Latah Creek calls me and and tells me that my dogs were treated at Peone Pines Veterinary Clinic
Story aired at 6, 10, and 11
In-Humane Society 2003
| Humane Society | 467-5235 6607 N. Havanna Street 99217 Director: Jim Fox Attorney: Kenneth Ifferlis 509-326-1800 |
| Tanna & Gilly's Vet | Latah Creek 462-7387 4241 S Cheney-Spokane Rd 99224 |
| thief's Vet | Peone Pines 466-7115 6604 N. Havana St 99217 Attn: Julie |
| Brant L. Stevens attorney |
brantstevens_2000@yahoo.com 325-3999 |
| Computer Chip | Tanna 06077621 |
| KXLY | Travis Mayfield 500 W Boone Ave. 99201-2497 509-324-4004 travisma@kxly.com |
| Date/Time | Event |
| April-Mid | spay, neuter, vaccinated, and chipped Dogs at Latah Creek Veterinary Clinic. |
| 5/03 12PM | Dogs Run Off |
| 5/04 ? | Dogs get turned into Humane Society |
| 5/? | Humane Society releases Dogs for adoption |
| 5/9 | Put add in Spokesman Review Lost and Found |
| 5/12 5:20 | Peone Pines Veterinary Clinic finds chip on dog and calls Latah Creek
Vet Clinic. Latah Creek calls me and and tells me that my dogs were treated at Peone Pines Veterinary Clinic |
| 5/12 5:30 | I call Julie at Peone Pines Veterinary Clinic and find out that the Dogs were turned into the Humane Society |
| 5/12 5:45 | I called the Humane Society and spoke with Allen who told me that the Dogs were not scanned for chips. Then he said they were scanned for chips. Then said that the director (Jim Fox) would be giving me a call the next day |
| 5/13 ? | Allen from the Humane Society called Latah Creek Vet Clinic and verified the chip number and the owner(me) with CM, the Vet. They explained the Gilly was supposed to get one also but forgot to administer it. |
| 5/13 10:00 | I called the Humane Society and spoke with Jim Fox who told me that he did not need to get involved with this matter and that Loretta Johnson would be calling me back. |
| 5/13 11:55 | Jim Fox Call me. Asked if I was willing to surrender the Dogs. I said "no". He then said "Because one of the Dogs was not micro chipped, that I could not prove he was indeed my Dog. He also said that the Dogs had already been Spay and Neuter. I said "I know. I had them spay, neuter, vaccinated, and chipped two weeks ago. He put me on hold for clarification from his staff. I then told me there would be a fee to reclaim "the Dogs" of $90 and would I be willing to pay the fees if they were able to get the Dogs Back. I told him that this issue needs to be resolved by 3PM today. |
| 5/13 1:00 | Spokane County Sheriff's office said this was a civil Issue. Hire a Lawyer. |
| 5/13 3:00 | No Call from Jim Fox |
| 5/13 3:10 | Called Dave Evans |
| 5/13 3:45 | Spoke w/ Julie at vet. Nothing was done to the dogs at the vet clinic other than examination. |
| 5/13 4:00 | Called Jim Fox who said the file has been turned over to their attorney and that the scum that has my dogs will not release them without a court order. Jim also mention that his attorney is aware of this and wants this issue resolved as pleasantly as possible and I received the impression that the humane society wants the dogs returned to me. |
| 5/14 12:45 | Hired Brant Stevens ATTN |
| 5/14 1:00 | Met with Travis Mayfield KXLY 4 for interview to be aired at 5PM |
| 5/14 5:00 | Story aired on KXLY Dog
Fight Involving Humane Society
Story aired at 6, 10, and 11 |
| 5/15 6:00a | Story aired again |
| 5/15 9:00a | Contacted office of Kenneth Ifferlis (Humane Society Attn.). Noted he would be out of town until Monday morning 5/19. |
| 5/19 2:15P | Kenneth Ifferlis returned call |
| 5/20 9:00a | Returned Call |
| 5/20 5:13p | No Call from Ifferlis. Called again |
|
Dog Fight Involving Humane
Society
|
|||
Two Yellow Labrador Retrievers, Tanna and Gilly, ran away at the beginning of May. They were found and turned into the Humane Society. The dogs had no collars but were scanned for implanted id chips. One chip was found which told staff what veterinarian had implanted it. Instead of calling that vet to find the owner, the two dogs were treated as strays and adopted out to another family. Bill McEwen, the original owner, wants his dogs back. However, the new owners say not without a court order. "Turn the dogs back in. There's a lot of wonderful dogs that people don't want that they can have. Those are my dogs," said Bill McEwen. The Humane Society tells News4 they want to do everything they can to
get these dogs back to their legal owner. Now the Society's lawyer is
involved in the dispute. |
|||
by  |
|||
5.04.060 Impounding of dogs--Notice of owner or keeper--Redemption--Fee.
(a) Takes, leads away, confines, secretes or converts any pet animal, except in cases in which the value of the pet animal exceeds two hundred fifty dollars;
(b) Conceals the identity of any pet animal or its owner by obscuring, altering, or removing from the pet animal any collar, tag, license, tattoo, or other identifying device or mark.
(c) Willfully or recklessly kills or injures any pet animal, unless excused by law.
(d) Nothing in this subsection or subsection (2) of this section shall prohibit a person from also being convicted of separate offenses under RCW 9A.56.030, 9A.56.040, or 9A.56.050 for theft or under RCW 9A.56.150, 9A.56.160, or 9A.56.170 for possession of stolen property.
(2)(a) It is unlawful for any person to receive with intent to sell to a research institution in the state of Washington, or sell or otherwise directly transfer to a research institution in the state of Washington, a pet animal that the person knows or has reason to know has been stolen or fraudulently obtained. This subsection does not apply to U.S.D.A. licensed dealers.
(b) The first conviction under (a) of this subsection is a gross misdemeanor and is punishable as prescribed under RCW 9A.20.021(2) and by a mandatory fine of not less than five hundred dollars per pet animal. A second or subsequent conviction under (a) of this subsection is a class C felony and is punishable as prescribed under RCW 9A.20.021(1)(c) and by a mandatory fine of not less than one thousand dollars per pet animal.
(3)(a) It is unlawful for any person, who knows or has reason to know that a pet animal has been stolen or fraudulently obtained, to sell or otherwise transfer the pet animal to another who the person knows or has reason to know has previously sold a stolen or fraudulently obtained pet animal to a research institution in the state of Washington.
(b) A conviction under (a) of this subsection is a class C felony and shall be punishable as prescribed under RCW 9A.20.021(1)(c) and by a mandatory fine of not less than one thousand dollars per pet animal.
(4)(a) It is unlawful for a U.S.D.A. licensed dealer to receive with intent to sell, or sell or transfer directly or through a third party, to a research institution in the state of Washington, a pet animal that the dealer knows or has reason to know has been stolen or fraudulently obtained.
(b) A conviction under (a) of this subsection is a class C felony and shall be punishable as prescribed under RCW 9A.20.021(1)(c) and by a mandatory fine of not less than one thousand dollars per pet animal.
(5) The sale, receipt, or transfer of each individual pet animal in violation of subsections (1), (2), (3), and (4) of this section constitutes a separate offense.
(6) The provisions of subsections (1), (2), (3), and (4) of this section shall not apply to the lawful acts of any employee, agent, or director of any humane society, animal control agency, or animal shelter operated by or on behalf of any government agency, operating under law.
Don Johnson, of Seattle, has collected $8,000 in final settlement of damages he won against Don Peters of Monroe, Washington, for promising to give his dog a good home for life but instead selling her to the University of Washington, where she died in a lung experiment. The Progressive Animal Welfare Society sued Peters on behalf of Johnson, winning a default judgment and a lien against Peters' home in 1991.
July 9 -- Be sensitive to Fluffy, or else. The Seattle Times reported in April that the owner of a small consignment clothing shop in the city's Wallingford neighborhood has been forced to pay more than $650 and undergo sensitivity training because she refused to let a woman bring her dog into the store. Last November, Chaya Amiad entered Sharon Kempler-Jones's Gypsy Trader shop with a small, shaggy dog on a leash and was told she had to leave it outside. "She became very upset," recalled the store owner, who said the rule made sense because dog dander and clean clothing don't mix. "She said, 'Well, this dog can go anywhere, and you are going to hear from my attorney.'" Sure enough, within days a letter arrived from the Seattle Office for Human Rights charging Kempler-Jones with denying a disabled person access to her business.
Disabled? Amiad wasn't deaf or blind, nor did she display any other visible handicap. Instead, it turned out that she was "emotionally dependent" on the dog. She even produced a note in which her psychologist assured the human rights office that the dog "has been privately trained to assist Ms. Amiad with cognitive disorientation and confusion" and that without this canine companionship "Ms. Amiad would probably become housebound and highly dependent." And that was enough for them to rule that Kempler-Jones had committed disability discrimination -- never mind that she had no way to know Amiad's psychiatric status at the time. She was ordered to pay a fine and submit to sensitivity training, one element of which presumably consisted of writing fifty times on a blackboard: if someone asking for special treatment claims to be disabled, better take their word for it.
A few years back the Wall Street Journal's editorialists
reported on a case where the San Diego Zoo was targeted with disability-bias
charges because it declined to let service dogs accompany visitors into exhibits
where the resident animals might by instinct become agitated upon seeing even a
well-behaved dog. The zoo had offered to provide individual human guides
instead, which didn't satisfy disabled-rights advocates. (The WSJ piece is
not online to nonsubscribers, but you can read disabled-rights
advocates' side of the story). An online
brochure from the Association of the Bar of the City of New York explains
that business owners "almost never" have the right to decide for
themselves whether to admit a service animal. It also mentions New York's
potential $50,000 fines (aside from lawsuit damages) for first violators, and
notes that when federal, state and local laws are in conflict, whichever is most
favorable to the disabled complainant prevails.
Bizzare Pet Theft Lawsuit Against Activists
Monday, April 1, 2002
In the early 1990s pet theft was a hot topic among animal rights activists, but it seems to have died down -- perhaps because animal rights activists themselves seem to be getting in on the act. Such is the case of a dog-napping in Portland, Oregon.
John Lindberg, an Oregon doctor, had been jogging with his dog in Portland last May. He leashed the dog to a post outside of a market for a few minutes, and when he emerged from the store his dog was gone. When the dog did not turn up, Lindberg assumed the dog was stolen.
Patti Webb works with the Boxer Rescue League and received a call from Kim Singer. Singer used to be a news anchor at a Portland station, and described to Webb a boxer she had come into possession of. Webb realized that the dog was the same boxer that Lindberg had reported stolen, and told Singer to take the dog to Animal Control.
Instead, Singer gave the dog to Samantha Miller who, like Singer and her friend Paige Powell (who apparently stole the dog in the first place), has a history of being involved in this sort of "pet rescue"/theft.
The dog had a history of stomach problems and when it began experiencing problems while with Miller, she took it to a vet. The vet told her the animal needed an operation. Since none of the three people involved in stealing and transferring the dog were willing to pay for the operation, the dog was euthanized.
Singer and Powell both denied to police that they had any involvement in the theft of the dog. But when Lindberg filed a lawsuit against them, the duo quickly changed their mind.
In March, Singer and Powell reached a settlement with Lindberg in which they each agreed to pay him $12,500 and agreed to stop making public statements that they had nothing to do with "events relating to the dog, Shaq."
More importantly, the settlement agreement calls for Singer and Powell to testify truthfully in any further civil lawsuit, and Lindberg's lawyer maintains he is preparing to file suit against Miller.
PETERSON, N.J.; MEBANE, N.C.––Firing three shots into a pit bull/ Labrador mix named Disciple, as the dog mauled Terrance Tate, 4, police officer Edwin Rodrieguez on June 9 accidentally hit Tarik Beach, 12, in the left leg with a richochetting bullet fragment.
Tate’s mother, Christchelle Tate, indicated to the Hackensack Record that Beach was the real hero, was already restraining Disciple before Rodrieguez fired, and that the gunplay menaced both boys more than the dog did. Disciple survived all three shots, but was euthanized later by a veterinarian.
Almost simultaneously, in Mebane, North Carolina, police sergeant Terance Caldwell, 33, fired three shots at an alleged pack of stray dogs. One shot hit Little League outfielder Nathaniel Tilley, 11, in the calf. Tilley, not seriously injured, was standing at the Mebane Arts and Community Center baseball diamond drinking fountain, a quarter of a mile away.
If Caldwell of Mebane had paid attention to North Carolina legal news, he might have held his fire, as on June 1 Kimberly Larsen, Wendy Frye, and Gilbert Wallace, all of High Point, North Carolina, sued the animal control officers who killed their dogs, in a potentially precedent-setting case. The Larsen and Frye dogs were shot on their own land in 1997. Wallace’s dog was shot in January 1999 while allegedly trying to return to his fenced yard after briefly escaping.
The lawsuit contends that the shootings involved unreasonable use of force and constituted an improper government taking of property, without a warrant and without due process. In addition to seeking more than $10,000 in damages, Larsen, Frye, and Wallace are reportedly asking the court to disarm the High Point animal control department.
The Tilley and Beach shootings were followed on June 26 by an incident in which two guards employed by Lagarda Security muzzled a stray pit bull with rope at the Royal Mobile Home Park in Flint, Michigan, after which one of the guards strangled the dog with his bare hands. Neighbor Jeff Wells photographed the guards in the act. The dog’s owner, Tammie McArthur, had posted numerous ads, taken out a newspaper ad, and called humane societies, trying to find him after he escaped from her yard about 24 hours before he was killed.
A similar incident in April 1995, in which guards from the Los Angeles-area security firm Westec shot a German shepherd named Bud, cost that firm a $30,000 out-of-court settlement.
Spontaneous dog killings by police have quadrupled since 1995, the Philadelphia Daily News reported on May 4, affirming ANIMAL PEOPLE findings published in January/February 1999. Statistics on dog killings by security guards are unavailable.
Once a routine part of animal control, especially in rural areas, spontaneous dog killings today are usually described as necessary to protect human life. However, even though life-threatening dog attacks and public concern about them are also up, the courts and public seem less and less inclined to accept such claims without question.
The U.S. District Court for Northern California on December 18, 1998 awarded James Fuller Jr. and Sr., of Richmond, California, $255,000 for civil rights violations committed by two Richmond police officers who shot their dog on September 3, 1991.
Just six weeks earlier, in November 1998, William Heinz lost his job as sheriff of Windsor County, Vermont, in an election hinging largely on how and why Heinz in April 1998 shot a dog belonging to Scott Jaynes and Annika Brown, of Peterborough, New Hampshire. Heinz in May 1999 reportedly settled a lawsuit brought by Jaynes and Brown by agreeing to donate an unspecified amount to a humane society, as well as reimbursing Jaynes and Brown for their court costs and the purchase price of the dog.
6.04.400 Impoundment--Return of purchased dog.
Any dog sold by the dog control division may be returned within thirty days after purchase in exchange for another dog which qualifies for sale, or a voucher good for one year. Such exchange shall be free of any further impoundment fee. (Ord. 306 § 7(F), 1985)
6.04.360 Impoundment--Unlicensed dog disposal.
Unless an unlicensed dog is redeemed, within three days after impoundment in a manner consistent with Section 6.04.390, the dog may be destroyed or sold in a manner consistent with Section 6.04.390. If such dog has been impounded because of the biting of a person, and does not have a vaccination which is valid for immunity against rabies at such time, such dog shall be kept in impoundment and quarantined for such period of time as necessary to observe said dog for the required ten-day quarantine period commencing after the biting of a person. (Ord. 394 § 2 Exh. A (part), 1991: Ord. 306 § 7(D)(1), 1985)
[1989 c 359 § 2; 1982 c 114 § 1.]
7308-02 Animal shelters or services, dog pounds and humane societies
Applies to establishments engaged in operating animal shelters/services, dog pounds, or humane societies which care for lost or unwanted animals or animals that have been placed for adoption. The title "animal services" has replaced the title "animal shelter" or "dog pound" in most establishments. While the activities are the same under all of these titles, the main difference is the funding. Animal services are tax-base funded; humane societies are privately funded. Activities include, but are not limited to, feeding, cleaning, or grooming animals, veterinary care, euthanasia, catching or controlling animals, and investigating incidents such as animal bites and animal abuse. This classification also applies to dog obedience classes that are not in connection with kennels or pet breeding establishments.
Definitions: (13) "Microchipping" means the implantation of an identification microchip or similar electronic identification device to establish the identity of an individual animal:
WAC 139-05-915
Requirements of training for law enforcement and corrections dog handlers and
certification of canine teams.
(1) Title and scope: These rules are intended to set minimum standards of
performance for the certification of canine teams that are used for law
enforcement or corrections purposes. This process is not related to nor does it
have any effect upon the requirements for peace officer certification. Nothing
in these rules is intended to limit the use of canine teams employed by other
state or federal agencies for law enforcement purposes, or the use of volunteer
canine teams where the handler is not a Washington peace officer or corrections
officer.
(2) For purposes of this section, the following definitions shall apply:
(a) "Dog handler" means any fully commissioned law enforcement officer
or corrections officer of a state, county, city, municipality, or combination
thereof, agency who is responsible for the routine care, control, and
utilization of a police dog within a law enforcement or corrections assignment;
and
(b) "Canine team" means a specific officer and a specific canine
controlled by that officer in the capacity of handler, formally assigned by the
employing agency to work together in the performance of law enforcement, or
corrections duties.
(c) "Training" means any structured classroom or practical learning
exercise conducted, evaluated, and documented by an experienced dog handler or
trainer, certified as an instructor with recognized expertise on canine subjects
associated with the development of the trainee's competency in the care,
control, and utilization of a police dog.
(d) "Evaluator" means a certified peace officer or corrections
officer, who has a minimum of three years experience as a canine handler and is
recognized as a trainer of canines by a professional organization of police
and/or corrections canine handlers/trainers or by the handler's employing
agency. The trainer must have trained a canine team in accordance with the
training requirements of WAC 139-05-915,
or be recognized by the commission as a certified instructor with expertise in
canine training of a specific police canine subject for the purpose of testing
and certifying canine handlers and dogs to work as a canine team.
(3) A dog handler shall, as a precondition of such assignment, successfully
complete the basic law enforcement academy program, or basic correction officer
academy or otherwise comply with the basic training requirement prescribed by
WAC 139-05-200
and 139-05-210
of the training commission.
(4) Prior to, or within the first six months of such assignment, a dog handler
shall successfully complete training according to the nature and purpose of
utilization of the police dog for which such handler is responsible.
(a) A dog handler who is responsible for the routine and regular utilization of
a police dog within general patrol or investigative activities, shall
successfully complete a minimum of four hundred hours of training which shall
include, but not be limited to:
(i) Philosophies/theories of police canine;
(ii) Legal and liability aspects, including applicable department policies;
(iii) Public relations;
(iv) Care and maintenance;
(v) Obedience and control;
(vi) Tracking;
(vii) Trailing;
(viii) Area searching;
(ix) Building searching;
(x) Evidence searching;
(xi) Pursuit/holding; and
(xii) Master protection.
(b) A dog handler who is responsible for the primary and specialized utilization
of a police dog in the search for and detection of specific substances,
excluding explosives, shall successfully complete a minimum of two hundred hours
of training which shall include, but not be limited to:
(i) Philosophies/theories of police canine;
(ii) Legal and liability aspects, including applicable department policies;
(iii) Public relations;
(iv) Care and maintenance;
(v) Obedience and control;
(vi) Area searching;
(vii) Building searching;
(viii) Evidence searching; and
(ix) Detection of specific substances.
(c) A dog handler who is responsible for the primary and specialized utilization
of a police dog in the search for and detection of explosive substances and
devices, shall successfully complete a minimum of two hundred hours of training
which shall include, but not be limited to:
(i) Philosophies/theories of police canine;
(ii) Legal and liability aspects, including applicable department policies;
(iii) Public relations;
(iv) Care and maintenance;
(v) Obedience and control;
(vi) Area searching;
(vii) Building searching;
(viii) Evidence searching; and
(iv) Detection of explosives.
(d) A dog handler who is responsible for the routine and regular utilization of
a police dog solely for self-protection and assistance in hostile or potentially
hostile situations, shall successfully complete at least one hundred eighty
hours of training which shall include, but not be limited to:
(i) Philosophies/theories of police canine;
(ii) Legal and liability aspects, including applicable department policies;
(iii) Public relations;
(iv) Care and maintenance;
(v) Obedience and control;
(vi) Pursuit/holding; and
(vii) Master protection.
(5) The commission shall develop and adopt a minimum performance standard for
canine teams performing specific law enforcement or corrections functions. It
shall be the handler's responsibility to keep their canines under control at all
times. Each handler must be able to make his/her canine perform to a level that
is deemed acceptable by the commission in the category for the team's intended
use as a condition of certification.
(6) Certification of canine teams:
(a) The handler and the canine will be considered as a team and it is the team
who will be certified. If the canine changes handlers, a new team exists and the
team will need to be certified.
(b) A dog handler may not use a canine for police purposes unless the handler is
certified to handle a specific canine for a specific purpose.
(c) In evaluating the proficiency of the canine team, the evaluators shall use
the standards approved by the commission for that particular skill category.
Performance shall be rated on a pass/fail basis. The evaluator shall have the
discretion to discontinue the testing if excessive time has been spent without
results, or if there is a concern about safety issues involving the canine,
handler, or equipment.
(d) The commission shall certify a canine team who can successfully show
proficiency, under scrutiny of a canine evaluator, in one or more of the
following areas of patrol and investigation/or detection.
(i) Patrol and investigation:
(A) Obedience;
(B) Protection and control;
(C) Area search;
(D) Building search; and
(E) Tracking.
(ii) Detection:
(A) Buildings;
(B) Vehicles;
(C) Exterior search;
(D) Obedience; and
(E) Building search.
(iii) Expiration of certification: Each certification issued pursuant to these
rules shall remain valid as long as the canine team does not change. A canine
team's certification shall lapse if the specific handler and canine originally
paired at the time of certification, cease to perform canine team functions
together. It is recommended that teams recertify on an annual basis.
(iv) Failure to pass certification: If the canine team fails any phase of an
evaluation, he/she must be reevaluated in that particular phase.
(v) Appeal: Any handler who believes there have been improper procedures applied
in the testing process, may file an appeal with the commission in writing. This
appeal must be filed within thirty days of the testing date pursuant to WAC 139-03-020.
(7) Agency required to keep records:
(a) Each agency shall keep training and performance records on canines. The
records must stay with the agency responsible for the canine team. The records
shall be made available for review in the event that the canine is sold or
transferred to another agency. The records shall include, at a minimum, but not
be limited to:
(i) Microchip number;
(ii) Canine's name;
(iii) Breed;
(iv) Training received;
(v) Certification date;
(vi) Date acquired or purchased;
(vii) Source from which the canine was acquired;
(viii) Purpose, use, or assignment of canine;
(ix) Handler's name;
(x) The date and reason canine was released from service; and
(xi) Copies of all incident reports in which use of the canine resulted in use
of force.
(b) These records shall be retained for a period of one year from the date the
canine is removed from active service unless a longer retention is required by
statute or local ordinance.
(c) It shall be the responsibility of the handler to advise his/her employing
agency of the fact that he/she has met the standards for canine certification.
The proof of certification with the evaluator's signature along with a request
for canine certification shall be submitted to the commission by the employing
agency. This shall be considered as a request for certification. Upon
verification that the minimum requirements have been met, the commission shall
issue a certificate of certification to the canine team.
(8) Canine recommended to be microchipped:
(a) It is recommended that a canine intended to be used by a law enforcement or
corrections agency, be positively identified by having a microchip
inserted in the canine. Any canine that is sold by a vendor to a Washington
state governmental agency for use as a law enforcement or corrections canine
should be able to be identified by microchip
placed in the canine at the vendor's expense prior to the canine being sold to
the law enforcement or corrections agency.
(b) Once the microchip
has been inserted, it is recommended that it not be removed except for medical
necessity. If it becomes necessary to remove the microchip,
the reason for the removal must be documented and entered into the dog's
training records, and a new microchip
inserted if medically appropriate.
[Statutory Authority: RCW 43.101.080. 03-07-100, § 139-05-915, filed 3/19/03, effective 4/19/03; 00-17-017, § 139-05-915, filed 8/4/00, effective 9/4/00. Statutory Authority: RCW 43.101.080(2). 86-19-021 (Order 1-B), § 139-05-915, filed 9/10/86.]
RCW 16.57.405
Microchip in a horse -- Removal
with intent to defraud -- Gross misdemeanor.
A person who removes or causes to be removed a microchip
implanted in a horse, or who removes or causes to be removed a microchip
from one horse and implants or causes it to be implanted in another horse, with
the intent to defraud a subsequent purchaser, is guilty of a gross misdemeanor.
[1996 c 105 § 2.]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
December 10
The Atlanta Humane Society is a quasi-governmental entity and therefore cannot file libel suits, according to a ruling filed today in Gwinnett Superior Court.
Judge William Ray also found that AHS executive director Bill Garrett is a public figure, making his case much more difficult to prove.
The ruling is a major victory for Ferrari, who was sued by the AHS and Garrett jointly for $75,000 last December when she referred to Garrett as "Mr. Kill" in an Internet e-mail group.
Because governmental entities are prohibited by law from filing defamation suits, Judge Ray dismissed the humane society from the suit.
"The question for this Court appears to be a question of first impression under Georgia law; that is, should the prohibition on a government entity suing for defamation extend to a private, non-profit entity that through a contract performs essential and core governmental functions; that is, animal control, animal shelter operations, and enforcement of the ordinances related thereto.
"This Court is persuaded that such a bar should and does exist under Georgia law. Plaintiff Atlanta Humane Society receives in excess of $2,000,000.00 annually in public funds from Fulton County to carry out the County's animal control functions ... Indeed, as the Contract between Atlanta Humane Society and Fulton County so clearly and plainly sets forth, Fulton County has even deputized employees of Atlanta Humane Society to assist in carrying out these laws and enforcing governmental regulations.
"If Plaintiff Atlanta Humane Society were not subject to the same types of criticism that governmental entities would be subject to in the performance of these functions, it would frustrate the ability of the general public to complain and otherwise effectuate necessary and desirable change when those services fall below standards which the public demands," Judge Ray wrote.
The suit remains active with Garrett as the sole plaintiff, but today's ruling that he is a public figure means he must prove Ferrari made her statements with actual malice, as required by the landmark Times v. Sullivan case.
Ferrari is thrilled with the decision.
"I have ripped away the veil of secrecy the Atlanta Humane Society has been hiding behind," Ferrari said.
"Although the Atlanta Humane Society is a law enforcement and tax collection arm of Fulton County government, they claim to be a private entity, hiding their records from the public, refusing to comply with open records requests and filing vicious illegal lawsuits," Ferrari said.
"The Court saw through their lies. The Atlanta Humane Society broke the law when they sued me."
Both sides can appeal the decision. If they choose not to appeal, or their appeals are denied, the case will proceed to trial.
"Garrett himself admitted that the humane society has lost $250,000 as a result of this lawsuit, yet he continues to waste tens of thousands of humane society dollars that were donated for the animals, not judicial abuse," Ferrari said.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
