NationalDogPress.com Headline News ©

www.MillsCounty.Org - Fighting Tyranny in “Bad” Animal Laws

Mills County, Iowa Animal Care and Control Law has an alleged “real goal”, to destroy the rights of dog owners to make important decisions about their dogs, and to convey complete oversight power to government.

This tyranny animal law instituted in Mills County, Iowa is an important step toward changing dog ownership into guardianship, which means that dogs would become wards of the state (called Mills County, Iowa).

The state (Mills County, Iowa) would thus assume the legal role of protector of the “rights” of dogs, as is the case with human children in current laws nation wide.

There for NationalDogPress and Animals CL.U.B.- Freedom National Organization Incorporated (Nonprofit) have created our new organization called : www.MillsCounty.org

This organization is dedicated to combating the “unconstitutional” tyranny animal laws, created by Mills County, Iowa and to provide Dog Law and Dog Legislation articles that provide “evidence” that Mills County, Iowa Animal Care and Control Law is “unconstitutional”.

We the People, continue to work to protect the rights of dog owners in Mills County, Iowa and around the nation as well.

###

Animals C.L.U.B.- Freedom National Organization Incorporated (Non-Profit)

“The truth is rarely pure and never simple.”

PLEASE DONATE to Animals C.L.U.B.- Freedom National Organization Incorporated (Non-Profit) BY CLICKING ON THE PAYPAL LINK BELOW:

https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=6721925

Fair Use Notice: Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C. 107, other copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, research, critical comment, or debate without profit or payment. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for your own purposes beyond the ‘fair use’ exception, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Legal Disclaimer: The information, articles, or links (posted, embedded or otherwise) to the above postings are provided to give readers more information on general dog-related or associated subjects and are not intended as legal advice. All individuals are urged to contact licensed attorneys in their states regarding specific legal issues.

Copyright © 2006-2009, Animals C.L.U.B.- Freedom National Organization Incorporated (Non-Profit) Iowa 2009, NationalDogPress News, All Rights Reserved

Posted by Dean A. Ayers, Director, Animals C.L.U.B.- Freedom on 10/19/2009 at 01:16 AM in “Due Process” Before Animal Control Takes Your Dog, A Chicken Lesson for Dog Owners, Animal Control, Animal Control Officers, Animal Shelter RIver Filling With Dogs, Bad Smelling Pets, Books, C.L.U.B. QUOTE, Current Affairs, Dog and Human Euthanasia Unethical, Dog Catchers, Dog Insurance Requirements, Dog Law, Dog License Tyranny, Dog Ordinance Tyranny, Dog Rescue Action Needed, Dogs, Pets, and Animals, Due Process in Animal Laws, Euthanasia, Film, Flaming Liberal Swords, Food and Drink, Freedom and Happiness, Games, GlenwoodIowa.org, Health Care, HEALTH CARE ALERT, Humane Health Care?, Humane Society Scam, INSANITY in Society, Islam and Terrorism, Life’s Troubles, Mills County, Iowa, MillsCounty.Org, Music, NAIS Animal ID, NationalDogPress Newsletter, Nebraska Humane Society - NOT!, Nincompoops, No Dogs in Canada and the USA , Our Nation Won’t Survive, Pet Euthanasia is Unethical, Pet Food, PETA DEATH CAMPS, Private Property Intrusion, Religion, RFID Chips, Sarah Palin , Sarah Palin HELP!, Science, Sexual Harassment Must Go!, Socialist America, Sports, Swine Flu Fraud?, Television, Thank You!, Toxins on Dogs and Our Pets, Travel, Web/Tech, Weblogs | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Digg This | Save to del.icio.us

MillsCounty.Org - Fighting Tyranny in “Bad” Animal Laws

Mills County, Iowa Animal Care and Control Law has an alleged “real goal”, to destroy the rights of dog owners to make important decisions about their dogs, and to convey complete oversight power to government.

This tyranny animal law instituted in Mills County, Iowa is an important step toward changing dog ownership into guardianship, which means that dogs would become wards of the state (called Mills County, Iowa).

The state (Mills County, Iowa) would thus assume the legal role of protector of the “rights” of dogs, as is the case with human children in current laws nation wide.

There for NationalDogPress and Animals CL.U.B.- Freedom National Organization Incorporated (Nonprofit) have created our new organization called : MillsCounty.org

This organization is dedicated to combating the “unconstitutional” tyranny animal laws, created by Mills County, Iowa and to provide Dog Law and Dog Legislation articles that provide “evidence” that Mills County, Iowa Animal Care and Control Law is “unconstitutional”.

We the People, continue to work to protect the rights of dog owners in Mills County, Iowa and around the nation as well.

###

Animals C.L.U.B.- Freedom National Organization Incorporated (Non-Profit)

“The truth is rarely pure and never simple.”

PLEASE DONATE to Animals C.L.U.B.- Freedom National Organization Incorporated (Non-Profit) BY CLICKING ON THE PAYPAL LINK BELOW:

https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=6721925

Fair Use Notice: Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C. 107, other copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, research, critical comment, or debate without profit or payment. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for your own purposes beyond the ‘fair use’ exception, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Legal Disclaimer: The information, articles, or links (posted, embedded or otherwise) to the above postings are provided to give readers more information on general dog-related or associated subjects and are not intended as legal advice. All individuals are urged to contact licensed attorneys in their states regarding specific legal issues.

Copyright © 2006-2009, Animals C.L.U.B.- Freedom National Organization Incorporated (Non-Profit) Iowa 2009, NationalDogPress News, All Rights Reserved

Posted by Dean A. Ayers, Director, Animals C.L.U.B.- Freedom on 10/19/2009 at 01:16 AM in “Due Process” Before Animal Control Takes Your Dog, A Chicken Lesson for Dog Owners, Animal Control, Animal Control Officers, Animal Shelter RIver Filling With Dogs, Bad Smelling Pets, Books, C.L.U.B. QUOTE, Current Affairs, Dog and Human Euthanasia Unethical, Dog Catchers, Dog Insurance Requirements, Dog Law, Dog License Tyranny, Dog Ordinance Tyranny, Dog Rescue Action Needed, Dogs, Pets, and Animals, Due Process in Animal Laws, Euthanasia, Film, Flaming Liberal Swords, Food and Drink, Freedom and Happiness, Games, GlenwoodIowa.org, Health Care, HEALTH CARE ALERT, Humane Health Care?, Humane Society Scam, INSANITY in Society, Islam and Terrorism, Life’s Troubles, Mills County, Iowa, MillsCounty.Org, Music, NAIS Animal ID, NationalDogPress Newsletter, Nebraska Humane Society - NOT!, Nincompoops, No Dogs in Canada and the USA , Our Nation Won’t Survive, Pet Euthanasia is Unethical, Pet Food, PETA DEATH CAMPS, Private Property Intrusion, Religion, RFID Chips, Sarah Palin , Sarah Palin HELP!, Science, Sexual Harassment Must Go!, Socialist America, Sports, Swine Flu Fraud?, Television, Thank You!, Toxins on Dogs and Our Pets, Travel, Web/Tech, Weblogs | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Digg This | Save to del.icio.us

Dog ordinance ‘number limits’ are not logical or valid

Dog ‘number limit’ ordinances lead to a decrease in pet license taxes collected from non-reporting owners over the pet limits. The ‘number limit’ laws are counterproductive.

MILLS COUNTY, Iowa, 7 July 09 (NationalDogPress.com) –

Dogs and dog owners face more discrimination than ever before in American society. While local, city, county, state, and federal entities pay lip service to the dog as man’s best friend by passing tyranny dog limiting ordinances and laws, We the People as a whole community allow fear and politics to determine the parameters of dog ownership based upon emotions not logic and common sense in law making.

We the People, spend hundreds of millions of dollars on premium foods, veterinary care, toys, kennels, pet sitters, training classes, and more even while limiting the number and type of dogs an owner can house. We use dogs to aid in catching criminals, search for victims of crimes and natural disasters, help handicapped humans, and provide emotional support even while barring dogs from communities if they exceed a certain weight, certain breed to be banned, or limits to the number of dogs allowed in a home even if they are properly cared for and loved as family.

The disadvantages of dog number limits in homes are:

Dog owners in some communities face a limit on the number of pets they can own, but these limits, too, are counterproductive.

Laws that criminalize pet ownership based on numbers alone have been declared unconstitutional in some states because they do not address the need to control nuisances or provide for the health and safety of residents.

The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, the state’s highest court, has declared such a law unconstitutional in that state, citing a precedent in Kadash v City of Williamsport:

“What is not an infringement upon public safety and is not a nuisance cannot be made one by legislative fiat and then prohibited….

“Even legitimate legislative goals cannot be pursued by means which stifle fundamental personal liberty when the goals can otherwise be more reasonably achieved.”

A dog or pet limit ordinance is difficult to enforce without increased presence of animal control or police agencies and often leads to a decrease in pet licensing to prevent cross-referencing of license records. If the law is enforced only upon complaint, it becomes just another law for people to circumvent and further erodes confidence in legislative bodies.

Numbers have no relationship to nuisances. A person with one dog that runs loose or barks all night is a greater nuisance than a person with a dozen dogs that are quiet, clean, and kept at home.

Limiting people to four dogs (or fewer) puts an unreasonable strain on people who raise show dogs, compete in performance trials, participate in canine rescue operations, foster dogs for service dog organizations, etc. and can lead to those responsible dog owners leaving the community.

A number limit causes dog deaths by forcing people to give up dogs they own, thus causing crowding in local shelters; denying people the opportunity to buy an additional dog from a shelter or a rescue; and adversely impacting rescue groups and foster homes that help find new homes for dogs whose owners cannot keep them.

Alternatives to number limits are:

Passage and enforcement of strict nuisance laws.
Use of an arbitrator to mediate neighborhood disputes about animals.
Use of alternative sentencing such as community service at the county animal shelter or attendance at a full obedience training course for those who violate nuisance ordinances.
Periodic programs or mailings about responsible dog ownership or city sponsorship of a Canine Good Citizen test to encourage residents to be responsible dog owners.

Animal laws are not always a result of state and federal battles. Squabbles between neighbors often erupt over animals, squabbles that often spill over into law enforcement or animal control filed complaints to local governments.

As an emotional result the local government greases the squeaky wheel complaints by citizens with even more stricter ordinances or other tacked on to the zoning code or the criminal codes to existing animal ordinances.

Dog limit ordinances are often passed out of frustration, with little consideration for the consequences or valid and factual basis to make any “positive or constructive” benefit to the community dog complaints, other than a government official “feel good” action giving We the People even more tyranny in our local animal control ordinances.

Copyright © 2006-2009, Animals C.L.U.B.- Freedom National Organization, All Rights Reserved

Dean A. Ayers
Director, Animals C.L.U.B.- Freedom National Organization
“The truth is rarely pure and never simple.”

Dean A. Ayers is a prior United States Air Force Special Agent for the AFOSI. His duties included that of law enforcement specialist, criminal, fraud, and counter-intelligence. He was assigned to felony crimes in federal government, fraud, waste and abuse investigations of the military branches of service, and counter-intelligence in overseas locations. Dean was also a former Texas State Commissioned Alamo State Park Armed Ranger.

Dean is currently Director, Animals C.L.U.B.- Freedom National Organization and Dean is also a Lead Investigative Reporter for the NationalDogPress.com Headline News ©, and DogPress.org news press services.

Fair Use Notice: Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C. 107, other copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, research, critical comment, or debate without profit or payment. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for your own purposes beyond the ‘fair use’ exception, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Legal Disclaimer: The information, articles, or links (posted, embedded or otherwise) to the above postings are provided to give readers more information on general dog-related or associated subjects and are not intended as legal advice. All individuals are urged to contact licensed attorneys in their states regarding specific legal issues.

Copyright © 2006-2009, Animals C.L.U.B.- Freedom National Organization, All Rights Reserved
Posted by CODE: RED - Final Notice at 12:47 AM
Labels: Dog Law - Animals C.L.U.B.- Freedom, Dog Licensing, Dog Limit Ordinances, Dogs, Iowa, Mills County, NationalDogPress.com

Animal Control Beware; There is a Dog Seizure Due Process

How Does Due Process Apply to Dog Seizure/Euthanasia Cases?

Despite the fact that animals are still considered property in all legal jurisdictions today, due process, whether rooted in the federal or state constitutions, extends to life, liberty, or property. The more complicated issue, however, is how much process is due? The Supreme Court has promulgated a four prong test to determine this. In each situation, a court must weigh the following:

- the private interest affected by the official action

- the risk of an erroneous deprivation of that interest through the procedures used,

- the probable value of additional procedural safeguards, and

- the government interest involved.

Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335 (1976).

Due process requires the opportunity to be heard “at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner. Rabon v. City of Seattle (Rabon II), 107 Wash.App. 734, 743 (2001) (citing Mathews, 424 U.S. at 333). Thus, when individuals can show they will suffer irreparable harm from a post-deprivation hearing, courts have recognized that a pre-deprivation hearing is necessary. In the case of orders to euthanize pets, many courts have considered the loss to the pet owner as irreparable.

Before the Hearing: Filing a Petition for a Preliminary Injunction

Dog owners should file a petition for an injunction to delay the killing of the dog until they have had the chance to be heard in court (For an actual example, see Petition for Preliminary and Permanent Injunction in the case of Wilson v. City of St. Louis (1990), which involved a Pit Bull named “Max” who was impounded and classified as “dangerous” because he allegedly killed the neighbor’s dog. The Circuit Court found that the plaintiff would suffer irreparable harm if the preliminary injunction was not granted and enjoined the city from killing or otherwise harming Max. The court ordered the city to release Max and change his dangerous designation to potentially dangerous.

Overriding the Decision - Petition for a Writ of Mandamus

Due process includes more than just going through the motions of a hearing. In fact, even after hearings have been granted, decisions can be challenged as a prejudicial abuse of discretion that is not based on findings of fact or law. (This is what the owners of Boo, a bullmastiff who allegedly bit a child, argued in Williams v. Orange County Animal Control (1996)). In this case, owners should file a Petition for a Writ of Mandamus, a judicial remedy issued by a superior court to compel a government officer to do or forbear from doing a specific act, to delay the euthanasia order until the appeal can be heard. This writ of mandamus applies in any situation in which the euthanasia should be stayed, including scenarios in which an original hearing was never given.

Minimum Standards of Due Process for the Hearing

It is now also clear that hearings must meet certain minimum standards. Informal reviews that animal control agencies frequently provide upon the dog owner’s request often do not fulfill these requirements, because the decision-maker may not be qualified to render the judgment or may not be impartial if he also made the original decision to euthanize the dog. For example, in Phillips v. San Luis Obispo County Dept., 228 Cal.Rptr. 101 Cal.App. (2 Dist.,1986), the owners of Missy, a black lab known to have a bad habit of biting children, contested the city’s decision to euthanize her. The amicus brief filed by Joyce Tischler of the Animal Legal Defense Fund pointed out the Municipal Codes at issue did not provide for the Animal Regulation Director’s orders to be reviewed by the Chief Sanitarian of the County Health Department or the supervising environmental health officer, the two individuals who presided over the first and second hearings.

Challenges to the Ordinance Itself

In fact, many city ordinances are flawed in that they fail to specify that owners are entitled to hearings before their pets are euthanized. These municipal codes can be challenged as unconstitutional and, even if the city already granted hearings that met minimum due process standards, the decision to euthanize the pet would still have to be overturned. Otherwise, whether dog owners generally would receive due process would be at the whim of the animal control agency, and the city could avoid having to correct its municipal codes simply by voluntarily giving all dog owners a hearing. The court of appeals in Missy’s case agreed, concluding that the ordinances here are unconstitutional for failure to provide for notice and a hearing either before or after the seizure of an uncontrollable biting or vicious dog.

Most recently, in a landmark case, the court of appeals in Mansour v. King County, 128 P.3d 1241 (Wash.App. Div. 1,2006) held that due process required even more than offering owners a hearing, ordering that “an agency seeking to enforce a removal order must prove both the violation and the remedy it has imposed by a preponderance of the evidence. This is the same standard of proof imposed on the government when it attempts to temporarily remove a child from the custody of his parents. By instituting a burden of proof on the city, the court was essentially finding that the dog must be presumed innocent until the city can prove otherwise. Previously, there had been no standard of proof, and reviewing courts would only look to see if Animal Control had acted arbitrarily or capriciously. Thus, even the most minimal evidence that a dog should be removed would suffice, and owners would bear the burden of proving their pets innocent. Moreover, the court found that due process attached not only for orders to euthanize an animal, but also for orders of removal outside the county (Peter Mansour had been ordered to remove his dog from the county or turn his dog over to the city to be euthanized after his dog was accused of killing a cat).

Finally, the court held that due process required Mansour to have the ability to subpoena records and witnesses in his defense, and that the Notice and Order of Violation had to specify exactly what code provisions had been violated. Merely issuing a brief and concise description of the conditions for finding the violation is insufficient. Mansour was entitled to know ahead of time exactly what the County needed to prove at the Board hearing. If in fact it could not prove that Maxine violated a code provision that supported the removal order, he [Mansour] was entitled to know that in time to move for a dismissal at the Board level.” Source Reference: Animal Legal and Historical Center.

There are some significant problems with dangerous dog laws and euthanasia execution solutions.

1. They do not reduce the number of dog bites. By focusing on the after-effects of a bite, these laws do not take any measures to prevent bites. In theory, the risk of punishment is a motivation to change behavior. But most dog owners do not believe their dogs to be dangerous. So the perception is that these laws are for other dogs, problem dogs, but not their dog. Then, when a bite occurs, that particular owner may face additional liability, but his friends and neighbors will not change their habits regarding their own dogs.

2. The laws do not take into account the severity of the incident. Most dangerous dog laws cover a huge range of behavior from “threatening displays” to actual bites. What this means is that you may be as liable for your goofy social dog rushing out the door and charging gleefully at a neighbor as another owner is for an undersocialized, aggressive dog who bites a child on the face. Are these equal? Under many dangerous dog laws, they are.

What it comes down to is this.

Dangerous dog laws are a feel-good attempt to show the community that they are taking action.

Article LINK:

http://IowaCongress.org/ar_outrage.html

Dean A. Ayers
Director, Animals C.L.U.B.- Freedom National Organization
“The truth is rarely pure and never simple.”

Dean A. Ayers is a prior United States Air Force Special Agent for the AFOSI. His duties included that of law enforcement specialist, criminal, fraud, and counter-intelligence. He was assigned to felony crimes in federal government, fraud, waste and abuse investigations of the military branches of service, and counter-intelligence in overseas locations. Dean was also a former Texas State Commissioned Alamo State Park Armed Ranger.

Dean is currently Director, Animals C.L.U.B.- Freedom National Organization and Dean is also a Lead Investigative Reporter for the NationalDogPress.com Headline News ©, and DogPress.org news press services.

Fair Use Notice: Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C. 107, other copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, research, critical comment, or debate without profit or payment. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for your own purposes beyond the ‘fair use’ exception, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Legal Disclaimer: The information, articles, or links (posted, embedded or otherwise) to the above postings are provided to give readers more information on general dog-related or associated subjects and are not intended as legal advice. All individuals are urged to contact licensed attorneys in their states regarding specific legal issues.

Copyright © 2006-2009, Animals C.L.U.B.- Freedom National Organization, All Rights Reserved

NationalDogPress.com Headline News ©

‘ALERT’ for Mills County, Iowa Animal Owners
Newly Proposed Animal Care and Control Ordinance for Mills County, Iowa
MILLS COUNTY, Iowa, June 28 (NationalDogPress.com) –

On 28 June 09, this Lead Investigative Reporter was personally contacted by an individual who requested anonymity and advised the following about animal control in Mills County, Iowa:

On this same date, a neighbor was visited by an officer with the Mills County Sheriff Department regarding a complaint of a dog at large chasing a horse. Upon contact with the neighbor the deputy (not named) allegedly informed the neighbor that any dog running loose off the property had better be licensed per a new animal ordinance in Mills County or the Deputy could issue a citation for dogs at large and confiscate them, sending them to the “ARF” animal rescue shelter. The Deputy allegedly continued stating, “a dog license would have to be purchased from the ‘ARF’ animal shelter”.

The person requesting anonymity advised this Investigator they were unaware of any such ordinance or of any animal shelter in Mills County, and this was the first they had heard of it from the neighbor or Deputy Sheriff. This Investigator was asked to investigate whether Mills County, Iowa in deed has this type of ordinance or animal shelter in force now.

Upon receiving this information, this Investigative Reporter conducted an inquiry into the validity of this ordinance complaint and the following information was disclosed. A review of the following official Mills County, Iowa web site http://www.millscoia.us/announcements.htm does in fact identify a newly proposed animal care and control ordinance dated from 2008 in PDF format.

The last update to the proposed animal control ordinance appears to be 2 June 2008 and it appears to be unsigned or approved in the PDF document. However, the proposal notification on the Mills County, Iowa web site dated 28 June 2009, reflects this animal control proposal is renewed and is now a current animal care and control county ordinance proposal.

You can read the entire animal care and control proposal of 16 pages for Mills County, Iowa at the following link:

http://www.millscoia.us/publicnotices_announcements/Ordinance08-03_AnimalCareandControl.pdf

The complainant who spoke to this Investigative Reporter stated the following about this new animal control information ‘coming to light’ in Mills County, Iowa:

“It could happen any time,” they said. “I’ll just be surprised if it doesn’t.”

Further Investigative inquiries are being conducted to obtain more up to date information on the status of this proposed animal care and control ordinance posted on Mills County, Iowa web site as of 28 June 09.

Stay tuned. This appears to be proposed “under the table” from the county citizen public’s view.

· Return to Website ·

© NationalDogPress.com Headline News

by Dean A. Ayers
Lead Investigative Reporter
NationalDogPress.com
Email: Dogpressorg@aol.com

Director, Animals C.L.U.B.- Freedom National Organization
“The truth is rarely pure and never simple.”

Dean A. Ayers is a prior United States Air Force Special Agent for the AFOSI. His duties included that of law enforcement specialist, criminal, fraud, and counter-intelligence. He was assigned to felony crimes in federal government, fraud, waste and abuse investigations of the military branches of service, and counter-intelligence in overseas locations. Dean was also a former Texas State Commissioned Alamo State Park Armed Ranger.

Dean is currently Director, Animals C.L.U.B.- Freedom National Organization and Dean is also a Lead Investigative Reporter for the NationalDogPress.com Headline News ©, and DogPress.org news press services.

Fair Use Notice: Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C. 107, other copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, research, critical comment, or debate without profit or payment. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for your own purposes beyond the ‘fair use’ exception, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Legal Disclaimer: The information, articles, or links (posted, embedded or otherwise) to the above postings are provided to give readers more information on general dog-related or associated subjects and are not intended as legal advice. All individuals are urged to contact licensed attorneys in their states regarding specific legal issues.

Copyright © 2006-2009, Animals C.L.U.B.- Freedom National Organization, All Rights Reserved