• There has been a recent cluster of spammers accessing BARFer accounts and posting spam. To safeguard your account, please consider changing your password. It would be even better to take the additional step of enabling 2 Factor Authentication (2FA) on your BARF account. Read more here.

Mayoral Pardon?

Troy! Thanks so much.

Just on the phone to someone who knows someone on the Board of Animal Supervisors personally (that bnc@cob address). I believe it's their job to advise Peter McHugh on matters of policy (interestingly, San Jose/Santa Clara policy is much more closely aligned with State policy, unlike Sunnyvale...:rolleyes)

And yes! Even if they can't do anything, keep the emails/calls rolling in. They must be made to understand that if someone unjust is happening, they'll have to deal with lots of people protesting.

God, if they'd just tried this under CA law none of this would have happened.

And Miran - been damned hard to find out, but basically each mayor seems to have their own set of powers, which are voted to them by the council. It was *really* hard to find out what mayors can and can't do. There's not much that's universal about them, each city is allowed to make up their own rules, for the most part.
 
OK, now we're really getting somewhere!

I'd ask everyone to focus instead of getting the media involved at this stage - we've gone as far as we can, we have the number for the supervisors to the judges!

We're going to tread very carefully there for obvious reasons, so I won't put their contact info up. But all the calls HAVE made a difference - we were taken seriously, we got noticed, it all DID make a difference.

A big :thumbup to everyone that called, your calls DID make a difference!

Now, time to get some media coverage and keep the pressure on.

Ok, I gotta eat. I'm starvin! BBL! Great work everyone!
 
OK, update:

Our lawyers are going to chase the relevant people at the top - carefully.

Please carry on sending emails to the Sunnyvale Mayor, petitioning him to get the Sunnyvale codes changed to be more inline with the CA state law, to stop this happening to some other poor schmuck in future.

We got in touch with someone from Peter McHugh's department - the guy is doing a lot to help us, so emails and snail-mail letters would probably be best.

Also, more letters to the Animal Advisory Board will help, as they help form policies all over Santa Clara County - they most likely didn't even know about Sunnyvale codes.

I'm going to try and get some R&R tonight, tomorrow, Desiree is due! Man, what a week.

Thanks all.

OH! Cardinal - I have a whacking great, thick case file. PM me where you want it sent. I can fedex or drop it off in person.

Thanks!

Ian.
 
Sent off three emails Ian. Perhaps we can get that rat dog executed in Lucy's stead?
 
So, how many people got this response:

"Thank you for your message to the Council AnswerPoint.
The Superior Court has issued an Order finding the dog Lucy to be a vicious animal subject to humane euthanasia, after the opportunity for the dog's owner to present all evidence and testimony in opposition to that finding. The Mayor does NOT have the authority to change or modify the Court's Order. Thank you for your interest in this matter."

At this point, direct all correspondence to the Supervisor of Santa Clara (Peter McHugh) and to the Governor's office.

Peter A. McHugh - Santa Clara County Supervisor
Email Supervisor McHugh at primo.mchugh@bos.co.scl.ca.us
District Three, Office of the Board of Supervisors
County Government Center, East Wing
70 West Hedding Street
San Jose, CA 95110
Fax: (408) 298-6637

Can't get an email for the governor yet, but I'm working on it.

Thanks all, we've DEFINITELY been noticed! lol!
 
OK, not a huge amount of news, but want to renew my thanks to everyone on this thread - Terry, Violet, Berto, Troy - everyone I haven't PMed yet, my apologies, things are a wee bit busy at home right now...

First version of the site is up, thanks to NoGall, Gsxrgirrl, and Ernest for helping with that.

http://linux.ucla.edu/~picc/lucy

http://linux.ucla.edu/~picc/lucy/lucy.html

I've sent Ernest a few vids this morning, haven't had time to work on the site itself yet (I'm going to be a dad for the second time sometime this evening!).

Hope you're all having a good Sunday,

Cheers,

Ian.
 
Fun, fun, fun!

Went to the Sunnyvale Council meeting tonight, and read this:

Honorable Mayor Lee, members of the council,


My daughter was born yesterday morning at 3.51, and I find myself standing here in the continued attempt to keep another family member alive.


I am talking about my dog, Lucy, and our continued legal battle to keep her alive, despite the best efforts of the Sunnyvale District Attorney's office and the application of laws written by Sunnyvale Council members, with evidence and statements gathered by Sunnyvale Public Safety officers.


I am asking that the council seriously reconsider the wording and structure of it's vicious dog laws, specifically codes 6.04.160.


California's laws already cover this particular area of law extremely well, definitions contained in the laws are very well explained, thorough and scaled appropriate to the offence.


In contrast, Sunnyvale's codes are over-reaching, harsh and unnecessarily vague - so vague, in fact, that in our recent appeal at the Superior Court, the Judge was forced to ask for guidance, because he could not understand (nor believe) that the Sunnyvale code not only allowed the death penalty for the first infraction, but that the definitions were so vague as to be unreasonable by a Judge!


My understanding is that the clause under California State Law that allows city's to write their own laws, was to allow flexibility and sensitivity to the local community, as well as to alleviate the case load to Superior Courts - NOT to allow city's to write draconian laws that have basically resulted in a 'round up and kill' policy enacted by Sunnyvale Animal Control.



Under Sunnyvale law, a dog simply has to be 'at large' and 'perceived' as a threat, for Sunnyvale Animal Control to seize and kill the dog, or even to be unlicensed! This is not supposition - we know that anyone 'winning' such a determination against Sunnyvale is extraordinarily rare, and Sunnyvale's policy of seizure without due process (against the 4th amendment) is to deliberately emotionally and financially blackmail owners into giving up without a fight.


These laws need to change. We are fortunate enough to have a small savings that we've been able to use to afford a lawyer - further, that our continued representation has been pro-bono, such has been the strength of conviction of those involved; other people in Sunnyvale don't have this luxury. They are put in the position where they can't even fight for their dog.


We're not only facing vague dog laws, we're facing prejudice. You can feel safe using media-hype to say that because Lucy is in the pitbull category, that she's obviously vicious, and Sunnyvale has an enviable reputation of breaking apart dog-fighting rings and deserves praise for such successes.


However, the truth is Lucy is a family dog. The truth is that this was a freak fence accident that led to the meeting of two dogs that had a history of animosity meeting on the street.

One dog fight does not make a bad dog; it's prejudiced, fear of liability, and horribly written animal law that is killing our dog.




And, that's as far as I got... there was a bit more.

Then the weenie of a DA outright lied and said 'the judge had no problem with the direction of the Sunnyvale codes' which will be aired when we get the transcripts... plus saying she viciously attacked the person walking the dogs (also B.S. from her own original statement (interestingly, the changed when she smelt 'lawsuit' in the air...).

Letter sent in rebuttal in next post.
 
Honorable Mayor Lee and members of the council,

Thank you for the opportunity to present my thoughts to the council tonight.

I did not want to turn my statement into an argument, however, I want to set the record straight with regard to statements made by the city attorney, the below statements are on record in various legal documents:

· Lucy did not attack any person; Mary Munoz, the person who was walking the dog involved in the altercation with Lucy, had to be told she had been bitten, by Michelle Morgan (Sunnyvale Dept. of Safety officer at the scene.)

· Even if bitten by Lucy - which is disputed by the only other witness - the injuries did not require treatment! I paid for her emergency room bill and she did not require so much as a sticking plaster - see attached picture (the rest are in the case files but this is the only injury.)

· The claim by the city attorney that the judge's direction was very clear is also incorrect, as will be shown when we review the transcripts. I am unsure how the city attorney could even have an opinion on this, as he was not even there...

· The Silicon Valley behaviorist was also led by Michelle Morgan to come to a conclusion, which is at odds to an independent behaviorist.

The city attorney lied to you all - this is the prejudice we are facing, on top of ridiculously draconian codes.

I thank you very much for your consideration in this matter - I would not be 'making such a stink' if I did not feel so strongly about this.

If we believed Lucy represented a threat to the community, we would not be fighting with such conviction. We have been closely involved with organizations where hard decisions have had to be made - when no incident occurred - simply based on behavior. We are not foolishly blinded by our attachment to Lucy.

Thank you very much for your consideration - I understand you may not be able to help us specifically, but I urge you to take a close look at the actions of your D.A.'s department and their actions of persecution against Sunnyvale's own residents at significant cost to the city.

For now, I am going to spend time with my newborn daughter and focus on all the positives of life. The outpouring of support for Lucy and us has been truly stunning and is an affirmation of the positive strength of human spirit, and I hope I can reach you on that level too.

Yours faithfully,

Ian Young.

***Remainder of statement originally intended to be read in Council meeting 10.30.07***


"In our last appeal, Robert Boco complained that our continued legal battle was costing the city money.

It is not OUR legal battle that is costing the city money, it is an unjust and overly heavy-handed city law and aggressive District Attorney's office that is refusing perfectly acceptable resolutions - we offered to move Lucy out of State! - that is carrying on the battle.

We would not be fighting this fight with such conviction, if we were not so convinced that the laws and actions of Sunnyvale against us were so unjust.

I have in the past, received speeding tickets. I have fought - and won - against tickets where I was not actually speeding. I did not fight against such tickets when I was actually speeding...

And such is the case here. We aren't fighting this because we are radical animal- rights people in any way and are very moderate, in fact. We are fighting this and making it known because it is WRONG.

There are innumerable remedies to this situation that would have been just and fair, resulted in no continued liability to the city, or even the state, but it is Sunnyvale that is carrying this on in an unreasonable fashion, to it's own cost and that of it's own citizens.

I thank you for your time and consideration."
 
Due process costs on the state are not a valid defence of anything..
 
Holeshot said:
Due process costs on the state are not a valid defence of anything..
Click to expand...


Nah, not a defence, just simply pointing out that they were complaining we were costing THEM money by 'being unreasonable and not just letting us kill your dog', basically.

Especially after we stated pretty plainly, anything short of killing her would be acceptable, and the judge even said, and I quote, 'I'm just dying to give her this remedy' (move her out of state) but ASKED permission of the assistant D.A. and asked if Sunnyvale would issue a writ if he didn't order her killed. I never knew judges had to ask permission to do their job before...:rolleyes
 
NOW would be the time to speak up (Wednesday, Dec 5th, 2007) if you're going to.

The asshole attorney from Sunnyvale DID show up in court to contest the writ, after he said he wouldn't, and after he called our attorney to personally bitch her out (how dare we actually fight for the life of our dog?).

He asked for sanctions against our attorney (!!) which were thankfully denied, but he did succeed in getting the judge to not only refuse the writ, but to issue an injunction to prevent it being heard at the Superior Appellate Court... incidentally, it was pinged back to the SAME JUDGE as in the original hearing - as if he's going to change his mind :wtf

Clif notes of this is - we're putting in a motion to the STATE appellate court, but the chances of that being accepted are slim. Chances of getting a stay of execution are even slimmer.

The Sunnyvale DA wants today to be our last visit and for Lucy to be euthanized ASAP. Oh, and he also sent us the final bill for her care, how nice... after complaining about how much WE were costing the city. Dick.

So, if you're hands are idle, and you feel like it, call the Governor's office and create a stink TODAY. We have a film crew up there delivering a request for a pardon right now (1pm), but the more people that make noise, the more likely Arnie will actually take the time to read it.

Thanks in advance for anyone who does make that effort.


Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
State Capitol Building
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: 916-445-2841
 
Beomp and gonna make the call for ya :) I'm about 10 mins away from there (working at the moment), would it make a difference if I showed up?
 
Not sure, but probably.

The latest is, our filmaker got to speak to his secretary, who said that they make no exceptions for stuff to go directly to him, and guided her to the place where you're supposed to give things for his attention.

That was just a drop-box.

However, she made a small stink and got to talk to the person in charge of the governors legal dept., who accepted it and said they'll take it under consideration. That might mean it's disappeared into a black-hole, maybe not.

I don't think it can hurt to let them know that there are a lot of people out there fighting for Lucy's life - it's a lot harder to ignore flesh and blood than simply emails, calls and letters.

I know you're a diplomatic soul, so, please, feel free :) Now would be a good time to use your connections if you can, Sumi...
 
jesus, mary and bloody joseph...what the hell is the driving force behind the DA's office to pursue this in such a relentless fashion?
.
i shall call..if that will help.
.
 
I have NO idea why the Sunnyvale attorney is SUCH a wanker, really. It's like I personally affronted him or something, they're pursuing this as though I'd torched a hospital full of babies or something.

Update is this - Desiree (my gf) has been to see Lucy today and talked to Mike at the shelter (the manager) who was unaware of any euthanasia order as yet, and insisted he won't act on any without informing us first.

She also told him about the appeal we're trying to get into the State Appellate Court, as well as the pardon from the Governor.

By the way, if any of you are interested, the Sunnyvale DA will be at the council meeting next Tuesday the 11th at 7.00pm.

If we want to show up as the almost literal torch-wielding villagers, that would be much appreciated. I don't think this jerk realizes how many people he's pissed off and how much American's don't like to be yanked around by spineless men in suits. There will be myself, family and a few friends going already. If we had the place full of bikers, perhaps all standing in unison to speak during the public speaking session, it would hopefully make some more serious waves.

Oh, FYI, this guy (the attorney) just graciously accepted a pay raise to >200K per year. Good to know where your property tax dollars are being spent, eh? :mad
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top