RE: Hideyo's court case 19th??

[Hideyo Yamamoto]

Thank you so much,, it’s all very helpful.. I will definitely follow your advise.  I feel lots of pressure – my BF is a lawyer, and he offered to write all the arguments for me (and I actually am the one who is presenting my case)… but the time is approaching and he is just so busy.. but I feel badly about bugging him..   I was also reading some stuff on the website from other cases.. that when it’s assumed that the ordinance does not make sense, it’s a burden of the challenger (which is me) to prove that it’s not -----and though it totally does not make how they calculate how many animals one can have.. how do I prove it it does not make sense scientifically???   From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, December 09, 2005 8:39 AM To: felvtalk@felineleukemia.org Subject: Re: Hideyo's court case 19th??   ok.  The intent definitely helps, for two reasons: one, you are not violating the intent and are in fact furthering it, and two, it helps to show that their formula for deciding the number of animals has no rational basis and does not have any relation to the intent of the statute.   But you are not arguing that the "enforcement" is problematic (well, you are actually, in that they gave a permit one year and then not the next)-- you are actually arguing that the provision in the ordinance with the calculation formula is problematic, unconstitutional really. The provision with the formula is not the enforcement, it is another part of the law itself. Enforcement is what the town does with the law, i.e. the animal office giving you a permit one year and denying it the next.   I definitely think that you should raise with the city attorney beforehand that the law is being changed anyway, so it does not make sense for them to fight about its constitutionality and rational basis right now when it will be different soon anyway.   I personally think that you should try to meet with the city attorney before the hearing and 1) provide him with letters from the people who are writing them and are going to testify, and 2) provide him with copies of all the relevant cases you get from ALDF, and 3) make the argument about equitable estoppel, arbitrary and capricious behavior, and 4) talk about the city changing the law anyway (if you can get someone from the mayor's office to call the city attorney about this beforehand that would be great).  There is a danger to laying it all out beforehand, which is that if the attorney does want to fight you on this he will have more time to think, research, and respond to all the arguments you are making.  But if he is at all reasonable I think that seeing the evidence, hearing the arguments, and realizing how much work it will end up taking him to prosecute this and then the law might change soon anyway will make him just want to drop it.   Again, take this as a suggestion for further thinking and research, not legal advice per se.   Michelle   In a message dated 12/9/2005 6:22:49 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: And I am going to argue that I am not violating any of the intents of the law – I am questioning their way of “enforcing” the law based on how they currently calculate the number of animals one can have.   I am also working on the city counselor who is re-writing the ordinance – the new ordinance will not include the portion of the stupid law I mentioned in earlier message – the bill has not bee presented or passed yet.. but right now, I am stuck with the current ordinance.