Thursday, November 20, 2008


Donate to DogsBite.org
Please donate to support our work

DogsBite.org is a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt public charity organization. Learn more »


posted by   |  permalink  |  18 comments  | email  |icon blog rss  |icon comment rss 

18 comments:

Anonymous Anonymous  |  11/13/2008 1:37 PM  |  Flag  
"He did what any responsible breeder does and made people sign a contract saying if you sell the dog, it's not to be used for the purpose of fighting"

A lawyer shoould know that these contracts ARE LEGALLY UNENFORCEABLE.

They are invalid and illegal contracts.

Because dogs are property according to our law, and new property owners (buyers) can do what they want.

This is how breeders try to put off criticism that they are selling unaltered dogs. They point to these ridiculous "altering contracts" that ARE LEGALLY USELESS.

They can't enforce any such contract. The contracts aren't legal.

The contracts are a sham.

Anonymous Anonymous  |  11/13/2008 2:01 PM  |  Flag  
Take a look at the comments. A nasty breeder type (memyself&I) offending some poor poster, then pulling the doggie racism scam.

And then there is AJ Flick thanking this breeder for her comments.

Another dim bulb reporter.

Is it any wonder the dogfighting keeps expanding?

Anonymous Anonymous  |  11/13/2008 2:11 PM  |  Flag  
"Resnick told Leonardo an expert will testify that, with the exception of two dogs seized from Patrick, the dogs were socialized."

So who will the expert be?

Jere Alexander? Bad Rap? Best Friends? Maybe Valparaiso animal law professor Rebecca Huss who says that fighting pit bulls really love people and are just mistreated?

(Which I guess indirectly means that fighting dogs are "socialized" anyway, just mistreated, so if the expert says they were socialized, then they ARE fighting dogs? :)

And the dog fighter lobby says than "manbiters" are culled, so the fighting dogs should all be socialized according to the dog fighters.

It will be interesting to see what "expert" aids and abets the dog fighters.

And I wonder who is paying the bill for the lawyer?

Is there any kind of tax investigation going on? Money laundering investigation? Where did all the money from breeding and selling pits get reported to? Taxes paid on it?

Anonymous Anonymous  |  11/13/2008 2:50 PM  |  Flag  
I was wondering about that expert myself. Rebecca Huss seems a good choice. Looks like Partick's got the "vet" in the bag as well:

"The veterinarian who cared for the dogs will testify that he wouldn't have allowed the animals to be used for fighting, Higgins said."

Vets and the dogfighters seem to go hand in hand. The vets have to medically treat the injured fighting dogs. But many forget they have an obligation to follow the law and report these abusers.

Vets are governed by the Veterinarian's Oath:
http://www.avma.org/onlnews/javma/jun04/040601t.asp

VETERINARIAN'S OATH
Being admitted to the profession of veterinary medicine, I solemnly swear to use my scientific knowledge and skills for the benefit of society through the protection of animal health, the relief of animal suffering, the conservation of animal resources, the promotion of public health, and the advancement of medical knowledge. I will practice my profession conscientiously, with dignity, and in keeping with the principles of veterinary medical ethics. I accept as a lifelong obligation the continual improvement of my professional knowledge and competence.

Principles of Veterinary Medical Ethics of the AVMA
http://www.avma.org/issues/policy/ethics.asp

SECTION II. PROFESSIONAL BEHAVIOR
1. Veterinarians should first consider the needs of the patient: to relieve disease, suffering, or disability while minimizing pain or fear.
2. Veterinarians should obey all laws of the jurisdictions in which they reside and practice veterinary medicine. Veterinarians should be honest and fair in their relations with others, and they should not engage in fraud, misrepresentation, or deceit.
1. Veterinarians should report illegal practices and activities to the proper authorities.

Anonymous Anonymous  |  11/13/2008 4:01 PM  |  Flag  
Oh my God. The vet is going to testify as to what Patrick "intended" to do?

How can anyone testify to what someone else "intended" to do. Or what was going to happen in the future?

It is a total fabrication.
But it is maybe a good thing to see that veterinarians are colluding with fighters and lobbying for them.

And supporting animal abuse.

Did they give the name of the vet? Please if anyone finds the names of the vet and the "expert" trainer, please post them.

Anonymous Anonymous  |  11/13/2008 4:40 PM  |  Flag  
A different article says more about the VET:
http://www.azstarnet.com/metro/266991

Resnick told the judge that Patrick's veterinarian will testify he cared for all of the dogs bred by Patrick and that he never saw any evidence the dogs had ever fought. Another veterinarian will testify that all but two of the 100-plus dogs seized from Patrick's property were properly socialized.

Anonymous Anonymous  |  11/13/2008 6:52 PM  |  Flag  
Have you seen the comments by the reporter who wrote the article, AJ Flick?

Does she have a brain?

Anonymous Anonymous  |  11/13/2008 8:50 PM  |  Flag  
Not a large one.

Anonymous Anonymous  |  11/14/2008 8:01 AM  |  Flag  
Is the reporter a pit bull owner? Just curious.

Anonymous Anonymous  |  11/21/2008 10:26 AM  |  Flag  
I would hope that there is an IRS and money laundering investigation going on, since clearly he wasn't reporting any income from his business.

Anonymous Anonymous  |  11/21/2008 10:57 AM  |  Flag  
The dogfighting will never be dealt with until there are breeder licensing and inspection laws, so these people at least are documented and there are some rules and accountability.

They flourish because they can completely stay off the books and the state doesn't even ask questions

This is why the dogfighters and breeders fight so hard against anything that hints at breeder licensing and regulation.

Their dogfighting, their puppy mills, their fat tax-free incomes are all at risk with some regulation.

This is why they fight so hard against things like mandatory spay neuter laws, because it means breeder licensing.

They make up lies like "it will be too expensive to enforce" (not half as expensive as the tax revenue that's lost!) or "they can't enforce the laws" (bull! they sure can!)

It is sad that some humane people and these pit bull "rescue" nuts have gotten sucked into opposing laws on behalf of the dogfighters that are torturing the dogs.

But that is what they are doing, helping these dogfighters hurt more dogs more easily.

Anonymous ernie  |  11/21/2008 10:58 AM  |  Flag  
Probably another lawyer/judge type who enjoys the "sport".

Too bad Uncle Fester and his Bride of Frankenstein didn't have Judge Daniel to hear their case.

Anonymous David  |  11/22/2008 10:56 PM  |  Flag  
Colleen,
We didn't win as big as we could have, but we didn't loose either. People are more aware of what is going on. Just like the little girl in the logo, we also are watching.

Blogger bitbypit  |  11/23/2008 3:50 AM  |  Flag  
Hi-five to you David!

Anonymous jimmy o  |  11/23/2008 10:41 AM  |  Flag  
Dr. Barry Wilkinson repeatedly testified that it was difficult to tell how the dogs got their wounds.

http://www.kold.com/Global/story.asp?S=9381370&nav=14RT

The place for all of your fighting dog's medical needs:
http://www.vcaanimalmedicaltucson.com/team.asp

obtw, these chain vet clinics owned by VCA, I highly recommend AGAINST them.

Anonymous Earl  |  11/23/2008 11:20 PM  |  Flag  
Members of various game-dog forums are always talking about the myth of the bait dog.

http://www.tmz.com/2008/11/22/sick-vicks-new-dog-trick/
http://nfl.fanhouse.com/2008/11/21/virginia-charges-reveal-michael-vick-put-family-dogs-into-pit/

Anonymous Anonymous  |  11/25/2008 4:43 AM  |  Flag  
Last year the Animal Fighting Act was passed unamimously by the United States Senate making it a Federal Felony to traffic fighting dogs accross state lines. It seems to me that the USDA was AWOL in this case. It is extremely difficult to convict a dog fighter without catching them red handed.

The pooch was screwed here, instead of a local DA trying to prove dog fighting on circumstancial evidence, the feds should have been involved in a fighting animal trafficking investigation.

All they needed to prove was that he sold dogs to dog fighters.

I wonder if he can still be tried on Federal Charges?

Anonymous jimmy o  |  11/27/2008 11:20 AM  |  Flag  
http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/hourlyupdate/269045.php

Reduced to misdemeanors and given probation.

It is no wonder, we are untable to end dogfighting. Not only are they scumbags hard to catch and prosecute, when we do manage to nail them, our courts hand down wimpy punishments.

Post a Comment »

archives: