• 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”?

 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

On this day, of all days of the year, Americans take time to celebrate these principles enshrined in the Declaration of Independence.  Living in a society that is founded on the concept that such human rights are ‘unalienable’ is a precious thing that many places in the world cannot claim.  Yet, these rights are not absolute or unbalanced by other considerations.  A person’s right to Life does not come at the expense of another’s Life.  A person’s Liberty extends to the point that it impinges on the Liberty of another person.  A person’s right to the pursuit of Happiness is not a guarantee of Happiness nor is it the right to pursue Happiness at the expense of another’s Happiness.  This freedom, this vision of Independence, is no easy thing to manage at the personal or the societal level.  It precludes the use of the quick fix or the easy answer.   Independence and these unalienable rights are messy and at their most precious when one’s actions are ‘unpopular’. 

In honor of Independance Day and of the Declaration of Independance, I would like to remind everyone of some rights that are not wrong, though they are popular targets.

• It is the right of the individual to breed dogs as much as it is the right of the individual who wishes to participate in rescue to do so. 
• It is the right of an individual to sell animals as much as it is the right of a rescue or shelter to sell animals.
• It is the right of the farmer to run their business based on a non-organic business model or on an organic one. 
• It is the right of the individual to choose to include meat in their diet, or not.
• It is the right of the individual to choose how they care for animals they own, so long as the care does not violate legal standards of care. 
• It is the right of the hunter to hunt animals within the bounds of the law, while it is the right of the non-hunter to not participate in hunting.
• It is the right of an individual to choose to obtain their pet from the source they select
• It is right of one individual to say they don’t agree with the actions of another.

 By protecting the liberties of others, even those we don’t agree with, we protect our own liberty.  By protecting the ability of others to pursue happiness, we protect our own ability to pursue happiness.By protecting the rights of others to choose, we protect our own right to choice.  Choose what makes you human(e).

Happy July 4th to you all.

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

In communities across the US, increasing restrictions are being laid on pet shops.  In some communities, they are being made illegal to operate.  This is happening on the grounds that they are selling pets of indeterminate quality, often from commercial or even illegal kennels with no health testing or quality control of parent stock, raised in less than ideal conditions, with undocumented veterinary history and no records of socialization.

In these same communities across the US, there are rescue organizations opening their own storefronts.  These storefronts are selling surrendered pets, animals seized by animal control raids and/or dogs rescued (purchased) from auctions.  This means that the pets the rescue organizations are selling through their own storefronts are similarly pets of indeterminate quality, often from commercial or even illegal kennels with no health testing or quality control of parent stock, raised in less than ideal conditions, with undocumented veterinary history and no records of socialization.

Both groups are exchanging pets for money.  One group calls it sale, the other calls it adoption.  The first group is being forced out of business, often through legislation supported by the second group.  Does anyone else find this odd?