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?
No comments:
Post a Comment