RE: Hideyo's court case 19th
Michelle, Greg helped me put all the outline together with an exhibit book and I think I had a really good package to present. I practiced until 5 am this morning It was intimidating.. whenever he objects something I say.. and I did not know what to say but I think I made the points they dismissed other concerns about diseased or sick cats are not separated form healthy ones or concern that I maybe a hoarder.. I think the photos helped well.. at the end, the hearing officer also said.. you have a really cool set up for your catsyou have a strong case,, I couldnt invalidate the ordinance myself,, but you can at District court.. I guess I have to do more research about other case law to make my argument even stronger.. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, December 18, 2005 9:11 PM To: felvtalk@felineleukemia.org Subject: Re: Hideyo's court case 19th Make sure you have a written outline (I know you do already) and then just relax and stay very calm, no matter how outrageous they get. One of the more difficult-to-do secrets of legal advocacy. I will be thinking of you! Please let us know what happens. Good luck, Michelle
RE: Hideyo's court case 19th
Title: Message ...and it's soo, soowonderful having Michelle on this list to help you! -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Monday, December 19, 2005 4:13 PMTo: felvtalk@felineleukemia.orgSubject: Re: Hideyo's court case 19th Hideyo, do not underestimate what a big deal it is for a hearing officer to say that. In a message dated 12/19/2005 4:29:54 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: at the end, the hearing officer also said.. you have a really cool set up for your catsyou have a strong case,, I couldnt invalidate the ordinance myself,, but you can at District court.. =00IRS CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE. Any advice expressed above as to tax matters was neither written nor intended by the sender or Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw LLP to be used and cannot be used by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding tax penalties that may be imposed under U.S. tax law. If any person uses or refers to any such tax advice in promoting, marketing or recommending a partnership or other entity, investment plan or arrangement to any taxpayer, then (i) the advice was written to support the promotion or marketing (by a person other than Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw LLP) of that transaction or matter, and (ii) such taxpayer should seek advice based on the taxpayers particular circumstances from an independent tax advisorThis email and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail.
RE: Hideyo's court case 19th
You think so? Ok.. I wont I am just grateful that I did not make a complete fool out of myself ---but I knew I had to fight for my cats since they rely on me to take care of them for the rest of their lives. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 19, 2005 3:13 PM To: felvtalk@felineleukemia.org Subject: Re: Hideyo's court case 19th Hideyo, do not underestimate what a big deal it is for a hearing officer to say that. In a message dated 12/19/2005 4:29:54 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: at the end, the hearing officer also said.. you have a really cool set up for your catsyou have a strong case,, I couldnt invalidate the ordinance myself,, but you can at District court..
Re: Hideyo's court case 19th
Dear Hideyo Just want to wish you all possible good luck tomorrow. I'll be thinking of you and sending zillions of positive vibes your way. love and hugs, Kerry
Re: Hideyo's court case 19th
Me too! GO HIDEYO!!! In a message dated 12/18/2005 6:02:36 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Dear Hideyo Just want to wish you all possible good luck tomorrow. I'll be thinking of you and sending zillions of positive vibes your way. love and hugs, Kerry Terrie MohrTAZZY'S ANIMAL TRANSPORTSSIAMESE COLLIE RESCUEOwner/DriverCheck sites for available Siameses for adoption!http://www.tazzys-siameses-collies.petfinder.org/Click Here to Join WASHINGTON SIAMESE RESCUE Yahoo Group!http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wasiameserescuehttp://hometown.aol.com/tatorbunz/index.htmlhttp://hometown.aol.com/tatorbunz/myhomepage/petmemorial.htmlPetfinder.comAdopt a Homeless Pet!http://www.petfinder.com/http://www.felineleukemia.org/http://www.petloss.com/TAZZY'S ANIMAL TRANSPORTShttps://www.paypal.com/http://www.frappr.com/wasiameserescue
Re: Hideyo's court case 19th
Me too Hideyo! I woke up thinking about you and haven't been able to get you off my mind. We're all with you, praying for strength and articulation for you and insight, compassion and reason for the court. You've done your homework, you're ready, speak for all of us tomorrow. Meditate and pray tonight, take a deep breath and do your best to get a good night's rest. We love you, Nina Kerry MacKenzie wrote: Dear Hideyo Just want to wish you all possible good luck tomorrow. I'll be thinking of you and sending zillions of positive vibes your way. love and hugs, Kerry
Re: Hideyo's court case 19th
Make sure you have a written outline (I know you do already) and then just relax and stay very calm, no matter how outrageous they get. One of the more difficult-to-do secrets of legal advocacy. I will be thinking of you! Please let us know what happens. Good luck, Michelle
Re: Hideyo's court case 19th
Well said, Nina. And just one more thing to remember tomorrow, Hideyo: you are the best advocate any little furball could hope to have--you are just THE BEST, period!! Know that eventhough we may not be there physically we're all there with you in spirit. till tomorrow, hugs, Kerry - Original Message - From: Nina To: felvtalk@felineleukemia.org Sent: Sunday, December 18, 2005 8:44 PM Subject: Re: Hideyo's court case 19th Me too Hideyo! I woke up thinking about you and haven't been able to get you off my mind. We're all with you, praying for strength and articulation for you and insight, compassion and reason for the court. You've done your homework, you're ready, speak for all of us tomorrow. Meditate and pray tonight, take a deep breath and do your best to get a good night's rest. We love you,NinaKerry MacKenzie wrote: Dear Hideyo Just want to wish you all possible good luck tomorrow. I'll be thinking of you and sending zillions of positive vibes your way. love and hugs, Kerry
Re: Hideyo's court case 19th
Hideyo, we're pulling for you! Wishing you all the best from Arkansas. Gloria At 07:47 PM 12/18/2005, you wrote: Dear Hideyo Just want to wish you all possible good luck tomorrow. I'll be thinking of you and sending zillions of positive vibes your way. love and hugs, Kerry
RE: Hideyo's court case 19th??
Thank you, I did! Thank you very much for writing for me I appreciate it very much, Kerry! From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kerry MacKenzie Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2005 3:50 PM To: felvtalk@felineleukemia.org Subject: Re: Hideyo's court case 19th?? Hideyo--I just sent my testimonial to you directly along with an email. Please read the email too. Let me know you receive/can open attachment ok. love and hugs, Kerry - Original Message - From: Hideyo Yamamoto To: felvtalk@felineleukemia.org Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2005 2:25 PM Subject: RE: Hideyo's court case 19th?? - to Michelle Michelle - If I ever forget to tell you, I wanted to you know how grateful I am of your insight on this. And I will tell all my furry children how much you are helping me and saving their lives!! Yes, everything you say totally makes sense. I wish I had something physical to proof that they had given me the permit --- I think I can reasonably reason it in such a way that someone reported me in 2004 having multiple cats and the officer came by to investigate --- and he did not put any record in my file that he gave me the permit after the investigation,, but also there was no other follow up in the file at all, which may make it reasonable to believe what I am saying --- though the officer who gave me the permit lied to Denise (director of ASD) that I only had 8 cats in April of 2004 and he only gave me the permit of 8 (I had 18 then, and I have 20 now) --- so, I am not sure how I am going to prove that he is also lying to cover his butt I gave all the paper work to him, but he did not keep anything in the file.. I dont know, Michelle if I mentioned to you about another lady who had 120 cats in her property in Alb, in 2004, they gave her a sanctuary status to her. She was very much in a similar situation as I was (lives in a residential zone) --- but she really did not want me to bring her case up as she wants to protect her cats which I respect totally in case the city finds out and may try to take her status away, too. When I mentioned this case briefly, she thought the sanctuary status was also given to incorrectly. But I did not want to give Denise this ladys information is there anything I can do from this information?? I will bring all the points up as you mentioned, and thats what Greg suggested, too --- so that if I appeal, I can make sure that I can use all the arguments I need Hope this helps. Again, I am far from an expert on this, so take my suggestions as merely that. Michelle In a message dated 12/13/2005 2:36:22 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: what do you think?
Re: Hideyo's court case 19th??
No, the citation is just the book and volume number. You probably have the actual court decision. Thanks for offering to fax it, but that's not necessary. I saved the summary that you sent me, and if I ever need access to the case I'll contact ALDF. The only fax machine I have has to be plugged in to the phone line, so we need a call first, etc., and I don't have a current need for it. Thanks, though, and keep up the amazing self-advocacy work you are doing! Michelle In a message dated 12/12/2005 6:38:33 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I think the law office downloaded the file for me and have a 8 pages long something here – do you know what this is? (the cover letter says that this it’s the citation of the case we downloaded for you) -
Re: Hideyo's court case 19th??
Look at the reasoning used in the decisions you have where ordinances were struck down, and see if you can use that. Also, if you can get one of your "expert" witnesses-- the vet or the animal services person who is writing you a letter-- to say in a letter or in testimony that different species and sized animals need different amounts of space and that, as far as they are concerned, the formula in the ordinance has no relation to the amount of space that any particular species of animal actually needs, and to give a different opinion of how to determine whether cats are too crowded or not, that should be more than enough. At that point the burden should switch back to the city to prove that there is some rational basis to the formula that they use. If you can, you might also want to contact animal control or the mayor's office in other cities in NM, like Santa Fe, and also nearby towns, like Corrales, to see if they have ordinances limited animal numbers and if so what the language is. If they do not have limits on the numbers, or if the limits they have are more flexible or make more sense than the Albuquerque one, you might want to submit those as well to bolster your claim that when cities try to figure out limits on animals for health and safety they do not use the bizarre formula that Albuquerque does. I am not sure if this will work or not. it sort of depends on what you find out. Just a thought. Michelle In a message dated 12/9/2005 8:40:04 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 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???
Re: Hideyo's court case 19th??
That is really strange-- that they say you need a permit but do not have any written record of giving them out? I would say that bolsters the claim of arbitrary and capricious behavior-- that they do not seem to have a uniform way of deciding or recording the permits, and seem to do it by whim of whoever gets the call. If the officer or the office changed his/its mind from one year to the next based only on an anonymous phone call regarding the number of animals, which they already knew and had approved, that is pretty arbitrary. Michelle In a message dated 12/9/2005 7:55:19 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The only problem is that.. the officer who gave me “the permit” did not give me anything physically – I asked for it, and he said that there was not anything he could give it to me physically.. but I know that there are people in the animal services he told that I have a permit.. so..we were and are planning to argue that point anyway.
RE: Hideyo's court case 19th??
What I found out from Denise who is director of animal services division is that they are currently investigating him for some misconduct he did not follow the procedure, could the city tell me sorry, we have to take the permit back?? From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2005 8:33 AM To: felvtalk@felineleukemia.org Subject: Re: Hideyo's court case 19th?? That is really strange-- that they say you need a permit but do not have any written record of giving them out? I would say that bolsters the claim of arbitrary and capricious behavior-- that they do not seem to have a uniform way of deciding or recording the permits, and seem to do it by whim of whoever gets the call. If the officer or the office changed his/its mind from one year to the next based only on an anonymous phone call regarding the number of animals, which they already knew and had approved, that is pretty arbitrary. Michelle In a message dated 12/9/2005 7:55:19 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The only problem is that.. the officer who gave me the permit did not give me anything physically I asked for it, and he said that there was not anything he could give it to me physically.. but I know that there are people in the animal services he told that I have a permit.. so..we were and are planning to argue that point anyway.
RE: Hideyo's court case 19th?? - to Michelle
Thank you, Michelle for you input. One of my vets is going to do a live testimony, so I think he can testify the below (space needs for different species) on my behalf. I will also look it up about the ordinance form other cities I know they all have a limit.. but they dont calculate the way Alb does I remember looking into it other cities even outside of NM, they all seem to tend to pick a number (3 or 4, or 5 or whatever they decide to pick) as a limit where there was no explanation as to why the number was picked as a limit, which I guess is also a bad thingAt least Alb tried to come up with a formula, if it was a good formula, it would have made a sense.. but it does not. Michelle, what would you think of my argument on this? Well the city only allows a 10% of the total property space as a place where animals can live and within the space, each animal (up to 30lb) requires 75 sq So will not the bottom line be as long as an animal is allocated for 75 sq, does it matter to the city if they live throughout the entire living space or not as long as I am ok with it? I am having a hard time to understand their 10% logic --- I have a total of 4,000 and I am claiming for 20 cats --- so theoretically, each animal is allowed for 200 sq --- which is much larger than the space they request if I dont mind personally as the property owner having cats through the entire living space, why does it matter if they take 10% of space or 100% of space.. the only thing I can think of is a density issue.. but again why would they care if they all kept indoor and each animals has a lot of space.. I hope I am making sense.. any input on this issue is appreciated, Michelle From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2005 8:30 AM To: felvtalk@felineleukemia.org Subject: Re: Hideyo's court case 19th?? Look at the reasoning used in the decisions you have where ordinances were struck down, and see if you can use that. Also, if you can get one of your expert witnesses-- the vet or the animal services person who is writing you a letter-- to say in a letter or in testimony that different species and sized animals need different amounts of space and that, as far as they are concerned, the formula in the ordinance has no relation to the amount of space that any particular species of animal actually needs, and to give a different opinion of how to determine whether cats are too crowded or not, that should be more than enough. At that point the burden should switch back to the city to prove that there is some rational basis to the formula that they use. If you can, you might also want to contact animal control or the mayor's office in other cities in NM, like Santa Fe, and also nearby towns, like Corrales, to see if they have ordinances limited animal numbers and if so what the language is. If they do not have limits on the numbers, or if the limits they have are more flexible or make more sense than the Albuquerque one, you might want to submit those as well to bolster your claim that when cities try to figure out limits on animals for health and safety they do not use the bizarre formula that Albuquerque does. I am not sure if this will work or not. it sort of depends on what you find out. Just a thought. Michelle In a message dated 12/9/2005 8:40:04 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I was also reading some stuff on the website from other cases.. that when its assumed that the ordinance does not make sense, its a burden of the challenger (which is me) to prove that its 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???
RE: Hideyo's court case 19th??
I had a bond arraignment this morning for the criminal complaint this morning.. so pleaded not guilty and trial is now scheduled for 1/12 (so soon) I hope everything will go well next Monday otherwise, then I have to appeal,, and I guess I could get a continuance on the trial 1/12 (or at least thats what Greg said) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2005 8:21 AM To: felvtalk@felineleukemia.org Subject: Re: Hideyo's court case 19th?? No, the citation is just the book and volume number. You probably have the actual court decision. Thanks for offering to fax it, but that's not necessary. I saved the summary that you sent me, and if I ever need access to the case I'll contact ALDF. The only fax machine I have has to be plugged in to the phone line, so we need a call first, etc., and I don't have a current need for it. Thanks, though, and keep up the amazing self-advocacy work you are doing! Michelle In a message dated 12/12/2005 6:38:33 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I think the law office downloaded the file for me and have a 8 pages long something here do you know what this is? (the cover letter says that this its the citation of the case we downloaded for you) -
Re: Hideyo's court case 19th??
do you have a criminal lawyer? I really would consider getting one. Michelle In a message dated 12/13/2005 1:53:01 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I had a bond arraignment this morning for the criminal complaint this morning.. so pleaded not guilty and trial is now scheduled for 1/12 (so soon) – I hope everything will go well next Monday – otherwise, then I have to appeal,, and I guess I could get a continuance on the trial 1/12 (or at least that’s what Greg said)
RE: Hideyo's court case 19th??
Yeah.. Gregs friend is a very good criminal lawyer he is probably too good he defends lots of federal crimes.. I will ask him.. Greg does not want me to freak out too much.. we will do out best to see what happens on Monday (he is pretty optimistic about Monday) and then if it does not go well,, we will worry the next step.. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2005 11:54 AM To: felvtalk@felineleukemia.org Subject: Re: Hideyo's court case 19th?? do you have a criminal lawyer? I really would consider getting one. Michelle In a message dated 12/13/2005 1:53:01 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I had a bond arraignment this morning for the criminal complaint this morning.. so pleaded not guilty and trial is now scheduled for 1/12 (so soon) I hope everything will go well next Monday otherwise, then I have to appeal,, and I guess I could get a continuance on the trial 1/12 (or at least thats what Greg said)
Re: Hideyo's court case 19th?? - to Michelle
If they all have limits and they are a fixed number, I probably would not bring them up at all. As to your argument, I think you are right about focusing on the 10% issue. It is really random. Where does it come from? Are they suggesting that people who have dogs are supposed to confine them to 10% of the house and are wrong to let them live in the whole house? On what basis could they say that? And if they say no, they are assuming people allow animals the run of the house and that is ok, then there is obviously no basis for limiting the number based on an assumption they are only using 10% of the house. Basically they are saying that if someone has a 9,000 square foot house they can have more than twice as many animals even if they keep all the animals in only 900 square feet of the house, whereas you are giving them 4,000 square feet-- they are saying that someone who owns a bigger house, just by virtue of owning the bigger house, is allowed to keep more animals than you even if they give them less space. There is no rational basis to this regarding the health or welfare of the animals or the neighbors. The one danger I can think of with this argument is that most towns have ordinances limiting the number of large animals, like horses, based on acreage-- e.g. you must have 1 acre per horse-- rather than on the amount of space actually given to the animals-- e.g. the person might keep the horse in a 10 foot by 20 foot paddock. I actually think those ordinances are stupid too, and it should have to do with the space you can actually give the animal versus what you own, but a judge may think about those ordinances and not want to call their validity into question. Michelle In a message dated 12/13/2005 1:51:42 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Thank you, Michelle for you input. One of my vets is going to do a live testimony, so I think he can testify the below (space needs for different species) on my behalf. I will also look it up about the ordinance form other cities – I know they all have a limit.. but they don’t calculate the way Alb does I remember looking into it – other cities even outside of NM, they all seem to tend to pick a number (3 or 4, or 5 or whatever they decide to pick) as a limit where there was no explanation as to why the number was picked as a limit, which I guess is also a bad thing…At least Alb tried to come up with a formula, if it was a good formula, it would have made a sense.. but it does not. Michelle, what would you think of my argument on this? – Well the city only allows a 10% of the total property space as a place where animals can live – and within the space, each animal (up to 30lb) requires 75 sq – So will not the bottom line be as long as an animal is allocated for 75 sq, does it matter to the city if they live throughout the entire living space or not as long as I am ok with it? I am having a hard time to understand their 10% logic --- I have a total of 4,000 – and I am claiming for 20 cats --- so theoretically, each animal is allowed for 200 sq --- which is much larger than the space they request… if I don’t mind personally as the property owner having cats through the entire living space, why does it matter if they take 10% of space or 100% of space.. the only thing I can think of is a “density” issue.. but again – why would they care if they all kept indoor and each animals has a lot of space.. I hope I am making sense.. any input on this issue is appreciated, Michelle
Re: Hideyo's court case 19th??
sounds good. whatever happens on Monday, if the criminal charges are not dropped, bring the lawyer. Michelle In a message dated 12/13/2005 1:58:10 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Yeah.. Greg’s friend is a very good criminal lawyer – he is probably too good – he defends lots of federal crimes.. I will ask him.. Greg does not want me to freak out too much.. we will do out best to see what happens on Monday (he is pretty optimistic about Monday) and then if it does not go well,, we will worry the next step..
RE: Hideyo's court case 19th?? - to Michelle
I think it came from hobby breeder permit where people keep their animals in kennels and cages (originally, they did not even have a multiple permit, the law was only written for hobby breeders and then, they add the multiple permit name added to the existing hobby breeder ordinance As I read lots of other cases and articles written regarding the pet law what it is saying that pet limit law may seem like a quick fix to the problem, but in reality, It targets all owners, regardless of their actions or the behavior of their animals. Limiting the number of animals an individual may own is an ineffective solution to animal control problems because it fails to address the heart of the irresponsible ownership. Limit laws often force caring, responsible owners to surrender their excess animals to shelters already overcrowded, there by increasing a citys shelter population problems and euthanasia. In many cases, communities already have nuisance laws in place that, if nuisance law is properly enforced, there really wont be any need for limit law as what happened to the PA case, more number of animals per se does not mean more nuisance. I also requested stats information from the city, regarding the type of complaints and the number of complaints so that I can draw a conclusion whether there is any relationship between the number of animals one own and the number of complaints the city receives. What Greg is concerned is that.. I am going to present my case before the hearing officer who is contracted by the city --- so he was not sure how he is willing to admit that the ordinance is invalid after all he is hired by the city --- so I should primary focus on the factual information that there is no nuisance, no complaint from neighbors, and all animals are taken care of and am not violating the intent of law at all and then address how the provision of the current ordinance does not make sense.. and then argue about the problem of the enforcement of law as you mentioned --- (trying to take away something that was already) and then mention the validity of pet limit law and conclude again with the very first point I made regarding welfare of the animals and community (not being impacted) what do you think? From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2005 12:02 PM To: felvtalk@felineleukemia.org Subject: Re: Hideyo's court case 19th?? - to Michelle If they all have limits and they are a fixed number, I probably would not bring them up at all. As to your argument, I think you are right about focusing on the 10% issue. It is really random. Where does it come from? Are they suggesting that people who have dogs are supposed to confine them to 10% of the house and are wrong to let them live in the whole house? On what basis could they say that? And if they say no, they are assuming people allow animals the run of the house and that is ok, then there is obviously no basis for limiting the number based on an assumption they are only using 10% of the house. Basically they are saying that if someone has a 9,000 square foot house they can have more than twice as many animals even if they keep all the animals in only 900 square feet of the house, whereas you are giving them 4,000 square feet-- they are saying that someone who owns a bigger house, just by virtue of owning the bigger house, is allowed to keep more animals than you even if they give them less space. There is no rational basis to this regarding the health or welfare of the animals or the neighbors. The one danger I can think of with this argument is that most towns have ordinances limiting the number of large animals, like horses, based on acreage-- e.g. you must have 1 acre per horse-- rather than on the amount of space actually given to the animals-- e.g. the person might keep the horse in a 10 foot by 20 foot paddock. I actually think those ordinances are stupid too, and it should have to do with the space you can actually give the animal versus what you own, but a judge may think about those ordinances and not want to call their validity into question. Michelle In a message dated 12/13/2005 1:51:42 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Thank you, Michelle for you input. One of my vets is going to do a live testimony, so I think he can testify the below (space needs for different species) on my behalf. I will also look it up about the ordinance form other cities I know they all have a limit.. but they dont calculate the way Alb does I remember looking into it other cities even outside of NM, they all seem to tend to pick a number (3 or 4, or 5 or whatever they decide to pick) as a limit where there was no explanation as to why the number was picked as a limit, which I guess is also a bad thingAt least Alb tried to come up with a formula, if it was a good formula
Re: Hideyo's court case 19th?? - to Michelle
I think the next logical step is for you to go to law school! Ok, if you are going to be before a hearing officer rather than a judge, Greg is right-- the hearing officer probably can not, let alone will not, rule an ordinance invalid. I think you are right to stress the no problem, no nuisance, no health and safety issue first. But I think that second you ought to argue that, in fact, because there is no problem the city actually approved you for the permit in 2004 and should not be able to arbitrarily change its mind now, especially since you relied on the approval last year to make build things for the cats, etc. I think you actually should ask Greg to pull up some relevant cases on equitable estopel and that you should ask Greg to tell you if it makes sense to argue this at the hearing level. I probably would argue it because it could give the hearing officer an out-- a way to approve your appeal without having to strike down the ordinance, which he probably will not want to or be able to do, and without having to say that anyone who is not a nuisance can have more animals than the ordinance says (which he also will not want to do). If you can convince him that in your case specifically the city actually approved your request for permits, that you relied on this and spent money based on it, and thenthe citytook the permits away with no change in circumstances and is trying to say it is now illegal for you to have the same number of cats they had already approved, and then show the hearing officer that there is a legal principle called equitable estoppel (and give him some cases) saying they can't do that, then the hearing officer might feel like he has a way to rule in your favor without either striking down the ordinance or giving everyone else a reason to flaunt the ordinance. He can say that in this particular case, because the city approved the permits and you relied on the approvals, the city can not now turn around and deny them without any change in circumstance or actions on your part. That is my opinion, though again I have almost no experience with municipal. law. I would then conclude by saying that you also think the ordinance is unconstitutional because it has no rational basis for setting the limit it does, and the limit is totally arbitrary and makes no sense, have your witness testify about why it makes no sense, and give the hearing officer copies of the relevant decisions from other states. Say that you realize the hearing officer may not have the power to declare the ordinance unconstitutional, but you want him to consider that is probably is, when making a decision on your other arguments and the facts of your case, and that -- and this is important!!-- you want the argument and the cases entered into the record in case you need to appeal the decision to a court, so you can make the argument there (I have no idea if you would need to have them in the record of if a court would have the power to decide the case de novo, which means from scratch, so you could raise new arguments later-- it depends on New Mexico law-- but saying this will give you a good reason to insist the hearing officer take a look at materials that are going to tell him the ordinance is probably unconstitutional, which may sway how he decides the case on the other issues. Does that make sense? I used to do that a lot in administrative hearings before the MA welfare agency-- I did need to get the stuff in the record there in order to later raise it in court, so the hearing officers had to include it if I submitted it,and sometimes I think it may have swayed how they decided the case on other grounds even though they did not have the power to strike down regulations entirely. The other benefit to doing this is that the city attorney will also get copies of the stuff then, and it may make him drop the whole thing. Hope this helps. Again, I am far from an expert on this, so take my suggestions as merely that. Michelle In a message dated 12/13/2005 2:36:22 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: what do you think?
RE: Hideyo's court case 19th?? - to Michelle
Michelle - If I ever forget to tell you, I wanted to you know how grateful I am of your insight on this. And I will tell all my furry children how much you are helping me and saving their lives!! Yes, everything you say totally makes sense. I wish I had something physical to proof that they had given me the permit --- I think I can reasonably reason it in such a way that someone reported me in 2004 having multiple cats and the officer came by to investigate --- and he did not put any record in my file that he gave me the permit after the investigation,, but also there was no other follow up in the file at all, which may make it reasonable to believe what I am saying --- though the officer who gave me the permit lied to Denise (director of ASD) that I only had 8 cats in April of 2004 and he only gave me the permit of 8 (I had 18 then, and I have 20 now) --- so, I am not sure how I am going to prove that he is also lying to cover his butt I gave all the paper work to him, but he did not keep anything in the file.. I dont know, Michelle if I mentioned to you about another lady who had 120 cats in her property in Alb, in 2004, they gave her a sanctuary status to her. She was very much in a similar situation as I was (lives in a residential zone) --- but she really did not want me to bring her case up as she wants to protect her cats which I respect totally in case the city finds out and may try to take her status away, too. When I mentioned this case briefly, she thought the sanctuary status was also given to incorrectly. But I did not want to give Denise this ladys information is there anything I can do from this information?? I will bring all the points up as you mentioned, and thats what Greg suggested, too --- so that if I appeal, I can make sure that I can use all the arguments I need Hope this helps. Again, I am far from an expert on this, so take my suggestions as merely that. Michelle In a message dated 12/13/2005 2:36:22 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: what do you think?
Re: Hideyo's court case 19th?? - to Michelle
Hmm. Wow, I would want to bring up that other woman's case, but you're right in not wanting to jeopardize her. What is the zoning for where you are? If you incorporated as a nonprofit rescue group, could you get a kennel or sanctuary license? Michelle
RE: Hideyo's court case 19th??
Hi, Michelle, I just got a copy of the citation of the case from the lawyer who presented her if you would like, I can fax you the copy, just let me know your fax number From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2005 3:39 PM To: felvtalk@felineleukemia.org Subject: Re: Hideyo's court case 19th?? Do you have the citation for that case? I would love to read the decision. It's great you found that case. You should actually bring a copy with you to submit to the court. Not having read the decision, I do not know if it is technically relevant to your case (your boyfriend should be able to tell), but it may be if the issue is simply definition of nuisance in terms of animals. The court you will be in front of probably has not really thought this through, and the case may help with that. The case may also show both the court and the city attorney that you know that appealing a lot can sometimes eventually pay off and that you are willing to do that-- which they would hate to have to deal with. You may want to see if there is a way to get this case to the city attorney informally too, like through the friend who is going to talk to him. Michelle In a message dated 12/8/2005 5:31:24 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Thanks, Michelle I remember reading a case in PA, for a similar situation as I am in she lost her case on the city level, and appealed and she lost on the state level and she lost again, and she appealed to federal level and she finally won! The federal court ruled against the opponent claiming that having the number of animals (I think she has 25 to 35 cats or something) itself does not prove the they are creating nuisance
RE: Hideyo's court case 19th??
I think the law office downloaded the file for me and have a 8 pages long something here do you know what this is? (the cover letter says that this its the citation of the case we downloaded for you) - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 12, 2005 4:35 PM To: felvtalk@felineleukemia.org Subject: Re: Hideyo's court case 19th?? Hideyo, Thanks, but not necessary to fax. The citation is just the name of the case book and volume number of where to find it. It may not be a published decision, but it should be since it was a higher state court I think. If you can figure out or ask your boyfriend the numbers and letters for the cite, you can just email it to me. Thanks, Michelle In a message dated 12/12/2005 4:37:55 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi, Michelle, I just got a copy of the citation of the case from the lawyer who presented her if you would like, I can fax you the copy, just let me know your fax number
Re: Hideyo's court case 19th??-attorney fees-incorporation
I would be willing to help pay legal fees as well if it comes to that. Hideyo, you are too nice. Let your boyfriend help you!Also, you already know Hideyo, that I worry about you taking in more than you can handle. When this is all over I would really like to see you incorporate and get a board of maybe 1 or 2 additional people so that you have some help and some back up help for when you need it.I know I sound like a broken record, but a couple of years ago I had to have emergency surgery, and it was a nightmare due to my animals. It was during a holiday and my regular petsitter was not available. My family had to be given all directions, etc... (and friends) and tried to help, etc but you know how that goes.I guess I'm paranoid now, but I constantly worry and plan what to do with the animals if something happens to me. I'd like you to develop a plan. You never know what can happen, and you have a LOT on your plate.I think this would help in your court case too (although it's too late for now, but if it comes up again). If you are incorporated and have more than one person to help out and contingency plans, etc Again, I'd be glad to help you if I can. And if I lived near you I'd be the first to work with you on incorporating your sanctuary.tonyaKerry MacKenzie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: One way to help might be to help financially with legal fees if Hideyocan find someone experienced but they do not agree to take the case probono. I would be willing to send some money. I will commit to pay for minimum two hours legal fees--more if poss/nec.depending on the hourly rate. It seems very important that Hideyo have agood attorney. (And my commitment to taking Hideyo's FeLV kitty Tsubamimost def. still stands)provided that Hideyo doesn't get herself into this situation again. Unfortunately I don't know how, even with the best will in the world, Hideyoor anyone else who opens their heart and doors to needy cats could guaranteethis--there are too many mean people wanting to make trouble for others,like the anonymous, cowardly complainer in Hideyo's case. I doubt very muchHideyo would be able financially to move to a safer (in terms of zoning)area. (The recent NJ shelter case also comes to mind--the one where 12 FeLVcats werefortunately saved by one angel in Indiana and a pilot with a heart of gold.That case arose, we were told, because of complaining neighbors who didn'tlike the presence of volunteers.)i can't figure out why it's theconscientious people, who try to make good on the problems created byothers, who get penalizedAgreed, that's just one thing very wrong and unfair about the world we livein.Kerry- Original Message -From: "TenHouseCats" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: <FELVTALK@FELINELEUKEMIA.ORG>Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2005 4:48 PMSubject: Re: Hideyo's court case 19th??i would think it would help to bring out more forcefully what has beenmentioned in passing: that hideyo, you are taking in animals that noone else wants, that you are caring for creatures that may be ill orundesirable (to others) but deserve to live, and that you are NOT thepeople who are letting their cats roam to spread disease, cause damageand repopulate the earth (i can't figure out why it's theconscientious people, who try to make good on the problems created byothers, who get penalized)--MaryChristineAIM / YAHOO: TenHouseCatsMSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED]ICQ: 289856892
Re: Hideyo's court case 19th??
One way to help might be to help financially with legal fees if Hideyo can find someone experienced but they do not agree to take the case pro bono. I would be willing to send some money. I will commit to pay for minimum two hours legal fees--more if poss/nec. depending on the hourly rate. It seems very important that Hideyo have a good attorney. (And my commitment to taking Hideyo's FeLV kitty Tsubami most def. still stands) provided that Hideyo doesn't get herself into this situation again. Unfortunately I don't know how, even with the best will in the world, Hideyo or anyone else who opens their heart and doors to needy cats could guarantee this--there are too many mean people wanting to make trouble for others, like the anonymous, cowardly complainer in Hideyo's case. I doubt very much Hideyo would be able financially to move to a safer (in terms of zoning) area. (The recent NJ shelter case also comes to mind--the one where 12 FeLV cats were fortunately saved by one angel in Indiana and a pilot with a heart of gold. That case arose, we were told, because of complaining neighbors who didn't like the presence of volunteers.) 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 Agreed, that's just one thing very wrong and unfair about the world we live in. Kerry - Original Message - From: TenHouseCats [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: felvtalk@felineleukemia.org Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2005 4:48 PM Subject: Re: Hideyo's court case 19th?? 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) -- MaryChristine AIM / YAHOO: TenHouseCats MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ: 289856892
RE: Hideyo's court case 19th??
Also, Michelle, heres the intent statement of the ordinance: 9-2-1-1 SHORT TITLE AND LEGISLATIVE INTENT. (A) This article shall be known and may be cited as the Albuquerque Animal Services Ordinance. (B) It is the intent of the City Council that enactment of this article will protect animals from neglect and abuse, will protect residents from annoyance and injury, will encourage responsible ownership of animals as pets, will assist in providing housing for animals in a control center and will partially finance the Animal Service Center's functions of housing, licensing, enforcement, and recovery. 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. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2005 5:03 PM To: felvtalk@felineleukemia.org Subject: Re: Hideyo's court case 19th?? Hideyo, Thank you. I read it. The link is not to the decision itself, but to a summary of the decision. And it was not a federal court, but a state court that struck down the ordinance. Does your town have a limit on the number of animals? Or was this justa case-by-case decision denying you the permits you need? If you are being charged criminally for not having the requisite permits and they would not give them to you based on numbers alone, I am not sure I would plead guilty. I think I might argue that there was no basis for denying you the permits and therefore no basis to charge you criminally, or that the denial was unconstitutional. But I really do think you will need legal help in order to make these arguments and should try to get a lawyer. In the civil case, I definitely think you should raise this argument. But you should get the other cases the ALDF member mentioned, because the more courts that have made similar determinations, the more persuasive the argument will be. Again, though, I really do not have enough information about the laws and government actions in your case to figure out exactly how to argue the case. You need someone who can get involved on a local level, if possible. When I worked in NM briefly, I found the legal system pretty appalling. I worked on the state court level, probably above the level of the court you are going to, and even on that level I was amazed. Common law (legal principles developed by courts) were not very developed compared to MA, and some of the courts did not seem familiar with U.S. Supreme Court cases that I learned about in first year of law school. The state court in one county was refusing to waive filing fees for divorce cases when people were too poor to pay the fees, and the U.S. Supreme Court had stated this was unconstitutional way back in the 70's! All of which is to say that you may have to educate the court a bit. Michelle In a message dated 12/8/2005 6:15:57 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: http://www.naiaonline.org/body/articles/archives/limitlawpennsylvania.htm here you go.. please read and if it will help my case, michelle.
RE: Hideyo's court case 19th??
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 dont 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 lets 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.. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2005 5:03 PM To: felvtalk@felineleukemia.org Subject: Re: Hideyo's court case 19th?? Hideyo, Thank you. I read it. The link is not to the decision itself, but to a summary of the decision. And it was not a federal court, but a state court that struck down the ordinance. Does your town have a limit on the number of animals? Or was this justa case-by-case decision denying you the permits you need? If you are being charged criminally for not having the requisite permits and they would not give them to you based on numbers alone, I am not sure I would plead guilty. I think I might argue that there was no basis for denying you the permits and therefore no basis to charge you criminally, or that the denial was unconstitutional. But I really do think you will need legal help in order to make these arguments and should try to get a lawyer. In the civil case, I definitely think you should raise this argument. But you should get the other cases the ALDF member mentioned, because the more courts that have made similar determinations, the more persuasive the argument will be. Again, though, I really do not have enough information about the laws and government actions in your case to figure out exactly how to argue the case. You need someone who can get involved on a local level, if possible. When I worked in NM briefly, I found the legal system pretty appalling. I worked on the state court level, probably above the level of the court you are going to, and even on that level I was amazed. Common law (legal principles developed by courts) were not very developed compared to MA, and some of the courts did not seem familiar with U.S. Supreme Court cases that I learned about in first year of law school. The state court in one county was refusing to waive filing fees for divorce cases when people were too poor to pay the fees, and the U.S. Supreme Court had stated this was unconstitutional way back in the 70's! All of which is to say that you may have to educate the court a bit. Michelle In a message dated 12/8/2005 6:15:57 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: http://www.naiaonline.org/body/articles/archives/limitlawpennsylvania.htm here you go.. please read and if it will help my case, michelle.
RE: Hideyo's court case 19th??
Let me tell you how uneducated NM is when coming to care of animals you will just be amazed.You dont know how many kitties I ended up taking because of irresponsible and stupid people who leave their animals behind when they move out.. and they did not even neuter or spay them.some leave them in a confined apartment with no food or water.. hoping (?) someone will find them before they die from starvation.. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Presto Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2005 5:35 PM To: felvtalk@felineleukemia.org Subject: Re: Hideyo's court case 19th?? Michelle, are you in MA? So am I. A very educated, liberal state, comparatively speaking. We have it lucky compared to some who live in less tolerant states. Presto - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: felvtalk@felineleukemia.org Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2005 7:03 PM Subject: Re: Hideyo's court case 19th?? Hideyo, Thank you. I read it. The link is not to the decision itself, but to a summary of the decision. And it was not a federal court, but a state court that struck down the ordinance. Does your town have a limit on the number of animals? Or was this justa case-by-case decision denying you the permits you need? If you are being charged criminally for not having the requisite permits and they would not give them to you based on numbers alone, I am not sure I would plead guilty. I think I might argue that there was no basis for denying you the permits and therefore no basis to charge you criminally, or that the denial was unconstitutional. But I really do think you will need legal help in order to make these arguments and should try to get a lawyer. In the civil case, I definitely think you should raise this argument. But you should get the other cases the ALDF member mentioned, because the more courts that have made similar determinations, the more persuasive the argument will be. Again, though, I really do not have enough information about the laws and government actions in your case to figure out exactly how to argue the case. You need someone who can get involved on a local level, if possible. When I worked in NM briefly, I found the legal system pretty appalling. I worked on the state court level, probably above the level of the court you are going to, and even on that level I was amazed. Common law (legal principles developed by courts) were not very developed compared to MA, and some of the courts did not seem familiar with U.S. Supreme Court cases that I learned about in first year of law school. The state court in one county was refusing to waive filing fees for divorce cases when people were too poor to pay the fees, and the U.S. Supreme Court had stated this was unconstitutional way back in the 70's! All of which is to say that you may have to educate the court a bit. Michelle In a message dated 12/8/2005 6:15:57 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: http://www.naiaonline.org/body/articles/archives/limitlawpennsylvania.htm here you go.. please read and if it will help my case, michelle.
RE: Hideyo's court case 19th??
Oh.. Presto you are so sweet and I appreciate your offer but it will be impossible to find homes for all my cats I have so many.. I hate to mention the number, but I do. I dont know anyone else who has as many as I do and most of them are feral cats and they will not do well if they are moved ---medical conditions are different from cats to cats.. but no one else will be able to even touch them as they are so skittish I posted the very ordinance which stops me having the cats I have I guess, I would sell my house and move to other area if it comes to that.. fortunately the value of my property has gone up so much lately that I can sell at least for twice as much as I had originally paid for.. but I also take care of about stray kitties in 5 different colonies in my area.. so I really hate to move.. I also spent $45000 to on my house to accommodate my cats area.. so I hate to leave the house, too. But they are not going to take my cats away, meaning I wont let them.. I wont know how.. but I am not going to let that happen.. I promised these guys that I will give them a better life and I will take care of them for the rest of their lives.. and I just have to figure out Maybe, my baby Garfunkle who passed away will be guiding me as an my guardian angel and watching me and his friends from heaven and somehow a miracle will happen again.. Love Hideyo From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Presto Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2005 5:25 PM To: felvtalk@felineleukemia.org Subject: Re: Hideyo's court case 19th?? I think it would be a good idea to set up a contingency plan, in case the courtdecision 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 canhelp 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 catsafter 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 withinthe 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 Iboughtour 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
RE: Hideyo's court case 19th??
Hi, Michelle, I got the voice mail and left a message, I hope someone will call me back thank you!! From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2005 4:54 PM To: felvtalk@felineleukemia.org Subject: Re: Hideyo's court case 19th?? Call the ALDF office and talk to a live person. Tell whoever answers that I told you to call (use my name, Michelle Lerner) and mention that I started the student ALDF chapter at Harvard Law School. Tell them that I am in MA and can not help you and that I told you to call and see if a) there is anyone in their network near where you live, and b) if they have information on cases in NM or any other state in which pet limits were found unconstitutional. Tell them that someone posted on their website that there have been some decisions ruling them unconstitutional, and that you need the citations or, even better if you do not have a lawyer to find the cases (though your boyfriend probably can find them for you with citations), copies of the decisions. Michelle In a message dated 12/8/2005 6:15:51 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I will find the link and will forward it to you.. Hey, Michelle, I had posted a message at ALDF about my case, and someone replied to my post as follows (just an extract) do you know how I can get more information how unconstitutional this is? Heres the message.. Please note that pet limits have been found unconstitutional when challenged in at least some jurisdictions (of course, it is time-consuming and costly to challenge such laws). In addition, many experts in companion animal issues feel that pet limits result in artificially depressed adoption rates and so, cause communities to kill more animals.
RE: Hideyo's court case 19th??
Michelle again thank you for your offer but no worry for now---I just talked to ALDF person and she is faxing me the past pleading cases regarding limiting the number of animal cases.. she did not think there are anyone in NM in terms of an animal activity lawyer.. but my boyfriend might be able to help me to better present my case. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2005 6:10 PM To: felvtalk@felineleukemia.org Subject: Re: Hideyo's court case 19th?? I think that many are feral and semi-feral and at least one is FeLV+ and several are elderly. When I said I would assist with legal fees, I mean about $100. We are actually doing pretty badly financially since moving, due to me only having part-time work right now and a bunch of vet bills and house repairs and having spent our savings on the move. I would hope that an ALDF-associated attorney would do this kind of case pro bono, though. Hideyo would have to take the lead in creating a back-up emergency plan for placing the cats with list members. It is true that none of us but her know what is going on with her cats or her case. Michelle In a message dated 12/8/2005 7:46:41 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I understand and agree. I do, though, also agree that we should figure out an alternate-placement plan now. I don't know the conditions of her cats, so cannot comment on how bad the conditions of some of them are, and their transportability. Perhaps those in the worst conditions could stay with her. We still don't know how many cats she would be allowed to keep under the ordinance pertaining to her township.
RE: Hideyo's court case 19th??
Oh,, Michelle, again, thank you so much for your offer - I am so grateful for everyone being so generous and concerned I am going to do everything I can so that I can win on 12/19 if not, I guess I will worry then, right? I once found a fortune cookie.. saying that never trouble troubles, until a trouble troubles you.. so I will always think of back up plan.. I cant help not thinking.. but I am hoping that I wont have to use it.. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2005 5:32 PM To: felvtalk@felineleukemia.org Subject: Re: Hideyo's court case 19th?? I think it is good to always have a back-up plan. But the court has to allow time to file an appeal. The court does not have to agree, however, to stay a bad decision while an appeal is pending, i.e. to leave the cats alone while the appeal pends. However, a refusal to stay the decision can also be appealed on an emergency basis. And in this case, where there is no one complaining and the neighbors have signed a petition in support, there would be no justification for a court to deny a stay during an appeal. Not that courts never do unjustified things, mind you. But legally, she should be able to fight this all the way while keeping her cats with her. But she may need legal help to fight effectively, which is why I mentioned ALDF. One way to help might be to help financially with legal fees if Hideyo can find someone experienced but they do not agree to take the case pro bono. I would be willing to send some money. I would of course be willing to send some money for transport too, but I do not think it should have to come to that, with zealous advocacy. And to tell the truth, so many of her cats are feral and special needs that unless we ourselves took all of them, I can not imagine her finding places for them. Maybepeople on this list could take all of them, in an emergency, and maybe we should figure that out now. But I can not take any at all, due to my own living situation and my partner. And transport across country would be pretty bad for cats as compromised as some of her cats are. Michelle In a message dated 12/8/2005 7:25:40 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I think it would be a good idea to set up a contingency plan, in case the courtdecision 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 canhelp 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 catsafter 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 withinthe 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 Iboughtour 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
Re: Hideyo's court case 19th??
I was in MA for 10 years, but moved back to NJ this summer. MA is pretty amazing in many ways, legally. Though pretty horrible in other ways (the Romney administration is pretty awful, and believe it or not MA has the worst (of all states and DC) participation rate in the Food Stamp program for people who are eligible, because the welfare agency is so horrible and denies and terminates everyone.) So it is not all peachy, but when I went to NM for a summer I realized I was a little spoiled as far as the courts go! And the MA Town Meeting system of government is about the most democratic form of local government I have ever seen, and I miss it. Michelle In a message dated 12/8/2005 7:35:44 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Michelle, are you in MA? So am I. A very educated, liberal state, comparatively speaking. We have it lucky compared to some who live in less tolerant states. Presto
Re: Hideyo's court case 19th??
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
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.
Re: Hideyo's court case 19th??
I didn't know about the problems with the welfare agency. The problems with the Romney admin don't surprise me. Why did those dopes elect him in?! (Yes,we voted--but not for him.) And, yes, MA certainly does have its problems. But, as you pointed out, it contrasts well with other states. I've lived inNC, NY, OH, CO, AZ, WA, CA, and HI, and my husband grew up in AK and still has parents there. No place is perfect. Did you have any trouble transfering your law permit to NJ? You had to take a test, yes? Where did you earn your BA and law degrees? Many people come here to attend themultiple colleges and universities, and then stay on, as you know. I started at Tufts Univ. but migratedwestward pretty quickly. Presto - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: felvtalk@felineleukemia.org Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2005 7:38 PM Subject: Re: Hideyo's court case 19th?? I was in MA for 10 years, but moved back to NJ this summer. MA is pretty amazing in many ways, legally. Though pretty horrible in other ways (the Romney administration is pretty awful, and believe it or not MA has the worst (of all states and DC) participation rate in the Food Stamp program for people who are eligible, because the welfare agency is so horrible and denies and terminates everyone.) So it is not all peachy, but when I went to NM for a summer I realized I was a little spoiled as far as the courts go! And the MA Town Meeting system of government is about the most democratic form of local government I have ever seen, and I miss it. Michelle In a message dated 12/8/2005 7:35:44 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Michelle, are you in MA? So am I. A very educated, liberal state, comparatively speaking. We have it lucky compared to some who live in less tolerant states. Presto
Re: Hideyo's court case 19th??
Michelle, this is fabulous. Very good information to know. I've printed it and tucked it in a cat file, in case anyone I know (or Ev and I) get into a similar predicament in the future. I won't quote your name, so as not to get you into trouble. Can you still practice law in MA, although you are in NJ? Due to my father's recent death and an inheritance, I need to make a will, and I want to include the care of our cats in that will, especially in case Ev and I are both killed in an accident or he predeceases me. Is this something you can do? Or do you have friends/acquaintances, still in MA, who can do it? Presto - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: felvtalk@felineleukemia.org Sent: Friday, December 09, 2005 10:29 AM Subject: Re: Hideyo's court case 19th?? 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 followi
RE: Hideyo's court case 19th??
Thank you, Michelle The only problem is that.. the officer who gave me the permit did not give me anything physically I asked for it, and he said that there was not anything he could give it to me physically.. but I know that there are people in the animal services he told that I have a permit.. so..we were and are planning to argue that point anyway. Thank you, Michelle very much.. I have also found tons of stuff I could use for the argument so hopefully things will go ok.. but will keep you posted. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Presto Sent: Friday, December 09, 2005 9:09 AM To: felvtalk@felineleukemia.org Subject: Re: Hideyo's court case 19th?? Michelle, this is fabulous. Very good information to know. I've printed it and tucked it in a cat file, in case anyone I know (or Ev and I) get into a similar predicament in the future. I won't quote your name, so as not to get you into trouble. Can you still practice law in MA, although you are in NJ? Due to my father's recent death and an inheritance, I need to make a will, and I want to include the care of our cats in that will, especially in case Ev and I are both killed in an accident or he predeceases me. Is this something you can do? Or do you have friends/acquaintances, still in MA, who can do it? Presto - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: felvtalk@felineleukemia.org Sent: Friday, December 09, 2005 10:29 AM Subject: Re: Hideyo's court case 19th?? 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
RE: Hideyo's court case 19th??
Thank you so much,, its 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 its assumed that the ordinance does not make sense, its a burden of the challenger (which is me) to prove that its 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.
Re: Hideyo's court case 19th??
Hi Hideyo, Thank you, and I want to apologize to you. I shouldn't have asked so many questions. But most of all, I should never have suggested that you "not get herself into this situation again" regarding the number of cats you have, in the context of offering to transport them. That was completely out-of-line on my part, it wasn't polite,and I'm very ashamed that I said that. I profoundly apologize. Sometimes I phrase things very badly and don't think them out. I feel awful about it. I understand exactly why you have so many, and why you'll continue to take them in. When Everett and I moved into our house, over two years ago, we swore not to take in any more cats. We moved here with 32. Since then, ten positives have died. And five escaped by mistake through pet-proof fencing that initially wasn't pet-proof, and were probably killed by coyotes. You would think we'd be down to 17. Then why is it that we have 36? Because in those cases, it was a take-them-in-or-they'll-die situation. There wasn't a humane alternative. I wrote a description of how we got them and why, but it was bounced back to me because it was too long for this website. Like you, all but two of our cats are unplaceable, for the same reasons. And, like you, we've spent a lot of money onaltering our house for the cats. It cost us ten-thousand to replace the carpeting with wall-to-wall vinyl throughout the house. You've spent four times as much. If five outdoor colonies are dependent upon you, and if no one is there to take over their maintenance from you, then how can you move? I understand. Someone took over the colony we were helping with when we moved. (But first, we trapped all the ones we could--and took them with us. You don't have that option; you're too crowded.) Ev and I did our rescue and foster work from rented apartments until two years ago. We always had to hide the cats, or find sympathetic landlords (which was difficult). I'd love to hear your stories about how you got all of your cats, probably privately so that we don't take up webspace. Please? Love and luck, Presto - Original Message - From: Hideyo Yamamoto To: felvtalk@felineleukemia.org Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2005 7:32 PM Subject: RE: Hideyo's court case 19th?? Oh.. Presto you are so sweet and I appreciate your offer but it will be impossible to find homes for all my cats I have so many.. I hate to mention the number, but I do. I dont know anyone else who has as many as I do and most of them are feral cats and they will not do well if they are moved ---medical conditions are different from cats to cats.. but no one else will be able to even touch them as they are so skittish I posted the very ordinance which stops me having the cats I have I guess, I would sell my house and move to other area if it comes to that.. fortunately the value of my property has gone up so much lately that I can sell at least for twice as much as I had originally paid for.. but I also take care of about stray kitties in 5 different colonies in my area.. so I really hate to move.. I also spent $45000 to on my house to accommodate my cats area.. so I hate to leave the house, too. But they are not going to take my cats away, meaning I wont let them.. I wont know how.. but I am not going to let that happen.. I promised these guys that I will give them a better life and I will take care of them for the rest of their lives.. and I just have to figure out Maybe, my baby Garfunkle who passed away will be guiding me as an my guardian angel and watching me and his friends from heaven and somehow a miracle will happen again .. Love Hideyo From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of PrestoSent: Thursday, December 08, 2005 5:25 PMTo: felvtalk@felineleukemia.orgSubject: Re: Hideyo's court case 19th?? I think it would be a good idea to set up a contingency plan, in case the courtdecision 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 canhelp 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 catsafter a negative decision and clearance of her household? In short, might she end up back in the sam
RE: Hideyo's court case 19th??
Title: Message I did wonder that as I began writing mine last night. Still, it can't hurt--or can it?And, it's the 19th isn't itnot the 12th? Hideyo? Kerry -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2005 1:51 PMTo: felvtalk@felineleukemia.orgSubject: Re: Hideyo's court case As a lawyer, I really can not see how a testimonial from someone who has never seen the premises would help in any way. We all know Hideyo cares a lot about her cats and does everything possible for their health, from her posts, but all a court is really going to care about is what the premises looks like and testimonials from vets and others who have actually seen the cats and the care first-hand, I think. I can't see that a court would give much credence to the opinion of people on an online listserve. Michelle In a message dated 12/8/2005 2:41:35 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hideyo,You haven't mentioned anything about your upcoming court case with animal control lately. Isn't it scheduled for Dec 12th? How are your preparations going? If anyone who wanted to, hasn't sent a testimonial letter to Hideyo yet, please get on it. Let us know if there is anything else we can do to support you in your fight.Nina =00IRS CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE. Any advice expressed above as to tax matters was neither written nor intended by the sender or Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw LLP to be used and cannot be used by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding tax penalties that may be imposed under U.S. tax law. If any person uses or refers to any such tax advice in promoting, marketing or recommending a partnership or other entity, investment plan or arrangement to any taxpayer, then (i) the advice was written to support the promotion or marketing (by a person other than Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw LLP) of that transaction or matter, and (ii) such taxpayer should seek advice based on the taxpayers particular circumstances from an independent tax advisorThis email and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail.
Re: Hideyo's court case 19th??
No, I don't think it can hurt. But it is really important that Hideyo get something from her vet (better if he is willing to testify in person or write an affidavit, which is a sworn statement) and from neighbors and local folks familiar with her rescue work. If she shows up with only online testimonials, it will look bad. Michelle In a message dated 12/8/2005 3:17:41 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I did wonder that as I began writing mine last night. Still, it can't hurt--or can it?And, it's the 19th isn't itnot the 12th? Hideyo? Kerry
Re: Hideyo's court case 19th??
I remember a story that Hideyo told us about a cat caught in a drain, (or some such thing), where the local media and some local offical was involved. I suggested that she talk with them and ask for their help, but I don't know if they have been contacted. Nina [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No, I don't think it can hurt. But it is really important that Hideyo get something from her vet (better if he is willing to testify in person or write an affidavit, which is a sworn statement) and from neighbors and local folks familiar with her rescue work. If she shows up with only online testimonials, it will look bad. Michelle In a message dated 12/8/2005 3:17:41 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I did wonder that as I began writing mine last night. Still, it can't hurt--or can it?And, it's the 19th isn't itnot the 12th? Hideyo? Kerry
Re: Hideyo's court case 19th??
Good idea. Michelle In a message dated 12/8/2005 3:32:47 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I remember a story that Hideyo told us about a cat caught in a drain, (or some such thing), where the local media and some local offical was involved. I suggested that she talk with them and ask for their help, but I don't know if they have been contacted.Nina
RE: Hideyo's court case 19th??
Title: Message This is my recollectionit was a Sunday night when Hideyo heard the piteous meows coming from below the street...no one would agree to dig the street up so Hideyo, being Hideyo, went straight to the top,contacted the mayor's assistant, an animal lover, and the TV peopleand the rescue of the trapped cat(along withpresumably the "compassion' of the mayor)was televised. A win-win situation for allHideyo, can you have the mayor's assistant write you a letter and have the mayor sign it? -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of NinaSent: Thursday, December 08, 2005 2:31 PMTo: felvtalk@felineleukemia.orgSubject: Re: Hideyo's court case 19th??I remember a story that Hideyo told us about a cat caught in a drain, (or some such thing), where the local media and some local offical was involved. I suggested that she talk with them and ask for their help, but I don't know if they have been contacted.Nina[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No, I don't think it can hurt. But it is really important that Hideyo get something from her vet (better if he is willing to testify in person or write an affidavit, which is a sworn statement) and from neighbors and local folks familiar with her rescue work. If she shows up with only online testimonials, it will look bad. Michelle In a message dated 12/8/2005 3:17:41 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I did wonder that as I began writing mine last night. Still, it can't hurt--or can it?And, it's the 19th isn't itnot the 12th? Hideyo? Kerry =00IRS CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE. Any advice expressed above as to tax matters was neither written nor intended by the sender or Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw LLP to be used and cannot be used by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding tax penalties that may be imposed under U.S. tax law. If any person uses or refers to any such tax advice in promoting, marketing or recommending a partnership or other entity, investment plan or arrangement to any taxpayer, then (i) the advice was written to support the promotion or marketing (by a person other than Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw LLP) of that transaction or matter, and (ii) such taxpayer should seek advice based on the taxpayers particular circumstances from an independent tax advisorThis email and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail.
RE: Hideyo's court case 19th??
That makes complete sense, Michelle.. I also have a letter who was written my ex-vet (she was my vet for the pat 10 years and she is now a senior staff at animal service division I am hoping that this will help..In the letter, she described me as the excellent care taker and because of the animals I have is not adoptable throu the animal services, she ask the city to let me keep the animals.but the city attorney says that its rather casual hearing.. and not so formal.. whatever that means.. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2005 1:20 PM To: felvtalk@felineleukemia.org Subject: Re: Hideyo's court case 19th?? No, I don't think it can hurt. But it is really important that Hideyo get something from her vet (better if he is willing to testify in person or write an affidavit, which is a sworn statement) and from neighbors and local folks familiar with her rescue work. If she shows up with only online testimonials, it will look bad. Michelle In a message dated 12/8/2005 3:17:41 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I did wonder that as I began writing mine last night. Still, it can't hurt--or can it?And, it's the 19th isn't itnot the 12th? Hideyo? Kerry
RE: Hideyo's court case 19th??
Title: Message Yeah.. I have a letter from her.. also a friend of mine who was an assistant mayor recently became a deputy director of environmental health service where animal services division sits under.. so we are making some calls to see if this can be taken care of internally.. but I am playing a phone tag with the director of animal services.. so I am still prepared to go to a court and to win.. if I dont win.. what are the options??? Taking my animals away and kill them??? It just does not make sense. My animals are not bothering anyone, and they are well taken care of .. why removing them and trying to kill them using tax payers money.. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of MacKenzie, Kerry N. Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2005 1:32 PM To: felvtalk@felineleukemia.org Subject: RE: Hideyo's court case 19th?? Agreed. Unlike myself (for instance), Hideyo is in the fortunate (though not in theleast bitsurprising!) position of having credible, authoritative animal experts on her side ---the vet turned animal agency director comes to mind--who have already let her know what a great job she does. Hideyo, have they agreed to support you on the 19thby letter or in person? (I cannot imagine they would not.) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2005 2:20 PM To: felvtalk@felineleukemia.org Subject: Re: Hideyo's court case 19th?? No, I don't think it can hurt. But it is really important that Hideyo get something from her vet (better if he is willing to testify in person or write an affidavit, which is a sworn statement) and from neighbors and local folks familiar with her rescue work. If she shows up with only online testimonials, it will look bad. Michelle In a message dated 12/8/2005 3:17:41 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I did wonder that as I began writing mine last night. Still, it can't hurt--or can it?And, it's the 19th isn't itnot the 12th? Hideyo? Kerry =00IRS CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE. Any advice expressed above as to tax matters was neither written nor intended by the sender or Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw LLP to be used and cannot be used by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding tax penalties that may be imposed under U.S. tax law. If any person uses or refers to any such tax advice in promoting, marketing or recommending a partnership or other entity, investment plan or arrangement to any taxpayer, then (i) the advice was written to support the promotion or marketing (by a person other than Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw LLP) of that transaction or matter, and (ii) such taxpayer should seek advice based on the taxpayers particular circumstances from an independent tax advisorThis email and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail.
Re: Hideyo's court case 19th??
as a lawyer, i can tell you that is the best news yet. mivhelle In a message dated 12/8/2005 5:17:42 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I am also a friend of the city attorney who is going to be against me on 12/19 – he is going to have a off record conversation about my case --- apparently the city attorney is an easy going, animal lover … so I am hoping that something will turn into good.
Re: Hideyo's court case 19th??
Hideyo, if this does go forward and for some reason you do lose and the order is bad, file an appeal and call the Animal Legal Defense Fund for referral to an attorney to represent you on appeal. I personally would call them now to see if someone is in your area who can help on the 19th if you have to go to court. informal resolution is always best, ,though, and it looks like you are on track to do that, hopefully. michelle In a message dated 12/8/2005 5:17:55 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Yeah.. I have a letter from her.. also a friend of mine who was an assistant mayor recently became a deputy director of environmental health service where animal services division sits under.. so we are making some calls to see if this can be taken care of internally.. but I am playing a phone tag with the director of animal services.. so I am still prepared to go to a court and to win.. if I don’t win.. what are the options??? Taking my animals away and kill them??? It just does not make sense. My animals are not bothering anyone, and they are well taken care of .. why removing them and trying to kill them using tax payer’s money..
RE: Hideyo's court case 19th??
Thanks, Michelle I remember reading a case in PA, for a similar situation as I am in she lost her case on the city level, and appealed and she lost on the state level and she lost again, and she appealed to federal level and she finally won! The federal court ruled against the opponent claiming that having the number of animals (I think she has 25 to 35 cats or something) itself does not prove the they are creating nuisance From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2005 3:21 PM To: felvtalk@felineleukemia.org Subject: Re: Hideyo's court case 19th?? Hideyo, if this does go forward and for some reason you do lose and the order is bad, file an appeal and call the Animal Legal Defense Fund for referral to an attorney to represent you on appeal. I personally would call them now to see if someone is in your area who can help on the 19th if you have to go to court. informal resolution is always best, ,though, and it looks like you are on track to do that, hopefully. michelle In a message dated 12/8/2005 5:17:55 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Yeah.. I have a letter from her.. also a friend of mine who was an assistant mayor recently became a deputy director of environmental health service where animal services division sits under.. so we are making some calls to see if this can be taken care of internally.. but I am playing a phone tag with the director of animal services.. so I am still prepared to go to a court and to win.. if I dont win.. what are the options??? Taking my animals away and kill them??? It just does not make sense. My animals are not bothering anyone, and they are well taken care of .. why removing them and trying to kill them using tax payers money..
Re: Hideyo's court case 19th??
Do you have the citation for that case? I would love to read the decision. It's great you found that case. You should actually bring a copy with you to submit to the court. Not having read the decision, I do not know if it is technically relevant to your case (your boyfriend should be able to tell), but it may be if the issue is simply definition of "nuisance" in terms of animals. The court you will be in front of probably has not really thought this through, and the case may help with that. The case may also show both the court and the city attorney that you know that appealing a lot can sometimes eventually pay off and that you are willing to do that-- which they would hate to have to deal with. You may want to see if there is a way to get this case to the city attorney informally too, like through the friend who is going to talk to him. Michelle In a message dated 12/8/2005 5:31:24 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Thanks, Michelle – I remember reading a case in PA, for a similar situation as I am in – she lost her case on the city level, and appealed and she lost on the state level and she lost again, and she appealed to federal level and she finally won! The federal court ruled against the opponent claiming that “having the number of animals (I think she has 25 to 35 cats or something) itself” does not prove the they are creating nuisance
Re: Hideyo's court case 19th??
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) -- MaryChristine AIM / YAHOO: TenHouseCats MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ: 289856892
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, thecity 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 beenmentioned in passing: that hideyo, you are taking in animals that noone else wants, that you are caring for creatures that may be ill orundesirable (to others) but deserve to live, and that you are NOT thepeople who are letting their cats roam to spread disease, cause damageand repopulate the earth (i can't figure out why it's theconscientious people, who try to make good on the problems created byothers, who get penalized)
RE: Hideyo's court case 19th??
http://www.naiaonline.org/body/articles/archives/limitlawpennsylvania.htm here you go.. please read and if it will help my case, michelle. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2005 3:39 PM To: felvtalk@felineleukemia.org Subject: Re: Hideyo's court case 19th?? Do you have the citation for that case? I would love to read the decision. It's great you found that case. You should actually bring a copy with you to submit to the court. Not having read the decision, I do not know if it is technically relevant to your case (your boyfriend should be able to tell), but it may be if the issue is simply definition of nuisance in terms of animals. The court you will be in front of probably has not really thought this through, and the case may help with that. The case may also show both the court and the city attorney that you know that appealing a lot can sometimes eventually pay off and that you are willing to do that-- which they would hate to have to deal with. You may want to see if there is a way to get this case to the city attorney informally too, like through the friend who is going to talk to him. Michelle In a message dated 12/8/2005 5:31:24 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Thanks, Michelle I remember reading a case in PA, for a similar situation as I am in she lost her case on the city level, and appealed and she lost on the state level and she lost again, and she appealed to federal level and she finally won! The federal court ruled against the opponent claiming that having the number of animals (I think she has 25 to 35 cats or something) itself does not prove the they are creating nuisance
RE: Hideyo's court case 19th??
I will find the link and will forward it to you.. Hey, Michelle, I had posted a message at ALDF about my case, and someone replied to my post as follows (just an extract) do you know how I can get more information how unconstitutional this is? Heres the message.. Please note that pet limits have been found unconstitutional when challenged in at least some jurisdictions (of course, it is time-consuming and costly to challenge such laws). In addition, many experts in companion animal issues feel that pet limits result in artificially depressed adoption rates and so, cause communities to kill more animals. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2005 3:39 PM To: felvtalk@felineleukemia.org Subject: Re: Hideyo's court case 19th?? Do you have the citation for that case? I would love to read the decision. It's great you found that case. You should actually bring a copy with you to submit to the court. Not having read the decision, I do not know if it is technically relevant to your case (your boyfriend should be able to tell), but it may be if the issue is simply definition of nuisance in terms of animals. The court you will be in front of probably has not really thought this through, and the case may help with that. The case may also show both the court and the city attorney that you know that appealing a lot can sometimes eventually pay off and that you are willing to do that-- which they would hate to have to deal with. You may want to see if there is a way to get this case to the city attorney informally too, like through the friend who is going to talk to him. Michelle In a message dated 12/8/2005 5:31:24 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Thanks, Michelle I remember reading a case in PA, for a similar situation as I am in she lost her case on the city level, and appealed and she lost on the state level and she lost again, and she appealed to federal level and she finally won! The federal court ruled against the opponent claiming that having the number of animals (I think she has 25 to 35 cats or something) itself does not prove the they are creating nuisance
RE: Hideyo's court case 19th??
What Michelle said is very true, unfortunately.. when I mentioned about my FeLV kitties to one of the animal control officer, the jerk who was on the other side of the phone told me that I should have them killed anyway.. What the city attorney, Greg Wheeler said to us is that.. all they care about is whehter my neighbors are complaining about me having multiple animals or not.. and if not, he said that I should be able to win the case.. and I have a petition signed from all my neighbors (about a dozen). The person who reported me (not for a nuisance, but me having multiple cats) was an anonymous call, so the person will probably not show up the court) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2005 3:55 PM To: felvtalk@felineleukemia.org 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, thecity 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)
Re: Hideyo's court case 19th??
You're doing a great job of advocating for yourself. Michelle In a message dated 12/8/2005 6:15:43 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: What the city attorney, Greg Wheeler said to us is that.. all they care about is whehter my neighbors are complaining about me having multiple animals or not.. and if not, he said that I should be able to win the case.. and I have a petition signed from all my neighbors (about a dozen). The person who reported me (not for a nuisance, but me having multiple cats) was an anonymous call, so the person will probably not show up the court)
Re: Hideyo's court case 19th??
Call the ALDF office and talk to a live person. Tell whoever answers that I told you to call (use my name, Michelle Lerner) and mention that I started the student ALDF chapter at Harvard Law School. Tell them that I am in MA and can not help you and that I told you to call and see if a) there is anyone in their network near where you live, and b) if they have information on cases in NM or any other state in which pet limits were found unconstitutional. Tell them that someone posted on their website that there have been some decisions ruling them unconstitutional, and that you need the citations or, even better if you do not have a lawyer to find the cases (though your boyfriend probably can find them for you with citations), copies of the decisions. Michelle In a message dated 12/8/2005 6:15:51 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I will find the link and will forward it to you.. Hey, Michelle, I had posted a message at ALDF about my case, and someone replied to my post as follows (just an extract)– do you know how I can get more information how unconstitutional this is? Here’s the message.. Please note that pet limits have been found unconstitutional when challenged in at least some jurisdictions (of course, it is time-consuming and costly to challenge such laws). In addition, many experts in companion animal issues feel that pet limits result in artificially depressed adoption rates and so, cause communities to kill more animals.
Re: Hideyo's court case 19th??
Hideyo, Thank you. I read it. The link is not to the decision itself, but to a summary of the decision. And it was not a federal court, but a state court that struck down the ordinance. Does your town have a limit on the number of animals? Or was this justa case-by-case decision denying you the permits you need? If you are being charged criminally for not having the requisite permits and they would not give them to you based on numbers alone, I am not sure I would plead guilty. I think I might argue that there was no basis for denying you the permits and therefore no basis to charge you criminally, or that the denial was unconstitutional. But I really do think you will need legal help in order to make these arguments and should try to get a lawyer. In the civil case, I definitely think you should raise this argument. But you should get the other cases the ALDF member mentioned, because the more courts that have made similar determinations, the more persuasive the argument will be. Again, though, I really do not have enough information about the laws and government actions in your case to figure out exactly how to argue the case. You need someone who can get involved on a local level, if possible. When I worked in NM briefly, I found the legal system pretty appalling. I worked on the state court level, probably above the level of the court you are going to, and even on that level I was amazed. Common law (legal principles developed by courts) were not very developed compared to MA, and some of the courts did not seem familiar with U.S. Supreme Court cases that I learned about in first year of law school. The state court in one county was refusing to waive filing fees for divorce cases when people were too poor to pay the fees, and the U.S. Supreme Court had stated this was unconstitutional way back in the 70's! All of which is to say that you may have to educate the court a bit. Michelle In a message dated 12/8/2005 6:15:57 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: http://www.naiaonline.org/body/articles/archives/limitlawpennsylvania.htm here you go.. please read and if it will help my case, michelle.
Re: Hideyo's court case 19th??
I think it would be a good idea to set up a contingency plan, in case the courtdecision 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 canhelp 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 catsafter 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 withinthe 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 Iboughtour 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, thecity 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 beenmentioned in passing: that hideyo, you are taking in animals that noone else wants, that you are caring for creatures that may be ill orundesirable (to others) but deserve to live, and that you are NOT thepeople who are letting their cats roam to spread disease, cause damageand repopulate the earth (i can't figure out why it's theconscientious people, who try to make good on the problems created byothers, who get penalized)
Re: Hideyo's court case 19th??
I think it is good to always have a back-up plan. But the court has to allow time to file an appeal. The court does not have to agree, however, to stay a bad decision while an appeal is pending, i.e. to leave the cats alone while the appeal pends. However, a refusal to stay the decision can also be appealed on an emergency basis. And in this case, where there is no one complaining and the neighbors have signed a petition in support, there would be no justification for a court to deny a stay during an appeal. Not that courts never do unjustified things, mind you. But legally, she should be able to fight this all the way while keeping her cats with her. But she may need legal help to fight effectively, which is why I mentioned ALDF. One way to help might be to help financially with legal fees if Hideyo can find someone experienced but they do not agree to take the case pro bono. I would be willing to send some money. I would of course be willing to send some money for transport too, but I do not think it should have to come to that, with zealous advocacy. And to tell the truth, so many of her cats are feral and special needs that unless we ourselves took all of them, I can not imagine her finding places for them. Maybepeople on this list could take all of them, in an emergency, and maybe we should figure that out now. But I can not take any at all, due to my own living situation and my partner. And transport across country would be pretty bad for cats as compromised as some of her cats are. Michelle In a message dated 12/8/2005 7:25:40 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I think it would be a good idea to set up a contingency plan, in case the courtdecision 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 canhelp 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 catsafter 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 withinthe 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 Iboughtour 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
Re: Hideyo's court case 19th??
Michelle, are you in MA? So am I. A very educated, liberal state, comparatively speaking. We have it lucky compared to some who live in less tolerant states. Presto - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: felvtalk@felineleukemia.org Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2005 7:03 PM Subject: Re: Hideyo's court case 19th?? Hideyo, Thank you. I read it. The link is not to the decision itself, but to a summary of the decision. And it was not a federal court, but a state court that struck down the ordinance. Does your town have a limit on the number of animals? Or was this justa case-by-case decision denying you the permits you need? If you are being charged criminally for not having the requisite permits and they would not give them to you based on numbers alone, I am not sure I would plead guilty. I think I might argue that there was no basis for denying you the permits and therefore no basis to charge you criminally, or that the denial was unconstitutional. But I really do think you will need legal help in order to make these arguments and should try to get a lawyer. In the civil case, I definitely think you should raise this argument. But you should get the other cases the ALDF member mentioned, because the more courts that have made similar determinations, the more persuasive the argument will be. Again, though, I really do not have enough information about the laws and government actions in your case to figure out exactly how to argue the case. You need someone who can get involved on a local level, if possible. When I worked in NM briefly, I found the legal system pretty appalling. I worked on the state court level, probably above the level of the court you are going to, and even on that level I was amazed. Common law (legal principles developed by courts) were not very developed compared to MA, and some of the courts did not seem familiar with U.S. Supreme Court cases that I learned about in first year of law school. The state court in one county was refusing to waive filing fees for divorce cases when people were too poor to pay the fees, and the U.S. Supreme Court had stated this was unconstitutional way back in the 70's! All of which is to say that you may have to educate the court a bit. Michelle In a message dated 12/8/2005 6:15:57 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: http://www.naiaonline.org/body/articles/archives/limitlawpennsylvania.htm here you go.. please read and if it will help my case, michelle.
Re: Hideyo's court case 19th??
I understand and agree. I do, though, also agree that we should figure out an alternate-placement plan now. I don't know the conditions of her cats, so cannot comment on how bad the conditions of some of them are, and their transportability. Perhaps those in the worst conditions could stay with her. We still don't know how many cats she would be allowed to keep under the ordinance pertaining to her township. I'm not willing to send money for legal fees because I was badly burned by a lawyer a month ago, pertaining to my recently deceased father's will. The amount of money he charged me for nothing could easily have saved several cats' lives. But I am willing to provide money for transporting the cats. Let me say, though, that I do admire your generosity in being willing to assist with legal fees. I think we need to know more about this situation, Michelle. My number's 413-245-0459 if you ever want to give me a call, and my email's [EMAIL PROTECTED]. I think we're kindred spirits in some ways, but that we may risk becoming overcommitted in a situation that we don't know that well. I've done a tremendous amount of rescue work in 25 years, and what people say can be misleading. I'm sensing a lack of crucial information. With appreciation, Presto - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: felvtalk@felineleukemia.org Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2005 7:32 PM Subject: Re: Hideyo's court case 19th?? I think it is good to always have a back-up plan. But the court has to allow time to file an appeal. The court does not have to agree, however, to stay a bad decision while an appeal is pending, i.e. to leave the cats alone while the appeal pends. However, a refusal to stay the decision can also be appealed on an emergency basis. And in this case, where there is no one complaining and the neighbors have signed a petition in support, there would be no justification for a court to deny a stay during an appeal. Not that courts never do unjustified things, mind you. But legally, she should be able to fight this all the way while keeping her cats with her. But she may need legal help to fight effectively, which is why I mentioned ALDF. One way to help might be to help financially with legal fees if Hideyo can find someone experienced but they do not agree to take the case pro bono. I would be willing to send some money. I would of course be willing to send some money for transport too, but I do not think it should have to come to that, with zealous advocacy. And to tell the truth, so many of her cats are feral and special needs that unless we ourselves took all of them, I can not imagine her finding places for them. Maybepeople on this list could take all of them, in an emergency, and maybe we should figure that out now. But I can not take any at all, due to my own living situation and my partner. And transport across country would be pretty bad for cats as compromised as some of her cats are. Michelle In a message dated 12/8/2005 7:25:40 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I think it would be a good idea to set up a contingency plan, in case the courtdecision 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 canhelp 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 catsafter 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 withinthe 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 Iboughtour 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
Re: Hideyo's court case 19th??
I think that many are feral and semi-feral and at least one is FeLV+ and several are elderly. When I said I would assist with legal fees, I mean about $100. We are actually doing pretty badly financially since moving, due to me only having part-time work right now and a bunch of vet bills and house repairs and having spent our savings on the move. I would hope that an ALDF-associated attorney would do this kind of case pro bono, though. Hideyo would have to take the lead in creating a back-up emergency plan for placing the cats with list members. It is true that none of us but her know what is going on with her cats or her case. Michelle In a message dated 12/8/2005 7:46:41 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I understand and agree. I do, though, also agree that we should figure out an alternate-placement plan now. I don't know the conditions of her cats, so cannot comment on how bad the conditions of some of them are, and their transportability. Perhaps those in the worst conditions could stay with her. We still don't know how many cats she would be allowed to keep under the ordinance pertaining to her township.
Re: Hideyo's court case 19th??
you're probably right, michelle--i'm just looking at it from the position of enforcement of ALL animal laws, not just directing enforcement against responsible caretakers. -- MaryChristine AIM / YAHOO: TenHouseCats MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ: 289856892
