Farmers rights at risk. Will you stand?

Once again, it is time to step up and take action.

Case of seized horses threatens rights [link]
Jackson Citizen Patriot | Sep. 20, 2008

SPRINGPORT — Jackson County Animal Control overstepped its bounds when it seized 69 horses at a Grass Lake farm more than a year ago. A judge agreed, but the county appealed.

We should show support for the farmers whose property was wrongfully taken and sold. Why? Because the dangerous precedent this case will set if the county prevails puts us all at risk.

To seize the farm, officials claimed the horses had no food or water, but submitted photos into evidence showing this was untrue. Experts testified most of the valuable herd was near ideal body condition.

Adequate food and shelter — per Michigan Department of Agriculture recommendations — was provided. The Right to Farm Act should have protected the owners from overzealous officers and an ignorant judge who wrongly allowed the county to auction the horses away for pennies per pound.

Testimony also indicates Jackson County failed to provide adequate care. A wounded filly, Ice, did not receive proper veterinary attention. Elvis, a young paint, was euthanized.

Judges this spring dismissed torture charges, found the forfeiture improper and ordered the owner reimbursed for the animals and lost income. Prosecutors waste taxpayer money by appealing those rulings.

Worse, radical groups like People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals are watching. A new ruling could adversely affect farmers by setting unfriendly case law and giving authorities overreaching power to seize property with little or no evidence.

With national attention focused on this appeal, state agriculture organizations must act to support the rights of Michigan farmers.

If you value your personal property rights, urge Michigan Farm Bureau to file an amicus brief in support of James Henderson and Matthew Mercier, owner and manager of Turn 3 Ranch. For more on this case, visit Turn3Justice.com.

— Shantell Coats

Keep it going.

I'm counting on fellow supporters to run with this. Contact your local Farm Bureau office with a copy of this letter, and any supporting information from this blog.

(Permission granted. Copy and disseminate freely.)

Join the Farm Bureau and make sure they know you are joining because of this case (always best to put it in writing) and that you expect their support of these Michigan farmers to ensure it doesn't happen to you or your neighbor next time.

Another reason you should care.

If it can happen to Turn 3 Ranch, it can happen to you.

Here is a news article about another alleged neglect case:
Couple face animal cruelty charges

Read the comments ... there are pages of them!

Then visit this site: www.painterdefensefund.com

I'm waiting for more details on this case, but it sounds more and more like another improper seizure from what information I have been receiving.

Why should anyone care?

A CitPat reader questions the concern over national lobbying interests' involvement in the Turn 3 case:

Association's role defended on horse case [link]

RIVES JUNCTION — Why are some people upset that the American Humane Association filed a brief in the county horses case? I looked up the definition of an amicus brief in a law book and it says, "to call the court's attention to some matter which might otherwise escape its attention. To aid the court in gaining information to make a proper decision ..."

AHA was just protecting the integrity of a statute involving animals. [Really? Have you read the brief?] It is the only more conservative national organization that works hard to protect both children and animals.

The outcome of this case will affect other animal cruelty/neglect cases and so that is rightly its concern. Don't we allow freedom of speech in Jackson County?

One of the suspects was fined by the court for using a sexual slur against one of our female animal-control officers as reported by this paper. What kind of people defend suspects who would do something like that? [If we're commenting on "alleged" remarks, what kind of people would make references to one's sexual orientation as if it were material to the charges? Pretty sure that's illegal.]

— Mary Ganson

We care, Mary, because of the rights of agricultural families that have been stripped by ignorant but powerful and well-funded animal rights organizations, whose supporters may be several generations removed from the farming life.

Apparently you weren't in court when one of the female animal control officers asserted she would not hesitate to use deadly force against the defendant(s) ... I believe this was just before the case was thrown out due to lack of evidence that the personal protection order (wrongfully obtained, by the way) had been violated.

These officers lied under oath and it was proven. They, for lack of a better word, STOLE over $500,000 worth of horses from the defendants and the horses were in worse condition after the farm was seized—also proven. How can you defend these actions?