ONCE AGAIN "ACTIVISTS" LOSE - TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AGAINST DEVORE DENIED!!

They just can't win. The County of San Bernardino was required to appear in court yesterday and today, at taxpayer expense of course, to respond to the frivolous filing of a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO). Why you say?


These activists want to save the life of a dog that bit a young child in the face, and was relinquished by the owner for euthanization. Now this owner showed responsibility because the owner felt something was wrong with this dog. The owner said past experience proved to the owner that the dog had a behavioral or temperament defect that jeopardize the family and the community if the dog were to become loose. The owner requested euthanization for the pet from the County.


So, in comes one of the "Savior" activists and the County was served on Memorial Day weekend with the court documents. 


Now please don't spit on your monitors when I tell you this, I don't make this stuff up. The filing party alleged that the biting dog was the beneficiary of a charitable trust and therefore should not be euthanized, instead to be released to a 501c3. WHAT?????? 

What is so absurd is that the charitable trust had absolutely no ownership to someone else's property. IN ADDITION, the charitable trust was set up AFTER the attack and the activists set up the trust strictly for the benefit of this dog. 

NOW I ASK YOU. WHAT KIND OF PEOPLE WOULD SET UP A TRUST FOR AN OFFENDING DOG AND NOT FOR THE INJURIES SUFFERED BY A CHILD? THIS IS SO WRONG.


Obviously this is just another failed attempt by these activists/terrorists to make the County look bad. The Court clearly denied the activists attempt to circumvent the owner's wishes, and right, to have their pet euthanized.


Such a fine example of how these activists elect to waste money, mine and yours. A waste of resources also that could be used to help adoptable animals in Devore is part of the plan of the activists. The County had to spend money to go to court on two days, the activists spent money on an attorney and coming to court for two days. How many sound, healthy animals could have been helped with this wasted money? And since when do these activists think they have the right to dictate to me or you when our pet can or cannot be euthanized? To allow them to do this means my pet, your pet can suffer rather than be euthanized at the right time, they will make us wait, the animal to wait, and we both will suffer. "No Kill" means suffering, they don't recognize it, they don't see it, they don't care about it.


UPDATE: THANKS TO A READER FOR SENDING THIS. 
Food and Agriculture Code 17005 states, "(a) It is the policy of the state that no adoptable animal should be euthanized if it can be adopted into a suitable home.
Adoptable animals include only those animals eight weeks of age or older that, at or subsequent to the time the animal is impounded or otherwise taken into possession, have manifested no sign of a behavioral or temperamental defect that could pose a health or safety risk or otherwise make the animal unsuitable for placement as a pet, and have manifested no sign of disease, injury, or congenital or hereditary condition that adversely affects the health of the animal or that is likely to adversely affect the animal's health in the future."