Telegraph:
The Asylum and Immigration Tribunal ruled that sending the Bolivian man back to his homeland would breach his human rights because he was entitled to a “private and family life”, and joint ownership of a pet was evidence that he was fully settled in this country. …
The Bolivian’s identity has not been disclosed and even the name of the pet cat was blanked out in official court papers to protect its privacy.
Delivering her decision on the case, which is thought to have cost the taxpayer several thousand pounds, Judith Gleeson, a senior immigration judge, joked in the official written ruling that the cat “need no longer fear having to adapt to Bolivian mice”. …
More: Rougblog (”We are all familiar with the term “anchor baby,” but the “anchor cat” is a new concept for me.”)
Tagged as:
animal rights,
animals,
immigration law,
privacy,
United Kingdom
Speaking of renowned Chicago law professors with reputations that cut across ideological lines: “Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) has blocked President Obama’s candidate for regulation czar, Harvard law professor Cass Sunstein, because Sunstein has argued that animals should have the right to sue humans in court.” [The Hill; mostly favorable coverage of Sunstein's nomination and views at my other site, Point of Law].
Tagged as:
animal rights,
Cass Sunstein
- New court allegations that disgraced Luzerne County, Pa. judges fixed civil cases as well [Legal Intelligencer; earlier here and here]
- Half-hopeful, half-sad story of Florida town’s efforts to live down “Nub City” insurance-fraud notoriety [St. Petersburg Times a while back, but new to me; Errol Morris film; my review of Ken Dornstein's book]
- Evidence continues to roll in against once-touted theory that bans on smoking in public places result in dramatic overnight drop in heart attack rates [Sullum, Reason "Hit and Run", earlier here and here]
- Maybe everyone’s too used to such things by now to get riled up by that pic of garishly painted “1-800-LAWYERS” van [Ron Miller; earlier]
- Magazines often found on scene at law enforcement raids = guilty magazines that should be banned from mails? [McClatchy "Suits and Sentences" blog; earlier on cockfighting periodicals Apr. 24, etc.]
- Lawprofs: Let’s carve bigger religious-conscience exemptions into antibias laws [Robin Wilson, L.A. Times; Dale Carpenter series at Volokh; Ira Lupu, ConcurOp via Orin Kerr]
- UK: “Parents sue NHS over ‘wrongful birth’ of disabled son” [Times Online, our earlier coverage of concept]
- Throw bloggers in prison because their posts cause emotional distress? Have fifteen members of Congress gone completely mad? [David Kravets, Wired "Threat Level", earlier]
Tagged as:
animal rights,
bloggers and the law,
discrimination law,
Florida,
free speech,
insurance fraud,
Luzerne County judicial scandal,
same-sex marriage,
smoking bans,
wrongful birth and wrongful life
The Supreme Court “has agreed to consider whether a law barring videotapes and other depictions of animal cruelty violates the First Amendment.” The law could result in criminal charges being filed over, say, videos of bullfights or cockfights taken in nations where those practices are perfectly lawful, or taken in U.S. states where until recently various forms of animal fighting were lawful. The Third Circuit ruled it an unconstitutional infringement on free speech. [ABA Journal, Lyle Denniston/SCOTUSBlog, Adler @ Volokh; earlier] Nearly ten years ago (yes, believe it or not, this blog will turn 10 as of the first of July) we covered the original federal legislation, and visitors still arrive regularly at this site after searching on the term “crush videos”.
As we noted in a 2006 post, litigators for the Humane Society of the U.S. have been trying to force the U.S. Postal Service to ban the use of the mails by animal-fighting magazines like The Feathered Warrior. Now, according to an HSUS release, they have gotten a judge to order the USPS to reconsider its non-censorship policy. [Rebecca Baker, "Completely Legal" Gannett Westchester legal blog, Apr. 23]
Tagged as:
animal rights,
crime and punishment,
free speech,
Supreme Court
- Those enviro-hazard warnings plastered all over because of Prop 65? They may be not merely pointless but untrue [California Civil Justice; a still-timely 2000 piece]
- Is it somehow wrong for a public medical examiner to testify against cops — even when it’s in another county? [Radley Balko, Reason]
- UCLA research scientists fight back against animal rights fanatics’ violence and intimidation [Orac/Respectful Insolence, "Pro-Test"]
- Ezra Levant, himself a target of Canada’s official speech tribunals, has written a new book denouncing them, buy before they ban it [Amazon; Andrew Coyne, Maclean's] Has odious censorship-complaint-filer Richard Warman finally gotten his comeuppance? [Ken @ Popehat] More: another Warman case [Cit Media Law]
- Roundup of recent sports/assumption of risk cases [John Hochfelder]
- Already in trouble on charges of faking a will, Allentown, Pa. police-brutality attorney John Karoly now faces tax charges including alleged failure to report $5 million in income for 2002, 2004 and 2005 [TaxGirl]
- Lawprof’s “Reparations, Reconciliation and Restorative Justice” seminar led to introduction of Maryland bill requiring insurers to disclose antebellum slaveholder policies [DelmarvaNow]
- Judge tosses suit by Clarksville, Tennessee officials against activists who called them cozy with developers [Sullum, Reason "Hit and Run"]
Tagged as:
animal rights,
assumption of risk,
California,
expert witnesses,
free speech in Canada,
insurers,
Maryland,
Prop 65,
reparations,
Richard Warman,
sports,
Tennessee
- Elena Kagan’s changing views of Senate confirmation process: “Lobster in Pot Re-Evaluates Pro-Boiling Stance” [Spruiell, NR "Corner"]
- “Federal Courts React to Tide of Pro Se Litigants” [NLJ]
- We get permalinks in nice places including a prominent Dutch business paper [NRC Handelsblad]
- Someone who needs research done should snap up Kathleen Seidel, model practitioner of citizen journalism on autism-vaccine fray [Neurodiversity] When she got a call from a charity telemarketer recently, she began checking them out online. Results? Devastating. [Neurodiversity, Popehat]
- How far does Britain’s new animal welfare law go? Does it really cover little Nicholas’s pet cricket? [Never Yet Melted]
- Constitutionalizing judicial ethics: Caperton v. Massey case before Supreme Court is a bit more complicated than you’d think from the NYT editorial [Point of Law]
- If you’re not in favor of government cracking down on what is said in online forums, are you “trivializing women’s harms”? [Danielle Citron/ConcurOp, Scott Greenfield] On the other hand, it doesn’t take a commitment to feminism to note that there are online bullies and they’re a nasty, overwhelmingly male lot [Popehat, language]
- Attorney walks away from a whole bunch of cases after accusation he bribed a Royal Caribbean Cruise Line employee, and his troubles may not be over yet [Florida Daily Business Review]
Tagged as:
animal rights,
Kathleen Seidel subpoena,
Netherlands,
online speech,
pro se
“The [New Jersey appellate] panel declined to adopt a best-interests-of-the-pet standard as urged by amici in the case.” Judge Jane Grall wrote that in the absence of legally cognizable abuse or neglect to an animal, there might not be “judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving questions of possession from the perspective of a pet”. [New Jersey Law Journal]
Tagged as:
animal rights,
family law,
New Jersey
“After more than eight years of litigation, lawyers for Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus will appear in federal court this week to square off against a handful of animal welfare organizations that have filed suit against the circus alleging that it routinely violates federal law by abusing its elephants. The case is a major test for the reach of the Endangered Species Act, which for the first time is being used by private citizens to try to influence the care of animals already in captivity.” If the complainants, led by the ASPCA (American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals), succeed in the creative effort to reshape the Endangered Species Act into a federal animal welfare statute, lawsuits in other areas are likely to follow [Legal Times]
Tagged as:
animal rights,
endangered species,
SPCA
by SSFC on December 29, 2008
Ex-jailhouse inmate Thomas Goodrich has filed a pro se federal suit against the Delaware Department of Corrections and the former warden of Young Correctional Institute seeking redress for the death of “Freddy,” a valuable parrot. In his complaint, Goodrich alleges that he was held for 12 days on a misdemeanor warrant without being allowed to contact anyone to arrange for Freddy’s feeding. Young seeks damages for the value of the parrot itself, as well as punitive damages against all defendants. It is unknown whether People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals will seek to intervene in the suit, but a PETA representative has expressed strong displeasure over Freddy’s death, suggesting that perhaps jail would be appropriate for officials who allegedly caused the bird’s demise.
While it’s always a good idea to view allegations in lawsuits, particularly pro se suits, with skepticism, Goodrich’s complaint does allege a Kafkaesque ordeal over a minor warrant, in which Goodrich was not allowed to use a telephone, or to contact an attorney, or to contact family members to arrange security of $200. Finally, Goodrich alleges, he was able to get in touch with the outside world when after 10 days some friendly person gave him a postage stamp.
Unfortunately, by that time Freddy was an ex-parrot.
Tagged as:
animal rights,
prisoners,
pro se
That whole “sober, sensible Switzerland” concept may need to be rethought. (Gautam Naik, “Switzerland’s Green Power Revolution: Ethicists Ponder Plants’ Rights”, Wall Street Journal, Oct. 10).
Tagged as:
animal rights,
Switzerland
Visit the vet, or else? “A cat owner who did not seek treatment for his pet’s serious ailments during the cat’s last year of life can be charged with animal cruelty, a Manhattan judge has ruled. Allegations that the defendant left a ’swollen and bleeding’ paw and other conditions untreated ’sufficiently demonstrate that the animal was subjected to unjustifiable physical pain,’ Criminal Court Judge ShawnDya L. Simpson wrote. The owner allegedly admitted that he had owned the cat for 15 years and never took him to the veterinarian.” (Noeleen G. Walder, New York Law Journal, Mar. 24).
Tagged as:
animal rights,
animals
