Basset Hounds Forum banner

1 - 2 of 2 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,558 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
This is a quote from Philly Dawg posted 10/18 under " Update: The Pa. Dog Docket" - scroll down to end of article for discussion of the Willard case.
Philly Dawg


"Under a consent order negotiated by Philadelphia Community Court Judge Joseph J. O’Neill, Willard installed drainage system, agreed to keep her kennel “reasonably free of feces,” make clean water available at all times, repair the kennel ceiling and have the dogs examined by a veterinarian.
Willard surrendered 11 dogs to the PSPCA. Ten were placed with rescues and one died during a spaying surgery at the PSPCA.
Willard’s case drew widespread support from the sporting dog community, which organized a defense fund on her behalf. Willard was well-known in sporting dog circles for her award-winning hunting pack and some of Willard’s supporters may have been engaged in Internet death threats made against the PSPCA, whom O'Neill admonished in court.
Willard’s attorney, Charles Geffen, maintains his client was the victim of “illegal activity” by the PSPCA and Bureau of Dog Law Enforcement and the settlement was not an admission of guilt.
“The search was illegal the seizure was illegal and the charges have no merit,” said Geffen last week. “They trespassed to obtain evidence for a warrant and forced a surrender agreement under threat of taking other dogs.”
The Philadelphia District Attorney’s office and the PSPCA said they were satisfied with the results of the case.
“She was ordered to comply with all applicable statutes meaning she had not done so before the prosecution,” said assistant district attorney Barbara Paul, citing the repair of the ”the hovel” the "tick-covered" dogs were housed in. “What kind of sporting dog "lover" would have to be legally compelled to provide clean housing and proper vet care for her animals in the face of criminal prosecution? She should be embarrassed.”
Paul called Willard nothing more than a “wealthy, entitled hoarder with a hobby.”
Sue Cosby, chief executive officer of the PSPCA, said the consent order reflects the improvements her organization and the DA's office tried to negotiate prior to filing charges without success. She said the agency was seeking to bring the care of Willard's animals up to the "standard of all applicable statutes."
"In this case the search warrant was based on probable cause due to unsanitary conditions and not the number of dogs or her reason(s) for having those dogs," said Cosby. "It is our opinion that the judge showed a lot of grace to Ms. Willard in allowing her to bring the conditions of her property and her animals into compliance without imposing fines and penalties for the violations."
Geffen still argues the city had “no right" to say Willard was over the limit because the dogs were housed in a barn, not a residence as specified under Philadelphia ordinance.
Paul said in her analysis of the ordinance the pet limit does indeed apply to Willard and that the barn had no city zoning approval.
Geffen declined to say whether Willard is considering filing suit against the city and/or the PSPCA as blogs and Internet forums have suggested she might.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
5,042 Posts
Hmmm....Barbara Paul (ASSISTANT DA, by the way)....

Donor to PSPCA
http://www.pspca.org/docs/ScoopSummer2010.pdf

Held her Press Conference at PSPCA to announce her appointment as ADA handling all abuse and neglect cases
"PSPCA Tails": From Distress to Success

Think she's tight with PSPCA?

How about HSUS, an organization dedicated to eliminating ALL breeders?
http://www.humanesociety.org/assets/pdfs/publications/2009-annual-report/ar_09_cruelty_fight_pdf.pdf
"The legal experts at The HSUS “have been so helpful to me,” says Barbara Paul, an
assistant district attorney in Philadelphia. “They’ve done presentations to the D.A.’s office
on animal cruelty prosecution, and…to the judges of Philadelphia on animal cruelty law,
laws in Pennsylvania, and the correlation between animal cruelty cases and other crimes.”
They’ve also helped Paul counter specious arguments by abusers, such as the one in
a recent case involving neglected basset hounds"

Frankly, the fact that the two people who originally went after Willard, told lies, negotiated in bad faith (telling her she could have input into the placement of the dogs when they had been sold long ago) and generally smeared her in the press are continuing to do so (likely in anticipation of getting their butts sued off), is not particularly surprising nor convincing.

I'm not at all interested in their slant on the situation, knowing their agenda.

Again, if the conditions were so bad, why did they not sieze all the dogs?

If the dogs were so unhealthy, why were they spayed/neutered immediately, when any ethical veterinarian knows that you do not perform elective surgery on unhealthy animals?

How is it that these unhealthy animals were sold almost immediatly by Tri-State?


 
1 - 2 of 2 Posts
Top