Re: Hideyo's court case 19th??

[Lernermichelle]

Hideyo,    Glad to hear you are not pleading guilty.       If they gave you the permits in prior years, I think you need to talk to your boyfriend about making the following two arguments as well, in addition to challenging the rational basis for the ordinance itself:   1) equitable estoppel-- this is a legal principle that basically means that once a party says something and causes a person to rely on the statement, they then can't turn around and try to say the opposite in court.  If the town gave you the permit last year, they essentially said it was ok for you to have that number of animals, and they caused you to rely on that fact.  They can not then turn around and say the opposite the next year, after you have relied on it and spent so much money (this is what is often important to them!) remaking the facility to accommodate them.  If you spent any money on stuff for the cats or the house related to the cats since they gave you that permit, I would dig up receipts or any proof of that, or take pictures of it.  You should then argue, I think, that you relied in terms of that much money, not to mention emotional investment, on their saying it was ok for you to have that many cats, and the principle of equitable estoppel prohibits them from turning around now and saying the opposite.  You should talk to your boyfriend about this and ask him to do some research on this principle in similar issues, like zoning permits and stuff. He will know what it is-- it is a very basic common law principle.   2) You should argue, I think, that the action of denying the permit for the same number of animals they approved last year, without any relevant change of circumstances, is "arbitrary and capricious."  I do not know much about municipal law, but when a state agency takes actions that are arbitrary and capricious they can usually be struck down as such, under the state administrative procedures act or common law.  I would bet there is some principle like this related to town government as well.  Your boyfriend might want to do some research on the actions of town governments being arbitrary and capricious.  Basically, you would be arguing that in addition to the ordinance itself lacking rational basis and thereby being unconstitutional (I believe under substantive due process clause of federal and state constitutions), the actions of the government actors themselves were unconstitutional by being arbitrary and capricious.   I hope this makes sense.  I could actually get in a lot of trouble giving legal advice for a state I am not admitted to practice in, and I really am no expert on NM law.  So take all of this as suggestions for further research and thinking on your boyfriend's part rather than legal advice per se.  But this is what comes to mind for me.  I think you should have your boyfriend call ALDF to talk the three arguments through with them too (unconstitutionality of ordinance, unconstitutionality of government actions for being arbitrary and capricious, and equitable estoppel based on 2004 permits) to figure out if they make sense and how best to frame them.   Hope this helps. Michelle   In a message dated 12/9/2005 6:22:58 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Oh.. did I say I was going to plead guilty?  If so, I am sorry, I meant, “not guilty The irony is that the city gave me a permit in April 2004 for the same number of the animals I requested – the officer who was in charge of giving the permit apparently ignored the very stupid part of the ordinance (see below) and gave me and lots of other rescue people permit and now he is gone, they are enforcing the very stupid part of the ordinance shown below   The very stupid part of the ordinance is as follows:    (L)     The number of adult dogs or cats, or any combination thereof, which a hobby breeder or hobby facility permit or multiple animal permit holder may keep is limited by the following factors:           (1)     In a residential zone, the area of the permitted hobby breeder or hobby facility site or multiple animal site shall be limited to 10% of the total area of the premises.           (2)     Within the kennel area of a hobby breeder or hobby facility site or multiple animal site, 75 square feet of area shall be provided for each animal weighing under 30 pounds, 100 square feet for each animal weighing between 30 and 49 pounds and 125 square feet for each animal weighing 50 pounds or more. So basically, I have 4,000 sq ft in my property, based on the calculation, I can only have up to 5 animals.. but I don’t put my cats in cages, having to only allow 10% as a living space for animals just does not make sense.  Only it assumes that 30Lb dog has a very same space need as let’s say 8 lb cat according to this law, which does not make sense.. based on the weight I could have up to 150Lb worth of animals according to the above (30lb X 5 animals) – so if I have 8 lb cats, I should almost be able to have 20 cats which is equivalent of the same weights as having five of 30lb dogs..