Divorce

Divorce

Thursday, October 11, 2018

Pitbull Litigator-- If the Hat Fits?

https://buttecountyfamilylawlawyer.blogspot.com/2016/11/they-dont-call-attorney-pitbull.html

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 necessarily...dog 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 federal courts over issues involving the dogs and the dog breed laws which often "ban" such dogs. 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 seven 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.

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.

 [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