Re: Hideyo's court case 19th??

[Presto]

I think it would be a good idea to set up a contingency plan, in case the court decision goes against Hideyo.   She may not be given the time to file an appeal.  She may not have the money to file an appeal.  The cats may be taken away from her within a matter of days after a negative decision.   Perhaps we can help her place her cats, if the need arises.  How many does she have?  What are their medical problems, shyness quotients, and ages?  Is she willing to get them to an airport and air-freight them to us?  Will we help her with the airfare?  I've air-freighted cats in the past, and have no hesitation about doing so, nor any hesitation in paying the fee.  Others may not feel the same.  Do you have room in your homes to take in one or more of her cats?  Is she liable to take in more cats after a negative decision and clearance of her household?  In short, might she end up back in the same position?   Is she in an apartment, or a house, and if she's in a house, does she own the house?  What is the legal limitation on the number of cats she is allowed to possess within the zoning for where she lives?  Are her cats allowed to roam outside, or not?  What were the circumstances of the inspection (I assume there was one) that led to this situation?  Was the primary concern about cleanliness (time to hire a cleaner) or about sheer numbers?    Zoning ordinances can be very difficult to beat.  When Everett and I bought our house three years ago, we made sure in advance that the town had no limitation on the number of cats allowed per household.  It's zoned for farming.  Can Hideyo afford to move?   We may need to kick in and offer homes to some of her cats.   She will be a far more effective speaker at her trial if she has a back-up plan and isn't scared to death by the possibility that her cats may be taken away from her and killed.  She shouldn't mention the back-up plan, of course.   I'll chip in on air-freight fare if anyone else is willing to take in one or more of her cats.  Let's put our money where our mouths are.  I really would prefer not to take in any more cats myself, because we have thirty-six at present (in a very well-managed, clean house--no problems).  There's only so much I can do, physically.  But I can give financial assistance in transporting the cats, provided that Hideyo doesn't get herself into this situation again.  And saying "No" to a needy cat is extremely hard;  I know that full well.   Suggestions?   Presto     ----- Original Message ----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: felvtalk@felineleukemia.org Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2005 5:55 PM Subject: Re: Hideyo's court case 19th?? The problem is that the city probably does not really care whether these cats live or die, and certain city actors are probably of the opinion that cats with long-term illnesses, like FeLV should not be allowed to live anyway and only nuisance-causing crazy cat ladies keep them alive.  Shocking and awful as that is, that may be what Hideyo is battling.  I think it is very helpful that the head of an animal agency is apparently going to bat for Hideyo and stating this very thing in a letter, but it probably is not the clincher in reality. The clincher, in reality, is probably the condition of the house and the cats, whether neighbors are complaining or supportive, and whether the right people in the community (ie people who work with and are respected by city government) are supporting her.  The other thing that could be the clincher is whether there is any rational basis for the city to make a nuisance determination based on numbers alone.  The PA court case Hideyo mentioned could be persuasive (though a NM court has no obligation to follow it).  Because animals are, appallingly, our property in legal terms, the city can not just take away animals or impose criminal sanctions because it feels like it-- it has to have, in the least, a rational basis for making these determinations. Hideyo might be able to prove they don't. But this is where it would be helpful to have an ALDF attorney who has either done these cases or has access to ALDF's database of court pleadings and decisions and can pull up similar cases from other parts of the country. Michelle   In a message dated 12/8/2005 5:48:38 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: i would think it would help to bring out more forcefully what has been mentioned in passing: that hideyo, you are taking in animals that no one else wants, that you are caring for creatures that may be ill or undesirable (to others) but deserve to live, and that you are NOT the people who are letting their cats roam to spread disease, cause damage and repopulate the earth.... (i can't figure out why it's the conscientious people, who try to make good on the problems created by others, who get penalized....)