Friday, June 1, 2012

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."


48 comments:

  1. Animals are property. Why do these people feel they can take someone else’s property without their permission? If they were able to “steal” this dog through this court action, then what other property would they like to help themselves to by establishing a trust? They could allege they set-up a trust for the benefit of your car, house or other property and prevent you from selling or disposing of that property.
    This action demonstrates how unreasonable, conniving and deceitful these “activists” can be and how dangerous they actually are. I am sure the Courts will not tolerate any more of their shenanigans. Hopefully the Judge will throw the book at them the next time they try this.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The attorney for the activists files these sorts of cases all the time and she loses them every time too. Her list of clients might be impressive but her track record sucks. Still it wastes taxpayer money, takes staff time from the animals, and I just wish we could sue this attorney to recover our money.

      Delete
  2. And Neil Derry supports these people who waste our tax dollars, who try to steal our property, yep, Derry has to go.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yep, basically Derry is supporting those who steal others property.

      Delete
  3. Derry is in full support of these 'activists'. Just look at how he responded to them at the recent Board of Supervisors meeting. Derry's statement of 'it doesn't matter where they (the activists)come from (from San Diego County, Orange County, Los Angeles County, etc), their opinion should hold more weight than actual residents of San Bernardino County.
    By the way, the attorney how filed the lawsuit is from Los Angeles and the animal rescue group is headed by DENNIS PICKERSGIL and if you google his name and include animal rescue, it shows he is from Ventura.

    And don't forget, Derry referred to the County's Animal Control workers as 'NAZI'S'.

    Neal Derry, what a real winner for San Bernardino County.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yet you have people like Scott Olson defending the crook on articles. Olson accuses Ramos of things yet it was Derry who admitted he was a crook. He was caught on some things, but we don't know how many other things he wasn't caught for. Plus Derry's choice of friends with these activists show his lack of vetting of those friends. He's a jerk, vote him out.

      Delete
  4. To see what the activists are saying, copy this link, post it in your browser, and just read:

    http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=308630672555271&set=a.137365289681811.35909.118795328205474&type=3&theater

    Then think of this, these people never met the dog, they are basing all of their statements on hearsay, other peoples opinions who have also never met this dog, and their impression of a photograph. Even Jeffery Dahlmer could take a good photograph.

    Bottom line, the Owner surrendered the dog after it bit a child. The OWNER wanted the dog euthanized. The OWNER took the dog to a shelter for quarantine. The OWNER did the responsible thing and Doug and the Devore Shelter are painted to be the bad guys.

    Let me guess, if the shelter would have released the dog to this rescue group and later this dog again seriously bit a person, it would be the shelters fault, not the rescue group who took the dog and the rescue group would have then said the shelter 'never told them' about how aggressive this dog could be.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Of course they are saying things, they lost a money maker. This dog would have been used to raise donations. That's the name of Friends of Freddie's game. Get those dogs that they can pimp to the public with a sob story so the donations roll in. And if they adopted the dog out, it mauled again, we have no way of knowing. The "Savior" rescues depend on this fact, that we probably won't know if a dog mauls again. But we are wising up to that, contacting those victims, and there will eventually be a major lawsuit against these sorts of groups for adopting out a mauling dog. That will stop these foolish people who think more of a dog's life than that of a child's life and who want to risk children's lives.

      Delete
  5. Open mouth; insert foot.

    Good work "activists".

    ReplyDelete
  6. How much money would have been saved if Devore had just released the dog to a rescue that was willing to take it, rather than spend money to defend their desire to kill it?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. First of all, Devore didn't make the decision to "kill", the owner did and for good reason. Take your head out of your ass, this was a dog with severe problems. Once again you "No Kill"ers want to put the public in danger to save one defective dog that will maul again and again if given the chance.

      Delete
    2. If a person called a reputable rescue to adopt their dog that had just mauled a child, how many reputable rescues would take the dog?

      Delete
    3. You write: "How much money would have been saved if Devore had just released the dog to a rescue that was willing to take it..?"

      How much county money would have been saved if the "activists" would have not filed a TRO?

      How much county money could have gone to vouchers for spay/neuter of county residents animals which would have reduced the pet overpopulation and the euthanasia rate?

      Delete
    4. You wrote that the county chose to "spend money to defend their desire to kill it."

      Do you seriously, honestly believe that San Bernardino County officials chose to spend taxpayers money "to defend their desire to kill it." ?

      Delete
    5. I would not want this dog living next door to me.

      I would live in constant fear that the dog might get out and harm me or my neighbors.

      I would live in constant fear that the dog might become unpredictable and harm the new family or friends that came to visit.

      I would have a plan of action that if I heard the dog attack them, I would be ready to defend them, and myself, by calling 911 and having a shovel and hose nearby at all times.

      Delete
    6. How much money did the "activists" pay their attorney?

      Delete
    7. So is this the new tactic?

      Try to convince the supervisors to succumb to the "activists" demands by financially crippling San Bernardino county residents by lawsuits?

      Delete
    8. The term "animal rights activists" does not properly describe the activities of these people.

      Delete
    9. a better description would be "domestic animal terrorist".

      Webster defines terrorize as:

      Definition of TERRORIZE

      1: to fill with terror or anxiety : scare
      2: to coerce by threat or violence

      The FBI is probably already watching these idiots.

      Delete
  7. Anon:32. How much money is a child's life worth? That is what we are looking at. Devore thinks more of saving others from a dog that obviously had a defect, and that does happen, than you do. No, that dog should not be released to anyone. You don't give a dog a second chance to maul. It is disgusting that you would want this dog put back in the public, absolutely disgusting that you would want to put others in danger, how do you live with yourself when you put the life of a dog above that of a child? Go crawl back into that dark hole you live in, there's no use for you in polite society.

    ReplyDelete
  8. This is just another example of the NO KILLERS thinking they know better than anyone else.

    One thing they need to be reminded of. California has defined an adoptable animal.

    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."

    Based upon what everyone is saying, especially the OWNER, it seems to me that this dog doesn't fit the State's defination of an adoptable animal.

    But then who am I??? Just a responsible taxpaying member of the public who just wants my community safe; safe for the children and elderly, safe for all of animals within my community. Having a dog like this released back to the community does nothing to insure the safety of any community.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for sending that. I am updating the post with this definition because it fits so well.

      Delete
  9. Taxpayer drops dog off at shelter to be euth'd due to biting a child.

    Shelter decides to save the dog - and fosters/adopts it out to be re-homed.

    Dog bites/kills another child or adult.

    = a HUGE liability which will probably end up costing the county thousands if not millions of dollars in damages.

    ======================================================

    I don't like to see any dog euth'd - period. BUT when you are operating a public taxpayer funded animal shelter and you don't comply with policy(ies), you can end up having the bazookas sued off of you.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Anyone have a link to the TRO document they filed?

    I want to do some background checking on the information on it.

    Most of the time, I've found anyhow, you can Google these "NKers" names and a few assorted search terms and find out who and what they truly represent.

    i.e. Akc, dog breeder, pittie, trainer, NAIA, etc.

    ReplyDelete
  11. ParaTech, I don't have a link, I haven't seen the TRO myself but I will submit public request for it and post on here when I get it. Stay tuned. This is an above comment, might start there. By the way, the attorney how filed the lawsuit is from Los Angeles and the animal rescue group is headed by DENNIS PICKERSGIL and if you google his name and include animal rescue, it shows he is from Ventura.

    And the attorney is Talitha Davies Wegner.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Thanks - that's a start - I'll let you know what I can find.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Hmm Googling that Dennis name comes up zilch, nadda, nothing. Spelling is correct ?

    What is the name of the rescue group?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Okay, got the correct spelling - it's "Pickersgill"

    ReplyDelete
  15. Okay, the attorney represents a group called “Animal Resources.”

    ReplyDelete
  16. Here's some more:
    Case #: CIVDS1205461

    Judge: Garza

    Filing Attorney: Talitha Davies Wegner

    Plaintiff: Dennis Pickergill on behalf of Animal Resources, Inc a non-profit 501 C 3 corporation who established the $100 trust for the benefit of this dog.

    ReplyDelete
  17. If this is the same "Dennis Pickersgill", he is a pet store owner:
    Google result below:
    ============================================================

    All Pet Headquarters - Camarillo
    www.insiderpages.com/b/3711178436/all-pet-headquarters-camarillo
    Rating: 3 - 36 reviews
    All Pet Headquarters' owners, Dennis and Laurie Pickersgill, say they purchase puppies from breeders in the Midwest but are adamant that they don't come from ...

    Source: http://www.google.com/search?q=All+Pet+Headquarters%27+owners%2C+Dennis+and+Laurie+Pickersgill%2C+say+they+purchase+puppies+from+breeders+in+the+Midwest+but+are+adamant+that+they+don%27t+co&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=rcs

    ReplyDelete
  18. Isn't that interesting? Now I ask just how many people in CA would have that name? It's not exactly John Smith.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Par for the course though - I've noticed that a good many of the NKers will alter the spelling of their names - or use their middle name when they normally use their first, etc.

    I think they do this in an attempt to keep from being found (out) in case anyone thinks to Google them.

    ReplyDelete
  20. This thought came to mind. If this guy who sprang for the TRO is also a non profit, which he is, then how does this sound?

    Here is a puppy/pet store, gives a sob story about how they saved this poor cute little dog who was so misunderstood and how wonderful they are for saving it. Even though the attorney probably did this pro bono, I don't know, basically if she did then this pet store owner got a cute little dog to adopt/sale for only $100. Did he ask for donations to help with attorney fees? How much did the little dog really net this pet store owner? Well, counting donations plus what the dog sold for, probably a lot more than he made without being a non profit.

    Boy, am I in the wrong business or what????

    ReplyDelete
  21. enough is enough! i am all for saving the underdog. the fact is each time the rescues make the choice to save a human aggressive dog, they put friendly adoptable dogs at risk of being euthanized. it is just outrageous. to be a responsable rescue it takes more than just paying someone you met online to go pay/pull a dog from a shelter. it is easy to act richeous when the world is watching. it's what you do when no one is looking that defines you.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Anon:08, you're right. There are so many dogs without the baggage, why spend money on saving those who do have baggage and therefore let the others die? Just doesn't make any sense. But the "No Kill" mentality is outta sight, outta mind, therefore they can pat themselves on the back. And all the while their "rescues" are locked in cages, fought or thrown in as bait dogs, in labs, they don't care as long as they ain't their problem any more.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I want to say that this opinion doesn't apply to all those in the humane community, it applies to those who follow Nathan Winograd which is what the "activists" coming at Devore do follow.

      Delete
  23. ***FOUND THIS ONLINE. MAKES YOU THINK.***
    http://www.lvrj.com/view/las-vegas-pet-rescue-group-sends-dogs-to-canada-for-adoption-124257154.html

    *****D.KollerJun. 21, 2011 | 9:10 p.m.
    I am a rescuer and foster in BC, Canada. To say we have no small dogs available for adoption is entirely untrue. At the moment I am fostering 8 small dogs. Not only do we have small dogs, but we also have medium and large breed dogs - all sitting waiting for a forever home. How will bringing imported dogs affect these dogs? Don't they deserve a home too?

    ReplyDelete
  24. one more worth reading!!!
    http://www.examiner.com/article/grave-concern-shipping-death-row-dogs-to-canada

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I did read that one when it came out. I really dislike Cindy but she was right one with this one and I give her credit. Of all the breeds, the pits are the ones we need to worry the most about.

      Delete
  25. Nothing surprises me with NK. Biscuits comments reminiscing fondly about childhood makes it perfectly clear that their movement has some serious psychological issues when they think it's appropriate to blame a child for getting bit by a dog running at large. They do place the life of a dog above that of a child.

    "When I was a kid, I remember all of us in the neighborhood knowing that when the GSD at the end of the street was out, we had to get off our bikes and walk – not run. It was our responsibility to keep from getting bitten and the general sentiment among parents was that if a kid got bit by a neighborhood dog, it was our fault and we needed to tell what we did that resulted in the bite. Bites were very rare (I can only remember one – mine!) but certainly nobody sued anyone and no breeds got banned."

    And they take no responsibility for the fact that funds were wasted by San Bernadino County responding in court. That's money taken out of the budget that could have been spent to keeping some animals longer. So they can say they are no-kill, but how many animals are being killed because of their shenanigans?

    ReplyDelete
  26. FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME STATEMENT File No. 10002616. The following person (persons) is (are) doing business as: Fictitious Business Name(s): ANIMAL RESOURCES, 2532 PEPPERWOOD DR., CAMARILLO, CA 93010 VEN. DENNIS PICKERSGILL C., 2532 PEPPER WOOD DR., CAMARILLO, CA 93010, LAURIE PICKERSGILL, 2532 PEPPER WOOD DR., CAMRILLO, CA 93010. This Business is conducted by: A GENERAL PARTNERSHIP. The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names on listed on (Date): N/A. I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. (A registrant who declares as true information, which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of a crime.) Type or Print Name: LAURIE PICKERSGILL, DENNIS PICKERSGILL. If Registrant is a CORPORATION or LLC, sign below:. This statement was filed with the County Clerk of Ventura County on 02/23/09. Notice—in accordance with subdivision (a) of Section 17920, a fictitious name statement generally expires at the end of five years from the date on which it was filed in the office of the county clerk, except, as provided in subdivision of section 17920, where it expires 40 days after any change in the facts set forth in the statement pursuant to section 17913 other than a change in residence address or registered owner. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before the expiration. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under Federal, State, or Common Law (see section 14411 ET SEQ., Business and Professions Code). This statement was filed with the County Clerk of VENTURA on the date indicated by the file stamp above. PUBLISHED IN THE FILLMORE GAZETTE, FEBRUARY 26, MARCH 5, 12, 19, 2009

    ReplyDelete
  27. PICKERSGILL, DENNIS ANDREW (Age 64)

    Possible Employment / Business Associations:

    ALL PET HEADQUARTERS Telephone and Typewriter Stores
    ALL PET HEADQUARTERS Telephone and Typewriter Stores
    D & L PET SUPPLY, INC

    =======================================================
    telephone and typewriter store? lol

    Also found this for Laurie Pickersgill - who is affiliated with Dennis and the pet store.
    http://www.complaintsboard.com/complaints/all-pet-headquarters-camarillo-california-c100802.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Have you check out the Rip Off Report on them? Not good.

      Delete
  28. My point is that here is one more NKer that is misrepresenting themselves to be an animal rescue - when in fact, they are neglecting to advise the public that they are involved in an animal use industry.

    Would a normal public member intent on donating money to a "rescue" if they were aware that the "rescue" was also selling animals from their pet store?
    I don't think they would.

    To me - that is straight up fraudulent.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Plus "rescues" can get the pets out of Devore unaltered. They are to submit paperwork showing that they altered the shelter pulls but they can also pay a vet off.

    The Vincent Bill which requires shelters and rescues to alter had in mind breeders who got their breeding stock from shelters. Purebreds look alike for the most part, so easy to substitute. So after the Vincent bill you began to see all the purebred rescues who are also breeders. And they are open about it, not really hiding. I'm telling you, I am in the wrong business.

    ReplyDelete
  30. No - I'm in the right business - truly helping animals, not using them.

    This "Diane Rowley Van Sickle" appears to (also) be an atty or paralegal or something - as well as claiming to run a rescue of some sort. But over on the game-dog website they seem to be singing her praises for her "excellent letter" to speak out about MSN.
    http://www.game-dog.com/showthread.php?t=57601&page=1

    And then from the "NoKill Ventura" people:
    http://www.nokillinventuracounty.org/012612/ConcernsAtCamarillo.pdf

    I've noticed that the NKers run around hollering 'spay/neuter' all the time - but mention MSN to them and start protesting. (lol) They are so transparent and predictable.

    And too, most of them claim to be in "rescue" but they don't let on that they are really into "breed specific" rescue.

    All done, I'm guessing, to blend in with the true humane animal welfare community.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Thanks for sharing your experiences with all of us. Boo

    ReplyDelete

Remember no accusations without proof. Rant if you will, it won't be published.