• The badge and identification provided to Ronnie Graves by the Humane Society of the United States, reportedly ordered by Scotlund Haisley & identified by a law enforcement official as ‘too similar to that of law enforcement’
• The statement by Scotlund Haisley to Ronnie Graves, “I want the scum to think we’re law enforcement,” when confronted with the potential illegality of the identification
• The response of Wayne Pacelle, “I like the Cowboy Ways that Scotlund brings to the team,” when the Scotlund Haisley’s comment was reported to him by Ronnie Graves, in person.

These items appear to tie together three potential issues: Impersonation of a Police Officer, action “under color of law” , and issues related to Section 1983 of the US Constitutional Torts Code (cited below).    These three elements appear to all be tied together by the Carroll Cox show interview, as well as additional recent court cases. 

Would you know this badge meant nothing if HSUS showed up at your door?

Impersonation of a Police Officer

Since Police Impersonation laws seem to be relatively similar across the US, I am referring to Criminal Jury Instructions as published by the Judicial Branch of the State of Connecticut:

• Element 1 – Impersonation: The first element is that the defendant <insert as appropriate:>
  • by (his/her) words or conduct, pretended to be a sworn member of an organized local police department or the division of state police within the department of public safety.
  • wore or displayed without authority a uniform, badge or shield by which a police officer is lawfully distinguished.
• Element 2 – Intent: The second element is that by such action, (he/she) intended to induce another to submit to such pretended official authority or otherwise to act in reliance upon such pretended authority. A person acts “intentionally” with respect to a result when (his/her) conscious objective is to cause such result. <See Intent: Specific, Instruction 2.3-1.>

Scotlund Haisley's Facebook photo, kicking in doors.

I am not a lawyer, and do not pretend to be, but to my layman’s eyes the elements cited in the CT Criminal Jury Instructions appear disturbingly close to being fulfilled.  Especially when considering that the badge authenticity as a law enforcement badge is irrelevant to this sort of issue:

• Commentary:  The fact that the uniform, badge or shield was not authentic is irrelevant. “The goal of the statute is to prohibit criminal impersonation. Among other things, the statute prohibits an individual from using a badge with the intent of inducing another to submit to authority that he or she does not possess. Because the state proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant used a badge that appeared to lawfully distinguish him and that he used the badge in the manner proscribed by the statute, we are unable to see how the issue of the badge’s lineage or authenticity bears on the goals that the legislature sought to achieve.” State v. Guadalupe, 66 Conn. App. 819, 828 (2001), cert. denied, 259 Conn. 902 (2002).

Note the common elements between the HSUS badge and true law enforcement badges; especially the use of eagle at the top, the placement of lettering, the use of gold tone metal, the logo in the center and the use of the US flag.

Action “under color of law”

There are two scenarios where private persons (or organizations) are considered to be acting “under color of law”:

1. a private person who conspires with a state actor is a state actor for the purpose of the alleged conspiracy.
2. a private person who acts as an agent of the state acts under color of law.

 Humane Society of the United States announces its working collaboratively with government agencies on a regular basis, does this not fulfil the definition of “under color of law”?  A few of numerous examples below:

• “Yesterday, our team worked with the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture and its Bureau of Dog Law Enforcement” (Source: Wayne Pacelle, “A Humane Nation”)
• “The HSUS’s Emergency Services team had four deployments—puppy mill raids in North Carolina, Tennessee, Mississippi and South Dakota—where we partnered with local organizations and law enforcement to rescue dogs in distress, the victims of greed and neglect.” (Source: Wayne Pacelle, “A Humane Nation”)
• “…we rescued more than 500 dogs and about 15 cats in cooperation with the Kaufman County Sheriff’s Office…” (Source: Wayne Pacelle, “A Humane Nation”)

Section 1983 of the US Constitutional Torts Code

Here is where the potential implications for the Humane Society of the United States as an organization, its volunteers personally and any government agency or official become disturbing.  According to Section 1983 of the US Constitutional Torts Code:  “Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any state or territory, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.”

I know, its a lot of legal-ese.  The layman’s thumbnail sketch:  An individual (and/or organization) in an entwined relationship with government that is involved with depriving any citizen of any of their Constitutional rights “under color of law” is subject to being sued by the injured party in their individual capacity.   

So, let’s say you are a volunteer helping a private organization seize animals (property) in association with a government agency.  (entwined relationship) Under Section 1983, if there are Constitutional violations associated with the actions of the private organization, not only might the organization be in an actionable position but also the individuals associated.  That includes volunteers. 

Why should you care?

The recently filed lawsuit in Hawaii is a Section 1983 lawsuit citing violations of Mr Pang’s rights under the First, Fourth, Fifth & Fourteenth amendments. It appears that volunteers are among the included parties, even if not yet individually identified.   (Page 8 also references the use of ‘law enforcement looking badges’)

The portions of the Louisville Metro Government Animal Control law struck down in Kentucky as in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment were brought to court through a Section 1983 suit, leaving Louisville Metro Government  and associated officials potentially subject to damages and court.  Louisville Metro Animal Services Director Giles Meloche has recently resigned, officially leaving as of December 31.  The Kentucky court specifically cited that permanent deprivation of an animal owner of his property absent a finding of guilt is unconstitutional.  Another federal lawsuit on similar grounds is reportedly being filed against Louisville Metro Government on friday October30.

The information conveyed by Ronnie Graves appears to indicate an intent to deceive people as to the true level of authority of members of the HSUS Emergency Rescue Team and an acceptance of that attitude up to the highest levels of the HSUS leadership.  As per statements by Ronnie Graves, these issues were raised in January 2008, yet the use of the possibly illegal badges and identification continue to be used  as demonstrated in HSUS photos and videos on a regular basis.  (example below from a recent HSUS video)

Afterthoughts…

There have been numerous raids of animals across the US in which animals have been seized and dispersed or even euthanized prior to court decision.  This includes the Garwood case in Indiana, another case in North Kentucky just working its way through the courts, innumerable raids involving pitbulls and many more.  The number of potential cases could be staggering.

It raises questions.  Why are government agents allowing the use of this style of identification, badge and uniform by HSUS personnel under their watch?  Do they understand that they are potentially placing their agencies and themselves in an actionable position?  Do volunteers understand that they could end up personally liable for unconstitutional actions if they occur “under color of law”?

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

 Reality

Reality is fundamentally what divides us,  actual reality as opposed to virtual reality.  There are myriad moral and ethical arguments presented to justify much of the proposed and upcoming legislation.  Yet, all these positions are based on the idea that there are black and white solutions to the complex issues associated with animal ownership and management at every level.  The problem is actual reality is messy, full of an entire spectrum beyond shades of grey. We should all know better but what traps us is our wish that life’s choices were simpler, the virtual reality of a easier world.

Proposing limits on animal ownership numbers is ‘easy’ but doesn’t take the spectrum of reality into account. ome people can’t manage a single animal while others manage a large number of animals easily.  Limits don’t take into the phenomenon of co-ownership into account, where an individual retains partial title on an animal that goes to another home which provides a safety net.  Limits don’t take into account the difference in managing a large number of small dogs vs a large number of very large dogs.

Proposing mandatory spay/neuter laws is  ‘easy’ but doesn’t take the effect of altering an entire hormonal system into account.  They don’t take into account the direct or indirect effects on animal health:

• Direct effects of spay/neuter on an individual animal: increased display of fear aggression and inter-sex aggression, increased risks of costly skeletal disorders, increased risks of lethal cancers
• Indirect effects of spay/neuter: loss of genetic diversity, loss of healthy animals from the breeding populations through too early selection as potential breeding prospects  

Proposing cage-free raising of chickens is ‘easy’ but doesn’t take into account that cages also protect birds from each other.  It doesn’t take into account the natural startle response of chickens is to flock together and that they can easily hurt and even crush each in the case of large flocks.  It doesn’t take into account that chickens fight, and even severely hurt each other.  It makes it especially difficult to protect birds from disease.

And so on…

Actual reality, its the world we live in.  Its a world where complex problems don’t have simple answers.   If there were simple answers then we wouldn’t have the problems in the first place.  Its a world full of people; good and evil, honest and deceptive, strong and weak in various combinations at every level. 

That’s the reality, the actual reality, and ‘simple’ solutions just don’t cut it.   But ‘simple’ solutions are awfully good for trying to sell you a virtual reality, which in reality, is nothing of value at all.

Copyright 2009 by Erica Saunders
All rights reserved

Since I started becoming involved in the issues surrounding pet ownership rights, the greatest resource in this area has been people.   I’ve been introduced to a wealth of experience and perspective by people who have spent their lives caring for animals.  I’ve been privileged to gain the trust of individuals frightened by the idea of losing the animals they hold dear.

I’ve met a wide range of clever, witty & dedicated people.  I’d like to introduce one of them to you now:  Shirley Thistlethwaite, writer of the YesBiscuit! blog where she advocates for pitbulls and other animals in shelters in the Southern US.    She is a supporter of the No-Kill shelter movement and can write a range from hilarious to heart-rending.

Shirley, what motivated you to become actively concerned about animal owner rights?

I started out many years ago, probably like a lot of people, believing the direct mailers I received from animal rights groups and wanting to support and help. Because you know, I love animals. But this was in The Before Time and once I got connected online with other pet owners, I learned about so many direct actions and legislative proposals by AR groups that were anti-pet to my mind. I realized that if I wanted to continue to own pets and provide the humane care that I so strongly believed was my right, I’d better get involved in learning and educating.

You are active in supporting Pit Bulls and the No-Kill Shelter movement,  how do you see proposed animal-rights sponsored legislation affecting you and these subjects directly?

Mandatory Spay-Neuter (MSN) legislation is probably the biggest threat to both. Pitbulls are sometimes singled out for MSN as part of breed biased legislation. General MSN legislation for all cats and dogs is proven to increase shelter populations wherever it’s been enacted.  Since most shelters are kill shelters, an increase in shelter population means an increase in killing. And that’s heading in the absolute wrong direction.

 What recent animal-rights event or activity has affected you most?

The killing of the Wilkes County Pitbulls by HSUS. When the dogs were initially seized, HSUS used the opportunity to brag on their website about the great thing they did by shutting down a major dogfighting breeding operation. And of course visitors to the site see a photo of a sweet Pitbull and are asked to clicky to donate money to help HSUS shut down more dogfighters. The truth is that HSUS went to great lengths, including sending 2 reps to *lie to a judge in a court of law* to ensure that every last one of these dogs was killed – even the puppies still nursing from their dams. After convincing the judge to order the deaths of all the dogs, HSUS paid for the killings and sent away all those who had been caring for the dogs in substandard conditions during the seizure – even requiring foster owners to bring in pups they had cared for at home so they could be killed. Afterward, HSUS defended their actions as justifiable saying that even the puppies were born killers. Lots of cruelty cases haunt me but this one has earned a special spot in my book. I won’t forget.

 What is your biggest source of hope since becoming active in protecting animal owner rights?

The Internet. Mass communication has the potential to expose the behind-the-scenes deception animal rights extremists have relied upon in the past to further their agenda. We now have the means to spread the truth among pet owners like never before. Knowledge is power.

 If you could ask the media to do one thing when reporting animal related stories or animal related legislation, what would that be?

Quit going to extremist groups like PETA or lobbying groups like HSUS for comment on pet related stories. Neither PETA nor HSUS operates an animal shelter – a simple, undisputed fact that is regularly missed by the media. When seeking comments on a pet news item, try going to pet owners/breeders, no kill shelter staff/volunteers or someone else with a proven history of caring for pets humanely.

Copyright 2009 by Erica Saunders   http://AR-HR.com
All rights reserved

Wayne, Wayne, Wayne … May I call you Wayne?  After the past couple of months of reading your blog, I’m starting to feel like I know you.  After listening to your speech to the NAFB (National Association of Farm Broadcasting), its obvious that you are reading my writing as well  therefore you must feel like you are beginning to know me too. I wish your interpretation of my writing and direction had been a little closer in message to my own, but since you are comfortable annexing some of the key language of my blog ,calling you Mr. Pacelle seems a touch too formal.

As an individual who is intensely concerned with decent care for animals, and in a growing way a voice for a similarly concerned group, I have to disagree with your opinion that the HSUS proposed pet bills should have been met with universal approval.  The growing & increasingly organized opposition to the HSUS crafted animal care related bills openly demonstrates that they are not universally supported.  It is mis-leading to try and lump all the opposers as ‘puppy mills’ without recognizing that in the collective eyes of the HSUS (a) all dog breeders are lumped in to ‘puppy mill’ category and (b) all who disagree with HSUS positions are portrayed as not caring about decent animal care. 

I understand your passion for the ’cause’, but your truth is not the only truth. Your vision, is not the only vision. Blanketing a nation, at the state and federal levels, in the HSUS vision of ‘what is right’ is enough to give many a conscientious animal owner pause.  Many of the bills presented combine a distubing combination of vague language but defined numbers.  Despite their being spun as ‘puppy mill’ bills or as ‘Baby’s Bill’ or other warm and fuzzy names, the legal language contained within includes an overwhelming majority of dog breeders in their scope.  The ‘intent’ of a law doesn’t matter, only its language and scope of application.  Given the proclamations of animal law expertise by HSUS executive, your legal teams are well aware of this principle, making it hard to believe the broad targeting is anything but intentional.

Therefore it is no more astonishing for responsible breeders and the AKC to stand in opposition to HSUS proposed pet breeding bills infringing on their constitutional rights and freedoms of choice than it would be for you to stand in opposition to laws mandating that all citizens must eat meat, which would be in violation of your own rights.  Humane treatment of both human and animal demands a great deal of freedom to adapt on an individual basis, a trait that HSUS proposed bills are consistently lacking. 

As you ended your missive, I similarly end my own.  I believe that the American public needs to know who is proposing these despicable ‘puppy mill’ bills and how these battles are playing out. 

Copyright 2009 by Erica Saunders   http://AR-HR.com
All rights reserved

When I started writing about animal activism and its impact on legislation, I made it a point of principle to set high standards for the sources of information that I used as reference.  Everything I use needs to be a direct account and/or verifiable with a reputable source.  Reputable source meant mainstream media, legal documents, first person authorship & direct quotes.  2nd hand, 3rd hand, anonymous online posting and unverifiable blog postings are material I simply will not use for a number of reasons.

In this effort, here is what I have found.  Whether I agree with CCF’s positions on an item by item basis, the accuracy of the research can rarely (if ever) be faulted.  I know this because when I have investigated similar issues,  gone back to the source documents and even done my own statistical analysis, the numbers have all worked out.   Disliking an individual and disliking an organization does not make their information incorrect.  As a life-long animal owner, I would love to be able to believe the HSUS, but I keep catching them in half-truths, deceptions and even bald-faced lies.

• HSUS claimed to have assessed the Vick dogs and declared them unsalvageable. Wayne Pacelle said so to the NY Times. The court documents declare that the ASPCA and BAD RAP were the assessors
• According to court transcript, HSUS claimed in court that the weeks-old Wildside Kennel pups were born killers, that the liability would be too high  and that they should be euthanized.  Coming dangerously close to perjury in their statements of associated costs.
• In the Nebraska Mustang seizure over the past few days, Habitat for Horses and LifeSavers have custody of the horses and are overseeing their care whle local ranchers are donating hay.  HSUS claims involvement but local reports indicate that HSUS arrived after the animals were already gathered and relocated.  This issue is too new to have much solid information, but previous history makes me cautious to believe the HSUS side, especially when the press release includes a photo of a thin horse with the caption “Ribs should never show on a horse”,  a blanket statement as ignorant as saying “Ribs should never show on a human”. 

I could find many more examples, but I try not to be too tedious. 

The problem that the HSUS has with David Martosko and the CCF is not that he’s spreading inaccurate information about the HSUS, but that he is spreading accurate information. Love CCF or hate it, is that sufficient reason to ignore accurate information?  It may be for some, but it isn’t for me.

 Copyright 2009 by Erica Saunders   http://AR-HR.com
All rights reserved

 For those who are wondering, I am not employed by or a paying member of  :

• CCF
• pharmaceutical or cosmetics industry
• fur or clothing industry
• any pet breeding business (hobby or otherwise)
• any animal research facility
• agribusiness/food/restaurant or beverage industry
• hunting or gun club

Which unfortunately makes me a more difficult target than the CCF