Divorce

Divorce

Saturday, March 24, 2018

NEW 2018 DV Case out of Sacramento CA--in Female's Favor

Please bear with us---before we get to the published case from Sacramento, which was not our case, but shows what we often talk about,  thank you...................

WOO HOO!! Just won another DV in an unusual case (not in Butte County) where the female had two pets in her custody and got sued for having them by the ex live in--who lives at other end of the USA...
We helped her file the DV as she had prior DV case in another state, and asked that pets be under the protection order. Despite our doubts, the Court awarded her the order for 5 years (not 3) and she thus has DV protection as to the pets. Meanwhile, the ex is actually suing to gain something out of the pets, there is nothing to gain actually. And even though he hired an "animal law attorney" from another state, all we can say is, good luck on that one. They might as well have flushed that case down the toilet. (Attorney herein does animal law and for longer than most attorneys that know animal law...)
Second DV case-- just settled another DV case!! It does happen from time to time!!! [If we did not settle we would have won the case anyway...facts were in our favor....]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Below is a published case from Sacramento involving domestic violence.


https://cases.justia.com/california/court-of-appeal/2018-c082857.pdf?ts=1519675297


....[D]uring a child custody hearing a year later in June 2012, Judge Kevin Culhane found that Riley still failed to comprehend the nature and gravity of his conduct.5 According to Judge Culhane, Riley involved a number of third parties, including his family members, in private parenting issues. The court found that Riley was the source of threatening e-mails Rybolt received from Riley’s sister and that his family members had followed her and copied private parenting documents. “Such controlling and intrusive conduct,” in the court’s view, “[wa]s fundamentally inconsistent with any finding that the [Family Code section 3044]6 presumption ha[d] been rebutted.”

Image result for domestic violence photos
(the photo above is not the victim, this is photoshop)

[J]udge Culhane further found that, “[m]ost fundamentally the evidence demonstrates an ongoing course of conduct whereby father attempts to blame multiple third parties, includ[ing] mother, mother[’]s boyfriend, other parties, the co-parent counselor, the former lawyer, mediator, and others for the continuance of father[’]s own activities.” Riley had also “drawn the child into these disputes on a number of occasions.”

This case is indicative that the courts are not wavering on protecting domestic violence victims.  It is in the DV victim's best interest to obtain a litigator that can best protect those rights.  If you need help, call today. Waiting can ruin your case as has been seen in the past for those who do not listen to good advice.

Wednesday, March 7, 2018

Attorney + Pitbull Legislation and Lawsuits

Attorney has Background and Experience with Animal Law


Attorney has past experience with legal cases involving breed specific legislation,
which usually will include dogs commonly known as APBTs, pitbulls, and other bullies.
The laws, unfortunately, have not all been kind to the dogs. Despite much hype about APBT dogs
and how great or not great they are, the truth is that when the APBT dogs were originally brought to the USA, they were about 35lbs and basically not a large dog. It is true they were originally
developed and used in England for fighting. The dogs were bred for the fighting purpose but
were not bred to be attack dogs against people.

Unfortunately people in the USA started
breeding down the APBT dogs with Molosser type dogs/then later, idiots would purposely
breed such dogs with other dogs, hoping to create man stopper type dogs. Again, unfortunately
the mixing of breeds like this creates completely unknown traits in dogs and can, or may lead to
dogs that are both unstable, untrustworthy, and vicious. So when we read about dogs killing
people, we will often see claims that such dogs are "pitbulls" when there is no proof that this was
actually a pitbull. In fact, many of the dogs will not even resemble an APBT.

It should be noted
that APBT (original fighting dogs) are not the exact same as the other "pitbull" types (Am Staff,
bull terrier, staffy bull terrier.)  "Bullies" (low/slung close to ground,often overmuscled) are not
considered a breed. However there is a devoted following to such dogs for showing off. Those dogs are usually too low to the ground and generally not considered a fighting dog.

However when any
dog which carries the trait of being a fighting dog [regardless of breed] is mixed with another
breed, it is not possible to predict the temperament of such dogs. Therefore, we can see why
dogs in shelters are impossible to predict as to which,if any, might kill, and stories and news
report online show us that shelter dogs which are commonly adopted out [especially APBT
types/mixed APBT/unknown breeds] have definitely caused harm to people nationwide.

For example, that NOT great shelter in San Diego (Humane Society) adopted out a sizeable
dog which highly resembled a blue APBT about 50lbs; they claimed it was temperament
tested. A foolish family, very dumb apparently--- with a NEW BABY adopted the dog, 
and allowed it to sleep in bed...with them/the new baby?  Folks--this is sheer, outright
stupidity on both the part of the shelter and the people who bought this dog. When we
read that the dog killed the baby right there in the bed with the parents there, by
biting the baby's head, we were NOT surprised at all. ONLY A MORON WOULD EVEN
ALLOW SUCH A DOG TO BE ADOPTED TO ANYONE, ESPECIALLY ANYONE WITH
KIDS!!!!!  

Yet shelters can do this because they claim to "temperament test" the animals
and then there is no liability.  A lawsuit on this would be difficult, because many stupid people
exist, and many stupid people will buy unknown dogs, and then sleep with it. and their BABY.
It would be an interesting trial if it ever happened, on both sides of the case. I suspect a jury
would not side with the people who bought the dog, because they have no common sense.
Further, we would suspect in a rural area, jurors would not vote for the dog buyer; in a city
like San Diego, which is horrifically animal rights oriented, a jury MIGHT vote for the dog
buyer/dead baby family. MAYBE. not for sure.

 Attorney has worked with dog experts and other experts involved in the animal law field, including the animal expert that was used in the famous First Amendment speech case against a video seller who had a historical video being sold on the history of dog fighting.  Attorney is also familiar
with laws designed specifically to curtail the breeding of dogs generally, and where new
laws have been passed which claim to stop the sale of commercially bred dogs. Unfortunately
stopping sales of such dogs will do nothing to save shelter animals, despite the hype often
cited by animal activists. Most animal activists are just that-- activists. Their claims are
often not borne out in serious data, but their stories are legendary. The activists want to sell the dogs, they don't want bona fide breeders to sell anything, much less good dogs with sound temperament.



Tarquinio v. City of Lakewood, Ohio
No. 1:11 CV 325 (September 23, 2011)
United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, upholds the Lakewood pit bull ban.
American Canine Foundation v. City of Aurora, Colorado
No. 06-cv-01510-WYD-BNB (May 8, 2009)
United States District Court, District of Colorado, upholds the Aurora Fighting Breed ban.
Paul Tellings v. Toledo, Ohio
No. 07-8545 (April 14, 2008)
United States Supreme Court denies cert petition; upholds the Toledo pit bull ordinance.
Sonya Dias v. City and County of Denver
No. 07-cv-00722-WDM-MJW (March 20, 2008)
United States District Court, District of Colorado, upholds the Denver pit bull ban.
American Canine Foundation v. Sun
No. C-06-4713 MMC. (March 21, 2007)
United States District Court, N.D. California, upholds the San Francisco pit bull ordinance.
CHAKO v. City and County of San Francisco
No. C-06-1887 MMC (Feb. 27, 2007)
United States District Court, N.D. California, upholds the San Francisco pit bull ordinance.
Robert McNeely v. United States
No. 98-CF-924 (May 12, 2005)
District of Columbia Court of Appeals upholds the emergency "Pit Bull Act" of 1996.
George Anderson v. Ohio
No. 90-8062 (June 28, 1991)
United States Supreme Court denies cert petition; upholds the State of Ohio pit bull law.
American Dog Owners Association v. Dade County, Florida
No. 89-771-CIV (November 30, 1989)
United States District Court, S.D. Florida, upholds the Miami-Dade pit bull ban.
Hearn v. City of Overland Park
No. 89-412 (November 27, 1989)
United States Supreme Court denies cert petition; upholds the Overland Park pit bull ordinance.
Robert Vanater v. Village of South Point
No. C-1-87-708 (June 29, 1989)
United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, upholds the Village of South Point pit bull ban.
Starkey v. Township of Chester
No. 86-0865 (February 25, 1986)
United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania, upholds the Chester pit bull ordinance.

State supreme courts

Steve Hardwick and Sharon Nalley v. Town of Ceredo
No. 11-1048 (January 14, 2013)
West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals upholds the Town of Ceredo pit bull ordinance.
Toledo, Ohio v. Paul Tellings
No. 2006-0690 (August 1, 2007)
Supreme Court of Ohio reverses appellate court; upholds the Toledo pit bull ordinance.
Colorado Dog Fanciers v. City and County of Denver
No. 90SA342 (November 12, 1991)
Supreme Court of Colorado upholds the Denver pit bull ban.
Holt v. City of Maumelle
No. 90-352 (October 28, 1991)
Supreme Court of Arkansas upholds the City of Maumelle pit bull ban.
Greenwood v. City of North Salt Lake
No. 890355 (September 10, 1991)
Supreme Court of Utah upholds the North Salt Lake pit bull ordinance.
Roger Anderson v. City of Des Moines
No. 89-1725 (May 15, 1991)
Supreme Court of Iowa upholds the Des Moines pit bull ordinance.
The State of Ohio v. Anderson
No. 89-2113 (February 13, 1991)
Supreme Court of Ohio reverses appellate court; upholds the State of Ohio pit bull law.
American Dog Owners v. City of Yakima
No. 56122-2 (August 24, 1989)
Supreme Court of Washington upholds the Yakima pit bull ban.
Hearn v. City of Overland Park
772 P.2d 758 (April 14, 1989)
Supreme Court of Kansas upholds the Overland Park pit bull ordinance.

State appeals courts

State of Kansas v. Lee
No. 102,004 (June 10, 2011)
Court of Appeals of Kansas upholds the Kansas City/Wyandotte County pit bull ordinance.
State of Ohio v. Smith
No. 1-07-67 (April 21, 2008)
Court of Appeals of Ohio affirms lower court; upholds the State of Ohio pit bull law.
Bess v. Bracken County Fiscal Court
No. 2005-CA-000541-MR (December 1, 2006)
Court of Appeals of Kentucky affirms lower court; upholds the Bracken County pit bull ban.
City of Pagedale v. Murphy
No. ED83655 (June 15, 2004)
Court of Appeals of Missouri affirms lower court; upholds the Pagedale pit bull ordinance.
Dog Federation v. City of South Milwaukee
No. 92-2131 (July 20, 1993)
Court of Appeals of Wisconsin upholds the South Milwaukee pit bull ordinance.
Singer v. City of Cincinnati
No. C-890060 (1990)
Court of Appeals of Ohio affirms lower court; upholds the Cincinnati pit bull ban.
State of Ohio v. Robinson
No. CA88-06-047 (January 23, 1989)
Court of Appeals of Ohio affirms lower court; upholds the State of Ohio pit bull law.
State of Florida v. Peters
No. 87-652 (November 15, 1988)
District Court of Appeals of Florida upholds the North Miami pit bull ordinance.
Garcia v. Village of Tijeras
No. 9424 (October 11, 1988)
Court of Appeals of New Mexico denies cert petition; upholds the Tijeras pit bull ban.

Monday, March 5, 2018

Domestic Violence+Animal Abuse...Yes-- There is a Link...

It is an unfortunate fact that domestic violence (DV) cases can often be linked to animal abuse cases.

If in fact you have a DV or some type of restraining order, or a protective order, it is often possible to include animals in the request. Also, a person being accused of having abused an animal, or if  he/she is already charged criminally with abuse (against person or animal) then this should be known to the attorney handling your case. Attorney has worked with many animal cases, and is familiar with the regulations that may apply.


Attorney herein is more than well versed on both DV cases, and animal cases, whether it involves being the victim or the assailant.  Having done both plaintiff and defense work, attorney can better understand the defense or plaintiff's factual basis and exact details which will lead to a better result for the client. We can never guarantee results, but attorney has had plenty of cases with good outcomes, especially difficult cases. Some cases we already know simply cannot be won, but other things can be changed to better the result.

So if you have a difficult case, you might consider calling attorney today. There is no charge for phone consultation in most cases, and you will find that attorney is very down to earth and definitely not like most attorneys.