FAMILY LAW DIVORCE ATTORNEY Chico- (530) 359-8810 Attorney C.Chan... Proven Results!

Attorney C. Chan, Esq. Affordable Strategy-Driven,Custody,Modify, Domestic violence,Spousal,HIGH RATINGS,Proven Results!

Wednesday, October 28, 2020

Pitbull Litigator-- If the Hat Fits? Federal Court Litigation

Attorney Chan is well qualified to speak on the issues involving the dogs commonly known as "pitbulls" "APBTs" (American Pitbull Terriers) or just "pitbulls" (generic classification for which there is not necessarily known genetic markers or proof that such dog is actually descended from APBT actual line, and there is no genetic link might just look like one?)

Why is that?     

The "why is that" ---  is because attorney Chan has long studied the issues, starting in 2003, and litigated in state and CA Northern and Southern District Federal Courts and Denver CO Federal courts.. over issues involving the dogs and the dog breed laws which often "ban" such dogs. Attorney has worked on these issues in Northern District Federal Court San Francisco, and although we did not win on the issue of pitbull dogs being treated disparately (years ago), everyone these days realizes that the pitbull is one of the most widely liked breed type (despite the haters...)

...Many "pitbull" dogs are actually not APBT but are mixed down (mongrels) which can cause issues. The reason for this is due to fact that the actual APBT dogs were bred by using a bulldog and small terrier dog; they were used for dog fighting wagering, and not for killing. the original size was about 30lbs, NOT 70lbs. People began later to mix molosser type canines with APBT and that is what has caused harm to the dogs, since one cannot use cross overs from unknown lines and expect to produce a line of dogs which have certain characteristics. Attorney has worked with well known canine experts and has studied the subject for many years. Most of this litigation involves federal law, rational basis, and criminal cases, civil cases and local laws. In addition, attorney has done dog rescue for over twelve years and is readily familiar with animal shelters and related penal code (for example PC597, PC597.1,etc) which focuses on alleged "abuse"and has handled criminal cases involving animal laws as well.

SEE Attorney is likely one of the few attorneys outside of  San Francisco, Los Angeles and San Diego, that has first hand knowledge and data on canine issues involving certain breeds, restrictions in the sales of dogs, and the abuses by certain non profits claiming to be "rescues." Non profits do not pay taxes. Yet some BUY animals including dogs, from auctions and then resell them, claiming they are rescued? For example, a claimed rescue group paid over $7k (yes, seven thousand) for one dog that was pregnant, then they SOLD 3 of the pups for over $4,000 EACH. Importing alleged "rescue"dogs has resulted in new strains of virulent disease not seen in the USA prior.

Let's get real people---if you are selling dogs, fine. But don't claim that doing it under a 501(c)(3) makes you a "rescue." It in fact, does the opposite.

And an update on one of the biggest dog related cases in the state, is continuing in Sacto Federal Court where the owners are suing Placer County/others,  because the non profit "humane group" acting as the animal control apparently, has been accused of illegal action. Attorney herein already knows what happened because attorney worked on the case for a year previously, before any lawsuit was filed.

Attorney herein believes the case is a civil rights case, and when coupled with PC597.1, proves that the PC597.1 code was applied improperly,*** resulting in great harm.
The case may have been dismissed but if it was, crucial data was not used and instead the case may only have used a government claim and failed to single out a non governmental entity, even if they worked together.
 [In constitutional law as to statues, one either uses the strict wording, or "as applied" to the case; in this case, they used the strict wording to create knowing harm and blatantly ignored the "as applied" which was very very obvious.] Placer County is no stranger to these type of cases. Years ago in a horse case, the owner found her horse was given away to a government employee without due process. If we get rid of due process, then this obviously means our government is way way off base.

  • California Court of Appeals, 4th District: "Our role in construing a statute is to ascertain the intent of the Legislature so as to effectuate the purpose of the law. (People v. Jefferson (1999) 21 Cal.4th 86, 94 [86 Cal.Rptr.2d 893, 980 P.2d 441].) Because the statutory language is generally the most reliable indicator of that intent, we look first at the words themselves, giving them their usual and ordinary meaning. (People v. Lawrence (2000) 24 Cal.4th 219, 230 [99 Cal.Rptr.2d 570, 6 P.3d 228].) 
  • We do not, however, consider the statutory language in isolation, but rather examine the entire substance of the statute in order to determine the scope and purpose of the provision, construing its words in context and harmonizing its various parts. (People v. Acosta (2002) 29 Cal.4th 105, 112 [124 Cal.Rptr.2d 435, 52 P.3d 624].)" Alford v. Superior Court(People) (2003) 29 Cal.4th 1033, 1040

Tuesday, October 27, 2020

Attorney's Favorite Dog Holiday Video--Oldie but Goodie!!! animals doing tricks LOL Liberals in CA have steadily eroded the animal and pet industry, claiming that no one should be able to sell animals at a profit. YET many animal rescues are able to do the same thing, especially if the animal they obtain is an expensive one, and then as a "non profit" (if they actually are one) can index everything off anyway, and that's assuming they are even compliant with the AG laws on 501(c)(3) groups, which many are not in compliance, and no one bothers to check? Why?

Because there is no law that regulates "rescues" and there is no oversight for rescues in California? Further, there is still likely no oversight for groups that claim they are non profit but actually make profits off of reselling seized pets? Let me give an example. An alleged rescue group seizes 30 dogs or puppies and uses the CA penal code to do the seizure. Likely illegally from what cases attorney has seen.

THEN these people get together and make up a story which is not actually true, and then SELL the very animals that they claim NO ONE should be allowed to sell? (They have a law passed which makes it illegal to sell an animal such as a dog or cat--- ONLY the non profit or rescues or the pound is allowed to SELL the animals?)

" On Jan. 1, 2019, California enacted a prohibition on the sales of dogs, cats and rabbits in retail stores unless the animals were acquired from a shelter or rescue group that has a cooperative agreement with a shelter, humane society or society of the prevention of cruelty to animals."

THUS this means that a "rescue" can sell at retail, any animals they supposedly obtained via some agreement with a shelter, humane society or society for prevention of cruelty to animals. This means then, IF a "rescue" "humane society" or SPCA manages to broker a deal with people just outside of San Diego, an endless stream of animals simple gets moved into california and POOF we now have thousands of puppies from other states and over the border? People--this has been going on for many years!!! It has long been known that the alleged non profits simply want to PROFIT themselves without being known as sellers of animals at a profit?

In this county, do we really believe that no rescues are making bank? If you believe that then you don't know much about sales, resale, or animals as pets. The truth is, there is a shortage of available good pet stock, and the animal rights rescues purposely intend to keep it that way so that they can lure you into the poor liddle puppy dog syndrome like an idiot? Because you bought into their baloney nonsense? So much of the public have never understood this bait switch nonsense. But because we worked in the industry for years, we have long known how it works.

Forget buying an animal from a rescue unless it's a cat rescue. [Cats have very little value when it comes to obtaining a cat unless it's a very expensive breed.] Buy your own puppy from a reputable breeder that actually knows the history of their animals, knows how to take care of them, and will not give away their animals cheaply. Do not believe idiots who tell you stories about where the animals allegely come from...
For that matter, much of the Los Angeles throw away dogs from the barrios simply are likely trucked straight to Best Friends in Utah. If you didn't know anything about Best Friends, go look it up on Wikipedia. Clearly Best Friends was a CULT and they are waiting for the end time whereupon they believe they will be saved because they keep so many alsatian dogs on the property? Who in their right mind keeps 1,500 dogs out in the desert? Do the math and figure it out every month Los Angeles in the aggregate cannot get rid of the barrio dogs which come into the shelters every single solitary month. They claim to get them homes but likely--they could never prove it. Do you believe you could get homes for 600 stray dogs every 40 days? LOL Yeah, if you're on glue! go read at least the first 2 paragraphs and you will get the drift. They are not much different from Scientology. Probably worse. There's nothing wrong with saving animals if you actually are getting them homes. "Given the many concerns about the outcomes for people and pets, coupled with the lack of evidence to show their efficacy, Best Friends does not support mandatory spay and neuter." WELL, nearly every county in California forces mandated altering UNLESS there is a local law that states differently. ALL shelter and rescued animals are allegedly required to be ALTERED.

You show us a way that hundreds of dogs no on wants simply get new homes out of thin air?? Every month? LOL Yeah right. The Los angeles barrio/general area might have less animals but it's still hundreds every month from more than one area. No one is probably counting (even though the state could do it) but to kill an animal usually they use the blue solution which is highly regulated. If they can't kill them all then they have to get rid of them because they can't keep them there. Supposedly their "numbers" are all great because they claim to just move and truck them out. Yeah, and who is following what dogs go where? We bet no one. Let's not forget, Best Friends owns TWO JETS. They are millionaires many times over. They spent either $40,000 or more just to fly to a European coutry and bring back STRAY DOGS???? Now if that doesn't piss you off, you need to be more informed.

Example, Riverside, re "
Altering of animals, dogs/cats.. Exemptions. This section shall not apply to any of the following:A.A dog with a high likelihood of suffering serious bodily harm or death if spayed or neutered, due to age or infirmity. The owner or custodian must obtain written confirmation of this fact from a California licensed veterinarian. If the dog is able to be safely spayed or neutered at a later date, that date must be stated in the written confirmation; should this date be later than thirty (30) days, the owner or custodian must apply for an unaltered dog license. B.In the event that any dog follows under Section 6.08.120 A.3.A. of this chapter, a mandatory spay and neuter deposit fee of seventy-five dollars ($75.00) shall be paid before the animal is released from the shelter.C.A cat with a high likelihood of suffering serious bodily harm or death if spayed or neutered, due to age or infirmity. The owner or custodian must obtain written confirmation of this fact from a California licensed veterinarian. If the cat is able to be safely spayed or neutered at a later date, that date must be stated in the written confirmation.D.In the event any cat follows under section 6.08.120 A.3.C. of this chapter, a mandatory spay and neuter deposit fee of forty dollars ($40.00) shall be paid before the animal is released from the shelter.E.Animals owned by recognized dog or cat breeders, as defined by department of animal services policy.F.Females over the age of 10 and males over the age of 12 are exempt from the spay and neuter requirement due to the biological improbability of reproduction, however, they will be required to purchase an unaltered license.

To be frank, only in a state like liberal California could people get away with interfering with commerce, such as with raising dogs to sell? The very clear implication is that in lower income areas such as barrios of Los angeles, most of the animals are not altered. Animal control just keeps taking them to the pounds. People who actually WANT to buy a dog from a breeder will often have to search far and wide and even sometimes buy the animal from another state. Breeders of titled dogs sell their dogs for very high prices and do not have huge litters (since they are raising show dogs..)

If you doubt anything stated herein, perhaps doing your own research from NON rescues or claimed 501(c)(3) groups will shed new light on what you don't know. Most people don't know and simply do not care, or they are not smart enough to do diligent research.

--- > WARNING.........CAREFULLY NOTE-- any type of tinkering or attempt to cause cessation or otherwise interfere with this site can be plausibly considered as interering with a legal business that may, in certain cirumstances, fall under either the CA law re illegal actions, or the Federal law regarding same. Businesses that deal with animal enterprises will likely qualify [yes, this business of doing legal work with animal issues/animal enterprises would qualify in our opinion] Consider that stealing or even just releasing minks (live animals) out of their cages caused two young men to receive 14 year federal prison sentences. It is unlikely that the federal law will be changed.

Monday, October 12, 2020

Winning in Unusual Way! from 2010, 2015, 2019, 2020 and soon 2021!

Winning in Unusual Ways! from 2010, 2015, 2019 etc.

For whatever it's worth, attorney has encountered quite a number of cases where we were able to prevail despite the odds against us; this includes family law, criminal law, bankruptcy cases and civil cases. Perhaps in part due to attorney having a high interest in very challenging cases?.....this post has been viewed 2188 times...

While most attorneys tend to pride themselves on knowing the law, our job is to either know it or look it up correctly, as laws change all the time. Therefore, spotting issues will require knowing the law but that's just the beginning. If the law is on your side, it shouldn't be that difficult right?
It's the cases where maybe the law isn't exactly on your side, or could be, or there are circumstances and other facts or excuses which can create a different outcome? How does attorney know this? Because it's been seen plenty of times! (Listed here are just several examples but we have more than this..)

In another instance of trial (family law), after cross examining the other party, the opposing counsel suddenly called a recess.

       After 7 years of never being able to get a dime out of the ex, who had already filed bankruptcy, my client, having previously used 3 different lawyers, [w/o a good result],  ended up contacting attorney herein --- for trial.
      The opposing attorney stopped the trial after attorney herein--- spotted a bankruptcy fraud during the trial, based upon the husband's testimony;  and husband's attorney offered a combo to wife,  of about $23,000 combined cash/property $100,000, and attorney fees of $6,000. This likely meant that if they had NOT stopped the trial, my client would had gotten spousal, but we would have had to chase him forever across the USA to get it. Client elected to take the offer. Because attorney herein cornered the ex spouse on the stand for what appeared to be potential bankruptcy fraud, the rest is history......

       In another instance, a civil case trial by a former wife against former husband and girlfriend, the husband  had already been convicted in a widely publicized case of homicide in Sacramento (and was on appeal, he lost); the case then went to jury on issue on civil liability as to both husband and girlfriend.
      ...Keeping in mind husband was already convicted of first degree murder, the jury decided that husband was only 60% at fault in the civil case. I represented the husband who was already in prison, (and had not represented him during the criminal trial in Sacramento, where he used a public defender...)

      Normally the civil case has a lower burden of proof, so finding the husband only 60% and not 100% evidently meant, jury wanted to punish the girlfriend because they took 40% and assigned it-- NOT-- to the husband. This verdict was reported in Verdict Search, a national reporting source for large verdicts nationwide. Counsel representing the girlfriend was from insurance defense firm.

Currently, the former wife has not been able to collect much on the verdict [of millions] after paying fees/costs and it is anticipated she will not be able to collect in the future. Very interesting case, which also involved animals (pet dogs) owned by the husband/son. Son was stabbed when father went to check on condition of dogs; father claims son ran into the knife by lunging forward.

     Family law and motion--Mediation Report....  Typically, a parent that has had a Domestic Violence TRO filed against her/or her, will not get custody of a child. Client had the DV lowered to just a no negative conduct order, so there was no DV against him. The mediation report was issued about five months after there was no DV, and amazingly, thanks to the parent (my client) keeping super good notes and data, coupled with the bad evidence of the other parent, my client obtained full physical and legal custody!!! He was also allowed to retake possession of the house.  It was the most amazing report in favor of the client. The person benefiting from this is obviously the child!!!

     In a very unusual scenario, attorney was substituted into a case with a client who did not reside locally;  a hearing on an issue Request for Order (presumed to be law and motion).... was set for a date only several days away, at which time attorney believed the hearing could be continued. It seems the hearing was in fact --- a trial (according to Judge) -- and the client was not present and Judge did not want to continue the case.  Attorney went forward on the issue, with no witness or client.
    Using only cross examination, with 4 witnesses, Attorney actually won the trial--much to surprise of  witnesses present and including opposing counsel, who was shocked.......... 


This is very uncommon, but imagine how your case might work out if attorney can do this, without even having a client or a witness?

Attorney thinks it's fair to say, you would be in fairly good hands. Especially if other attorneys have failed in the past on your case.

Note: All of these scenarios are actual cases but by no means are such outcomes considered standard. Each case has different facts and various laws which will apply; each case can vary tremendously, and attorney is not representing that such outcomes are common. However, attorney does have a very high percent of cases that prevail, settle or result in what the client wanted.

Do You Want to Win Your Case? Should You Hire a Litigator? Do You Care?

What Type of Attorney do You Really Need?         Do You Want to Win?       You Don't Care?

*People must care,  because about 2,609- 2,857   2,934-  3,726 people have read this post*

Do you have a case where you want to win, or need to win your case?
Do you have the winning facts?  Do you know what law would or would not support your position? Do you want or need an actual litigator for your case?

Hiring an advocate (attorney litigator) is not the same as hiring collaborative attorneys. Also, mediating* a case with only one attorney means ...The mediator helps people talk the issues through, supposedly helping to "settle" the dispute themselves. In this attorney's opinion, it would not be recommended in most cases, because typically the overbearing spouse simply bulldozes the other spouse.

*[Mediation for visitation is not the same thing as mediation of an entire divorce case. Mediation for visitation/custody is required by law in CA when there is no agreement.]

There are many pitfalls that can arise in divorce; many of them involve financial transactions that one spouse had no knowledge of; assets that one spouse did not know about; children that were conceived outside the marriage and spouse never knew other spouse was paying; secret business dealings that was predicated on all cash; illegal actions by one spouse implicating the other spouse who had no knowledge; large debts racked up by one spouse, without the other spouse even knowing such debt existed; one spouse signing the other spouse's name for a credit card, then ruining the other spouse's credit.... NONE of these things, in this attorney's opinion, should be addressed in either mediation or collaborative law scenario.

That is because there was a huge breach of fiduciary duty that has serious consequences to the guilty spouse. That should be done in court since the guilty spouse should have to pay for wrongdoing. (Of course if you are too afraid because your spouse might try and kill you then you better go get help right away.)

Especially if you have issues in the 3 lines below, which happened BEFORE the case finalized---- you should never hire anyone except an advocate litigator. Aggressive at that. Plus, there are huge time barriers to trying to set aside any of this!

Fraud, Duress
Mistake, Coercion,
Failure to Exchange Declarations (Assets Debts)-or-
  when exchanged, i.e.--have false, misleading or improper numbers, values, dates..

When clients hire attorneys to get something done, especially in family law, it's often because one SIDE tried to take advantage of the other side.  If you have a family law case where both of you AGREE on everything then you may not need separate attorneys, except perhaps to create a settlement agreement.
However if you actually never knew your legal rights and decided to just move ahead without knowing if what you were doing could harm you, that is dangerous. One caveat--beware the notion to eliminate spousal support in the future, NEVER give up that right. If you do, and you shack up with someone down the line, the other side has ability, potentially, to eliminate your support.... I can't say more re this topic because it is more complicated than it appears. Just BEWARE!! You should consult an attorney before making any key decisions.

HOWEVER, the vast majority of most divorces and break ups, are because the couple cannot agree on a lot of things, including (just an example....) post judgment orders.........

How to raise the kids-- too lenient?  too strict?
How to spend income from employment or inheritance
What to do with spouse that is either dangerous, aggressive, drinks too much
How to get out of supervised visits?? You have an ex spouse also?
Your spouse is bipolar and can't be controlled?

Of all the problems attorney has seen over several decades, the problems around children tend to generate the worst issues, followed by physical harm, financial issues, and alcohol or drug use.

And remarkably, attorney has seen clients REFUSE to take what he/she is entitled to, and then SETTLE a case by using an attorney who is or was a mediator, --- in other words, the attorney is not acting as a litigator for the client?

If you are entitled to something, why would you pay someone to settle a case 
when you could have settled it without help????   

Collaborative law and mediation means if you don't settle the case
 using whomever you hired, those attorneys cannot represent you in court anyway.

You THEN have to hire new attorneys!!

While mediation and collaborative may be good for some cases (which means you are settling case by paying people to settle it without court)-- it is essentially negotiation. Judges are not involved. If you work something out and then don't like it later--- what you have -- is a problem.

              Some of the down sides of  collaborative law (which includes hiring people like accountants and other experts) and which makes it costly:

The Expense; Impact of termination and cost of new counsel; No advocacy for one or both parties; directed conversation between parties, power imbalances, difficult issues might remain secret (such as domestic violence, addictions, drugs, gambling, infidelities,etc.); Possible inadequate information collection, potentially less support for views of children.

Basically, in mediation there is no advocate for YOU.
In collaborative law, BOTH sides work on issues, but NO ONE is an advocate for YOUR side.
The collaborative view is to work out issues, not really take sides as an advocate----a true advocate is there to represent YOU, not the spouse.

This is part of the reason that most people in a divorce WANT an advocate, and need a litigator --- because they are being taken advantage of, steamrolled, or being misled or manipulated.

You don't have to believe attorney, look at one of my other sites for example, where it is stated in plain English, by the mediator--  that making the decisions with a mediator is not the fault of the mediator, and the mediator is quoted... (and quite frankly,the mediator does state the truth)

                        "The role of the mediator is to assist the participants reach an agreement. 
 It is not the mediator's role to give legal advice or to assure
 that the agreement is fair or equitable to either party.  
There may well be unintended consequences resulting in one or more
 of the participants suffering "buyers remorse", but they made the decision
  to accept the terms  and entered into the agreement, not the mediator..."

 Note--again, the "mediation" we are speaking of, is NOT the family law mediation process that the COURTS do, for contested custody.

       Private mediation means both parties choose to use one mediator to arrive at some agreement, and because a mediator does not dispense legal advice the way a legal advocate would do--as in actual litigation--where each party is represented by their own separate attorney-- the "mediator" himself or herself--- is only assisting both parties to REACH an agreement.

***  Carefully NOTE-- the mediator does not need to assure   either party that the agreement is fair or equitable to either party. 

(Supposedly because that isn't the mediator's "role".....)

 LOL-- that's fine if you don't care what you are getting,
 or you don't know your rights and you don't care about
about that either??

 Unfortunately---if you do this and  "then" realize you lost out on something
 because you did NOT know your rights at all---then guess what???

 You are in trouble, most likely.

*** I  can almost guarantee that this  blog has more information in Northern CA on issues that arise, than the majority of  family law websites. Some attorneys do explain the laws, yes.   Attorney herein,  typically will write, argue, and inform... and help people, the purpose of the writing is to hopefully enlighten--so that you can make better decisions. Many attorneys are afraid to talk about winning and losing cases because some type of opinion could be involved, however, every client always has their own opinions, and those usually need to be understood first?
NOTE: all of our content is original, if we have mentioned a subject from another site, research info or similar, we will include a link. We have no need to use other people's content and claim it is ours. In animal law we may occasionally quote, due to the specificity of the data,but there will usually be a link also.
There is one family law attorney site down in So Cal which is fantastic, and according to their site, they usually win their cases. However. what I noted from the site, previously, is that they do not take certain types of cases, including Domestic violence or Restraining Orders. They may have changed that presently though.....They appear to represent well to do clients with cases that end up winning, and they are not afraid to give the summary of why, how, when?

    Another very well known family law site down in the CA desert area, is excellent, and the attorney has or had a great amount of information which is useful. (His last name is Arnold...)  What is cool about his site, is that he is not afraid to throw his opinion out there on cases, especially when it comes to what went wrong, and what not to do? Sometimes it actually is pretty entertaining to read!!  And the attorney is super, super intelligent as well, obviously.

    All people reading and browsing should use their own diligence to obtain correct information and for checking laws, we would use  If you do not have money to spend for an attorney and have been married a long time, or over 10 years, or have special needs kids, or have been abused, do NOT simply ignore the law and give your other half whatever he/she says to do. Consult an attorney to make sure you are not being screwed over and taken advantage of !!            

Sunday, October 11, 2020

When You Need to Win a Domestic Violence Case?!

Although not unheard of, attorney herein has not lost a domestic violence case or gone to trial and lost such a case. Only once such a case was dropped due to the both sides agreeing it was no longer needed, but in nearly every case, we usually maintain the DV for 1-3 years.
Recently in 2020, the CA legislature has passed an update to the domestic violence law, and the law will soon be in effect; not surprisingly, coercive control is specifically used to describe the type of conduct that the defendant is using against the victim or victims. Control can take many forms and will include both emotional abuse, harassment, and far more. COVID is also noted in the wording for the new update on domestic violence, since many family members simply cannot afford to flee and get new rental housing? IF you or your family is suffering and may benefit from a Domestic violence Restraining Order, or if you don't understand whether you qualify or could use this type of legal device, feel free to contact attorney herein, there is no charge for the consultation.