I got an email from Winograd tnat said:
SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE RULES IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFFS IN SHELTER LAWSUIT.
Judge delivers one-two punch in lawsuit aimed at ending mistreatment in L.A. County Animal Shelters.
However, I read everything included and I have no idea what the one-two punch was and where the lawsuit actually stands.
The link with more shelter photos is:
I plead illness as my reason not being able to find the one two punch or the announced video. Normally I have no difficulty destroying the arguments of lying psychiatrists paid for by corporations, but my mind is not working well. Tell me what the one-two punch was and the video.
The county moved to dismiss the lawsuit, claiming it was up to the county Whether and when the County may lawfully kill an animal;
Whether and when the County is obligated to provide veterinary treatment to an animal in its care; and
Whether and when the County should release to willing rescue groups animals that the County otherwise plans to kill.
(Which as I understand it is not true in California - Hayden law? - but I do not live in California)
In addition, the County argued that, even if it is violating the law or treating animals inhumanely, concerned citizens should not be allowed to force the County to stop.
The Judge ruled that the County's arguments had no merit and will permit the case to go to trial.
(That's the "one" punch)
The two punch is the Court entering an order prohibiting the County from taking further retalitory action against an animal rescuer. Apparently they had prevented her from rescuing more animals because she spoke out.
The video is here:
Whatever you may think of him, IMHO you are fortunate that Nathan is an attorney. Very very few people are able to find representation and bankroll a suit against their city/county, even though abuse by animal control goes on across the country. I'd kill for a Stanford lawyer to take on my city.
There he goes, always marketing on his behalf. There was no one-two punch in this court action. If he were more experienced with court cases, he would know that these are little things that always go on in cases, no big deal at all. Probably the reason he didn't make it as an attorney. Read the court proceedings for Cindy Bemis or Charlotte Spadaro, these tactics were used and continue to be used to delay a trial. Winograd would be great working in an advertising office. Maybe we should find him a job doing that so he will leave us alone.
Judge refused to dismiss the case and, we are meant to infer, stopped County from keeping Cathy Nguyen out of the shelters as a rescuer. It says, "the Court entered an order prohibiting DACC from taking further retaliatory action against Ms. Nguyen." But since DACC didn't admit its actions against Cathy Nguyen WERE retaliatory it's hard to see from this specifically how this affects her. Maybe Winograd's just leaving it at that and waiting to see if she's stopped if she tries to go in a shelter in non-public hours or rescue an animal, at which point he could go to the Judge and tell him/her that the DACC is defying a Court order.
I think it's pretty standard for people/entitities being sued to immediately move to have the case dismissed. But for the Judge to come out and say the basis on which the County requested the lawsuit be dismissed were "wrong" and "spurious" yeah, that doesn't bode too well for the County's assertions that, no matter what the law is, they can kill any animal they want at any time and there's nothing a citizen can do about it.
No lie, that's their defense. I hope Winograd rips the BOS and Mayeda about fifty new ones...
Nathan didn't write or pay for this lawsuit. It was started by a local group of rescuers and lawyers. Nathan signed onto the lawsuit at the last second. He did this for publicity. Notice, he is asking for money for the legal fees. He is no longer an attorney. I think he went to inactive status eight years ago.
I wouldn't call this a one two punch. The opposition will always file a motion to dismiss. Their arguments were very weak. They must follow the Hayden act. They can't make up their own rules. Citizens have the right to sue to enforce legislation. That's our tax payer money being used there. That's why they needed a citizen in the county as one of the plaintiffs.
The case isn't over yet. I project it will have the same outcome as the Kern county case. The county will just promise to try harder.
Well anonymous 3 (heh) there was a lawsuit filed here by a group of rescuers and lawyers. Problem is it costs a fortune to sue the government in Texas (I don't know about California) and I don't think it went as far as this one did, even.
But the laws here are totally different, we don't have a Hayden act, etc.
After seeing the picture on Winograd's web site of the dog obviously very sick, I have a question. Why didn't the person who took the picture, probably the "rescuer" get the dog out at that time instead of letting it stay there so sick? If I saw that dog in that condition, I would have taken it right then. Seems this dog was let down not just by the county, but the rescuer who saw the condition and left it there. I don't understand taking a picture and then walking away.
We can't save every sick or healthy animal in the shelter. Sometimes all you can do is take a photo to show the public what's happening. Here in LA we can only have three dogs and three cats. I'm at my limit.
FYI - The photo of a very sick Zephyr was taken by the rescuer who visited Carson shelter around lunchtime on Friday 11/30. After taking the photo she immediately informed Christy (the RVT) who promised that she would look in on Zephyr later that day. When the rescuer returned later that evening she learned the RVT had not looked into Zephyr. Rescuer's vet already closed. Emails and phone calls were made that night to coordinate getting Zephyr out first thing next morning and transported to get emergency care. First thing next morning Zephyr was found dead in her kennel.
This girl was found in almost the same condition however she was discovered early enough to save the next day.
FYI - With all that is being said about the Carson shelter, as a rescuer I would have taken the dog rather than trust the employees. You state that the rescuer's vet was closed, there is the emergency clinic for those situations. Still think the person taking the picture had a responsibility to the dog and failed it.
To the last anonymous commenter,
Zephyr was in custody of LA County DACC at the Carson shelter. It is therefore LA County's responsibility to care for Zephyr, not the person who took the photo. They are fully to blame for her death. The shelter had the authority to take Zephyr to an emergency clinic, but didn't.
To anonymous, I'm so sorry you feel the person who just happened to stop by in order to take a few pictures of shelter animals didn't act as quickly as you would have. I agree with Ryan though, LA County DACC failed Zephyr (on many levels) not the person who took the photo.
And I suppose all of you would have left the dog there using these excuses?? You know as well as I do that this dog was let down by this so called "rescuer". Just ask yourself if you would have walked away. If you would have then you have no right to call yourselves rescuers. Seems all you want to do is blame the county, who is definitely to blame, but this picture taker had a moral responsibility, not one dictated by law, and she failed at that responsibility. The dog is dead but there is a picture.
This last comment is ridiculous. Why blame the rescuer? I don't undeerstand the attitude of making a moral judgement that "she/he" should have done something. I really don't see the point other than a distraction or excsue for County's failure.
This is the same sort of naysaying negativity that stymies progress towards compassion and lessened killing at that the shelters.
Blame not the shelter, but the messenger.
Zephyr was visibly deteriorating in front of her County caretakers' eyes and nothing was done.
I agree with the last commenter. If you put down rescuers and you put down the County, maybe next you'll put down Zephyr for getting impounded in the first place.
"Just ask yourself if you would have walked away. If you would have then you have no right to call yourselves rescuers. Seems all you want to do is blame the county, who is definitely to blame, but this picture taker had a moral responsibility, not one dictated by law, and she failed at that responsibility."
I don't call myself much of anything at all. Guess I must be morally irresponsible too because I fail to know exactly how much time an animal has before they will die (or be killed). Thank you for the enlightenment!
Sorry Ed. I'll shut up now.
Post a Comment