and hope the citizens don’t understand until too late?

Arizona HB2375, Possessing Dangerous Wildlife Prohibited: sponsored by Chad Campbell (D), Cloves C. Campbell Jr (D), Kyrsten Sinema (D), Nancy Young Wright (D), Edward Ableser (D)

Maryland SB505 (Pet Stores – Sale of Dogs Less than 9 Months of Age Prohibited)

At least this one is clear in the title.  The purpose of the bill? “A RETAIL PET STORE IN THE STATE MAY NOT DISPLAY, SELL, DELIVER, OFFER FOR SALE OR ADOPTION, BARTER, AUCTION, GIVE AWAY, OR 14 OTHERWISE TRANSFER OR DISPOSE OF A DOG LESS THAN 9 MONTHS OF AGE.”

• Exemptions?

• Breeders who sell directly to the buyer
• Public or Private humane societes (not to be confused with the HSUS) and non-profit animal adoption organizations
• Adoption events operated by humane societes (not to be confused with the HSUS) and non-profit animal adoption organizations (i.e. rescues) out of or in connection with a retail pet store

• Optimum bonding in dogs occurs up to the 12 week mark as does the foundation of early training. The adolescent phase in dogs (typically 8-14 months) is the TOUGHEST for most owners to deal with.  Way to set families up for failure.
• The blatent double standard.  Its ok to ‘adopt’ dogs under 9 months so long as a humane society or rescue is ‘involved’.  So it is an improvement for the dogs to come from a source where even LESS is known about the dog’s health/background/history?  Again, way to set families up for failure
• The blatent attempt to make it impossible for people to raise dogs for a living and to force the ‘entry price’ up on dog ownership. anyone heard of the concept of supply and demand?  What about material costs?

• Future editing could be ESPECIALLY problematic.  ‘Tweaking’ of legislation does not undergo anywhere near the same level of public notification as the initial passing of a bill.  It wouldn’t take much adjustment of the exemptions and/or age of sale to make selling OR adopting a dog essentially illegal.

Again, I don’t know what possibility is more frightening.   Do the bill sponsors not understand the consequences of the legislation they have put forth? Or do they understand and hope the citizens don’t understand until too late?

Maryland SB505, Pet Stores – Sale of Dogs Less than 9 Months of Age Prohibited:  sponsored by Lisa Gladden (D), George W. Della Jr. (D), Richard S. Madaleno Jr. (D), Catherine Pugh (D)

To those who think that these issues could never happen?  I have two words: WAKE UP!

• The 2006 AETA: What is it?  How and where does it apply
• Why is the AETA important to all levels of Animal Enterprise?
• Opposition to the AETA and court challenge results

The 2006 Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA) replaced the Animal Enterprise Protection Act of 1992 and contains a number of key points.

Key point 1: “Inclusion of economic damage to animal enterprises and threats of death and serious bodily harm to associated persons”

Under this bill, the term economic damage is defined as :

• the replacement costs of lost or damaged property or records
• the costs of repeating an interrupted or invalidated experiment
• the loss of profits, or increased costs, including losses and increased costs resulting from:
  • threats
  • acts or vandalism
  • property damage
  • trespass
  • harassment
  • intimidation taken against a person or entity on account of that person’s or entity’s connection to, relationship with, or transactions with the animal enterprise

However, economic damage does not include any lawful economic disruption (including a lawful boycott) that results from lawful public, governmental, or business reaction to the disclosure of information about an animal enterprise.  (Author note: ‘disclosure of information’ would include demonstrably true information only.  You’d think that this would go without saying but … )  This clause strongly protects 1^st amendment rights of free speech which are similarly protected by the “Rules of Construction” also contained in the AETA.

Key Point 2:  Definition of animal enterprise within the AETA includes the following:

• commercial or academic enterprises that use or sell animals or animal products for profit, food or fiber production, agriculture, education, research, or testing;
• any zoo, aquarium, animal shelter, pet store, breeder, furrier, circus, or rodeo, or other lawful competitive animal event
• any fair or similar event intended to advance agricultural arts and sciences;

Bear with me and consider the previous two points in light of the definition of the offense of force, violence and threats involving animal enterprises.

“Whoever travels in interstate or foreign commerce, or uses or causes to be used the mail or any facility of interstate or foreign commerce:

1. for the purpose of damaging or interfering with the operations of an animal enterprise; and
2. in connection with such purpose
   1. intentionally damages or causes the loss of any real or personal property (including animals or records) used by an animal enterprise, or any real or personal property of a person or entity having a connection to, relationship with, or transactions with an animal enterprise;
   2. intentionally places a person in reasonable fear of the death of, or serious bodily injury to that person, a member of the immediate family (as defined in section 115) of that person, or a spouse or intimate partner of that person by a course of conduct involving threats, acts of vandalism, property damage, criminal trespass, harassment, or intimidation; or
   3. conspires or attempts to do so;

shall be punished as provided for in subsection (b).

I know, blah, blah, legal-ease, blah.  Here’s the meat of the AETA.  If you fall into any of the included animal enterprise categories of the AETA, and you are being subjected to behaviour that falls outside the realms of free speech then you also have the recourse of protection under this act as well.  Hobby dog and cat breeders, I’m looking at you too.

Next article, I’m going to look at the ideas of application of the AETA.  Stay tuned.

Evidently the rights of families working in the pet industry are not considered worthy of the same respect.   Consider the following amended sections of the proposed bill

Sec. 1.

(a)      A retail pet store shall, before accepting an offer to purchase a dog or cat or upon request, provide the person making the offer or request with the following information in writing:

…(3) A list, and accompanying proof, of all inoculations that have been given to the dog or cat by any person, the date of the inoculations, and the name and title of the individual who  administered the inoculations.

(4) A list of all medical treatment provided to the dog or cat by any person, the date of treatment, the reason for the  treatment, and the name and title of the individual who provided the treatment.

(5) The name and business address of the breeder and of the facility where the dog or cat was born.

(6) The name and business address of the animal broker or transporter, if applicable.

(7) If the breeder or broker holds a license issued by the United States Department of Agriculture, the breeder’s or broker’s federal license number.

(b)    A retail pet store shall conspicuously post on the cage of a dog or cat being offered for sale, the following information:

…(3) The name of the breeder and of the facility where the dog or cat was born.

(4) The name of the animal broker or transporter, if applicable.

(5) If the breeder or broker holds a license issued by the United States Department of Agriculture, the breeder’s or broker’s federal license number.

As a former Police Captain, especially one with background in sex crimes and domestic violence, surely Rep. Lawson is  familiar with such things as stalking, harassment and privacy.  Likewise, in times that have necessitates the creation of the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA), it boggles the mind to mandate the posting of names and business addresses when these same addresses are typically the family home address as well.

Consider the level of hostility & violence that can be exhibited by animal rights extremists:

• Anonymous threats on Indiana’s WRTV against an Indiana dog breeder accused of being a ‘puppy mill’:  “Seize the property and sell it, place all the those poor dogs in foster care and then call me….I’ll shoot those worthless white trash slu-s all over the bodies until the cry for mercy then pop pop..one shot in the temple.” (original link here)
• Firebombing of vehicles at the homes of the families of scientific researchers (original link here)
• The “Militant Direct Action Awards”  of the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) lauding Animal Rights Extremist actions around the world, up to and including bombings and arson (original link here)
• The tragic event yesterday (January 28) of the young man in Portland Oregan who doused himself in gasoline, lit himself on fire and attempted to enter a fur store only to die from his burns and treated with a nudge and a wink by the Portland Anti-Fur Campaign (News report here)

Consider that John Goodwin, the HSUS Manager of Animal Fighting Issues is a self professed former member of the ALF, brought into the HSUS by Wayne Pacelle knowing his history. (John Goodwin now and then)

Consider that Rep. Lawson is an open supporter of the HSUS and an active volunteer (original links here & here)

Consider that Rep Lawson previously swore to serve and protect the people of Indiana in her role as an officer of the law.

Consider that both Rep. Lawson and Rep. Barnes have sworn to serve the people of Indiana.

Consider that they both have signed on to a bill that says to those in the pet industry:

• We don’t value your businesses or the jobs they create.
• We don’t care about your safety, the safety of your workplace or the safety of your families.
• But in the ‘spirit of negotiation’ we’ll let you keep your $25

Copyright 2010 by Erica Saunders http://AR-HR.com

All rights reserved

The first phase of the campaign reportedly resulted in thousands of letters with this request being sent to the IRS Fraud Division, over 1100 by registered mail.  In the current phase, the request for additional letters requesting IRS investigation continues.  This is supplemented by the request to pose similar requests to government representatives.

But WHY would there be a need for such a campaign, you ask?

Because, as referenced in the AR-HR article, “Did the Humane Society (HSUS) Fail to Account for Political/Lobbying Activity of Personnel on IRS Tax Filings?” & according to the IRS website, “Whether an organization’s attempts to influence legislation, i.e., lobbying, constitute a substantial part of its overall activities is determined on the basis of all the pertinent facts and circumstances in each case. The IRS considers a variety of factors, including the time devoted (by both compensated and volunteer workers) and the expenditures devoted by the organization to the activity, when determining whether the lobbying activity is substantial.”

Because as laid out in numerous AR-HR articles and by SAOVA in their summary on this issue, it appears that these rules are being violated.

Because HSUS tax returns from 2005, 2006 & 2007 do not even acknowledge the political activity by HSUS personnel and volunteers despite significant documentation to the contrary, 2008 is the first year to acknowledge such activity yet the numbers do not make a great deal of sense considering the expanded scope of HSUS political activity.

Because HSUS efforts to influence the political processes continue behind the scenes as recently as last week when the following email was sent out be Anne Sterling, the HSUS State (Lobbyist) Director for Indiana.

From: Anne K. Sterling

Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 3:58 PM

To: Anne K. Sterling

Subject: Calls needed – HB 1258: Pet Stores & Animal Fighting

Hello! Our primary animal bill this legislative session, HB 1258, is getting a hearing tomorrow, Wednesday, January 20^th at 3:30 in the House Courts & Criminal Code Committee, Room 156C.

The bill would address pet stores & animal fighting. (Full document available at the link)

If the HSUS wants to maintain its tax-exempt status, then they need to stop playing politics.  If the HSUS wants to play politics, then they need to give up their tax-exempt status.

You have to pay your taxes, why shouldn’t the HSUS have to pay theirs?

Copyright 2010 by Erica Saunders http://AR-HR.com

All rights reserved

“Makes promoting an animal fighting contest a predicate offense under the racketeering statute. Makes attending an animal fighting contest a Class D felony.”

Let me declare this loud, clear and for the record, “I DESPISE DOG-FIGHTING.”   I personally believe that it is wrong, cruel, unethical and immoral.  My opinion, full stop.

However,  I also have a sense of perspective because here are a few of the felonies that also fall into the Class D felony classification, complete with Indiana Code reference :

• Possession of child pornography (IC 35-42-4-4)
• Sexual misconduct with a child 14-16 by an adult, or more formally Vicarious sexual gratification; sexual conduct in presence of a minor (IC 35-42-4-5)
• Soliciting an child under 14 to engage in sexual activity (IC 35-42-4-6)
• Sexual Battery (IC 35-42-4-8

Are Reps. Lawson and Barnes trying to tell us that possession of child pornography is ‘only’ as criminal as attending as dog fight?  Or that soliciting a child under 14 to engage in sexual activity is ‘only’ as criminal as attending a dog fight?  Or that sexual battery, where a person with intent their own sexual desires  touches another person being compelled to submit to the touching by force or the imminent threat of force, is only as criminal as attending a dog fight?

Because if they are trying to argue that attending a dog fight is as criminal as possession of child pornography, this is ALSO what they are saying.

What about including promotion of an animal fighting contest as a predicate offense under the racketeering statute?  Never mind the recent US Supreme Court case regarding the1999  statute making it a crime to create, sell, or possess “any visual or auditory depiction” of “animal cruelty” which was described as ‘mauled’  by the Justices of the Supreme Court in this vivid report by SLATE’s Dahlia Lithwick.  (entertaining and well worth the read)  Never mind that there are RICO related cases currently before the US Supreme Court, regarding the excessive scope of such legislation.  Let’s look at some of the offences included as predicate offenses under the racketeering statute:

“Racketeering activity” means to commit, to attempt to commit, to conspire to commit a violation of, or aiding and abetting in a violation of  any of the following”:

1. Murder (IC 35-42-1-1)
2. Kidnapping (IC 35-42-3-2)
3. Human and sexual trafficking crimes (IC 35-42-3.5)
4. Child exploitation (IC 35-42-4-4)
5. Carjacking (IC 35-42-5-2)
6. Official misconduct (IC 35-44-1-2)
7. Conflict of interest (IC 35-44-1-3)
8. Perjury (IC 35-44-2-1)
9. Obstruction of justice (IC 35-44-3-4
10. Intimidation (IC 35-45-2-1)
11. Promoting prostitution (IC 35-45-4-4)
12. Dealing in or manufacturing cocaine or a narcotic drug (IC 35-48-4-1).

Conspiring to commit murder, kidnapping or engage in human trafficking are ‘ONLY’ as criminal as  promoting an animal fighting contest?

Rep. Lawson & Rep Barnes, perhaps those whose lives have been scarred by molestation, by being the subjects of child pornography, by sexual battery or been exploited by human traffickers might gravely beg to differ with your priorities.

Copyright 2009 by Erica Saunders
All rights reserved

I read your November 30 article on the Courier Journal regarding the suit filed by Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller against Virginia & Kristin Garwood.  

 I have been following and writing about this case since it was brought to my attention in June that Mr. Zoeller was ignoring citizen concerns regarding this case.  Since that time a significant number of ethically (and potentially legally) suspect actions by  the office of the Attorney General and House Rep. Linda Lawson have come to light related to this case.

1. Why did the Attorney General’s office apparently violate the terms of the warrant used to seize the dogs from the Garwoods’ property?
   1. The warrant used specifically mandated the seizing and holding of the dogs, yet the dogs were sold outright to the Human Society of the United States within 24 hours (This has been questioned as a violation of due process, in open court, by Judge Tad Whitis)  
2. Why is Mr. Zoeller launching this current suit, considering that his office turned around and sold the same dogs to another party in such a rapid fashion?
3. Why did the AG’s office sell the dogs to the HSUS for only $300 when according to the Nov. 30 press release “June seizure of the animals was to satisfy $132,440 in unpaid sales tax and income tax”
4. Why is the AG’s office claiming “The dogs had to be quarantined and treated by veterinarians and later were sent to animal shelters around the state and made available for adoption.”  when they had sold the dogs by June 3 as per the signed sale agreement and when there has never been instruction from the court to release the dogs.

Considering the September 2009 federal court ruling in KY against Louisville Metro Government regarding due process violations and animals as property, I am surprised to see this move by the AG’s office.   It even more surprising considering that aspects of the Garwood case appear to place members of the AG’s office and House Rep. Linda Lawson in similarly actionable positions as Louisville Metro Government was in.  Do you know if a federal 1983 tort has been filed against the AG’s office and/or House Rep. Linda Lawson?  I would be shocked if one was not in process.

If such a federal tort existed, named parties would be responsible for their own court costs under the terms of this section of law.  If Mr. Zoeller were named within such a suit, it would certainly give this recent action the appearance of spite.

Please refer to http://ar-hr.com/?s=indiana&submit=submit should you wish to verify any history referred to in this email, all supporting documentation is accessible for review.

Respectfully,

Erica Saunders

http://AR-HR.com Founder

The Louisville ordinances were used as a springboard for similar legislation that has been passed or is pending across the US.  This has lead to significant speculation that the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) was heavily involved in the drafting of this legislation; especially since the HSUS regularly announces its involvement in the drafting in legislation across the US and dedicates significant resources to legislation and legal action

Therefore, perhaps the legal experts at the HSUS and legislators everywhere should take note that the following sections of the Louisville ordinances have been struck down as unconstitutional with immediate injunction against enforcement under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection and Due Process clauses:

• Enclosures for unaltered dogs require approval of the Director of Animal Services in writing:  “There being no apparent reason why the owners of unaltered dogs should be treated differently than the owners of their neutered counterparts, the written approval requirement lacks a rational basis and is unconstitutional”
• Confiscation of Victimized Animal (Section 91.101):  Significant analysis is dedicated to this portion of the decision (pgs 16 -20) and should be considered important reading for any animal owner.  The critical portions of the decision on this section include:
  • “As (LKC) argue, pet owners clearly have a property interest in their animals. See Besws v. Bracken County Fiscal Court, 210 S.W.3d177,180 (Ky.2006) (recognizing that dogs are personal property)  This interest is not absolute and is subject to regulation by state and municipal governments. Id.  Nonetheless, the government is not permitted to deprive an animal owner of his property without due process of law.”
  • “the portion of 91.101 that would permanently deprive a pet owner of his property, absent a finding of guilt, is unconstitutional”

Three sections were found to be problematic by the court through express authorization of seizure of animals without requirement for a warrant:

• Section 91.073(D) dealing with potential violation of tethering laws.
• Section 91.094(A) dealing with suspected animal cruelty
• Section 91.101(A) which states “Any animal found involved in a violation of any portion of this section may be confiscated by any Animal Control Officer or any peace officer and held in a humane manner”

In court, Metro was noted it “vehemently disclaims the idea that it authorizes warrantless searches”.  Metro further acknowledged the Fourth Amendment as acting as an independent check on Animal Control Officers. (although there are a number of animal owners in Louisville who might equally ‘vehemently’ disagree with that position)   The subsequent analysis by the court is entertaining, at minimum, noting as follows below:

• “This is, of course, a wise position to take; to the extent that an ordinance authorizes searches or seizures of a sort not sanctioned by the Constitution, it must be unconstitutional.  That is merely to state a truism, but as the Court has in essence been asked only to affirm that the Fourth Amendment applies to searches contemplated by the above-quoted sections, there is little else to say.”

The foresight of including this information in the decision is admirable, as it puts the observation in the record that these sections indeed violate the Constitution if applied as written should Metro Animal Control Officers decide to do so in the future, as they have been alleged to have done so in the past.

The direct ramifications of this case are immense, much more so that most realize.  This is one of the first of the Section 1983 federal suits launched in response to trampling of animal owners’ constitutional rights.  The Hawaii lawsuit by Norman Pang is another.  There are many more on the horizon and rightfully so.  The State of Indiana might want to take note.

Copyright 2009 by Erica Saunders

All rights reserved

*Restated for clarity and technical legal accuracy

There are a number of serious problems with this situation:

• These dogs were seized using a warrant that included an order to seize and hold the dogs pending further instruction from the court.  The warrant was executed on June 2, 2009 and the dogs were sold on June 3.  The dispersal of the dogs is currently being questioned by Judge H. Lloyd (Tad) Whitis, therefore there was no instruction from the court permitting the release of the dogs. (Search Warrant Pages 1, 2 and 3)
• The premise of the warrant was for jeopardy tax assessment, with the dogs being seize as collateral for a tax debt claimed by the Indiana Attorney General’s office as being in excess of $132,000.  
• In the press release by the Indiana AG’s office on June 3, 2009, the seized dogs were stated to be “rescued animals now are being cared for by the Humane Society of the United States“, when in fact they had already been sold to the HSUS under the claim that the Indiana Attorney General’s office had ”full power to sell the property” & ”the Property’s title is free and clear from liens and encumbrances”.(clause 2)  I would have thought that the seize and hold order on the warrant executed approximately 24 hours earlier would be counted as an ‘encumberance’

I am not certain what I find to be more disturbing:

• The ignoring of Due Process by the Indiana Attorney General’s office as noted by Judge H. Lloyd (Tad) Whitis
• The fact that the HSUS is buying dogs for re-distribution to shelters and rescues and resale, at least in this instance.  I now question how many of the other dogs that they have ‘rescued’ have actually been purchased.  Considering the HSUS claims that the dogs were sick and neglected, wouldn’t this make the HSUS guilty of buying sick dogs for redistribution similar to the those targeted in their ‘puppy mill’ campaigns?  Wouldn’t the Indiana AG’soffice similarly be guilty selling sick dogs?  Or were the dogs simply neither sick nor neglected, and the Garwoods maligned?
• The sale of the only collateral property possessed by the Indiana Attorney General’s office for $300  on a claimed outstanding debt of over $132,000

The combination of all these factors in a single case is incredible.

Copyright 2009 by Erica Saunders
All rights reserved