Tuesday, December 18, 2012

Nathan Winograd's Great Myths of No Kill

Ignored and Forgotten victims of Nathan's World
Nathan Winograd, Director of the No Kill Advocacy Center

It is the season of giving. But be careful.
Winograd’s claim to fame evolves around attacking the animal protection community through distortions that ultimately cause great animal suffering. It is simply disingenuous for anyone claiming to be an expert on animal issues to ignore the role HSUS plays in passing laws that further regulate puppy mills, close loopholes that allow dog fighters to continue their sport along with a number of shelter support programs that help many communities get control over their pet overpopulation issues.

To be clear, Winograd’s lust for selling books has allowed him to accept cash donations from breeder support groups, give no kill speeches at dog shows and support even more breeding with his incredibly na├»ve and dangerous mantra that "pet overpopulation is a myth". Espousing such ignorant views only serves to enable MORE breeding not less. Nathan Winograd does not reflect the values of the rescue community – he simply expects the rescue community to continue to fund the rescue of millions of dogs and cats who should have never been bred in the first place.

His list of supporters includes some of the seediest names in irresponsible breeding including groups that lobby in opposition to closing the loopholes that provide minimal standards for the victims of puppy mill abuse. To be clear most of Winograd’s most vocal supporters DO NOT RESCUE, yet many DO BREED.

Please don’t be fooled by a sheep in breeders clothing. Groups like HSUS are not the enemy – breeder apologist like Nathan Winograd are enemies to all abused neglected animals who continue to be part of a much larger pet overpopulation crisis wasting away in the same puppy mills Winograd is prepared to ignore.

Donate to your local rescue groups who foster animals for sure but don’t forget the victims of dog fighting abuse or puppy mill abuse that Winograd seems so willing to ignore.
Nathan Winograd would love to have you forget about the silent screams of victims of animal exploitation but it is not the animal protection community who is abusing and killing our companion friends - it's Winograd's legion of breeder supporters who are responsible for that abuse.

Rescue friends of animals do not support the breeder enabling excuses of "no kill" - we support building a no suffering - no kill nation to end that suffering at the hands of the abusers.

Saturday, December 15, 2012

Florida Case Law on Defamation and Tortious Interference

The Scales of Justice is a legal term that means the fair and equal representation of the law. This representation should be free from prejudice, favor, greed or corruption.

Justice is supposedly blind, impartial and powerful.  The Scales of Justice is a concept within the legal system that represents equality. Ideally, all cases are supposed to start off balanced and then tip to one direction or the other.
Of the utmost in ensuring the integrity of the court is following case law in determining guilt or innocence.
Here is a synopsis of the Florida Case Law on Defamation and Tortious Interference. 

This lawsuit is a classic example of a wealthy corporation No Kill Nation, Inc attempting to use the burden and expense of litigation to silence a legitimate "whistleblower demand" and consumer advocate while stifling free speech. To state a valid claim for defamation under Florida law, a plaintiff must plead actual damages. By failing to identify a single customer affected as a result of defendant’s alleged defamatory statements, Plaintiff failed to state a cause of action for the defamation.

Similarly, Plaintiff also fails to state a cause for tortious interference. It is also well established under Florida law that a plaintiff claiming tortious interference must identify the agreement or specific customers allegedly interfered with. Furthermore, the alleged defamatory statements at issue in this case are simply nonactionable, protected as privileged under Florida defamation law. This Court should put an immediate halt to plaintiff’s attempts to use expensive litigation to silence a renowned animal advocacy writer and critic, and should have dismissed this baseless action.

I. Applicable Standard and Role of the Court on Motion to Dismiss Defamation ClaimAlthough truth is a complete defense to a libel action, it is the plaintiff who bears the burden of proving that the challenged statement is both defamatory and false, essential elements of any libel claim. Hammond v Times Publishing Co, 162 So.2d 681, 682 (Fla 2nd DCA 1964), citing, McCormick v. Miami Herald Publishing Co., 139 So2d. 197, 200 (Fla 2d DCA 1962). A defamatory statement is not actionable if the plaintiff cannot allege and prove it is false and thus not even "substantially true."

Further, words are "defamatory" only if "they charge a person with an infamous crime or tend subject one to hatred, distrust, ridicule, contempt or disagree or tend to injure one in one’s business or profession. Seropian v Forman, 652 So.2d 490, 495 (Fla 4th DCA , 1995); Copper v Miami Herald Pub Co., 31 So.2d 382, 384 (Fla 1947 (accord). The trial court performs a "prominent function" in determining whether or not an allegedly false statement is defamatory. Byrd v Hustler Magazine, Inc, 433 So.2d 593, 595 (Fla 4th DCA 1983). The court is too closely review the allegedly false statements in the context in which it was published to decide whether a factfinder could reasonably determine the statement(s) to be defamatory. Id. The statement is to be viewed in the context and "not by extremes, but as the common mind would naturally understand it." Id.

This trial court should have dismissed the libel claim if challenged statement "is not susceptible to a defamatory meaning."

Smith v Cuban American Nat. Foundation, 731 So.2d 702, 707 (Fla 3rd DCA 1999): Keller V Miami Herald, 778 F.2d 711, 714-715 (11th Cir. 1985)

II. Plaintiff Fails to State a Cause of Action for Defamation Because Plaintiff Failed to Plead Actual Damages

Proof of "actual damage" is an essential element of a defamation action under Florida law. Edelstein v WFTV, Inc., Inc. 798 S0.2d 797, 798 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (affirmimg trial court’s dismissal of defamation action where failed to plead actual injury); Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v Philpot, 317 F.3d 1264, 1266 (11 Cir. 2003) (citing Miami Herald Publ’g Co v Ane, 423 So. 2d 376, 388 (Fla. DCA 1982). Defendant’s actions caused no actual damage to Plaintiff. Plaintiff cannot plead or prove otherwise. Plaintiff has not shown – and cannot show – any specific business arrangement that was negatively impacted as the results of the defendants actions. In addition, Plaintiff cannot show it lost any specific customers as a result of the alleged defamatory statements.

Plaintiff’s failure to plead actual damages as required by Florida law is plainly due to the fact that no damage actually occurred. Therefore, the defamation claim can not stand as a matter of law. This court erred in not dismissing the Plaintiff’s Complaint in its entirety lacking merit.
III The Complaint fails to Plead the Alleged Defamatory Statements with Specificity

The court erred in not dismissing Plaintiff’s Complaint because it fails to plead the actual defamatory statements at issue verbatim or with sufficient particularity as required by Florida law. See e.g. Orlando Sports Stadium, Inc v Sentinel Star Co., 316 So.2d 607, 610 (Fla 4th DCA 1975); Gannett Florida Corp. v. Montesano, 308 So.2d 599 (Fla 1st DCA 1975); Cooper v. Miami Herald Publishing Co., 31 So.2d 382 (Fla. 1947) (alleged defamatory words should be set out in the complaint for the purpose of fixing the character of the alleged libelous publication in context). The Complaint generally summarizes only one statement alleged to be defamatory with any particularity but claims that this one statements is one "among" other statements at issue.

Plaintiff’s Complaint thus violates the pleading requirements for defamation actions under Florida law, and fails to properly provide defendant with notice of which statements are sued upon. Accordingly, the court erred in not dismissing the entire complaint.

In fact, the court erred in not holding evidentiary hearings proving alleged statements were written by defendant. Instead, trial judge simply assumed these statements were written and that the statements themselves were accurately portrayed by the Plaintiffs’ Defendant has repeatedly denied making these statements as written or that the statements themselves when taken in context are true and not defamatory as Florida law also requires.
  1. Defendant Cannot Be Liable under Florida Law for Defamation Because Statements are Privileged
The qualified privilege for private citizens to report "whistleblower" information received from reliable sources is designed the public from reporting alleged criminal activity from liability even if those reports contain minor inaccuracies. 

Defendant merely demanded an accounting for funds collected that Plaintiff’s refused to release.

It strains credibility to believe Plaintiff’s allegation that it somehow suffered damages as the result of defendants publications when Plaintiff’s could have prevented the publications from being written by simply sharing transparently an accounting for the Everglades Project as promised and as the law and rules for non profits require.

Because Defendants statements were privileged under free speech and whistleblower protection, Plaintiff’s defamation claim fails as a matter of law. 
  1. Plaintiff Failed to State a Claim for Tortious Interference Because Plaintiff Failed to Identify the Specific Customers Who Were the Subject of the Alleged Interference.
    To state a claim for tortious interference under Florida law, a plaintiff must identify the specific customers who were the subject of the alleged interference. Sarkis v Pafford Oil Co., 697 So. 2d 524, 526 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997) (holding that trial court properly dismissed claim for tortious interference because plaintiff’s failed to identify the customers who were subject of the interference). 

    In Bortell v. White Mountain Ins. Group, Ltd., 2 So.3d 1041. 1048 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009), the Fourth District Court of Appeal held that the plaintiff failed to state a cause of action for tortious interference because the plaintiff failed to identify with any specificity the parties who were the subject of the alleged interference. In Bortell, the plaintiff alleged only that the defendant interfered with plaintiff’s advantageous business relationship with a group of "finite marine clients," but failed to either define the group or name a single individual with whom plaintiff claimed an advantageous relationship. Id The courts in both Sarkis and Bortell relied upon the Florida Supreme Court’s ruling in Ethan Allen Inc., v. Georgetown Manor, Inc., 647 So.2d 812 , 815 (Flo. 1994) in which the Court stated that an action folr tortious interference with a business relationship requires "a business relationship evidenced by an actual and identifiable understanding or agreement which in all probability would have been completed if the defendant had not interfered." See also Baylee Products, Inc v. Cole, 720 So.2d 550, 551 (Fla 4th DCA 1998)(reversing trial court and remanding for a directed verdict on tortious interference claim based on plaintiff’s failure to present any evidence connecting loss of business to an alleged tortious conduct).
    Standards for permanent injunctions

    To establish the tort of interference with a business relationship, the plaintiff must prove a business relationship with identifiable customers. Therefore, to establish an action for tortious interference with a business relationship, a plaintiff may allege interference with a present or prospective customer, but no action exists for tortious interference with a past customer or to the community at large. Additionally, a mere speculative hope of a future business is not sufficient to sustain the tort of interference with a business relationship.

    Plaintiff failed to identify any understanding or agreement with which defendant allegedly interfered nor did Plaintiff provide any specific customers it lost because of the defendant’s actions. Plaintiff only alleges "defendant interfered with plaintiffs existing and prospective business relationships, with the intent to harm Plaintiff’s business" and that "defendant acted with malice and without privilege, in furtherance of an intent to damage and interfere with Plaintiff’s business.

    Plaintiff fails to identify the specific understanding or agreement interfered with as well as any specific customers – existing or prospective – lost by Plaintiff as the result of defendants actions. Plaintiff cannot properly bring an action for tortious interference against the defendant based on speculative and conjectural claim that defendant’s actions somehow harmed Plaintiff’s relationship with an unidentifiable group of customers, particularly those with which Plaintiff has NEVER done business. As the case law clearly demonstrates, a plaintiff cannot recover damages under the theory of tortious interference without identifying the specific customers adversely affected.

    Therefore, this court erred by not dismissing Plaintiff’s claim for tortious interference.

  1. The State of Florida Does Not Recognize the Tort of False Light
Plaintiff’s Complaint improperly seeks to plead a claim for "false light" defamation, despite the fact that the tort of "false light" defamation is not recognized as a viable cause of action in the State of Florida. Jews for Jesus, Inc. v. Rapp, 997 So.2d 1098, 1115 (fla 2008)("in conclusion, we decline to recognize false light as a viable cause of action in this state") Plaintiff alleges defendants actions depicts No Kill Nation in a "false light". To the extent Plaintiff is arguing in support of the tort in false light, Plaintiff is arguing a position that is nor supported by application of existing law to the material facts. In fact, Plaintiff’ refers to a tort that has been unequivocally rejected by the highest court in the state, the Florida Supreme Court.

Based on Florida Supreme Court’s ruling in Jews for Jesus, Inc, Plaintiff cannot do an "end run around" the established requirements for a defamation claim by arguing the tort of false light.
  1. Complaint Should Also Be Dismissed Because The Complaint Improperly Seeks To Enjoin Free Speech – A Prior Restraint
Plaintiff’s Complaint specifically requests an injunction preventing defendant from further reporting on Plaintiff. The Supreme Court of Florida – as with virtually every court in the land.—has specifically held that a court may NOT enjoin speech, even alleged false speech, since to allow such injunctions would be unconstitutional prior restraint on speech. See e.g. Moore v City Dry Cleaners & Laundry, 41 So.2d 865 (Fla 1949); Reiter v. Mason, 563 So.2d 749 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Animal Rights Fund of Florida, Inc v Siegel, 867 So.2d 451 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)(defamation may not be enjoined): Miami Herald Pub Co. v. Morphonios 467 So.2d 1026 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985).

Plaintiff’s Complaint seeking to enjoin defendant from continued reporting about Plaintiff is without basis in law or fact, is not supported by the application of existing law to those material facts, and must be dismissed as well.

Defendant Closing
Our legal system depends on the integrity of individual members of the bar and bench to follow the rules, ethics and codes of the legal profession and the judiciary.

While the law firm of Tripp Scott advertises its firm as legal representation with "Experience You can Trust" it appears that experience and integrity has broken down. Attorney Ryan Lehrer has repeatedly flaunted the integrity of the court process with false innuendo and false statements submitted to this court in a frivolous lawsuit.

The practice of law is a profession the purpose of which is to supply disinterested counsel and service to others using independent professional judgment. Attorney Ryan Lehrer’s exercise of independent professional judgment in this case is materially limited by his own interest and conflict. For an attorney to flagrantly submit falsified documentation and immaterial allegations in an attempt to cover up alleged criminal activity by his client is not only immoral and unethical but could be illegal as well.

One needs only to consider the numerous personal attacks and libelous comments made by the plaintiff in this case to point out the litigation was initiated by the plaintiffs for what appears to be a personal vendetta.

The real losers in this process are the courts and the taxpayers in Broward County. Our citizens deserve better than this type of unethical behavior from THEIR court system.

Attorney Ryan Lehrer has brought discredit to the practice of law.

In allowing this court process to mutate into a personal vendetta launched by the plaintiff that lacks any evidence to support the allegations Judge Eileen O’Connor shares the responsibility of discrediting the court process.

When the court system gangs up on a disabled senior citizen only interested in exposing criminal charity fraud something is wrong with Broward County’s civil court system and the Florida Bar. I stand by that statement.

When Judge O’Connor and Attorney Lehrer made the conscience decision to attack a citizen with a disability recognized under the American Disability Act the morality of such choices taints the judicial fairness process that demands all citizens be treated fairly and provided the due process spelled out in the law.

Defendant maintains his right to exercise his free speech in writing on animal welfare issues. Charity fraud is a crime with victims. As such, articles that address charity fraud are written and shared in the public interest. Any attempt at censoring such articles clearly is a violation of the basic tenant of free speech with which the defendant has no intention of complying.

We do not live in a society where the extremely wealthy can manipulate the court to protect themselves from potential criminal activity through misuse and abuse of the civil court process.

As citizens and advocates in this great free society we must be mature and patient enough to understand that true progress requires maintaining a professional and respectful approach in offering solutions to our nation’s animal welfare issues.

In the words of Thomas Jefferson "This institution will be based on illimitable freedom of the human mind, for here we are not afraid to follow the truth wherever it may lead, nor tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it".

Whereas, Defendant Randal DeCarlo, specifically request this court to exercise it’s duty to its’ citizens by dismissing this case in it’s entirety, with prejudice, and to award such other and further relief as it may deem appropriate and just.

Sunday, August 26, 2012

Is CAPA no kill's wolf in sheeps clothing?

"I understand the intent of CAPA is to drive KCSPCA out of business, so the no-kill shelters can extort an endless supply of funds from the state and county taxpayer for their no-kill adventure, just like Austin. But how many animals are they, and their political partners, willing to allow to suffer like this to gain a little notoriety in the no-kill circles?"

I came across this blogger who discussed the various problems associated with CAPA inspired bills. I've always been concerned about CAPA because it in effect offers "Obama-care" for shelter pets with the taxpayers expected to pick up the tab.

Under that type of benefits package people would convince themselves that dumping the pet or breeder stock that has little or no previous medical care on a place where it could receive that care plus for the rest of their life is no kill compassion at work. It never stuck me that the bill would indeed cause many humane open admission shelters to simply close up shop rather than cover budget shortfalls as we are witnessing in Austin.

The only CAPA type bill I would consider would be a law that required breeders to provide the same standards of care that CAPA expects public and humane shelters to provide without clearly explaining that it will be the taxpayers funding this disaster.

No kill has already demonstrated it's unethical business side of the equation with No Kill Nation flexing it's mindless muscle with civil lawsuits being filed against whistle blowers attempting to expose that organization for soliciting and depositing over $100,000 in NKN corporate account on donations earmarked to rescue the 100+ Abandoned Dogs in the Everglades. The no kill movement not only has it's eyes focused on the millions of dollars raised by animal protection groups but will not limit itself when it looks at money donated directly to rescue shelter animals as well. One fact is certain - No Kill Nation has admitted on their Webster and in court papers that NKN is NOT a rescue organization.

They simply pose as a rescue group or as a group that saves animals when in fact they have no one working actively in rescue of any type. With an agenda that preaches pet overpopulation is a myth and that it's shelters who kill the pets being bred irresponsibly one could surmise that money donated towards the no kill movement in general and not donated directly to a credible rescue group is just as likely to be used promoting a political agenda that recognizes breeders as part of the solution to shelter killing which of course would be a myth.


Saturday, August 4, 2012

Dear Breeder Apologist - oh doctor pleae - some more of these?...

For those new to the no kill movement here's the reality of what no kill is all about.

Pet overpopulation is a MYTH and as such shelters, taxpayers and the humane community alone share the responsibility for every dog and cat killed under their watch. Shelters are obviously responsible for THEY perform the killing but equally to blame are the taxpayers for not insisting their shelter operate as no kill or for being unwilling or unable to fund those life saving programs. The humane community is to blame for failing to keep up with the number of pets dumped in our shelters with located homes among the 23,000,000 homes looking for pets according to breeder propaganda.

In the wacky world of no kill animal protection organizations are the enemy and breeders are our friends and allies in this life and death struggle with the animals rights fanatics who are only really interested in taking YOUR dog or YOUR cat and either setting it free from a lifetime enslaved as your "pet" or simply killing it to prevent people like YOU from forcing it to suffer.

With all that said how many of you would like the no killers and breeders to pass the Prozac please....what a drag this is growing old.

Wednesday, August 1, 2012

MDRR Founders put shelter rescue back on track

For those who don't quite grasp what the shelter dogs and cats have lost with the forced demise of the Miami Dade Rescue Railroad by No Kill Nation';s director Debi Day.

MDRR served the shelter animals in MDAS faithfully for eleven plus years.  Here's a story from the early years.  I'll note the lack of hostility that is so prevalent within the rescue community which has reached a state of shamefulness in having advocacy groups attacking volunteers whose only mission is to share some love and save a few lives.

Posted on Thu, Dec. 30, 2004

Many of you are aware that I have long had an interest in the plight of homeless pets from the Miami Dade shelter. Both Sydney and Agnes were rescued from Miami Dade along with the basset Gilmour who later was placed in his forever home.

In early December of last year relations with local rescue groups and the shelter management had reached a all time low point with a high likelihood that rescue might be prevented from rescuing from the shelter at all. In the hopes of preventing such a step which would have resulted in the last remaining safety net for hundreds of homeless pets being removed I formed a group that would become known as the Miami Dade Rescue Railroad.

From the onset my commitment was to put together the best of local rescuers who were willing to withstand the heartbreak and anguish that rescuing from a shelter like Miami Dade.

December 30, 2004

Against all odds the group recently celebrated it's first anniversary. With over 200 members the group now meets every weekend at the shelter to pull out often times the sickest and unadoptables offering them one last freedom ride on the Miami Dade Rescue Railroad.

With the efforts of dozen of truly compassionate rescuers over 500 of Miami Dade's homeless dogs and cats destined to die in Miami Dade were instead moved into the loving care of various no kill shelters throughout the state.

One of my earliest memories in forming MDRR was in a conversation I had with one of the groups original member's Lorraine who had offered to enter what was at the time a war zone at the shelter in the hopes of taking pictures of dogs scheduled to die. Lorraine called me afterwards all excited that she had succeeded in getting the shelter management to alow her to take pictures of a few dozen dogs. When I asked her how she was able to get them to change the rule which prevented pictures from being taken she replied "I started crying..."

As the past several months have shown along with the many tears of joy over those who have been saved there has also been countless tears shed over those poor souls who despite all good intentions weren't able to be saved. To each person who has given a piece of their own heart in the hopes of saving one dog or cat at a time the rewards of those who are saved will be memories that will remain forever. You have given the gift of life to a helpless and innocent creature that society has all but forgotten.

MDRR Founder's message

Story Posted December 30, 2004

Stray dogs, cats on track to new homes

The Miami-Dade Rescue Railroad took a dozen dogs and cats from the county's animal shelter on a road trip to new adoptive homes and no-kill facilities.

Rosa Martinez and her two daughters arrived at the Miami-Dade County Animal Shelter with heavy hearts. Draped sleepily in their arms were four curly, cocker spaniel-mix puppies in need of new homes.

Onsite was the Miami-Dade Rescue Railroad, a nonprofit organization that finds refuge for homeless animals in no-kill shelters and adoptive homes around the state.

Volunteers agreed to take the puppies, though they usually reserve their services for the shelter's neediest animals.

''We feel better that they're going to take them,'' Martinez said, as she waited for the puppies to be loaded into a rental van bound for Naples, Fort Myers and Bradenton.

In all, about 20 dogs and cats boarded the rescue railroad and were granted a reprieve of sorts.

Most came directly from the county shelter's B Ward, the end of the road for scores of unwanted dogs and cats each week -- mangy old mutts, sick puppies, strays, invalids unlikely to be adopted.

A sort of doggy Death Row, animals in the B Ward usually have 24 hours to live before being euthanized by lethal injection. Last year, the county put down an average of more than 50 dogs and cats daily.

It's a sad, but necessary process, say those familiar with the routine, but one that frees up badly needed kennel space at the county's largest animal shelter.

''People need to know that when they adopt a pet they need to be willing to keep the animal for its entire life,'' said Toni Lynn, the organization's president, shaking her head. ``These animals still have a chance.''


The shelter euthanized more than 21,000 animals last year. There's no way to save each one, of course, but Lynn said the railroad has placed more than 500 dogs and cats since the organization's founding in 2003.

''These animals are the very definition of true, unconditional love,'' she said.

The ''railroad,'' so called for the caravans created by members when they drive around the state, picks up animals from the shelter, 7401 NW 74th St. in Medley, almost every other weekend.

But a daily effort is made to keep tabs on new arrivals and animals being moved into the preeuthanasia ward.

Volunteers from the railroad do walk-throughs of the shelter every day, take photos and send e-mail alerts to a nationwide network of animal lovers, rescue facilities and activists who assist in finding homes.

That's promising news for Princess, a scruffy Shih Tzu, who looked more like a dirty mop, and a nameless, trembling, one-eyed Chihuahua, who were among this week's B Ward inmates.

Every effort is made to find permanent homes for them, but when that fails, foster homes and no-kill shelters pick up the slack.

''No-kill shelters take animals for us only as space becomes available, but we're in contact with them all the time and they tell us what they can take,'' said Jana Sheeder, one of the organization's co-founders.

The railroad coordinates with other rescue operations that may cater to certain breeds like basset hounds and boxers by checking the Miami-Dade shelter for surrenders.


Despite taking Martinez's puppies, the railroad generally only rescues from public facilities. Sheeder and other volunteers were glad to help, but wished they could do more. They need help themselves -- especially with those on death's doorstep.

''There are so many dogs in the B Ward that can't wait for the weekend to come. Their time is up,'' she said. ``We really need foster homes to take the animals until they can be placed.''

Of course, the public has a role in helping, especially the pet-owning public.

''We can avoid so many of these problems if people get their pets spayed and neutered,'' Sheeder said.
To learn more on the sad demise of MDRR read my blog "The Death of MDRR"


Saturday, April 7, 2012

No Kill Nation FARA, PETA and the rescue hoarding card

Posted on No Kill Nation:

FOLLOW UP--Caboodle Ranch; The other side of the story.

Madison County, FL, 5 weeks ago- PeTA was first to break the news that they had been investigating Caboodle Ranch, a cat sanctuary located in FL. Their claims of hoarding, squalor, disease, and neglect on the ranch property affecting hundreds of cats, soon flooded the internet and news across the U.S.

As the story unfolded, we all learned a PeTA "investigator" who posed as the custodian to the home and property was obviously not doing the job hired to do. Instead the "investigator/custodian" was capturing video evidence over the course of a 5 month period. Yes, this person was watching from behind a camera as the cats allegedly, became more and more ill.

The ASPCA "rescued" all of the cats from Caboodle Ranch, followed by donor solicitations from both PeTA and the ASPCA to stop animal hoarding. However, as we learn more, we have to wonder what this "investigation" was all about, as intimated by Caboodle Ranch's attorney's statement in this report. Was this the agenda of a "...private interest group"?

Prior to the Caboodle 'bust", The Florida Animal Rescue Act had gained strong support in both Tallahassee and the public during the 2012 FL legislative session. PeTA campaigned heavily against the F.A.R.A. Bill, claiming F.A.R.A. was dangerous and would allow rescue groups to hoard even more. Keep in mind; this was not a shelter, but a sanctuary.

The F.A.R.A. Bill in no way applied to this situation, in fact, IF Craig Grant was a HOARDER; F.A.R.A. had remedies built into the Bill giving the authorities recourse.

How many cats was there that were actually sick? Where are the cats now? How many were KILLED? We may never know. We have heard from several people- rescuers, cat adopters, and visitors of Caboodle who have negated the PeTA reports as to the condition of the cats. They have also verified that the ranch was a place where adoptions occurred, not a hoarder at all.

There are definitely two sides to this story.
Craig Grant, along with his attorney speaks out!  posted by No Kill Nation

If you hate PETA you'll be in good company as a No Kill Nation supporter. Rarely a day goes by without breeder support groups like No Kill Nation regurgitating some form of PETA hate thread.

As in the case of No Kill Nation's analogy of the Caboodle Ranch Sanctuary often times the facts get blurred by the many rabid breeders who participate in the PETA trashing. How one can leap from being able to justify any of the Caboodle Ranch survivors suffering at the hands of rescue is mystifying but we'll assume that NKN is driven by political motivations that allow this collateral feline suffering to be tolerable.

It should not be surprising that No Kill Nation's leadership team lead by "breeder/hoarder apologist" Debi Day is once again trying to spin some sort of positive story coming from the recent Caboodle Ranch raid. This is a "leader" with a history of surrounding herself with rescue amateurs who have completely redefined the definition of irresponsible rescue.

Clearly the issues of rescue hoarding are crucial to the rescue community at large as cases like this only paint a dismal picture of the rescue communities role in solving not only our pet overpopulation problems but shelter killing and suffering at the hands of exploiters as well. To look for superficial excuses for keeping cats in such a horrible setting that allows suffering to such a degree only points out how twisted the "no kill nation" goal is that it allows for any type of suffering, whether that suffering is at the hands of a irresponsible breeder, dog fighter or mentally ill rescuer hell bent on justifying hoarding as an alternative to shelter killing.

While one could expect Craig Grant's attorney to speak out in defense of his client what is surprising is that No Kill Nation is willing to defend him as well. This is clearly where the malfunctioning logic of NKN's brain trust doesn't realize that in defending Grant NKN's founder AKC show breeder Karolyn Rico and local gold digger Debi Day (who has no experience in no kill or shelter reform) has made a tactical decision to defend Grant's handling and abuse of Caboodle Ranch. This includes not only the allegations of neglect that Grant withheld critical vet care but allegations of misuse of funding that should have been used to provide medical treatment but was not.

One thing is certain, the massive breeder support for the no kill movement fueled by Winograd's lambasting of animal protection groups like HSUS, ASPCA or PETA has caused a "dumbing down" effect that breeders add to the movement. It's not surprising that No Kill Nation doesn't waste a lot of brain power trying to defend sanctuary hoarding cases like Palena Dorsey's Animal Sanctuary in Clewistown, or the Haven's Acres Cat Sanctuary raid that lead to numerous charges being filed or the now more recent raid on Caboodle Ranch. It's much simpler for these breeder malcontents to blame everything on PETA.

No Kill Nation's political agenda includes controversial policy positions ignoring the reality of pet overpopulation. It shouldn't be surprising that No Kill Nation shares a hatred for animal protection groups like PETA, the HSUS or the ASPCA. Instead,

Debi Day's "No Kill Nation" shares an agenda of hatred directed at the animal protection community. With allies armed against the animal protection movement including the likes of breeder support groups including Patti Strand's National Animal Interest Alliance (NAIA), Walt Hutchens Pet Law group or Rick Bermans many animal exploitation groups including Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF) and HumaneWatch.

It is this "strange bedfellows" arrangement that should cause red flags for a "no kill" agenda that completely ignores the role of irresponsible breeding as a cause and effect for not only an ongoing pet overpopulation crisis but shelter killing as well.

What No Kill Nation doesn't share as a political agenda is a goal of building a "no kill - no suffering" nation that would work towards strengthening animal protection laws tightening regulations not only on commercial puppy mill breeders but large scale rescue operations like Caboodle as well.

If we are going to rescue and shelter our homeless pets then we must provide regulations that PROTECT these same pets from being exploited once again by an rescue community that turns a blind eye to animal cruelty and neglect under "no kill".

It should not be surprising that No Kill Nation's leadership team lead by "breeder hoarder apologist" Debi Day is once again trying to spin some sort of positive story coming from the recent Caboodle Ranch raid. This is a "leader" with a history of surrounding herself with rescue amateurs who have completely redefined the definition of responsible rescue.

Debi Day's concept of "rescue" includes the like of convicted criminals like Maggie Rodriquez who have left dozens of shelter dogs dumped in boarding only to suffer the ultimate in rescue betrayal. It's been quite clear that No Kill Nation is not the least bit interested in "rescue" except when it comes to running chip ins that can be used to fund a breeder enabling political agenda including the misguided FARA bill.

Of course, in order to spin this story NKN has to ignore years of complaints coming out of Caboodle but one fact that can't be ignored is that despite having over $80,000 in unspent donations very few of the cats who were ill received any type of treatment whatsoever. Further, how can a responsible sanctuary explain away the number of unaltered cats at the sanctuary who were allowed to reproduce despite the incredible number of cats already being cared for?

Craig Grant is not only a HOARDER but he is a criminal as well. Grant routinely helped himself to funds donated to care for the cats including using donations for lavish sporting events, trips to Vegas and just about everything EXCEPT providing medical care for the cats entrusted to HIS sanctuary.

For those interested in the truth and the suffering that went on at the Caboodle Ranch click on the following link. One thing is certain - the cats who survived Caboodle ranch have a much more promising future than had they been left behind.


No Kill Nation's attack on the roles PETA, ASPCA and other humane groups played is nothing more than sour grapes for PETA pointing out the obvious - the Florida Animal Rescue Act would have only resulted in MORE hoarding cases coming out of an unregulated Florida rescue community not less.

Despite claims to the contrary by an obviously confused NKN leadership team FARA would have had NO IMPACT on Caboodle Ranch specifically because Grant primary source of cats were owner surrenders that he could collect a fee from.

The Florida Animal Rescue Act (FARA) did NOT require rescue groups to provide a physical address or to face yearly inspections. There would be no reason for on non profits like Caboodle Ranch to provide any reporting on animals in their care. Even "rescue" groups like Caboodle Ranch that allow pets to reproduce would not face any additional regulations under FARA.

FARA was a BAD BILL for animals that failed miserably in protecting shelter pets from criminal exploiters like Grant.  To read more about the Florida Animal Rescue Act and how it will lead to more shelter suffering:


Monday, April 2, 2012

No Kill Trilogy Amused to Death

News hound sniffs the air
He latches on to that symbol of detachment
Attracted by the peeling away of feeling
The celebrity of the abused, ooh western woman, western girl

And the children of Melrose strut their stuff
Is absolute zero cold enough
And out in the valley warm and clean
The little ones sit by their FB screens
No thoughts to think
No tears to cry
All sucked dry

Down to the very last breath
Bartender what is wrong with me
Why am I so out of breath
The captain said excuse me ma'am
Your nation has amused itself to death

We watched the tragedy unfold
We did as we were told
We bought and sold
It was the greatest show on earth
But then it was over
We ohhed and aahed
We flew our private jets

We ate our last few jars of caviar
And somewhere out there in the stars
A keen-eyed look-out
Spied a flickering light
Our last hurrah
And when they found our shadows
Grouped around the FB sets