| They took these 8 puppies, plus my daughters 3 pit bulls and a rabbit and all my files on the dog business for the last 20 years.
Plus the 71 dogs they took on May 2, 2007. ************************************************************************ 56. 828.42 f.s. Score: 87.9% Abstract: (1) A person who intentionally causes physical disruption to the property, personnel, or operations of an animal enterprise by intentionally stealing, damaging, or causing the loss of, any property, including animals or records, used by the animal enterprise, and thereby causes economic damage, commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. (3) A person who violates subsection (1), if such violation results in economic damage exceeding $10,000, commits a felony of the ... ************************************************************************ Who's going to enforce this statute? They just keep up the perjury, extortion and who is going to stop this happening to everyone. Getting fraud search warrants which violate our 4th right amendment. *********************************************************************** [49] These cases confirm, we believe, the conclusion that dogs merit protection under the Fourth Amendment. The common law personal property rights that attached to dogs were at least as strong as those that have been held sufficient by the Court to qualify other objects as"effects" entitled to Fourth Amendment protection. For example, the common law property interest in dogs was certainly as great as the possessory interest a person has been held by the Court to enjoy today in illegal narcotics. See Jacobsen, 466 U.S. at 124-25 (concluding that destruction by officer of trace amount of cocaine for testing purposes"affect[ed] respondents' possessory interest protected by the [Fourth] Amendment" and thereby constituted a seizure). And, of course, that there may be no privacy interest in dogs is no bar to their treatment as effects, since Soldal explains that such an interest is not an eligibility requirement for Fourth Amendment protection. *fn8 [51] That dogs are, for Fourth Amendment purposes,"effects" under the analysis employed in the Supreme Court cases surveyed above is consistent with the fact that, as the common and statutory law in the states has developed, dogs have come to be recognized as property even under state law. While not recognized at the federal level for some time, early in the nineteenth century dogs began to gain status under state property laws, often by virtue of statutory enactment but also through the evolution of the common law. So it was that in New York, the Court of Appeals held in the 1881 case of Mullaly v. New York that the old common-law rule that there could be no larceny of a dog had been changed by legislation. See Mullaly, 86 N.Y. at 368. The Court of Appeals reasoned that"[t]he artificial reasoning upon which these [old common-law] rules were based are wholly inapplicable to modern society.... Large amounts of money are now invested in dogs and they are largely the subject of trade and traffic. In many ways they are put to useful service, and so far as pertains to their ownership as personal property, they possess all the attributes of other personal property." Id. at 367-68. Of particular note, the Court of Appeals in Mullaly concluded that dogs were"personal property," which was defined in New York as"' goods, chattels, effects, evidences of rights of action,' and certain written instruments." Id. at 368 (emphasis added). By 1898, the Supreme Court of Tennessee could confidently state that the old common-law rules denying treatment as property to dogs had been abandoned and that"dogs have now a distinct and well-established status in the eyes of the law." Dew, 45 S.W. at 791. Amendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. ************************************************************************ ?You have a 42 USC 1983 case – violation of your civil rights. You cannot be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process. Find out the due process for taking your property, and then sue if they violated it. When you get to court you can demand that the US Circuit Court or Attorney General certify the constitutionality of the law that allows animal control to steal your animals without a show of probable cause and oath or affidavit attesting to it or a court order. If the animals were in imminent danger of injury, maybe they have probable cause but they have to swear to it, and if not, they should not take them, even if they get a complaint about your treatment of the animals. |
| ALMAS STORY |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| Eric in court today for Cindy. LORETTA MAGEE GOT WRITTEN UP For
denying Cindy her civil rights. That was the 2nd time. One more time and she's fired. Keep tuned. More Coming. Lots more I hope. According to the County Clerk, everything was in order for the appeals court. |
| ALMA,
THAT'S GREAT!!! GIVE US YOUR CASE NUMBER SO ALICE HOLT'S ATTORNEY CAN REVIEW YOUR CASE FOR LORETTA MAGEE'S VIOLATING CINDY'S CIVIL RIGHTS. THANKS, LISHA HOLT |
| GO GIRL, WERE GOING TO KICK AZZ! |
| Whats the matter with that Vern? I have definitely a fraudulent search warrant
and also perjury of Animal services to the judge that there were no animals on the property when they came with the search warrant. And have a receipt for what they took. This is good evidence to start a case. I am going to call the F.B.I. Tomarrow and find out what I can do. Also going to contact some lawyers to see what they can do about this. It is surely a sure winning case. And this is just the beginning. |
| Eric took the search warrant over to the sheriff's dept. yesterday
and they looked it over and said there was something defiantly wrong with it to take it to a lawyer. He suppose to do that today and also checking with the Fed. court to start litigation. He is so upset because he went to animal control yesterday and had a big argument with. L.Magee and Armstong (the extortionists big time) Cindy has to go to court. Eric got power of attorney for her and he is going down there for her because A.C. said this is the 3rd citation she got. which is another lie. He called her a lying bitch. So she said she would see him in court. He said , You sure will. He is so mad about all this. He does more for me then my own kids. My 2 older sons, ignore me completely, jus as if I didn't exist. Maybe with someone younger who will keep on fighting, we will have a chance at something. I was 77 when they started this S??T. So they probably thought by then I didn't have the brains to fight them and wouldn't live long enough to do so. Well I got news for them, I'm going to live to be at least 100 and you have to do the same thing. Keep fighting them. |
| I know Why dogs pant. That is why I pointed out that the dog they took was
hot. None were hot out on my balcony because they didn't pant. Just made up lies so they could come out with search warrant telling judge the dogs were in danger of heat stroke. Never had a dog have heat stroke all my life. Just more evidence that they were lying. Hope things are going right with you today. Just got back from getting blood tests.thats the thing, we all get severe depression/post tramatic over it, health conditions, heart attacks and even death. this is bullshit Alma.SU THEM FOR THAT TOO.PLUS THEY STEAL YOUR LIVELYHOOD TO SURVIVE.BECAUSE THESE MAGETS CANT GET A SECOND JOB,TO SECURE THEIR OWN LIVES, |
| ALMA,WHEN A DOG IS PANTING...IT DOESN’T MEAN THEY ARE HOT OR THIRSTY. WHEN THEIR DOING IS VENTALATING THE TEMPERATURE THROUGH THEIR TONGUES. SO IF ITS OUT, THEY WILL PANT MORE. BUT THEIR BODY TEMP IS AT A NORMAL STATE.
REGULATING BODY TEMP. NOTICE THAT WHEN A ANIMAL PANTS,THERE NOT RUNNING TO WATER BECAUSE OF THIRST.LOOKINGTHRUWOLFSEYES |
| More discovery, please put this in Alma's file. Thanks
Have better picture in file. ( Notice the Boston, they picked up From us on May 2, 2007. There reason they told us, they were taking them was because the dogs were too hot out on the balcony at our house. I never have seen any panting and none were panting on the day they took them. Notice the Boston and the other dog are both panting. Can’t see the end of nose on the 3rd one, so can’t tell if he was panting or not. They look like they are really in the direct sun, which Mine were not. They had roofs over runs and dog houses to get into. (A.L.O.) Investigating the investigators ,WE DAMN SURE ARE! Updated: Tuesday, 08 May 2007, 11:22 AM EDT Published : Tuesday, 08 May 2007, 11:22 AM EDT TAMPA - On any given day, Hillsborough County Animal Services is overwhelmed by dozens of pets and strays. They are processed, entered into a computer, placed in cages, and hopefully put up for adoption. But it doesn't always work so well. "I'm ashamed to have to say we have the highest euthanasia rate in the state," said director Bill Armstrong. About 80 percent of the animals brought into the shelter are put down, compared with 70 percent nationwide.these employees are totally insanely sick. It's one of many critiques in a new report by the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals ."The number one area [Animal Services] certainly knew needed to be addressed was shelter management, disease control and isolation," said ASPCA national president Ed Sayres .The non-profit advocacy group says tens of thousands of animals wouldn't have to die in the Hillsborough shelter if proper procedures are implemented. The conclusion of the report is that major changes are needed. Among other findings, the ASPCA says the county facility lacks basic sanitation procedures to avoid cross-contamination. They also say animal feces are not properly removed to prevent disease. And one of the biggest problems: An unreasonable number of pets do not get adopted in a timely manner. "I agree that most of findings in here and observations they saw are probably correct," Armstrong said. "There are very few surprises in here that we didn't know about." in fact, animal services asked the ASPCA to come in and evaluate their shelter so they could figure out ways to improve and increase adoptions. But some of the criticism in the 52-page report hit hard. "I think a lot of my staff were hurt because they work very hard, and they work very hard to do the best job," Armstrong offered. The ASPCA is giving Animal Services a $600,000 grant over three years to make changes, and they are also providing experts on the ground for guidance. Both the ASPCA and Animal Services emphasize that this is not just the shelter's problem -- more people need to adopt the animals. In the wake of the report, and some community concern, Animal Services plans to do is hold an open house on May 10, 15, 18, and 29, so the public can come and take a look at the shelter. They also welcome volunteers. Anyone interested in a tour, or volunteering, can call (813) 744-5660. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lookingthruwolfseyes" group. To post to this group, send email to lookingthruwolfseyes@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lookingthruwolfseyes+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lookingthruwolfseyes?hl=en |
 |
| CALL CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT, AND TELL THEM YOU WANT EMPLOYMENT RECORDS OF THE OFFICERS IN QUESTION. YOU WILL HAVE 10 MINUTES TO GO THERE, COPY FILKES AS FAST AS YOU CAN, GET THE DIRT THEY HAVE OIN THESE EMPLOYEES. CALL INTERNAL AFFAIRS MAKE COMPLAINTS AGAINST OFFICERS. DONT GIVE UP. I HAVE SEVERAL CASES WITH THE SAME BULLSHIT THEY'VE PULLED ON IT. HURTING INNOCENT CITISENS JUST TO ROB THEM BLIND. I WILL BE WORKING ON THE LAWS AND STATUE PAGE.ILL BE ADDING YOUR PHOTOS TO THESE PAGES, TO SHOW THE TRUE PICTURE OF WHATS GOING ON.ILL MAKE SURE EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THESE MAGETS ,MAGET MAGEE WILL BE PUT BEHIND BARS FOR ALONG AZZ TIME. WATCH ME.I'M SICK OF ANMIMAL THEFT WITH GOV OFFICIALS. THEY ABUSE AND KILL INNOCENT ANIMALS, NOT ONLY DESTROYING THEIR LIVES BUT OUR CHILDRENS LIVES AND DESTROYING THE ELDERLY.TYHATS SICK. BY LAW THEY HAVE TO PAY FINES,DAMNAGES,GET MENTAL HELP. |
 |
   |
 |
|
 |
 |
| WOLFEYES MEANS SEEKER OF TRUTH |
| >>>Lookingthruwolfseyes<<< |
| ALMA, HOW ARE THEY GETTING AWAY WITH SUCH LIE'S. THEM SAYING THEY DIDN'T TAKE ANY ANIMAL'S AND HERE IT STATES THEY DID.THAT’S INSANE.,THESE PEOPLE REALLY HAVE HUGE ISSUES MENTALLY. I REALLY THINK THEY NEED MEDICAL HELP.NOW. |
 |
| This is all in the appeal that I have in the appealate court with 3 judges. Lets see what they come up with on this matter. ??? Just one of many instances of perjury by judge and H.C.A.S. |
| SEARCH WARRANT
An official order authorizing a search of someone's home or other location. The controlling principles governing search warrants are generally provided by the U.S. Constitution's Fourth Amendment. The procedure for obtaining a search warrant involves an ex parte presentation to the magistrate of an affidavit by the law enforcement officer seeking the warrant and requesting the magistrate to issue the warrant based on "'the probability, and not a prima facie showing, of criminal activity . . . .' " Illinois v. Gates (1983) 462 U.S. 213, 235; People v. Von Villas (1992) 11 Cal.App.4th 175, 217 ["To establish probable cause, one must show a probability of criminal activity; a prima facie showing is not required."] "knock and announce" requirement of 18 U.S.C. section 3109 Under 18 U.S.C. section 3109, an officer is permitted to "break open any outer or inner door of a house . . . to execute a search warrant," but only if "after notice of his authority and purpose," he is refused admittance. There are three interests that the "knock and announce" requirement of section 3109 is intended to serve. This requirement (1) reduces the potential for violence to both police officers and the occupants of the house into which entry is sought (safety interest); (2) guards against the needless destruction of private property (property interest); and (3) symbolizes respect for individual privacy (privacy interest). Id. at 588. A defendant has standing to challenge the legality of a search on Fourth Amendment grounds only if he has a "legitimate expectation of privacy" in the place searched. Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128, 148 (1978). The defendant bears the burden of establishing his legitimate expectation of privacy. Rawlings v. Kentucky, 448 U.S. 98, 104 (1980). A mere possessory interest in the item seized does not by itself confer standing to challenge the search of the place in which the item was found. Legal "possession of a seized good [is not] a substitute for a factual finding that the owner of the good had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the area searched." United States v. Salvucci, 448 U.S. 83, 92 (1980). Thus, there is no standing simply because someone was charged with a possessory crime. A warrant requiring the officer to whom it is addressed, to search a house or other place therein specified, for property therein alleged to have been stolen; and if the same shall be found upon such search, to bring the goods so found, together with the body of the person occupying the same, who is named, before the justice or other officer granting the warrant, or some other justice of the peace, or other lawfully authorized officer. It should be given under the hand and seal of the justice, and dated. The Constitution of the United States, Amendment IV, declares that "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated; and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the person or things to be seized." Lord Hale recommends great caution in granting such warrants. 1. That they be, not granted without oath made before a justice of a felony committed, and that the complainant has probable cause to suspect they are in such a house or place, and his reasons for such suspicion. 2. That such warrants express that the search shall be made in day time. 3. That they ought to be directed to a constable or other proper officer, and not to a private person. 4. A search warrant ought to command the officer to bring the stolen goods and the person in whose custody they are, before some justice of the peace. --b-- |
| The detective emailed me and said I should check with the sheriffs office about the search warrant. They couldn't tell me any thing but to call Animal Services who made out the search warrant.
I called the state attorney, told me the same thing. I called the county clerk, told me the same thing. Thats great they can make out their own search warrants and they are the only ones that have the information on it. I also called the judge who signed the search warrant, they don't know anything. What kind of deal is this?? That makes it real easy for them to steal animals. I don't know what else to do. It's bugging me because they lied and said there were no animals here when they came with the search warrant. I have the receipt where they took 8 of my puppies, Cindys 3 Pit Bulls and all My paper work. If I could just get the evidence that it is a false search warrant, we would have them real good. Deep down, I feel that the search warrant is false. Get with your friend Vern, we have to do something about this. |
| THEIR USING FAKE SEARCH WARRENTS |
| HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY |
| A.C.MC GEE'S BEEN FIRED! COUNTY ATTY IN HILLSBOUGHS BEEN FIRED! I WONT STOP TILL ALL BEHIND BARS! ALMAS SUING THE COUNTY AND TAKING IT TO FEDERAL COURTS.MEAN WHILE ALL HER CHILDREN AND GRAND CHILDREN SUFFER THE LOSS.ONE GRAND CHILD OF 3 YRS OLD STOPPED TALKING IN RESULTS OF THE RAID.HER LAST WORDS WERE GRAND MA GRANDMA,AS ALMA WAS HAVING A PANIC ATTACK/NERVOUS BREAK DOWN A.C. RIPPING A PUPPY OUT OF HER ARMS.THAT CHILD IS ABOUT 6 NEAR 7 STILL CAN'T TALK.SPEACH THEROPIST.IM TELLING EVERY ONE TO SU, AND GO HIGHER.THEY VIOLATE 4,5, AND 14 AMENDMENT OF YOUR CIVIL RIGHTS,FAILED DU PROCESS,COLOR OF LAW. |
 |
 |
 |