jeudi 17 octobre 2019

Réglementation qui pourrait aider les chats errants au Québec


Ce genre de réglementation municipale non seulement sauverait ben des animaux mais, au Québec, éviterait le transbordage des animaux perdus d'icitte vers les labos de l'Ontario par les rescues et les fourrières.
Au moins les fourrières seraient réglementées, ce qui n'est pas le cas ici. Tout leur est permis et les plaintes et dénonciations ne sont JAMAIS prises au sérieux par les fonctionnaires véreux des municipalités concernées. Il est temps de prendre la situation en main.





Nathan Winograd
2 h
Breaking News: The City of Austin just passed a sweeping new law to enshrine lifesaving protections into law.
Based on several provisions of the Companion Animal Protection Act, model legislation from the No Kill Advocacy Center, and more, the new Austin ordinance, which was approved by an 8-2 vote, codifies into law several key protections for shelter animals:
- The law requires Austin Animal Center (AAC), the municipal shelter, to notify rescuers at least two business days before killing an animal and give them the right to save the animal. It prohibits the City shelter to charge them a fee for doing so.
- It requires AAC to notify the former owner and, absent evidence of neglect or cruelty, offer them the ability to reclaim their surrendered animal to prevent killing.
- It requires AAC to notify the finder, in case of a stray, and offer them the ability to reclaim the animal to prevent killing.
- And in a first, it enshrines protections for visibly pregnant moms and their full-term puppies and kittens.
Of course, the bill has exceptions, such as animals who are irremediably suffering and dogs who have caused severe injury to a human being.
In a series of other initiatives in the law, the City Council also mandated:
- Vaccinations on intake;
- Requiring AAC to waive reclaim fees if doing so would spare the life of the animal; and,
- The most transparent shelter system in the nation by requiring public release of data on a monthly and annual basis that includes numbers impounded, adoptions, killed (and reasons why), deaths in kennel, reclaims, sterilizations, foster care, transferred to rescue, sterilized and released, and so much more.
The initiatives were crafted by former Animal Advisory Commissioner Larry Tucker, Austin attorney Ryan ClintonAustin Pets Alive! Director Dr. Ellen Jefferson, City Council members and their staffs, and me on behalf of the No Kill Advocacy Center, my organization. The ordinance was sponsored by Council Members Leslie Pool, Ann Kitchen, Kathie Tovo, and Mayor Steve Adler.
The new law will save lives by filling in existing cracks in the safety net. Congratulations to everyone in Austin working to make a lifesaving difference.
An analysis, what it means for animals in Austin and beyond, and next steps for the City of Austin shortly…
-----------------------------------------
Who is Nathan Winograd? Learn more about me: http://bit.ly/2NBIWAP

dimanche 6 octobre 2019

The Paradox of “No Kill” Animal Welfare Policies

Au Québec, personne ne tient compte des chiens et chats volés et revendus en Ontario par des rescues et des fourrières.  Il va falloir commencer à donner des noms.
The Paradox of “No Kill” Animal Welfare Policies
October 1, 2019 / Carol Mithers for Dame Magazine
RW note: As one commenter brilliantly stated, "Just because an animal goes out the door of a shelter, that does not mean s/he is safe, loved and medically taken care of." The recent cases of Texas pullers and transporters (dumping over 120 dogs on roads and hoarding them in filthy warehouses) drive this point home even more. This is a MUST READ, but here are but a few article highlights:
“Transport”—sending shelter animals from one state to a (presumably better) other, also can be subverted.
Another strategy: policies that deliberately limit shelter intake. In “no kill” San Antonio, says a source long involved in that city’s rescue world, a “diversion” program allows anyone who finds a stray to keep it at home, while classifying the animal as a shelter impound. “Then, if it’s given away—to whoever— or even escapes, it can be counted as a successful live release.”
The growth of disreputable rescues and outright rescue scams is a constant source of anguish in the rescue world.
Worse are organizations that take in more animals than they can properly care for, and individuals who use the guise of rescue to mask hoarding. Yearly, thousands of dogs and cats are removed from “rescue hoarders”...A much-celebrated “live release” from a shelter may land a dog or cat in a fate worse than death.
In 2018, an editorial in the Colorado Veterinary Medical Association journal denounced the movement as “destructive” and called for a new model, “socially conscious sheltering” with similar animal welfare goals, but without a numerical end point.
Full article:
Thank you Rescue Watch for this post

Illustration of dogs behind cages in animal shelter

jeudi 26 septembre 2019

Un raid, le risque et comment ça commence

Avec les inspections illégales (et les conséquences) qui se déroulent dans le moment au Québec, vous vous devez de lire et méditer le texte suivant.

Mêmes excuses au Québec que les inspectrices doivent investiguer une "plainte". Elles ont bien soin de garder la plainte confidentielle (s'il y en a une) pour utiliser n'importe quelle excuse pour leur intervention tout croche et illégale.


Scenario 1- Home fixing dinner when you get a knock on the door. Animal control is investigating a complaint of animal neglect. You are shocked because your animals are like family and you take exceptional care of them. They explain they get calls like this all the time and it isn't a big deal but they do have to investigate.
Okay, so you let them in and you show them your animals.. This is Sparky and he is fifteen years old had him since he was a pup. Moving on to Buddy who is a young cat that is very shy.. then outside to your pen of fat hens - some old, some young. You comment that most don't lay anymore. You have a goat and he is super friendly, Saved him from getting butchered and he just kinda hangs out on the farm. You have two horses, also older - one a hard keeper with cancer. You would never think of sending them to auction or killing them so you have provided a retirement home to the end of their days.

The officer thanks you and you think you are good to go.. you are NOT. You see your dog has tarter on his teeth, your cat isn't socialized and is fearful, your goat had a tad bit of hoof rot, chickens appear to have lice, and those horses... well, one has chipped feet (yes it is summer) and then of course the old one with cancer is thin and the officer doesn't agree with your feeding plan even though a vet gave it to you.

Because the officer isn't a regular deputy they were not required to go through the regular training programs but rather through ones required offered by the HSUS. Most of the training focuses on identifying neglect. Considering many of these groups are animal rights groups it is a bit tainted. Nonetheless, they are the legal enforcing officer who has the absolute power to destroy you.

They have no animal degree and operate on their two day class and feelings. In their opinion you are neglecting your animals. They give you a kind nod and then immediately reach out to the rescue that originally reported you.
Soon a posse of trailers with and an AC with warrant in hand tells you to sit down. You watch your animals hauled out of your home terrified and thrown into small cages without food or water. You are given a citation to appear in court or in some cases arrested. You are in shock.. how could this be. It must be a misunderstanding.
During the seizure they take note of your home and consider it deplorable. Wow, that stings. You may not be the best housekeeper in the world but your house isn't a threat to human or animal. So your laundry is on the couch and a few dishes are in the sink.
It is five in the morning when they come to your door and you just barely got up.. haven't put out food for the animals yet and generally feed at eight. They note there was inadequate water.. yet there was water. Does this mean there wasn't enough for say a week, month, what. You don't understand. They note the water is dirty - but yet it was only just one kibble that had been dropped into it. The horse water is dirty and they take pictures of the brown colored water. Sure it is dirty, the old horse dumps his hay into it before he eats it. It was just changed yesterday.
Now in a panic you reach out to an attorney. Twenty grand up front and most won't touch you wiht a ten foot pole. Your vet has been burned in these cases before when they have had to go up against the AR vet assigned to the case. They are scared they will end up getting into trouble too. Yes, they did say to not worry about the tarter because the procedure to clean the teeth could kill your old dog but dang... we are up against the big boys now.
Your friends will come to your defense - nope, they too want miles away from an animal abuser. Hundreds of people will call for your head, you will get death threats, this process will take everything you love away from you.
Meanwhile your animals are taken in and checked with a fine tooth comb. Is that a flea? Charges increase with each find. Yes your chickens have lice but you treat them regularly.. same with the horses feet as they are trimmed every six weeks. You are up to twenty five counts of neglect. The media has a hay day and the front page picture is that of them hauling your animals out of your home in hazmat suits - really? This is Chernoble. (les habits blancs et les masques ne sont que pour les caméras des médias, nous avons des témoignages)
Maybe a few people will question why your animals all appear to be in great shape but they too will be silenced... you find yourself very alone and isolated.. depression sets in. You put your faith in the justice system to right this wrong...
You soon find that your animals are being cared for at your expense even if you win. (quand le mapaq est allé chercher les chats du refuge de Lachine, la dame a dû admettre en Cour qu'elle n'avait pas les $250 000 qu'on lui demandait et les chats sont partis pour l'abattoir (?)
Give them up now or you could be looking at hundreds of thousands of dollars. You feel forced and it breaks your heart but you do... and then it shows how little you love or care for your animals making you seem even more guilty. In reality you are doing it for your animals because to spend two or three years locked in a kennel is unfathomable. Just release then they say so we can find them good homes. You do. The rescue will then sell your animals while also getting donations and in some cases receive more funds via government contracts. Unfortunately your old animals are unadoptable so they are killed. Can it get worse you ask?
Meanwhile it is near impossible to get any info on your case. You ask for the records on your animals and they don't match up, some are missing. You ask for vet records, rescue information, etc. and don't hold your breath cause it is very likely you will never see them. Your court appointed attorney isn't too keen on representing an animal abuser and would much rather have a child rape case. Pretty soon it becomes clear you are going to lose. Generally at this point you are two years in and have nothing left. You were fired, your church asked you not to come back... your house is in foreclosure.
You find out that this rescue has been doing this before and can prove it was a set up. Then you find out they have immunity. You find out the prosecutor is animal rights funded and he and the judge received training from the same AR groups. You are forced to take a plea to avoid hard jail time. You pay your fines and think it is over..
But as a part of sentencing you will be banned from owning any animals for a good deal of time. Maybe forever. You are now listed on a federal registry. You can't vote or have a gun... you must list you are a felon on all of your employment applications. All of this and yet your true heartbreak is losing your animals and hoping the ones that were not killed are happy.
Folks, this group wasn't formed to protect true criminal neglect. This group was formed to bring light to a very corrupt system where innocent people are being charged with felony animal neglect and having no due process. It is to expose the "follow the money" of rescue and to expose how the animal rights groups have infiltrated and control our legislators, enforcement officers, and courts to reach the ultimate goal of animal abolishment.
I can assure you, there is no animal owner today that is not at risk of what I have laid out above. Farmers and animal breeders are a million more times at risk. If you think for one moment it could never happen to you - think again. It is only a matter of time.before you or someone you love is impacted.
Heck, we are already impacted - breeders forced out, farmers attacked and us shaking in our shoes wondering if it is all worth the risk to own an animal. We live in fear as we should.
Are we not protected in our rights -?? "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person" We all have the right to live in freedom and safety." I am not feeling so secure or free these days... are you?
**** for those who have commented "Don't let them in" please do a quick search on exigent circumstances for animals where a warrant is not required.

jeudi 19 septembre 2019

Les médias et les poursuites contre les rescues

Il ne faut pas s'attendre au support des médias devant toute cette corruption qui gère la vie des québécois.

Pour aider les rescues victimes d'inspections illégales, il va falloir s'unir et se présenter dans les salles de cour en soutien à la victime. Je demande à celles qui sont poursuivies de nous laisser connaître les date et endroit où on peut agir efficacement.

Le commentaire plus bas est en relation avec l'arrestation illégale de notre amie Elizabeth Elle est emprisonnée depuis plus d'un an à NY sans avoir eu de procès. Les communications sont difficiles et les avocats de la défense ne veulent pas nous parler alors qu'on aurait de l'aide à apporter.

C'est ce qui nous guette toutes. Il faut travailler ensemble pour repousser les attaques des ARs.

Rusty Nale sur facebook
I'm not sure about media support. From my view I see the most meaningful help in people showing up at court hearings on behalf of the raid victim.
Head count which speaks of awareness of government corruption and that citizens are no longer going to tolerate deep states and corruption both local and federal.
We need physical support in court rooms. This means we need leaders to organize at grass roots and caravan to hearings w/ride sharing and sharing on gas. The ARs have been organized for years while we eat dust and hold empty tin cups. .

samedi 7 septembre 2019

De la fabrication de preuve

Les organisations prédatrices qui font des raids sont passées maitres dans l'art de la fabrication de preuve. Exemple: leur notion de salubrité est impossible à évaluer et ils ajoutent toujours le fameux "odeurs nauséabondes". Parce que les odeurs ça ne se mesure pas mais c'est drôlement subjectif.
Alors quand l'inspectrice se présente en Cour et dit n'importe quoi sous serment, quand elle n'est même pas allée sur les lieux, c'est plus que subjectif, c'est de la fabrication de preuve.
Une accusation de négligence criminelle peut virer aussi à n'importe quoi et même un procès devant jury ne peut assurer l'accusé que ses droits seront protégés.

Linda L. Minten
Administrateur(trice)
What is criminal neglect? Why is it subjective and poorly defined in so many laws? Why are we seeing cases where healthy animals are being considered criminally neglected? We have varying opinions regarding the true definition of criminal neglect and therein lies a huge problem. What a farmer would see as normal vs an animal rights activist is going to see criminal neglect. Now tell me who wins in a court case? Who will the public side with?
We have seen some pretty big whoppers lately where healthy dogs are hauled out of their home and crammed in cages stacked while sitting in the sun for hours while other animals are processed. They are then loaded into vehicles not always designed for this purpose. Just takes a target on your back... aka farmer, breeder, good rescue, just out of the hospital, just lost your job. I swear some of these groups have spidey senses and know when to hit you hard. - generally first thing in the morning before chores are done.
While they seize on one animal, they tend to find something wrong with every animal and they generally take all. So how are they charging criminal neglect, sometimes at the felony level, on dogs because their nails are too long? Maybe a water bucket was tipped over.. maybe your yard is dirty and has an old swing with sharp metal on the bench swing. I sometimes feel as if things are helped along in some cases because they can't find anything wrong.. are they intentionally setting people up?
Shouldn't true criminal neglect be pretty evident? I guess we are just supposed to take their word for it and move on.. and send money too please.
Because the definition of neglect is so often subjective I have a solution... stop looking at the facility, water bowl, etc. and look at the animal. Is the animal in good weight, hydrated. happy? Is there anything seriously wrong with the animal and if so is it being treated?
If there are fifty cattle and one has pink-eye then why take the whole herd? The farmer is treating it (right, but he didn't call the vet). The other animals are fine... Are they really.. what about parasites? That cow over there has a cracked hoof.
There is a reason the AR groups that write the legislation keep it pretty open to interpretation and it isn't to give an accused the benefit... But here is the rub - only their opinion will count in the court of public opinion. They say "deplorable, neglect, suffering" and you are toast. Sure you think it is crazy stupid and you are going to fight this and win.. guess again cause that is not how it works. Ask Ringling Brothers and compared to them you are small potatoes. Discounting the seriousness at this point is common and it will bite you.
The next phase is "the judge or jury are smarter than that - they will see the logic"... guess again. Who trained those folks? If you said the animal rights groups give yourself a point. If you're lucky you find a lawyer.. and it will cost you especially with the delays and the bond fees for care you will have to pay. Are you getting why we need clearly defined minimum standards for everyone with no exceptions? Can you see why we need to move away from the gotchas and focus on condition?
We have very little power or influence and they have a ton. We have to start protecting and promoting animal before it is too late.

Opacité des raids

Si les organisations. qui font des raids pour voler les animaux publiaient ces informations, le public pourrait peut-être les croire mais sans cette info, ils ne sont que d'obscures entités qui agressent des personnes vulnérables pour leur voler leurs biens.



Laura Bell
If the reason they are seizing is for the stated reasons, they should have no problem publicly posting
1. date stamped photos and videos of ALL of the dogs and the property before they are removed
2. Photos and videos of ALL of the dogs being removed
3. Photos and videos of ALL of the dogs where they are being kept after seizure
4. Vet reports and invoices of all of the dogs after vet examination
5. If euthanized, post euthanasia reports and invoices
6. Detailed financials posted for designated fundraisers
7. Photos and videos of dogs in their new adoptive homes
8. Salaries/hourly wage paid to employees of the spca.
If those who are seizing animals would in the name of accountability post all that information and documentation regarding exactly why animals must be seized, they really might make believers out of skeptics.
However, OFTEN, that information is NEVER shown even in court proceedings and that's a primary reason so many people just don't believe the seizure was in the best interests of the animals.

lundi 15 avril 2019

Les inspections désordonnées du mapaq


Les inspections désordonnées du mapaq
Les dernières semaines on a vu plein de posts sur fb de rescues-chats qui se sont fait inspecter par le mapaq. J’ai mon opinion là-dessus mais j’aimerais avoir la vôtre.
1.   Les inspectrices disent toujours en arrivant à l’improviste qu’elles ont eu une plainte.
Rien de plus faux. Même si les plaintes sont supposées être confidentielles, les stats que le mapaq essaie de nous donner sur le nombre de dénonciations est impossible à vérifier. Sur leur répondeur ce n’est jamais clair, les raisons données ne sont jamais évidentes et les adresses non plus. Le mapaq prend bien soin de garder secret ce qu’il ne peut gérer et de ne pas répondre aux accès à l’information.
 De plus, la confidentialité des plaintes va nuire énormément à la victime en cas de poursuites car elle ne pourra pas interroger son dénonciateur. Ce qui est illégal et contre les chartes. De plus, cette supposée confidentialité ouvre la porte au oui-dire, aux mensonges, aux vengeances qui peuvent détruire des vies, des familles et des carrières.
Les inspectrices vont aussi ajouter (ce qui est un autre mensonge) pour justifier que vous les laissiez entrer « quand on a une plainte on se doit de tout vérifier ».
Or, dans bien des cas, ce qui a été laissé sur leur répondeur est tellement farfelu qu’elles doivent inventer des histoires pour se justifier. Quand l’inspectrice est venue à l’Opération Félix avec des policiers à 5 hrs de l’après-midi en criant « il faut que je rentre j’ai une plainte que vous avez des chatons malades » quand ça faisait des mois que je n’avais pas eu de chatons dans le refuge. Je ne l’ai pas laissée entrer et elle m’a calissé un ticket.
Aussi, avec ces fausses plaintes, pendant que vous vous cassez la tête pour savoir qui a ben pu faire une plainte anonyme, vous stressez (et les chats le sentent) devenez nerveuse et soupçonnez tout le monde. Ce n’est pas un climat sain. Les rescues ont déjà une vie tellement en dents de scie qu’elles n’ont pas besoin de vivre du harcèlement de la part du mapaq. Cette formule gestapo doit êre dénoncée.
Je les soupçonne plutôt de suivre les groupes sur facebook et de trouver les adresses par corrélation avec le ministère du revenu. A preuve, certaines rescues  n’avaient même pas de chats chez elles car elles utilisaient des familles d’accueil. C’est difficile de savoir ce qu’elles cherchent vraiment car leurs réponses ne sont que des mensonges.
2.   Dites vous bien que Leur première visite improvisée sert à mettre un pied dans la place. Prise de court, la rescue ouvre la porte et laisse entrer le démon.
Cette visite sert à faire un inventaire qui n’a rien à voir avec la protection des animaux ou une plainte. Combien d’animaux, quelle sorte, combien sont revendables (Petsmart à Toronto leur en achète plein) combien de transporteurs requis s’il y a saisie (les transporteurs sont préparés la veille et identifiés), quels mensonges et fabrications elle peut inscrire sur le mandat. Elle n’a plus besoin de plainte ou de témoin car elle a tout vu elle-même. C’est plus facile à décrire en y rajoutant des détails comme « une odeur nauséabonde ». Leur détail privilégié parce que elle peut dire n’importe quoi au juge, l’odeur ne se mesure pas. Le taux d’ammoniaque pourrait se mesurer mais je doute qu’elles soient capables de faire ça ou ne veulent pas.
3.   Le permis du mapaq. Ne sachant pas quoi dire si tout est en ordre, l’inspectrice va vous demander si vous avez votre permis. Question : est-ce qu’elles sont à faire un inventaire pour la sous-ministre qui veut nous garrocher un règlement contraignant dans la face ?  Ou faire assez de marde avec leurs collegues  spcas pour justifier leur existence et faire augmenter leur budget. ? A tout événement, il y a un désastre qui s’en vient et dans pas long.
L’agent de communications du mapaq avait avoué en pleine télévision lors du lancement du permis « ça va nous donner des adresses ». Or, les usines à chiots n’ont jamais demandé de permis mais lors de la visite, une enveloppe attend l’inspectrice. Seulement les éleveurs éthiques et les rescues-chats sont visés.
Après une visite, si vous l’avez laissée entrer, ATTENTION si l’inspectrice vous dit « tout est beau, la seule chose qui vous manque c’est votre permis » et elle vous donne une semaine ou 15 jours pour faire la demande écrite, et surtout envoyer les $$$. Si la rescue est anglophone, elle va donner un formulaire en français pour lui donner plus de troubles.
Mais ce n’est pas l’indication qu’un permis pourra vous mettre en règle et que vous l’avez échappé belle. Il y a toujours les p’tites naives « ben moi j’ai rien à me reprocher ». Ça n’a aucun rapport et vous n’êtes pas dans le « clear » parce que votre demande a été envoyée à Québec dans les délais.
Toute référence de votre vétérinaire ou de vos adoptants est inutile. Ça ne les intéresse pas. Elles ont l’esprit tordu et un but précis en faisant une visite, informations qu’elles ne partagent pas.
Pendant des semaines, Joyce faisait visiter son élevage éthique à Bonsecours. A chaque fois les inspectrices lui faisaient faire de nouveaux changements occasionnant des frais. Puis le matin que son mari est sorti de l’hopital, le mapaq a débarqué avec le 53 pi de la HSI, avec l’exact nombre de transporteurs requis et a embarqué tous ses chiens et quelques chats. La vet méprisante qui les accompagnait ne voulait même pas prendre les carnets de santé des chiots. Puis on a tombé sur Joyce à bras raccourcis avec des amendes faramineuses, son avocat l’a vendue et elle a plaidé coupable à tout ça en pensant sauver qq.chose. Elle a été condamnée à 65 ans sans posséder d’animaux (elle avait déjà 65) Pourtant, elle essayait simplement d’obtenir son permis. Sa vie ruinée, elle ne veut plus parler à personne.
Le lendemain qu’elle a plaidé coupable, tous ses chiens étaient déjà en vente à gros prix à la spa de Sherbrooke. Ses chiens étaient en santé, suivis par son vet et vaccinés.
Même chose avec le refuge pour chats de Lachine. Dans ce cas on sait d’où venait la plainte puisque la fille dansait dans la rue et a mis la vidéo sur sa page fb. Mais à la première inspection, même si les inspectrices étaient méprisantes, elles sont arrivées avez la police et tout pour s’assurer que la dame ouvre la porte, ben elles lui ont dit que tous les chats étaient en bon état, ils avaient de l’eau et de la nourriture en quantité, Le refuge était propre, même que le bénévole était sur place en train de faire du ménage. On lui a donné 15 jours pour obtenir son permis en lui laissant un formulaire en français alors que la propriétaire est anglophone; mais avant que les délais soient expirés, le mapaq est arrivé avec le nombre exact de transporteurs et la camionnette de la spca de l’ouest (oui, celle où le propriétaire a déjà été condamné au pénal) et a ramassé tous les chats. C’est ce qu’on appelle un RAID.
4.   L’impact de ces visites sur les rescues est important. Les chats ne s’en remettent jamais de se faire déranger dans leur maison et ressentir toute la négativité des inspectrices.
Pendant des mois la rescue va guetter qui arrive sur sa rue, va se demander si ses litières sont nettoyées, si le bol d’eau est propre, etc.  Alors que ces inspectrices n’ont JAMAIS travaillé dans un refuge, elles se permettent d’appliquer des critères écrits par la H$U$ des Etats Unis  pour faire plus de marde. C’est la méthode Gestapo.
La rescue va éviter de faire rentrer  qq’un chez elle, va s’isoler, juste au moment où elle a grandement besoin d’aide. Elle va se méfier de tout le monde (ce qui n’est pas mauvais, le monde est tellement méchant) mais ne saura jamais en qui faire confiance. Ces craintes s’appliquent aussi aux bénévoles qui offrent d’aider. Les taupes sont partout.
Je vois comme solution de se trouver un bon lobbyiste pour dépoussiérer toute la réglementation créée dans notre dos par la HSI, d’en aviser le ministre car on lui a caché bien des choses et il doit être mis au courant de la collusion de ses inspectrices avec les procureures de la Couronne pour porter des accusations aussi fausses qu’abusives. La corruption règne déjà dans les palais de justice, aussi bien essayer de les éviter.

5.   Est-ce que ces visites illégales sont permises par les chartes des droits. ?
Les avis sont partagés et ne sont pas plus légaux que les règlements.
En effet, nous voilà pris avec 3 paliers de règlements : le mapaq, la ville et la loi sur les chiens dangereux dont la réglementation va sortir prochainement. En clair, tout le monde veut rentrer dans les résidences. A date il n’y a que les policiers qui ont plein droit moyennant qu’il y ait personne en danger.
Autrefois il n’y avait que les pompiers qu’on pouvait soupçonner de voler lors de leurs visites. C’est à ça que servaient les bottes à hausse. Les tables de chevet étaient nettoyées.


Pour celles qui lisent l’anglais, je vous recommande la 2e édition du livre de Laura Bell  disponible en version papier ou ordi sur Amazon Canada:
Laura Bellhttps://static.xx.fbcdn.net/rsrc.php/v3/yq/r/jC78Rnw2Q2h.png?_nc_eui2=AeE0x2a_Ludi1dV01QvmNuSdRFJAXoTWwyPCdaAB-UnEg4Pn9DnO-S_DjyXy8D93oBcHHh3vpviIlkEW2pJAP9HeS2LfamQmz0xm6Ablvu66CQ Anything the attackers want it to be when prosecutors start throwing shit at the wall seeing what sticks. And when defense attorneys are in bed with the opposition at the local level, the cards are stacked against the defendents.

We cover several new topics in the 2nd Edition of our book, that also has a new title (The Animal Rights War: Lost Souls and Shattered Lives), additional true stories, more animal owners groups, associations, and organizations listed, etc.

From working with a larger number of defense attorneys for the past year, we realized we had to discuss defense attorneys, both private and public defenders, in the book, and the often corrupt local court systems where MOST Defendents don't have even decent (forget about good or excellent) representation in court for a few different reasons.

People are being branded as abusers, many will ultimately end up having to register as abusers, just like sex offenders, and that needs to STOP by educating people regarding their rights when it comes to their defense attorneys, whom are supposed to be their voice in court, but they instead often roll over time and time again and their clients are getting the short end of the legal stick.