|
Long Beach Animals Being Held as Evidence
Donations needed.
Adopt a dog from LBAC/SPCA
(See updates below)
Pryor's Planet will be taking donations to help pay for the legal fund that saved these animals.
Click above to donate
or
Send your donations to:
(BE SURE TO DESIGNATE FOR "Save Noahs Ark Animals")
Pryor's Planet
16633 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1450
Encino, CA 91436
administrator@pryorsplanet.com
UPDATE: 10/01/2006
Jennifer:
On Friday, Sept. 29, '06 the Court in Dept. 85 denied the TRO. Unfortunately, in doing so the judge never ruled on the merits of the TRO.
The merits of the TRO were whether the City used the wrong statute to remove and seize the animals from Noah's Ark. If the Court found that to be true, then it should have issued the TRO and restrained the City from being able to take the position that the animals removed and seized from Noah's Ark would be deemed "abandoned" on Oct.5th based on Noah's Ark's inability to pay over $100,000 in liens that have accrued for the City's cost of caring for and treating the animals since they were seized. Specifically, the TRO was based on the grounds that the City of Long Beach Animal Regulation Dept. removed and seized the animals from Noah's Ark pursuant to the wrong statute (Cal. Pen. Code Section 597.1., instead of Section 597f.)
Section 597f (the correct statute) does not provide for an administrative Post Seizure Hearing. Thus, under Section 597f the Superior Court would have exclusive jurisdiction over the Noah's Ark case. On the other hand, in order for 597.1. (the wrong statue) to be applicable the animals must have been "stray or abandoned" at the time they were seized. The City knew it could not win on that argument because the animals were removed and seized from Noah's ark. So, the City Attorney (Crystal Meyers) never even argued that the animals at Noah's Ark were "stray or abandoned'. The City only argued that the Court did not have jurisdiction to overrule or vacate the decision of the administrative hearing officer at the Post Seizure Hearing earlier this month. The City also argued that the proper forum for attacking the administrative decision was through a writ of mandamus filed with the Court of Appeal. I reminded the Court that in addition to the TRO we had also applied for a writ of mandamus in the same pleadings pending before her.
In denying the TRO, the Judge did not address the merits of whether or not the City proceeded in error by mistakenly using the wrong statute to remove and seize the animals from Noah's Ark. Instead, the judge simply embraced the City's notion that the Superior Court lacked jurisdiction to disturb or vacate the administrative ruling through the issuance of a TRO or through granting our writ of mandamus. I told the Court that as a superior tribunal with original and primary subject matter jurisdiction it had the ultimate duty and responsibility for determining the immediate and ultimate fate of the animals seized from Noah's Ark. I argued that in denying the TRO the Court would be allowing the City to deem the animals "abandoned". The City would then be able to dispose of the animals as it saw fit, including through euthanization pursuant to municipal protocols that are based on space availability and budget limitations I also argued that the Court had to grant the TRO or else an administrative hearing officer from another animal regulation agency would, in effect, be divesting the Superior Court of its ultimate duty to make a final judicial determination of what should happen to the animals. I pointed out that this was true because, absent the granting of the TRO, after Oct. 5th the City is going to begin to dispose of the animals as it sees fit and once the animals are disposed of by the City there won't be would be anything left for the Court to do in the civil case which Noah's Ark has on file and which is still pending before her in Dept. 85.
Finally, I argued that as a court of "equity", the judge could exercise her discretion to find that the City had used the wrong code section to remove and seize the animals from Noah's Ark. Based upon that finding it could rule that the Post Seizure Hearing was null and void, and issue the TRO or the writ of mandamus. This would return the parties to the status quo and each would then have 15 days to make their next move while the TRO was in place. I pointed out that such a decision caused no harm or prejudice to the City because it would not change the fact that the City would continue to maintain custody and possession of the animals (which it was going to do anyway) while the TRO was in place. The difference would simply be that the City could not deem the animals "abandoned" by Noah's Ark based on its inability to pay over $100,000 in liens by Oct.5th. In other words, it would "stay" the "abandonment" and stop the City from disposing of the animals while the TRO was in place. In the meantime, we could decide whether or not to file a writ of mandamus with the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal would then decide if the Superior Court did or did not have jurisdiction and/or if the City used the wrong statute and improperly used an administrative hearing process instead of the Superior Court where we believe the case filed by Noah's Ark against the City of Long Beach should be heard and decided.
The judge took most of the morning to make her decision, but in my opinion , she ultimately bowed to what seemed like extreme pressure from the "Court of public opinion" in Long Beach. As a result, she took the easy way out and denied the TRO without ever ruling on the merits of whether or not the City had acted under the wrong statute in removing and seizing the animals from Noah's Ark.
I ordered a full transcript of the hearing which I will send to you. In the meantime, I hope this is helpful in explaining, in general, what happened at Friday's TRO hearing.
Regards,
James E. Blancarte
Partner
CARLSMITH BALL LLP
Intervention Needed For Alexia Kyrklund
10/09/2006 from Shane And Sia Barbi - The Kittly Liberation Front
Animal Abuse Case Details - www.pet-abuse.com - Cruelty Database
Update 10/12/2006
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 12:53 AM
Subject: Pls Read
I met with Lieutenant Quigley today for over 3 hours. Among other things I was informed that Boo, the dog I pulled for Alex on July 10 will be giving birth within the next 24-48 hours.
Let's do the math. Boo got bailed with URI on July 10 and was given a deferment to be spayed July 26. She was seized by LB Animal Control on Aug 23. Gestation is 63 days. Either Boo is holding the worlds record for the longest pregnancy or Alex was once again negligent.
I also found out that the little adorable Maggie a small Cockapoo that I pulled for Alex on July 10th died, due to the lack of medical care provided by Alex of Noah's Ark.
I am extremely sad and angry. I don't think much more needs to be added here. Those of you who still feel that Alex Kyrkland is a viable rescue, think again. This is a cautionary tale for everyone in rescue. Be careful, take head, beware and check who you pull animals for very carefully. Getting them out of the shelter is only the beginning.
Pnina
Posted 10/15/2006
More information comes to light about why some of the animals are not at LBAC/SPCA
Katie,
Please crosspost on all Yahoo Groups and SRN. EBLAST!!!!!!!
This was posted on a public forum in regards to animals seized from Noah's Ark and are now getting treatment in Animal Hospitals.
Posted: Sun Oct 15, 2006 7:21 pm
Aside from the animals in the offsite holding facility....
Can this be why there are so many unaccounted for ???
How many of those seized were brought to private animal hospitals because of their severe health issues ???
"Please enter your comments? I have not ever been to Noah's Ark so I cannot say anything bad about the place itself. What I can say that I was a witness to, was the condition of the 15 or so cats and dogs that were brought from Noah's Ark by Animal Control, into the animal hospital where I am employed. Every one of them appeared gravely ill with upper respiratory symptoms, runny goopy eyes, and a host of other problems yet to be diagnosed. I cannot describe the worst of the cases that came in to protect the identity of the animals and of our facility, but these animals were on the brink of death from infections and diseases that have gone untreated for too long. If this is any indication of the "care" they were given while at Noah's Ark, then I would have to say that the cause for which the facility stands for, is a huge sham.
Every one of these animals that were brought in are being diagnosed, given the proper course of medicine and will be put up for adoption. We weren't the only hospital to donate services to these neglected animals, many others did the same and contrary to what one other poster said, these animals will go to good homes and will not sit in a cage for the remainder of their lives.
So far today, there have been medicated baths for many, grooming for the worst mats I have ever seen on a dog, IV fluids for several that were dehydrated and each one was resting comfortably on a clean padded pillow with fresh water and food available when I left for the day. There were a few in isolation due to the nature of their illnesses but they too, were resting comfortably.
Maybe the owner of Noah's Ark has or had good intentions, but there comes a point when you have to say you can't take anymore animals in. When you can't provide the necessary medical care required for rehabilitation, then you need to turn to someone else for help. I'm sure many will argue that these animals were brought to Noah's Ark in bad shape but again I must say, find other resources then because you can't save the world. When all you are doing is collecting animals because you can't turn them away, you are doing a disservice to them because you lack the time/money/space you need to give them proper care.
What the media may not have reported on and what the public needs to know, is the double digit numbers of dead animals that were found by Animal Control, and removed from Noah's Ark. There is no reason for this and if anyone has one they would like to try and pass off as valid, I urge them to go ahead and try. "
Update 10/19/2006
|
