Advertisement

Archive for Wednesday, September 6, 2006

Dog fighting, animal cruelty cases on decline

September 6, 2006

Advertisement

Complaints about cruelty to animals and dog fighting have dropped significantly during the past year, and Lawrence Humane Society officials credit changes made to city ordinances.

"The anti-tethering law, I think, has been the best thing for Lawrence," said Midge Grinstead, executive director of the Lawrence Humane Society's animal shelter.

In 2005, there were a little more than 800 such complaints, Grinstead said, including about 50 about dog fighting. As of last week, there had been only about 260 similar complaints, with about 25 of them involving possible dog fighting, she said.

"I honestly can't remember the last time we took in a pit bull that was scarred," said Jeaneen Hercha, the Lawrence Humane Society's cruelty investigator, referring to the dog breed often associated with dog fighting.

Two years ago, the city adopted an anti-tethering ordinance that prevents dog owners from keeping pets chained outside. Some dangerous dogs are able to break their chains or ropes, so the dogs must be kept inside or in pens.

"The dogs aren't languishing outside, so our cruelties are down, and we don't have the dangerous dogs chained up outside like we'd had before," Grinstead said.

Both Lawrence and Douglas County have vicious dog laws, too. The laws define what a vicious dog is and set steps for impounding the dog - and, if a district court judge orders it, putting it to death. Grinstead and Hercha said they thought the laws also had an effect on dog cases.

Grinstead said she had talked with city representatives in Topeka and Charleston, W.Va., who have called inquiring about the local dog laws.

Comments

gr 7 years, 7 months ago

sasquatch,

Conjecture is what I was accusing you and the article of. Just because there are less reports of cruelty doesn't mean it's not happening. For that matter, it doesn't mean it was happening before. Only that there were reports.

Like, reports of Martians doesn't mean there are any. Fewer reports of Martians doesn't mean we are being visited less.

Saying animal cruelty is down because it's not being reported as much, makes as much sense as saying that after discontinuing the cruelty hotline, animal cruelty has dropped to an all time low.

Not tying dogs up had little to do with it. For your logic, requiring all home owners to build an eight foot solid fence around their yard would cause the same reduction of reporting.

0

Sasquatch34 7 years, 7 months ago

gr- Whats so tough about this logic? The county is on pace for less than half of the crueltys that were reported last year. That is what we like to call a decline. Barring the chance that you are indeed omniscient, and can see that "real" animal cruelty is in fact the same, then your argument is nothing but conjecture.

0

gr 7 years, 7 months ago

Sasquatch34: "You see gr, the city made it against the law to tether your animal outside for over a certain amount of time. This means that people, in fear of breaking this law, are no longer tethering their animal for days on end, forgetting to feed and water it and such. Therefore, neighbors and others are not calling the police because poor Fido has been outside without food and water for days. Hence, the decline in animal cruelty, at least in this capacity."

I see you made my point even more clear. Keep in mind, just because a dog is tethered, does not mean people forget to feed and water it. Likewise, just because a dog is inside and out of site does not mean it is being fed and watered. It may be true that neighbors are not calling, but only because they can't see it happening. The only capacity that there is a decline in animal cruelty is that it's not being reported. But, that's not what the "English" said. You could not declare there is any "real" decline.

Logic sure is tough, isn't it Sasquatch34.

0

Sasquatch34 7 years, 7 months ago

Posted by Confrontation: "Hmmmm...So, there's this article about how wonderful all the puppies are being treated in town. This article just happens to contribute part of this success to the new laws pushed by the Humane Society. Then, you've got an article asking for major donations to the Humane Society. Coincidence?" "I was just pointing out the LJWorld coincidence."

Wow...You're like the Bobbsey twins, Batman, and Sherlock freaking Holmes all rolled into one.

0

Sasquatch34 7 years, 7 months ago

Posted by Confrontation: "Get over yourself."

I'm in therapy for that right now. When will I learn to not waste my time posting on this site in an attempt to further my reputation. My apologies for not comprehending the intelligence of your earlier post. It was obviously beyond my meager capacities to understand. I bow down to your superior wisdom.

0

Tychoman 7 years, 7 months ago

Hey Bobs, you rock for keeping this thread bearable. Marion's ad hominem attacks (and blatant strays from the topic at hand which I remember him clearly lecturing everybody and their dog [haha] on in previous threads).

Marion here's a song for you: "I'm too hypocritical for my shirt. Too hypocritical for my shirt. So hypocritical it hurts!"

No one wants the dog dead, everyone wants it returned to enforcer or at least someone more responsible, so go take a rabies vaccine before your keyboard short-circuits from all the slobber you've been raining down on it every time you post on Luna.

0

Confrontation 7 years, 7 months ago

Sasquatch34: I would apologize if I hurt your feelings, but that would imply that I cared. I was just pointing out the LJWorld coincidence. Get over yourself.

0

ForThePeople 7 years, 7 months ago

Because you are better than us...Now leave us to our bickering.

OMG....ROTFLMAO!

Sas...your giving the bobs a run for their money on the funnies!

0

DaleRogers 7 years, 7 months ago

Yes, please, go talk to enforcer, I mean sybil, I mean yourself, somewhere else.

0

Sasquatch34 7 years, 7 months ago

posted by HesterPrynne- "It does seem some are more vested than others, although why I do not know."

Because you are better than us...Now leave us to our bickering.

0

HesterPrynne 7 years, 7 months ago

What does it matter if everyone jumps on the wagon? Every post has been in retort to the first. I Posted once on the issue and maintain that stance. It does seem some are more vested than others, although why I do not know.

0

prospector 7 years, 7 months ago

"Posted by sybil (anonymous) on September 6, 2006 at 8:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Public Relations at work again."

"Posted by prospector (anonymous) on September 6, 2006 at 9:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I am glad to see dogs and people are safer today. These are facts, sybil, not PR."


"Posted by HesterPrynne (anonymous) on September 6, 2006 at 3:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Here we go again! Did anyone read the article?..."

Enforcer blah blah blah

"Keep your discussions on the topic at hand"

Opinions on article as you demand are stated above. Where is your's?! You noticed any dirt being tracked in from your door step?

0

ForThePeople 7 years, 7 months ago

UH....Hester....did you not notice that Marion, enforcers "lawyer" was the one who brought up Luna. Perhaps you could conjure up another little incantation and MAKE IT ALL GO AWAY!

0

prospector 7 years, 7 months ago

Thanks for the picture swbsow and DaleRogers. I will also thank you for TOB because it might be nap time or brewery time.;0)

http://www.retronutcase.com/nutcases/index.htm

0

HesterPrynne 7 years, 7 months ago

Here we go again! Did anyone read the article? This is not about Enforcer's dog it is about animal cruelty. I am so sick of hearing about this issue on every comment section. The Courts will detwermine the outcome and all this arm chair lawyer stuff is not going to change if she has the right to fight the City. Keep your discussions on the topic at hand & as my Daddy always said " Clean your own door step before inspecting another's"

0

DaleRogers 7 years, 7 months ago

I must object to the accusations that Agnostik is a liar!

Here is due process:

(A) An "aggressive animal at large" means any animal at large that without provocation, exhibits aggression or combativeness toward a person or another domestic animal, whether or not said person or animal is attacked, bitten, or scratched by the aggressive animal at large. (Ord. 7690)

Dangerous dog, as used in this Article, shall mean:

                    (A)  Any dog with a known propensity tendency or disposition to attack, to cause injury, or otherwise threaten the safety of human beings or domestic animals; or

                    (B)  Any dog which in a vicious or threatening manner, approaches any person in apparent attack upon the person while on the streets, sidewalks, or any public grounds or places; or on private property; or (C)  Any dog which attacks or bites, or has attacked or bitten a human being or domestic animal; or

(D) Any dog owned or harbored primarily or in part for the purpose of dog fighting, or any dog trained for dog.

DOGS; THREATS TO PUBLIC SAFETY.

                    Notwithstanding any other provision of this Article to the contrary and irrespective of whether the dog has been declared dangerous pursuant to this Article, the Municipal Judge may order any dog destroyed if the Judge determines that the dog is an immediate threat to public health and safety and that confinement and registration of the dog by the owner or keeper of the dog as provided in this Article will not adequately protect public health and safety.  No person shall harbor, own, or possess a dog that is an immediate threat to public health and safety. In making such determination the Judge may consider the severity of the attack and such other relevant information.  The Municipal Judge shall have the authority to sentence the person adjudicated guilty of this Section to serve up to a maximum of six (6) months in jail and to pay a fine not to exceed $1,000.00.(Ord. 7112, Ord. 7690).

For help with definitions:

Notwithstanding: preposition, adverb FORMAL despite the fact or thing mentioned:

irrespective: adverb without considering; not needing to allow for:

btw - Kansastalks no longer exists

0

swbsow 7 years, 7 months ago

Marion blusters:

"This entire case is about the FACT that the magalomaniacal Judge Randy McGrath in collusion with the can't-make-it-in-private-practice Jerry Little, the overzealous and power-mad City Prosecutor, has ORDERED THE DOG KILLED in spite of there being NO PROVISIONS in the ordinance unless certain conditions have been met."

So has the dog been euthanized? Last I heard, she is still alive. You can't be deprived of the property via an order to euthanize the dog until the dog is actually dead.

Marion still blathers on:

"The police then UNLAWFULLY threatened Enforcer with ARREST unless she surrendered the dog; ANOTHER VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS as there is NO SUCH PROVISION IN THE CITY CODE!"

Isn't interefering with the duties of an officer of the law an arrestable offense?

Marion still blowing smoke:

"Neglect, cruelty or abuse were NEVER part of this case; only the fact that a FOUR MONTH OLD PUPPY JUMPED A FENCE AND BIT NO ONE, THREATENED NON AND INJURED NO ONE!"

The ordinances clearly state that the animal doesn't have to bite someone. As for threatened, clearly the neighbors felt that they were. Why else call Animal Control? Or are they more people out to "get" enforcer?The animal jumped the fence and was on their property.

Does an animal have to be lunging for your throat only for someone to be concerned about their safety?

For some reason the more you & enforcer's other buddies post, the less I believe and I'm sure I'm not the only one who shares this view.

And I'm fairly certain it is procedural due process that you are arguing has been violated.

For a brief & simple definition, I go to Wiki...

"Procedural due process is essentially based on the concept of "fundamental fairness." As a bare minimum, it includes an individual's right to be adequately notified of charges or proceedings involving him, and the opportunity to be heard at these proceedings."

Which, if I understood enforcer's arguments correctly at the council meeting, she could have a case and if she does and there was an abuse of her procedural due process rights by the city, by all means she should win.

If this is more of a "I'm gonna get all those people who took my dog!" revenge type thing, then she is simply wasting our time & the taxpayers money and from the way both you and all of enforcer's friends post, this is how it is coming across. Needless to say, it does not help her case or cause.

0

one_more_bob 7 years, 7 months ago

What

a

waste

of

"1"'s

and

"0"s

to

transmit

marion's

ravings

.

Sad

,

just

sad

.

T h a n k s

,

o m b

0

ForThePeople 7 years, 7 months ago

"that the megalomaniacal Judge Randy McGrath"

Hardly! This, in no way describes the Randy McGrath I've come in contact with. However it does rightly describe your behavior on this forum!

Sheesh Marion....why don't you put your time and efforts into fighting for something that might actually make a difference in the community?

0

The_Original_Bob 7 years, 7 months ago

I believe the Teatherer just became unteathered.

0

Marion Lynn 7 years, 7 months ago

AgNASTYk wrote:

"The dog is not dead, and I've not heard of any plans to kill it. As to being "deprived" of property, 3-203 clearly states the conditions under which an animal control officer can capture and/or impound the dog.

Anybody else here see something that I'm missing"

Marion writes:

AgNASTYk, your ignorance and attempts a SPIN are truly astounding if not staggering!

You have it in front of whatever you have that passes for a face and eyeballs and yet you do not see.

Or is it that for purposes of your internet blather, you are CHOOSING to not see?

I suspect the latter.

This entire case is about the FACT that the magalomaniacal Judge Randy McGrath in collusion with the can't-make-it-in-private-practice Jerry Little, the overzealous and power-mad City Prosecutor, has ORDERED THE DOG KILLED in spite of there being NO PROVISIONS in the ordinance unless certain conditions have been met.

NONE of the conditions which must be met to order euthanasia have been met in this matter!

Illegal deprivation of private property.

The care which Enforcer has offered for her animals has NEVER been questioned by the court and in fact, is defended by Midge Grinnstead at the "Humane" Society!

Neglect, cruelty or abuse were NEVER part of this case; only the fact that a FOUR MONTH OLD PUPPY JUMPED A FENCE AND BIT NO ONE, THREATENED NON AND INJURED NO ONE!

The neighbour grabbed the FOUR MONTH OLD PUPPY and HELD IT DOWN BY THE NECK while it SCREAMED AND HOWLED IN PAIN until the police and Animal control arrived!

The police then UNLAWFULLY threatened Enforcer with ARREST unless she surrendered the dog; ANOTHER VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS as there is NO SUCH PROVISION IN THE CITY CODE!

AgNASTYk:

I suspect that you would not understanda DUE PROCESS if a ton of it fell on your skull!

Oh but then you are asociated with law enforcement; at least that is what we are led to believe by you over on Kansas Talks and law enforcement HAS NO RESPECT FOR THE CIVIL RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE!

The only goal that a police officer has is to MAKE A CASE!

To Hades with the RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE!

Like I said, go get someone to read the law ALOUD to you.

Additionally you have clearly exposed yourself as a LIAR!

You know darned good and well that the Judge ordered the dog killed so when you sany that you have herad of no such plans you are LYING.

You paticipated in the "City To Kill Singlecandle's Dog" tjhread on Kansas Talks AND Larryville; both of which I STARTED!

LIAR!

But then, that is what you do.

You are beginning to LIE poorly as you are fogetting the lies that you have told and are becoming inconsistent!

LIAR!

Zeitgeist says, "Hello!"

LIAR!

Thanks.

Marion.

0

The_Original_Bob 7 years, 7 months ago

Agnostick - Where are the pictures? That was too confusing for me to follow.

0

Agnostick 7 years, 7 months ago

Marion writes:

"the dog Luna BIT NO ONE, THREATENED NO ONE "

Well, according to 3-202B, paragraph (A)... dog didn't need to bite, scratch or attack anyone. It only had to "exhibit aggressiveness or combativeness." Those are probably pretty subjective... viewed a lot more differently by a mother with young children, than a full-grown adult male human.

The dog is not dead, and I've not heard of any plans to kill it. As to being "deprived" of property, 3-203 clearly states the conditions under which an animal control officer can capture and/or impound the dog.

Anybody else here see something that I'm missing?

Agnostick agnostick@excite.com

0

Sasquatch34 7 years, 7 months ago

Confrontation- What do you have against the Humane Society? That does seem to be the way non-profit organizations go about procuring funds. No one is making you donate...so why bash?

0

Sasquatch34 7 years, 7 months ago

Posted by gr: Complaints about cruelty "to animals" are down.

The anti-tethering law had something(?) to do with it.

You see gr, the city made it against the law to tether your animal outside for over a certain amount of time. This means that people, in fear of breaking this law, are no longer tethering their animal for days on end, forgetting to feed and water it and such. Therefore, neighbors and others are not calling the police because poor Fido has been outside without food and water for days. Hence, the decline in animal cruelty, at least in this capacity.

Please dont hesitate to let the forum know when you have trouble understanding the next article....Golly gee, English sure is tough.

0

Agnostick 7 years, 7 months ago

3-203 PURSUIT ONTO PRIVATE PROPERTY.

An officer may pursue and capture any animal, including a dog or cat, found to be running at large as defined in Section 3-202 of this Article. The officer shall have the authority to enter upon private property to effectuate capture. However, the officer shall not enter into any secured fenced area or structure located upon private property. (1990 Code 3-203; Ord. 6389)

3-204 IMPOUNDING, REDEMPTION AND DISPOSITION.

A dog, cat or other animal found running at large within the corporate limits of the city, contrary to the provisions of Section 3-202 may be taken up by the officer or brought in by a member of the public and may be impounded at the Lawrence Humane Society. The officer shall make a record of all dogs or cats so impounded with their description, date of impoundment and rabies vaccination number. If, within seventy-two (72) hours from the date any dog or cat is impounded and the owner of such dog or cat shall appear and claim his or her dog or cat, said dog or cat may be released upon payment of the following fees:

(A) Impoundment fee for the first twenty-four (24) hour period or any part thereof in any consecutive twelve (12) months:

(1)  First pickup and release - $10.00;

(2)  Second pickup and release - $20.00; plus an additional fee of $10.00 if the animal is not spayed or neutered.

(3)  Third pickup and release - $30.00; plus an additional fee of $15.00 if the animal is not spayed or neutered.

(4)  Each subsequent pickup and release - $40.00; plus an additional fee of $20.00 if the animal is not spayed or neutered.

Owners may seek a refund of the additional fee if proof that the animal was spayed or neutered is presented to the City within thirty (30) days of release of the animal.

(B) Board Fee: Five dollars ($5.00) for each additional twenty-four (24) hour period up to a maximum of forty-eight (48) hours to pay the cost of keeping the animal. If any animal so impounded is not claimed by the owner thereof within three (3) business days of the date of such impounding, such animal shall become the property of the Lawrence Humane Society. The above described costs for impounding and keeping such animal will be due and payable to the City for any animal claimed by an owner after the three (3) business day period. All impounding fees shall be paid to the City and no animal shall be released until the owner proves the animal, if a dog, cat or ferret, is currently immunized against rabies. (1990 Code 3-204; Ord. 6389; Ord. 6704)

0

Agnostick 7 years, 7 months ago

Thanks, Marion.

3-202B AGGRESSIVE ANIMAL AT LARGE DEFINED; PENALTIES.

(A) An "aggressive animal at large" means any animal at large that without provocation, exhibits aggression or combativeness toward a person or another domestic animal, whether or not said person or animal is attacked, bitten, or scratched by the aggressive animal at large. (Ord. 7690)

(B) Any person found guilty of animal at large as defined in Section 3-202, where such animal is an aggressive animal shall be fined as follows: $30.00 for the first offense within a twelve (12) month period, or by imprisonment, for not more than 10 days, or by both such fine and imprisonment; $40.00 for the second offense within a twelve (12) month period, or by imprisonment, for not more than 10 days, or by both such fine and imprisonment; $60.00 for the third offense within a twelve (12) month period, or by imprisonment, for not more than 14 days, or by both such fine and imprisonment; and $100.00 for the fourth and subsequent offense(s) within a twelve (12) month period, or by imprisonment, for not more than 30 days, or by both such fine and imprisonment. The Municipal Judge shall have no authority to suspend the fine or any portion thereof of fine established by this Section but shall have the authority to suspend the term of imprisonment. The fine shall be in addition to any applicable court costs or impoundment fees. The Humane Society or other impoundment facility shall not release an animal to an owner if the owner has failed to pay a fine or has failed to appear in municipal court for the adjudication of a violation of this Section. (Ord. 7690)

3-202C HABITUAL VIOLATOR; AGGRESSIVE ANIMAL AT-LARGE.

It shall be a separate municipal offense for any person to receive four (4) or more citations for violation of Section 3-202B within a twenty-four (24) month consecutive period. Such person shall be cited as a habitual violator. Any person found guilty of violation of this Section shall be fined a minimum of $100.00 and a maximum of $500.00 for each habitual violator citation. The Municipal Judge shall have no authority to suspend the minimum fine or any portion thereof. A person cited for violation of this Section shall be required to appear in municipal court. In addition thereto, the Municipal Judge shall have the authority to sentence the individual to up to six (6) months in jail. It shall be a defense to an alleged violation of this Section for the defendant to have been adjudged not guilty, or the charge dismissed, of Section 3-202B for a specific citation issued under Section 3-202B. (Ord. 7690)

0

Confrontation 7 years, 7 months ago

Hmmmm...So, there's this article about how wonderful all the puppies are being treated in town. This article just happens to contribute part of this success to the new laws pushed by the Humane Society. Then, you've got an article asking for major donations to the Humane Society. Coincidence?

0

Marion Lynn 7 years, 7 months ago

AgNASTYk wrote:

"Exactly what "process" that is "due"... has been "denied?" Something in the city codes & regulations, perhaps?"

Marion writes:

AgNASTYk: Check out the link to the City code of Lawrence, Kansas which I have so graciously provided for you.

If you cannot read it, get someone to read it aloud to you as even you seem to have some understanding of the spoken word.

How has Due Process been denined?

In short, Enforcer is being illegally deprived of property; in this instance a dog, as the procedures outlined in the ordinance specifying under what condtions a dog(Property) may be ordered killed (Illegal deprivation of property).

There is not provision which allows the City Of Lawrence, Kansas, even through the misguided and illegal rulings of nutty judges or at the behest of low level political hacks and functionaries, to order an aniaml killed unless certain parameters have been met.

NONE of the specifications of the ordinance in question have been met by the events and circumstances of this matter.

As I wrote; go read the ordinance.

Perhaps one of even your limited mental construct may understand the law.

When reading the ordinance, you may also enlarge the fonts so that the print will look more like the books to which you are accustomed; the large print children's books such as "Fun With Dick And Jane" and "See Jack Run"; the print will also more closely resemble that which is often written on those old Big Chief tablets using the big fat red pencils.

No pictures in the ordinances though so you may become quicky bored.

Thanks.

Marion.

0

angelofmine 7 years, 7 months ago

That coke-out-of-your-nose reference didn't sound so good, acg! LOL Goodness, its getting scary on these boards!

0

trinity 7 years, 7 months ago

lmao, me too acg-just gotta luv them bobs! :)

0

acg 7 years, 7 months ago

The Bobs are killing me this morning.

"Oh, I didn't know Marion had an opinion on dogs."

I shot coke right outta my nose when I read that!

0

gr 7 years, 7 months ago

"The dogs aren't languishing outside, so our cruelties are down, and we don't have the dangerous dogs chained up outside like we'd had before," Grinstead said.

Let's see what we have here from what the article said:

Complaints about cruelty "to animals" are down.

The anti-tethering law had something(?) to do with it.

The anti-tethering law prevents dogs from being kept outside where they may be able to break free and (cause cruelty to humans? or is it each other?).

Therefore, since the dogs aren't outside, "animal cruelty" is down.

And someone who doesn't make any more sense than that is in charge of welfare for animals? I guess you have to read more into it than what the article says.

0

prospector 7 years, 7 months ago

OMB

nonthinking nutcase

nforcer noodling

narcissistic nobrain

0

ForThePeople 7 years, 7 months ago

Really we should all pity folks like Marion and enforcer....so sad that they live life behind a computer fighting for lost causes. If they would just contain some of the hatred...they might actually be assets to the community!

0

Agnostick 7 years, 7 months ago

Okay, Marion, I'll bite...

Exactly what "process" that is "due"... has been "denied?" Something in the city codes & regulations, perhaps?

You talk about "due process" a lot, but have never really spelled it out. Makes me wonder if you even understand it yourself.

Ball's in your court.

Thanks

Agnostick agnostick@excite.com

0

The_Original_Bob 7 years, 7 months ago

What is he mumbling about? Is he drunk again? He attacks folks all the time for spelling and grammatical errors but... reading that post reminds me of talking to the drunk ol' guy at the bar. Just mumbling stumbling nothing makes sense. Living the life in his own world I guess.

0

one_more_bob 7 years, 7 months ago

marion ,

you

get

100%

for

ad

hominem

attacks

,

0%

for

relevance

.

T h a n k s

,

o m b

0

Marion Lynn 7 years, 7 months ago

OMB:

By the "N Word" I presume you mean the word "Nitwit".

OK, I'll play.

AgNASTYk, FairyDIM, yourslef anad TOB are NINWITS.

There!

Feel better now?

I had considered adding Sasquatch34 to this list but that forum participant may be reddemable.

Sasquatach34:

The ONLY reason that Luna has not been killed is that Enforcer has stayed in there fighting through the legal system.

Luna is not alive because there are all that many other people out there who care.

The fact remains that the City Of Lawrence, Kansas has not followed its own law and has deprived Enforcer of DUE PROCESS!

The worst that the ordinance allows for in this instance is for the dog to be kept in a six-sided enclosure, NOT to be killed at the behest of nutty judge and fanatical City prosecutor!

What is going on here is the canine equivalent of executing a human being for misdemeanor trespassing.

Funny how many folks decried the killing of Melvin the Rabbit but how few of those same folks do not object to the killing of what was at the time of the incident a FOUR MONTH OLD PUPPY which had BITTEN NO ONE and had THREATENED NO ONE!

Oh and in my earlier post I mis-spelled "megalomaniacal".

Jeez, I gave some of you a FREE ONE and you missed it.

Nitwits.

Oh, my!

There is that "N Word" again!

OMB, TOB, FairyDIM and AgNASTYk:

You'd all better get your Mommies told right away!

Well, I've got to get back to wrok; pulling the wings off of flies, evicting widows and orphans, taking candy from babies, beating the children in the sweatshop and all of those other things that some of you rather oddly believe that I do.

Thanks.

Marion.

0

Sasquatch34 7 years, 7 months ago

Thats great, Marion. However, this article and thread has nothing to do with your fanatical Luna campaign.

Agnostick- Good observation. The fact that Luna has been kept alive this long shows that the WHOLE world isn't against enforcer. Isn't it something like $30 dollars a day to keep a dog at the shelter....thats great, all because they couldn't keep their dog in their yard.

0

one_more_bob 7 years, 7 months ago

Anybody want to speculate how long it will be before marion pulls a N-word reference out of thin air?

0

Agnostick 7 years, 7 months ago

Apparently, "due process" has been tethered, too.

Does anyone else wonder why Luna has been held at the animal shelter for nine months? I mean, as I understand it, animal shelters would rather have empty cages, than full ones. They generally want to place pets back with their owners... and only when they absolutely have to, will they euthenize an animal.

For example, this comes from the city of Athens, TN:

http://www.cityofathenstn.com/publicworks/animalshelter-new%20procedures.html

I'm beginning to wonder if some folks aren't spending too much time on message boards, when they could be improving the dog's home, pen, enclosure etc.

I'm having a hard time seeing the city, animal shelter folks etc. as "villains" in all this.

Agnostick agnostick@excite.com

0

prospector 7 years, 7 months ago

I am glad to see dogs and people are safer today. These are facts, sybil, not PR.

Sybil wrote:

"Oh and prospector you should review the forum rules about posting from other forums. The statement you cut and pasted was a violation by OMB and now you have violated."

Wrong again for the third time in one day and that was only on one article.

OMB

Like taking candy from a baby. In reading the sybil threat from above, all I could think was, one man's violation is another man's pleasure. HE HE

"Posted by sybil (anonymous) on September 5, 2006 at 5:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Due Process violations that is why the Appelette court accepted the filing...."

"Posted by swbsow (anonymous) on September 5, 2006 at 7:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

...And Sybil, it is "Appellate". I don't normally nit pick on spelling but that one was particularly distressing."

swbsow, isn't an "Appelette" a dessert special at Applebee's?

0

The_Original_Bob 7 years, 7 months ago

OMB -

G'morning. The funny thing is Marion Sydney Lynn didn't even address anything in the article. Just spewing about the same nonsense. He saw dog in the article and then the drivel started flowing out of his 9 fingers. In fact, this has to do with the success of the anti-teathering law and Mr. Lynn is a known teatherer.

0

one_more_bob 7 years, 7 months ago

So this is where the Golddust Twins moved after getting roundly spanked on the other thread.

T h a n k s

,

o m b

0

Reality_Check 7 years, 7 months ago

Marion has an opinion on everything to do with Lawrence, Kansas, even though he doesn't live there. Which make 90% of his opinions irrelevant.

I'm glad people can't chain up dogs anymore. It's cruel. Get a fence or pen or give up the dog.

0

The_Original_Bob 7 years, 7 months ago

Oh, I didn't know Marion had an opinion on dogs.

0

Marion Lynn 7 years, 7 months ago

Well, La Dee Dah!

It will be noted that in the case of the dog, Luna; currently impounded at the Lawrence "Humane" Society (And has been so impounded since LAST OCTOBER!), the dog Luna BIT NO ONE, THREATENED NO ONE and that the City Of Lawrence, Kansas HAS FAILED TO FOLLOW ITS OWN CITY CODE PROCEDURES prior to the megamaniacal Judge Randy McGrath ordering the dog to be killed.

There is NO provision in the City Code for a dog to be ordered killed without following the procedures set out in the ordinance referenced below:

http://web.ci.lawrence.ks.us/legal_services/citycode/chapter3.html

I can read the ordinance.

You can read the ordinance.

Evidently, Judge Randy reads the INVISIBLE part of the ordinance; the part that we cannot see.

Evidently the minor functionary and political hack, Jerry Little, currently serving as City Prosecutor, cannot READ THE ORDINANCE, either!

There is NO PROVISION in the City Code of Lawrence, Kansas which allows a dog which has BITTEN NO ONE, which has THREATENED NO ONE and has ONLY JUMPED A FENCE to be ordered killed by the City!

Even if a dog is adjudged to be agressive within the terms of the ordinance, the law does not allow ordering the dog killed but rather the animal may be ordered confined in a six-sided enclosure.

The City Of Lawrence, Kansas simply bypassed this REQUIREMENT and SPECIFICATION OF ITS OWN LAW!

Can anyone around City Hall spell "D-U-E P-R-O-C-E-S-S"?

Apparently not. I quote from the above article:

" The laws define what a vicious dog is and set steps for impounding the dog - and, if a district court judge orders it, putting it to death."

The City Of Lawrence, Kansas has BYPASSED ITS OWN "STEPS" in the matter of Luna.

I thought that the railroad station is Lawrnece was down by the tracks.

I now know that it is over on New Hampshire Street.

Folks, if the City is allowed to run roughshod over its own laws in this matter, how long will it be before it chooses to ignore another of its own ordinances in a matter which personally affects YOU?

Thanks.

Marion.

0

sybil 7 years, 7 months ago

Public Relations at work again.

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.