SB6 The Warrantless Search Issue

Legal Objections To Constitutional Concerns Oregon SB6

law OFFICES OF

HOLMES WEDDLE & BARCOTT, P.C.

Alaska, Washington, Oregon, and California

Lakeview Village Center, 310 North State Street, Suite 200

Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034

Telephone: (503) 594-1347 Fax: (503) 496-5796

Robert E. Babcock

e-mail: rbabcock@hwb-law.com

CERTIFIED/RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

July 9, 2013

Governor John Kitzhaber

State Capitol Building

900 Court Street, NE, Suite 254

Salem, OR 97301-4047

Re: Senate Bill 6

Dear Governor Kitzhaber:

I write on behalf of the many Oregonians who – without thought of profit – devote their time and energies to saving the lives of animals otherwise doomed to be killed because of policies, practices, or space limitations at large humane organizations and animal control agencies. On their behalf, I request that you not approve Senate Bill 6 and that, instead, you return it to the Senate with written objections pursuant to Article V, Sections 15(a) and 15(b) of the Oregon Constitution.

Sections 10 and 11 of the Bill permit locally designated "enforcement agencies" to require licensing and conduct warrantless inspections of the private property and records of all individuals who (a) solicit or accept donations for their animal rescue efforts and (b) house more than 10 animals in their homes for varying periods of time. The persons subject to these sections include those who – although funding nearly all costs out-of-pocket – either solicit or obtain donations, usually very small amounts of cash or food or veterinary assistance. In my judgment, these provisions are unconstitutional. Legislative Counsel has acknowledged that the constitutional question is "not free from doubt" but has reached a different conclusion. I have attached both Senate Bill 6 and Legislative Counsel's letter dated July 6, 2013.

The key problem with Legislative Counsel's opinion – uncertain though it is – about the constitutional issue is the assumption – one devoid of any legal analysis – that animal rescuers who provide their services in their own homes are "commercial premises" for which constitutional safeguards are reduced. That assumption is misplaced. To the best of my knowledge, every state and federal decision applying the "commercial premises" exception to the requirement that a judicial warrant precede a search of private property has involved a business, not a charitable or personal endeavor. If the distinction between a business and simple "good works" is recognized, Senate Bill 6 will be struck down, but only after all involved incur substantial expense.

One of the intriguing twists to the Bill's poorly crafted definition of an "animal rescue entity" as one who "solicits or accepts donations in any form" is the fact that truly commercial entities – the ones for which profits preclude the need for donations – are not subject to warrantless inspections while those individuals who don't seek to make a dime from their services do face intrusions onto their private property and into their records. This result is not one that should be countenanced by your office.

Thank you for your attention. If you or your staff has any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me. I will provide whatever is requested.

Sincerely,

Robert E. Babcock

cc.

Ms. Liami Reeves

General Counsel

Office of the Governor

Mr. Dmitri Palmeter

Legislative Director

Office of the Governor

Mr. Steve Wolf

Chief Counsel, General Counsel Division

Oregon Department of Justice

1162 Court Street NE

Salem, OR 97301-4096

Do You Care That Sociopaths May Run Animal Shelters?

I'm guessing this new Peitition for SB will go viral within 24 hours.  That's because some of these people I know have thousands of FB 'friends,' nationwide.  They're professional netorkers, really..  

 

I intend to direct pressure to the State Attorney General because she has interest and power over the  local government who have been non-responsive for over a year of contacting them with complaints about regular violations of the law, with the code sections cited and visual aids, including links to You Tube videos, in many cases.  

 

And, the California Vet. Med. Board as they are the regulating agency over the medically certified and authorized personnel at the  'shelter' which does not have a scale, guesses at doses for killing animals, there's NO vet. On staff OR contracted with SB City since this past June so how can the RVT, etc. be 'indirectly supervised' in use of the controlled substance as required under the state and federal law?   The CVMB can't be bothered by phone and they require written complaints, so they'll get them now.

 

That brings the DEA into the picture, who should be VERY interested in the apparent federal law violations.  I am really HOPING to see the perp. walk of some of these sociopaths at SB City Shelter, at least..

 

We have many Public Records Act responses, including the handwritten euth. Logs that are going to an Advisory Board comprised of vets. who have already taken down several pounds over the years.    I'm told one of the vets. was very key in the original/first Animal Welfare Act passed in the '60's.  

 

Public pressure on the state and federal politicians and these agencies, media exposure of it all, should yield positive results.   I'm testing the theory as soon as we get the Petition done.  

 

Hoping to replicate across the U.S. with others in cities, counties and states with similar sociopaths in charge of their animal services.   MCAS can be the next target along with Fort Worth, TX.   There are few individuals who have amassed great documentation against their animal services but there isn't enough help or time in the day for one or two people to get the attention needed.   

 

I hope to help with that with all the contacts and networkers especially.  Some of the people I'm working with were instrumental in getting Betty Cromley out of power of a shelter in either TN or TX (can't remember at the moment).  And, that hell hole was shut down, too.  It was Campbell County, as I remember in either TN or TX.  

 

animalshelter411.com will be the first site up for posting each 'shelters' issues.'   Irrefutable evidence will be provided in every case and it'll be updated, reguilarly.  Directing the media to this one location with contacts in rescue or whoever is willing to speak out, provided.

 

Just about to go live.   Paw Report will follow in the future.

 

I didn't intentionally leave off people from the MCAS e-mails, this computer didn't have the e-mails with their addresses handy.  I don't mind if the entire MCAS group usually on your e-mails know this info., if you'd like to copy them?!

 

I'll keep you posted.

 

Lori

 

Support Oregon's Independent Rescues Against Warrantless Searches

Support Oregon’s small independent rescues against warrantless searches

 

 

Small animal rescues in Oregon, the primary stakeholders affected by Sections 10 and 11    of Senate Bill 6, were not allowed a voice in this legislation by the bill’s main sponsors OHS and HSUS.  When we asked for input we were told we had to first give up the right to object.

 

A False Claim: The proposition made by the sponsors of Senate Bill 6 that Sections 10 and 11 are “necessary” components of the bill because independent animal rescues are at “high risk” for animal abuse/neglect offense and must be regulated (by them) is shocking and completely unsupported by the facts. Exploiting one recent isolated sensational criminal case, the Alicia Inglish case in Salem, Oregon, a case successfully prosecuted under existing laws, is a calculated misleading effort driven by an unspecified political agenda.

 

The incidence of neglect or abuse among Oregon’s hundreds of small independent rescues is extraordinarily rare. Why are independent rescues being targeted as a class instead of simply prosecuting abuse or neglect where it is found, individually or as an entity?

 

 Under the guise of providing modest accountability, Sections 10 and 11 of Senate Bill 6 grant unfettered police powers to enforcement agencies to search and inspect the private property of rescues, often their homes and homes of foster families, without the need to show probable cause. That is very likely unconstitutional.

 

The Reality: No one works harder out of pocket, driven by compassion, than Oregon’s independent small animal rescues. That can be proven every day.

 

As small rescues we have no political agenda and no lobbyists at the legislature. Our mission is humanitarian not politically motivated or driven: rescuing and saving the lives of Oregon’s homeless companion animals. When small independent rescues fund raise we do so for the sake of homeless animals, not to fund campaign efforts. We have no other group purpose.

 

Large corporate animal protection societies, some who are sponsors of SB 6 have never represented us nor do they represent our interests now. We are the rescues that take the animals that large humane societies and county and city animal control agencies deem “unadoptable” and discard. If we didn’t take them they would have no future. The majority would be killed. We are given no funding by the corporate animal protection groups (including the bill’s sponsors) to meet the necessary and often prohibitively costly rehabilitation of the homeless animals they reject. 

 

For example, one small independent rescue was called by a large well endowed humane society and asked to take a Rottweiler puppy with hip dysplasia. The humane society kept the puppy’s littermate, the one without a handicap. Overwhelmingly small animal rescues (unlike corporate entities) provide all necessary care, do home checks as part of due diligence, take back adoption returns without question and correct the problem. Most corporate animal entities do not have the same exacting high standards. We do not abandon the animals we have been charged with caring for to the system.

 

We ask Oregon’s legislature to please allow our concerns and views to be heard. Take the time to pass a good bill, not a profoundly flawed bill with empty promises of later “corrections”. Vote to amend the bill and delete Sections 10 and 11. It is misguided and there are too many apparent civil rights violations for the bill to be enforceable.

 

Cancer Symptomns in Dogs & Cats

Cancer Symptoms in Dogs and Cats by Natural Wonder Pet Products

Can you spot cancer symptoms in dogs and cats?

While it looks as though cancer affects greater and greater proportions of people in our society, it is also affecting larger numbers of our pets. It might seem like more pets are affected by cancer than in the past, but the hard numbers tell us we are recognizing and diagnosing the condition more frequently.

As our pets live longer and fuller lives with better medical and health care, they are equally subject to cancer in much the same ways we are. A diagnosis of cancer can be confusing, but it is not always a death sentence for our cats and dogs. There are numerous areas in which one should be informed.

Cancer is not one single disease. Rather, it is an overgrowth of damaged cells that can literally spring from any tissue in the body. This means there are many different forms cancer takes. Some times the tumor is benign, or a localized tumor that does not metastasize or spread to other parts of the body. Other times it is malignant, meaning cancer cells may travel to distant sites throughout the body by way of the bloodstream or through the vessels of the lymph system.

Most cancer symptoms in dogs and cats are identified through a variety of different behaviors. These are typically not recognized as cancer warnings by the pet owner. The American Veterinary Medical Association has organized a Top Ten list to help pet owners identify cancer symptoms in dogs and cats:

1. Abnormal swellings that persist or continue to grow 2. Sores that do not heal 3. Weight loss 4. Loss of appetite 5. Bleeding or discharge from any body opening 6. Offensive odor 7. Difficulty eating or swallowing 8. Hesitation to exercise or loss of stamina 9. Persistent lameness or stiffness 10. Difficulty breathing, urinating, or defecating

(Veterinary Cancer Society) These symptoms are not always cancer related, but they should always be investigated, especially as a pet ages. Many kinds of cancers become more prevalent with age.

Once your pet has received a cancer diagnosis, your veterinarian will want to determine what extent the cancer or tumor is currently at. This is a conventional method of developing both a prognosis as well as the treatment protocol for your pet.

Depending on what kind of cancer it is and where it is located, a variety of tests may be performed including things like blood tests, biopsies, radiographs, ultrasounds, and endoscopy among other things.

Treatment is based solely on the type and extent of the cancer. If it is a localized tumor, surgery is often used to "debulk" and remove it. These tumors have a reasonable chance of removing all cancer. Other times more treatment will be necessary. Additional options include radiation, chemotherapy, and immunotherapy. A concerned pet owner should always ask as many questions as possible and do the right research to understand the situation. It’s okay to ask for a second opinion, especially from a board certified veterinary oncologist.

There is no exclusive answer when treating a pet for cancer. Many factors must be weighed such as the type of cancer, the severity, the prognosis, and the quality of life. For example, if a dog or cat is an elderly animal with bone cancer, will the quality of life be good to remove a limb if the others suffer from arthritis?

In a surprisingly high number of cases the use of alternative medicine and supplements offers an excellent addition to cancer treatment. These therapies can help boost immune systems, relieve nausea, calm digestive tracts, provide necessary anti-oxidants, and remove toxins (like residue from chemotherapy) from the system.

Many times these therapies alone, especially in cases where it seems the options are limited, provide a pet with more quality and quantity of life than expected. Our first job as responsible pet owners is to recognize cancer symptoms in dogs and cats, get informed, then get busy bringing our best friends back to good health.

SEE ALSO: Cancer Care Herbal Extract Food Drops

NOTE: Happy Tails notices a change in the coat condition, which isn't always cancer, but clearly indicates toxicity in the body. The coat could become coarse, dry or flaky when there are no other conditions that would cause that. Whenever the coat changes, it's time for major evaluation of what could be going on inside the dog, rather than just on the outside visibility of the coat.

Cancer is systemic, it may begin in one isolated part but is quickly carried by the blood and lymph system, so whacking off a leg will not stop cancer, however, debulking a tumor will remove millions of cancer cells from circulating in the body, thus making potential healing possible.

It's always easier to prevent a disease rather than trying to heal something that has a long standing grasp on the body. It is always critical to give the best, all natural/organic food and supplements every day of your animal's life.

Nothing "cures" except our own bodies and our creator, however, specific herbs and minerals do provide a beneficial environment in which our bodies can preform as nature intended and help the body emerge into wellness.

The Climate Brick Road Video

Boated Sex Poodle Still Stranded

How fortunate Mr. Gore and Generation Investment Management (GIM) were able to secure a half-page "opinion" piece in the October 30, 2013 Wall Street Journal. Readers should be grateful that GIM is so concerned for their financial well-being that they wrote this exposé of misguided investments in fossil fuels. The article reads like a self-serving stock prospectus designed to persuade potential investors sell off or short carbon assets, lest they be "stranded" with toxic investments. Perhaps GIM would then be so kind as to take those freed funds under its own management and redirect them to the profitable "renewables" niche market in which they specialize.

Mr. Gore himself is stranded with the outsized and unfulfilled climate catastrophe claims of his 2006 An Inconvenient Truth. They live on in this latest anti-carbon crusade. The central claim of the WSJ article of a "consensus within the scientific community that increasing the global temperature by more than 2˚C will likely causing devastating and irreversible damage to the planet" is unsubstantiated. 

Quoting a mythical consensus does not qualify as scientific truth. The inconvenient, but factual, truth is that even as atmospheric carbon dioxide has risen about 9% the past 15 years, global temperatures have remained level. Sea level rates of rise have not accelerated; no major hurricanes have stuck the U.S. since 2005.

Fossil fuels remain the mainstay of reliable energy production, here and overseas. Coal-based energy production is increasing on a worldwide basis. Germany exemplifies this trend as the energy void created by closures of their nuclear power plants is being filled by coal-fired electrical generation.

Like the iconic polar bears used to promote global warming catastrophe, Mr. Gore is now the one stranded on an Arctic ice floe of shrinking credibility.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/11/al_gore_still_stranded.html#ixzz2jha1rzwq
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook