Sad situations that are going to be happening too much...

[Alagirl]

@LLDM;5164467

“Cruelty” in this case is what the law says it is. And the law is what will determine what happens to her horses. It doesn’t matter what you think. It doesn’t matter what I think either. This isn’t a moral judgment. It is a legal one.

Yes, legal, like a 18 1/2 year old guy having sex with his 17 1/2 year old girlfriend can make him a sex offender in the eye of the law, thrown into the same vat with child molesters and real rapists.

The best way to keep your horses safe is to comply with the law. If you don’t, you can’t be surprised if the Law comes and takes them away. Esp. after they have told you, fined you and continue to watch you.
are you serious?!

Who said starving?

for having read this much about this case, you missed the plentiful remarks of Maine AC dropping the ball on a real cruelty case with really starving horses

And what on earth difference would it make to a horse if it were being staved on purpose or by accident?

If you can’t figure that out on your own, I am worried about you.

Wanting to feed one’s horses or keep them inside their fence or keep them dry and warm in horrid weather has not thing to with intent and everything to do with actually doing so.

and where please is the evidence the horses are starved when PP was present?
(the fences don’t qualify for crap, true enough, but the rest in conjecture)

Taxes, smaxes? Well, at least I know you don’t live on this planet.

SCFarm

True, I live in Lala Land, population me.

The point you - again - missed:
Know all you say, don’t say all you know.
Sometimes, in the name of mercy (gosh I said it, mercy for PP) one can keep a juicy tidbit to themselves.

The tenor in the lovely comment section of the local fish wrap - erm, paper was basically (to my understanding) that PP is to be made an example for the case the AC did nothing or even returned severely starved animals to the ‘owner’

Clear as mud, right.
She, being guilty of being seemingly broke and obviously oblivious might get the book thrown at her, labeled as ‘abuser’ for the rest of her life, possibly banned from ever owning even a gold fish, while the real scums of this earth get away with a slap on the wrist, to carry on with what they were doing.

I mean, come on, even the confiscating AC stated they had starving animals around…really starving.

[SmokenMirrors]

[QUOTE=Alagirl;5164565]
Yes, legal, like a 18 1/2 year old guy having sex with his 17 1/2 year old girlfriend can make him a sex offender in the eye of the law, thrown into the same vat with child molesters and real rapists.

are you serious?!

for having read this much about this case, you missed the plentiful remarks of Maine AC dropping the ball on a real cruelty case with really starving horses

If you can’t figure that out on your own, I am worried about you.

and where please is the evidence the horses are starved when PP was present?
(the fences don’t qualify for crap, true enough, but the rest in conjecture)

True, I live in Lala Land, population me.

The point you - again - missed:
Know all you say, don’t say all you know.
Sometimes, in the name of mercy (gosh I said it, mercy for PP) one can keep a juicy tidbit to themselves.

The tenor in the lovely comment section of the local fish wrap - erm, paper was basically (to my understanding) that PP is to be made an example for the case the AC did nothing or even returned severely starved animals to the ‘owner’

Clear as mud, right.
She, being guilty of being seemingly broke and obviously oblivious might get the book thrown at her, labeled as ‘abuser’ for the rest of her life, possibly banned from ever owning even a gold fish, while the real scums of this earth get away with a slap on the wrist, to carry on with what they were doing.

I mean, come on, even the confiscating AC stated they had starving animals around…really starving.[/QUOTE]

I think this is a very POOR example of what your attempting to say. I also take great offense to using this poor example as I am a mother of a daughter who was raped at a young age and I put that person away and did exactly what you said…AND had him deported too, much to his parents dismay! So, perhaps choose a better example.

[CrazyGuineaPigLady]

[QUOTE=Alagirl;5164565]
for having read this much about this case, you missed the plentiful remarks of Maine AC dropping the ball on a real cruelty case with really starving horses…

I mean, come on, even the confiscating AC stated they had starving animals around…really starving.[/QUOTE]

No. What they said is they had other, more malnourished animals in the system but there was someone to work with so they put them on a back burner for now. Something like that and I’m too lazy to re-read and quote it for you.

Perhaps these were newer cases than PP and the owners made themselves available by being on the property or providing contact info in case of emergency or the vacation of a lifetime. They might have even reached out themselves after realizing they were in over their heads. Imagine that!

I can’t even comment on the rest of what you said because it’s just weird.

[SummerRose]

I perform seizures and I’m finding the absolute certainty by some in this thread that the seizure was invalid to be interesting. It may or may not have been a valid seizure, but IME, news media either leaves out procedural details or misreports on a fairly regular basis and the articles I read about this seizure were, as usual, short on the details. Did I miss something?

A couple of posts that I’ve read that don’t fit with my experience:

Notice: I don’t see an absolute requirement for 72 hour prior notice before seizing abandoned animals anywhere in the Maine statute. Plus, it would not make sense to have a concrete law stating that an animal could not be seized without 72 hour prior notice (not that all laws make sense, of course) because AC must have the ability to immediately seize animals in severe distress or danger. (PPs animals did not visually appear to be in severe distress, but they did allegedly lack water, which would absolutely and has been upheld as a legal cause for seizure in at least one of my cases. Granted, the laws under which I work are completely different.)

Also, as for contacting the owner: it is not as easy to find cell phone numbers as it is to find landlines. I would never call an employer to ask for a cell phone because I would sincerely hope that any employer would have the good sense not to give me an employee’s personal cell phone number. Thinking about it, I hope that no employer would give me an employee’s personal cell phone/home phone/address/etc even if I showed up in person and flashed my badge, unless I was holding a warrant right beside my badge and credentials.

More musing about notice: I don’t give prior notice when I make a seizure. Property tends to disappear when the owner knows that seizure is imminent. (I’m NOT implying that this would be the case in PP’s seizure.) Vineyridge commented that the owner/owner’s reps were not present. Because I don’t generally warn people ahead of time when I’m going to be making a seizure, the owners may or may not be present. When they are, they tend to be so surprised and/or upset that they don’t really keep track of the details, anyway, so I’m not sure how helpful it is to them to be there.

Snkstacres, I know you are familiar with the process, so I’m guessing the hyperbole born out of frustration for your friend. But there are a lot of people here who read pretty literally, so here’s a little clarification for those who are less familiar with the process:

@snkstacres;5162878

Its my opinion that these animals were taken illegally, not that they should not have been taken. (You may or may not be correct, but can you tell me which specific Maine regs you believe were not followed? Not knowing exactly which violations were cited, I can’t figure it out.) The shelter law doesnt even come into effect here yet. (Again - not saying you’re incorrect, but I haven’t been able to find that Maine regulation. Can you cite the specific reg?)

But, these animals were siezed. Huge difference. Siezure means that all the animals from her property must be removed, she may not own any more again. Technical point for the literal-minded: a seizure does not automatically mean that an owner may not own animals (or that seized species) again. After seizure, there is a hearing, at which point the animals may be either returned to the owner or custody/ownership is assigned by the court. A conviction on animal cruelty charges may include a ban on animal ownership for XX number of years; sometimes there is a lifetime ban, though often there is a temporary ban. Sometimes, though, even animal cruelty convictions do not include ownership/possession bans. Sometimes after a seizure, people will sign over the animals to avoid charges, and there may or may not be any restrictions on possession/ownership of animals as a condition. So, the old dog who was boarded will be taken from her. Maybe. There absolutely have been cases in which owners have retained custody of some animals, even when other animals were seized. … her horses sold at public auction. Again, maybe, maybe not. Under Maine regulations, there are three options for animals that have been seized (assuming they are not returned to the owner at the hearing) - “sale, adoption, or placement.”

Other musings . . . probably not good news for those who are already convinced about government overreach/ineptitude/corruption, but even if the state, complete with accompanying vet and attorney, managed to screw up the seizure, it wouldn’t work like double jeopardy. The alleged underlying violations wouldn’t “disappear” solely because the animals were returned on a technicality. Whatever your viewpoint, whether AC is “out to get” PP or is pursuing legitimate violations, they will probably be back out again to perform an airtight seizure. Maybe she’ll be able to take this time, while the animals are off the property, to get the property in good enough shape to convince the judge to legally return the animals to her, in which case she wouldn’t have violations pertaining to this case hanging over her head (as she will if the animals are returned on a technicality).

[Shine]

Just curious - where is the OP who started this trainwreck? Who hasn’t posted since 12/2008, mostly in the “giveaways” and lives in Maine?

[Thomas_1]

Alagirl, [edit] I’ve just looked up your profile to see if there was anything there that gave me a clue as to why you should be such an ardent defender of the illegal, cruel, inappropriate. I wonder why you think it’s perfectly o.k. to break the law, run up debts, ignore the blinding bleeding obvious.

[edit]

Someone needs to tell you and it might as well be me:

You’re not doing PP any favours at all! Not at all!

[edit]

If you really want to support PP you’d be better off getting on with it and if you really do want to post then it might well be preferable to acknowledge that there’s every right to be concerned and to be a serious and concerted effort to put things right and evidence that conditions are a lot better than what we currently know to be the case.

[QUOTE=Alagirl;5164396]
Her prior conviction for cruelty is also public, yet nobody has found out what it exactly was that was so cruel that it warranted a fine. [/QUOTE]

I tell you what. You’re her advocate and chief defender so just tell us instead of defending the indefensible!

I think even you, on this planet, will have to agree that having bad fences is a far cry from starving (on purpose) or beating an animal…even having no shelter for fat and healthy horses isn’t that bad.
What do you prefer smacked and mortally injured by a truck and left with broken bones and bleeding till someone arrives to shoot you or starved? Don’t answer that. It was a rhetorical question!

Taxes, smaxes…it still was not necessary to post this here, on this planet.
Public information and contextual. Particularly in the light of folks rallying to throw money and help at the problem.

[QUOTE=Alagirl;5164565]Yes, legal, like a 18 1/2 year old guy having sex with his 17 1/2 year old girlfriend can make him a sex offender in the eye of the law, thrown into the same vat with child molesters and real rapists.[/QUOTE] You obviously don’t have any respect for legislators, the law or the legal process. I wonder why!

for having read this much about this case, you missed the plentiful remarks of Maine AC dropping the ball on a real cruelty case with really starving horses
Heresay and anecdote and supposition. No facts whatsoever.

and where please is the evidence the horses are starved when PP was present?
(the fences don’t qualify for crap, true enough, but the rest in conjecture)

True, I live in Lala Land, population me.

The point you - again - missed:
Know all you say, don’t say all you know.
Sometimes, in the name of mercy (gosh I said it, mercy for PP) one can keep a juicy tidbit to themselves.

The tenor in the lovely comment section of the local fish wrap - erm, paper was basically (to my understanding) that PP is to be made an example for the case the AC did nothing or even returned severely starved animals to the ‘owner’

Clear as mud, right.
She, being guilty of being seemingly broke and obviously oblivious might get the book thrown at her, labeled as ‘abuser’ for the rest of her life, possibly banned from ever owning even a gold fish, while the real scums of this earth get away with a slap on the wrist, to carry on with what they were doing.

I mean, come on, even the confiscating AC stated they had starving animals around…really starving.

[edit]

[Threebars]

<<Invokes Goodwin’s law>>

Nazis! Nazis! Nazis!!

Hey, that’s all this thread seems to have been missing!

Sorry, a little levity seems to be in order for this very, very sad situation.

I hope PP has secured good legal council.

I hope PP is surrounded by local freinds, who can offer real assistance.

I hope the ‘itty bitties’ (that aren’t so itty bitty anymore) and the rest of her animals are doing all right.

I hope that none of us ever find ourselves in such a situation where people start publicly picking through our garbage piles, and throwing up what ever looks like it would stick and stink the worse.

I hope…

[Miss_J]

Has anyone heard from PP so far? (I apologize if it has been posted but I only made it into post #100…)

[Thomas_1]

No.

[Coanteen]

[QUOTE=CrazyGuineaPigLady;5164662]
No. What they said is they had other, more malnourished animals in the system but there was someone to work with so they put them on a back burner for now. Something like that and I’m too lazy to re-read and quote it for you.

Perhaps these were newer cases than PP and the owners made themselves available by being on the property or providing contact info in case of emergency or the vacation of a lifetime. They might have even reached out themselves after realizing they were in over their heads. Imagine that!

I can’t even comment on the rest of what you said because it’s just weird.[/QUOTE]

This. Remember folks - AC had also been involved with PP for quite some time, and she already had one conviction. It wasn’t a matter of “hey, let’s leave those starving horses to die and jump on PP’s herd for shits&giggles”.
From the many articles and posts about AC-related stuff I’ve read, it seems the MO tends to be to work with the owner to improve conditions, not to seize at the drop of a hat. Yes, unfortunately sometimes working with the owner to a ridiculous degree while horses starve. But no, just because somewhere some other horses have it worse doesn’t mean it’s ok to ignore the less-worse cases. I mean, there are people defrauding companies of millions of dollars, but that doesn’t mean we don’t prosecute a pickpocket when we catch one.

In any case, AC had been involved with PP for some time. The legal system had been involved. The horses kept getting out - we have PP’s own posts to attest to that.
Whatever caused the seizure, it may simply had been that in spite of working with her over time the conditions remained the same; horses kept getting out, still no shelter as mandated by statute (the Nov-May only seems to be a board rumor, not Maine regs, so she was currently in violation as I read the ‘3 walls and a roof’ statute), and no one around to immediately respond to the horses getting out yet again.

[Clear_sailing]

I am a lurker. There is one question that is begging to be answered…

Did AC or anyone involved int he seizure KNOW when PP was coming home, or even IF she was coming home? If they had no way of knowing this, then it is reasonable to think they took the horses and cats and dog now to prevent them from becoming starved later…

Most starved animals were in good condition at SOME point. If only they had been spared the torture of being starved and had been confiscated when things turned bad, not when they were rock bottom.

I am a law abiding citizen. If you break the law, then you will get into trouble. A rolling stop does not equal a stop. Having water means having water. Not only occasionally having water. If the government says you must have ABC, and you choose to have DEF, then you are in violation of a law. Regardless of ones opinion or moral code, or opinion on animal welfare.

PS: Thomas, will you marry me? im sure my husband wont mind…

[Bogey2]

However I’ve just looked up your profile to see if there was anything there that gave me a clue as to why you should be such an ardent defender of the illegal, cruel, inappropriate. I wonder why you think it’s perfectly o.k. to break the law, run up debts, ignore the blinding bleeding obvious.

I discover you’re “supposed” to be a 42 year old adult.

Someone needs to tell you and it might as well be me:

You’re not doing PP any favours at all! Not at all!

So grow up.

and real men don’t hang out in the internet doing research all day then telling people to grow up.

[Thomas_1]

[QUOTE=Clear sailing;5164833]

PS: Thomas, will you marry me? im sure my husband wont mind…[/QUOTE] I’ll have to ask my wife!

Didn’t you read the inane drivel about me being her gigolo!

[tidy_rabbit]

I just cannot believe the Moderation Team on COTH has allowed this thread to go on and on and on.

[goeslikestink]

[QUOTE=JSwan;5164423]
Like the fact that when we don’t pay our mortgage or taxes the bank or gov’t takes our home.

I don’t want to pile on someone, and I’m certainly not doing it for fun. That would be cruel and downright evil.

But nothing will change the fact that we could all chip in to build a shelter or fix PP’s fences… and she’s probably going to lose her home very soon. The gov’t wants that tax money and they’ll take everything she has in order to get that money.

I fervently hope that PP has retained good counsel, and that the atty is providing guidance on the financial issues as well. And if she needs any other type of help, I hope she gets that too.[/QUOTE]

quite - and they also take into account what assets she has as the horses are a salable comodity
they to are an asset for thetime being until a court case is heard they are compounded at ac until the case is heard if however tax issues also come up then no doubt the horses will be sold off along with whatever is also available

so no doubt she wont be getting her horses back one way or the other

[goeslikestink]

[QUOTE=tidy rabbit;5164872]
I just cannot believe the Moderation Team on COTH has allowed this thread to go on and on and on.[/QUOTE]

its a decussion and no ones being offensive

just pointing out different ways of looking at the situation thats all and all should take it as a learning curve of what not to do

[goeslikestink]

[QUOTE=Thomas_1;5164846]
I’ll have to ask my wife!

Didn’t you read the inane drivel about me being her gigolo![/QUOTE]

yeah i did, haha, bloody lucky women to have you as her gigolo
mate haha

or should i say giggle lo haha

[tidy_rabbit]

I’m entitled to state my opinion just as you are goeslikestink.

I haven’t said how I feel about the OP and her situation nor will I, but I would like to say that I am sort of appalled at the behavior of some the posters on this thread and I’m not one who is easily offended.

I’m just baffled by what the moderation staff feels is appropriate and inappropriate for discussion on COTH.

[LovelyBay]

100% Agreed

[QUOTE=tidy rabbit;5164872]
I just cannot believe the Moderation Team on COTH has allowed this thread to go on and on and on.[/QUOTE]

Not to offend the Mods, but I can’t believe this is still open! This thread is out of control, and it isn’t accomplishing anything other than people being nasty to each other.

We’ll probably never know what really happened… Let’s leave it alone already.

[Eye_in_the_Sky]

Ugh. Right before logging onto COTH today, I just paid our taxes on a piece of property we own. It was painful but our duty, bound by the law, as well as principle. I scanned through the thread after learning what I did about the picture my family had once laughed at (and now I am sickened of), and now see that the subject of this thread has turned to people not paying their property taxes. You know, I’d really had rather not paid MY property taxes as well, but sadly, I had to part with that chunk of change that I would have enjoyed using to pay off debt recently incurred by an older vehicle we’re trying to squeeze more milage out of. :sigh:

I am not saying this makes PP a “bad” person, but it certainly provides more insight to the situation. I do not care for the ripping some have done on this woman, regardless of what some of her poor decisions have been, but that does not mean I like what she has done.

I would venture to guess that the majority of those either reading or posting are not against PP herself, but rather against her behaviors; there is a rather big difference. Unfortunately, some ugly things have been said and alluded to, which then sets fire to anyone’s speech on either side - much like politics tends to do. I only wish that most here could be heard as saying “we don’t wish anything bad on PP, but we also want to see her horses cared for properly”. That concept seems to have drowned underneath the cat-fights and dramatic backdrops of certain individuals who have been rather, um, passionate about their “side”.