Judge: Animal Advocates Illegally Took Dogs
Don't blink or this story might disappear again. That's right. Wherever it's posted, it keeps getting pulled off the Internet. First it was posted on wsmv.com in Nashville on 4/15/11, but it was quickly yanked. But it had already been picked up and posted on MSNBC.com. Sometime on 4/16/11 the story was removed. I guess the truth hurts.
Judge: Animal Advocates Illegally Took Dogs
Advocates Say Pets Unhealthy, Needed Veterinary Care
POSTED: 5:06 pm CDT April 15, 2011
UPDATED: 5:32 pm CDT April 15, 2011
NASHVILLE, Tenn. -- A judge has ruled animal advocates acted illegally when they took more than 100 dogs from a Warren County home.
A judge ruled Friday that Wilma Jones can keep four of her dogs. She agreed to give up the rest after animal advocates seized the dogs from pens in Jones' back yard.
The judge said Friday that raid was illegal because Jones was not charged criminally.
The advocates said the dogs were unhealthy and needed veterinary care.
The dogs Jones surrendered will be available for adoption.
As we wrote in our original story about the raid on Mrs. Jones, if Scotlund Haisley is involved in a raid, you better not count on it being legal. There have still not been any charges filed against Mrs. Jones. As the judge very correctly pointed out in court, that makes the seizure of her dogs illegal. So, what does that mean for the 117 dogs that were seized from her? She gave up ownership of the dogs in court because ARC was demanding $100,000 for their care. But the dogs would not have been in ARC's custody if they had not illegally seized the dogs. Does this mean Mrs. Jones could demand to get her dogs back now? Unfortunately, the dogs have most likely been spayed and neutered by this time, which means they are not valuable as breeding animals at this point. Perhaps it means that we'll be seeing Mrs. Jones taking ARC and those who assisted them to civil court to be reimbursed for the value of her stolen dogs. Not to mention other damages. We've been told that during the seizure officials were very rough with this 72 year-old-woman.
There might be a lot of people to sue. Consider the possibly libelous things said about Mrs. Jones and the vendetta being plotted against her on the Facebook page of the so-called "Warren County Humane Society of McMinnville, TN." We've put the name of this group in quotes because we've been informed that there is no such official organization. The county had an official humane society at one time but now they only have an animal control department. The people calling themselves by this name currently are only rescuers acting as vigilantes in Warren County. They're a 501(c)3 group with no facilities and they don't officially represent McMinnville or Warren county. These are the same people who illegally took two Great Danes a couple of months ago and, when ordered by a judge to return them, claimed that they "lost" one of them. Yeah, right. Now you can see that they are planning more "undercover" work (and planting "evidence"?) so they can check on Mrs. Jones pets. And they think it's a good idea to call in bogus animal abuse claims against her because they don't like the way the legal system works. It's people like this who give good animal rescues a bad name.
So, let's add it all up. Vigilante rescue people worked undercover for three weeks, possibly planting evidence, at the home and kennels of a 72-year-old woman. They called in ARC, Animal Rescue Corps, headed by Scotlund Haisley, who is already named in at least two lawsuits by breeders for illegally seizing dogs. They took 121 dogs and five birds. Mrs. Jones had to surrender 117 of the dogs when ARC demanded she come up with $100,000 for their care, but she asked to keep her personal pets and birds. The judge ruled that the seizure had been illegal because Mrs. Jones has never been charged with anything at all, and he gave her back her four house dogs and her birds.
Of course, it's possible the DA could pull something together and charge Mrs. Jones with something, just to save face. But it looks pretty bad right now. The District Attorney was actually at the scene of the raid, making speeches before it occurred. Wouldn't you think there might be charges by now if there were some real grounds for them? Or maybe ARC and their undercover friends have taken everyone for a ride. You have to wonder how much $$$$ ARC has received in donations for these dogs, along with all of the generous donations of goods and services from people and businesses. That sounds like the definition of a scam to me. All too often when dogs are seized from breeders it comes down to one thing: money. Steal dogs from breeders so they can be sold and the money goes to rescues and shelters, rather than to the breeder who has invested money in caring for the dogs and raising them. In cases with seizure bonds set so high, as in this one, with ARC demanding $100,000 to care for the dogs, they also make money on the front end, before the dogs are even sold, from the "care" of the dogs, despite donations. And the amount set for the care of the dogs has been greatly inflated.
We'll have to wait and see what happens next. I do hope Mrs. Jones has her day in court, and not the way her more rabid detractors have been hoping.
Posts
