Newark Update - or a man in a three piece suit, silk tie, two tone wing tips, and a fedora makes an "offer you can't refuse"

I promised to re-post on Newark.  Here is more.  This was posted April 11, 2015.   


I was sure that I was done talking about Newark's pit bull advocates but new developments bring me right back here.

When we left Steffen Baldwin, of Marysville Ohio he was negotiating with Best Friends Animal Society of Kanab Utah, looking for hints from a Best Friends lawyer living Massachusetts on how to change law in Newark Ohio.  You may wonder why individuals and organizations with such divergent addresses might trouble themselves about a lawful and thoughtful decision by elected Newark City Council members.  Good question.  Newark Ohio has a population of 47,573 per the last census making it the 20th largest city in the state of Ohio. This is not a huge metropolis, why the hysteria surrounding Newark Ohio?  Mr. Baldwin, as we saw in the last post, has also lobbied in St Marys Ohio (population 8332) after the St Marys City Council voted for a breed ban. Why the hysteria over small towns in Ohio?   Here is my suspicion, dealing with pit bull advocacy is very much like dealing with organized crime. Saying "no" is simply unacceptable.  The man in the three piece suit and fedora turns up with the "offer you can't refuse."  Best Friends is unable to let it go and has posted this Action Alert.  Best Friends wants pit bull advocates from all over the world to send messages of complaint to the Newark City Council.  "Now it's time to let our voices be heard and to send a clear message to these council members that discrimination is wrong for Newark, and it's wrong for Ohio."
Best Friends has made it easy, the system is fully automated for ease in attempted intimidation .

Here are some interesting facts.  In addition to Newark Ohio, Wauseon Ohio and St Marys Ohio have said no to pit bull advocates this year. Reynoldsburg Ohio, Bexley Ohio and Parma Ohio said no in 2014. Cincinnati pit bull advocates crossed state lines in 2014 to bully Ft. Thomas Kentucky.  Ft. Thomas said no to them.   So far in 2015 Best Friends has pushed anti BSL bills in Arizona, Washington State (foreshadowing here with Washington State), Montana, Kentucky and Georgia and lost in every one of these states.  State lawmakers are hearing from their actual constituents concerned about loss of home rule rights.  Despite the brags from professional pit bull advocates their recent legal record is poor. 

Here are some interesting facts.  In addition to Newark Ohio, Wauseon Ohio and St Marys Ohio have said no to pit bull advocates this year. Reynoldsburg Ohio, Bexley Ohio and Parma Ohio said no in 2014. Cincinnati pit bull advocates crossed state lines in 2014 to bully Ft. Thomas Kentucky.  Ft. Thomas said no to them.   So far in 2015 Best Friends has pushed anti BSL bills in Arizona, Washington State (foreshadowing here with Washington State), Montana, Kentucky and Georgia and lost in every one of these states.  State lawmakers are hearing from their actual constituents concerned about loss of home rule rights.  Despite the brags from professional pit bull advocates their recent legal record is poor.

The phenomenon of out-of-state interference in local control of dangerous dogs is not limited to Ohio.  A recent article from the Idaho Press-Tribune tells us that a pit bull centric lawyer from Washington state has written warning letters to Fruitland Idaho (population 4684), Payette Idaho (population 7433), and Payette County Idaho (population 22,836).  Per the Press-Tribune " Friday’s letters from the Animal Law Offices of Adam P. Karp request the municipalities change their definition of a “dangerous” dog as well as their definition of the dog’s breed. The letters claim the laws do not accurately define the “visual identification” of the dog’s breed, which could lead to unlawful detaining. Further claims say they are “targeting dogs based on speculation and scientifically-indefensible grounds” and the municipality “fails to accommodate those who assist disabled citizens as service animals under the Americans with Disabilities Act.  Karp said in an email Saturday the letters were not official tort claims. “No notices of claim have been (or need be) filed in this instance,” he wrote. “Rather, the letters provide each municipality an opportunity to make a much belated, and vital course correction before suit is filed. The (letter) correspondence serves as a courtesy warning.”

Well how courteous of Mr. Karp to warn these small towns that from his office in Washington State he demands changes to laws in Idaho.  I find his arrogance absolutely stunning.  Surely Mr. Karp is aware that courts do not find BSL unconstitutional. 


Adam Karp and friend.

Please review the ruling of the Ohio Supreme Court  Ohio v Anderson
Ohio Supreme Court Toledo Ohio v. Paul Tellings
Colorado Supreme Court Colorado Dog Fanciers v the City and County of Denver
West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Steve Hardwick and Sharon Nally v. the Town of Cerido
The United States District Court N.D.  Ohio Eastern Division Tarquinio v. the City of Lakewood
United States District Court District of Colorado Colorado American Canine Foundation: and Florence Vianzon v. the City of Aurora Colorado  
United States District Court District of Colorado Sonya Dias et al v the City and County of Denver
United States District Court N.D. California American Canine Foundation v Sun
The list goes on and on but you get the drift here. 

Here is another example of lawyer interference in local law, in this case the lawyer does have an office in the community.   Aurora Colorado has a breed ban and is very satisfied with how well it is working.  Pit bull advocates have challenged the ordinance so many times the city council got fed up and put it on the ballot.  Aurora voters supported their breed ban by better than a two to one margin. Done deal, the voters have been heard right?  Nope. Can pit bull advocacy admit defeat and move on?  Of course not. Lawyer Juliet Piccone wants the state legislature to step in and change law for her.  Please note that the Colorado courts (above) have ruled in favor of communities with breed bans. 

  

Juliet Piccone with client Zona, a pit bull mix implicated in an attack upon a small dog, with a history of running at large, and hints of previous "incidents."  You can get Ms. Piccone's version of how Zona got in trouble with the law by clicking here.   Ms. Piccone raises funds relentlessly for her "pro bono work."   I'm not even going to get into that. 

I find the arrogance of pit bull advocates in general stunning.  Local law is local business. 

                                                           * * *

But yet again, I digress.  Back to Mr. Baldwin.  In a thread on his personal Facebook page he posts on a recent incident in Lakewood Ohio and he again calls on the Best Friends lawyer Lee Greenwood residing in Mattapan Massachusetts and the Huffington Post Animal Welfare Editor Arin Greenwood living in Gulfport Florida for assistance. The Greenwoods are brother and sister.  

Please google the Huffington Post articles and blogs about pit bulls.  A pit bull puff piece is published after every fatal pit bull attack and after pit bull attacks making national news. Over-the-top does not begin to cover it, the Huffington Post has a whole separate division for pit bull news but not for Pugs or Poodles, or Beagles.  I wonder why?  Possibly because no other breed requires this insane level of advocacy, but back to the central point.  Local business is local and pot stirring by professional pit bull advocates should be considered attempts at intimidation of local officials. 

Mr. Baldwin proudly announces on 4/9/2015 that he has made the big time.  He not only confers with Best Friends(motto - Bullying City Councils and State Legislatures in Order to Deny Home Rule Rights for Self Determination and Public Safety Everywhere) lawyers and Huffington Post editors he has been accepted as an intern at the Animal Farm Foundation (mission statement - Securing equal treatment and opportunity for "pit bull" dogs) but there is no concern for the victims of pit bull dogs, both human and animal.  Steffen has won the trifecta.



For those who may not be familiar with the Animal Farm Foundation, this is where the money starts. The New York heiress Jane Berkey spends her fortune to promote pit bulls.  Lots of wealthy folks might build a children's hospital, or fund a cancer research project, give a couple of million to their Alma mater.   Not Jane, it's pit bulls, she is the primary donor to the AFF.  If you like to read tax forms here is the 2013 Animal Farm Foundation 990. Ms. Berkey contributed $2,850,000 in 2013, $1,500,000 in 2012, and $1,500,000 in 2011. 

Please page through to the section covering gifts and contributions made by  AFF.  Lots of entries for neuter and spay surgeries. This is a very good thing and I support it fully.  You will also see multiple entries for AKC CGC testing,  AFF pays $150 PER DOG for pit bulls passing the test. You will also see payments made to shelters for placement of pit bulls. Nothing for Beagles though. 

Here is an interesting section from the AFF website Best Practices Adoption Policies and Procedures.  Keep in mind that pit bulls kill more Americans than all other breeds combined by a long shot.  The AFF feels that it is wrong to require experience with the breed, or a fenced yard, or adult adopters, or home ownership.  Insurance? Never mentioned.  Got children, other pets?  Should not be a consideration.  Background checks?  Mandatory training classes?  Good heavens, no.

Do not miss the Policy and Procedure section's glowing review on Longmont Humane Society. Longmont partners with  AFF, we discussed this particular shelter in our last post.  Here is a quote from the AFF Best Practices material "Sarah (Clusman, Training and Behavior Coordinator for Longmont) explains that the staff and volunteers are well aware of breed discrimination, and they hope to educate the public that dogs should not be judged by their breed, but rather by their individual personality."   Here is what happens in the real world, in 2012 16% of dog bites in Longmont were from dogs adopted out of the Longmont Humane Society.  

Congratulations Steffen.  Enjoy your four days at the Animal Farm Foundation intern program.  The grounds are lovely.  You will learn a lot.  Look what the proper Animal Farm Foundation training of dog wardens and animal control officers did for Montgomery County Ohio dog warden Mark Kumpf.


Mark Kumpf and Jane Berkey at one of Ms. Berkey's pit bull centric events.

Mr. Kumpf was all in for changes to Ohio law written by Best Friends but under the new law Ohio saw nine fatal dog attacks by dogs of several breeds in just the first two years.  Montgomery County, Mr. Kumpf's district, had TWO fatal dog attacks within six months.  At this point I should restate the connections between the Animal Farm Foundation and Best Friends Animal Society.

Best Friends Animal Society is outrageously committed to pit bull advocacy.  Best Friends employs Ledy Vankavage Esq to head their legal department.  Ms. Vankavage is a lifelong pit bull owner and registered lobbyist.  She has her fingers in every state.  Just google the Best Friends Pit Bull Initiatives or anything pit bull related on the Best Friends website.  This is too well documented to even bother with linking anything.  Ms. Vankavage is a close associate of Jane Berkey and serves on the board of directors of the Animal Farm Foundation (see tax records linked above).  Ms. Berkey supports Best Friends efforts to push laws that benefit pit bulls,  Berkey pays for faux Tobacco Institute style "research" proving the safety of pit bulls through the National Canine Research Council, a subsidiary of the Animal Farm Foundation (both owned by Jane Berkey), which is then given to Best Friends for use in campaigns to change law.  This incestuous and circular connection keeps the money moving and the pit bull propaganda machine humming.

Show of hands, does anyone still doubt the connection between smoking and cancer?  The federal government finally saw through the tobacco industry lies and regulated the stuff.  The same has come to pass with chemical industry trade groups.  Possibly the tide will turn against professional pit bull advocacy as well.   



You are in good hands Steffen. 

                                                                       * * *

One last update.  Remember the four year old child attacked by a pit bull recently adopted by the family?  We talked about this in the last post. The boy is off the vent and back home. Per The Olympian "On April 1, Gavin was mauled by Smash, the family’s newly adopted pit bull, while they were in the backyard. The boy has several broken bones, including his jaw, cheekbone and the bridge of his nose. He underwent two surgeries at Harborview Medical Center in Seattle before he was able to come home.

“They had to take a piece of his rib and fix his eye sockets,” said his mom, Alissa Evans, 29. “But you can’t tell. The plastic surgeons up there are miracle workers.”

Read more here: http://www.theolympian.com/2015/04/09/3670106_four-year-old-mauling-victim-returns.html?rh=1#storylink=cpy

Gavin's mother has covered the mirrors in her apartment with towels so Gavin can't see the damage to his face.  In addition to the eye socket injuries, broken jaws, and broken nose, Gavin lost five baby teeth and four permanent tooth buds.  He has only two teeth on top now, he can eat only soft foods until his permanent teeth come in. This will be a long process.  Gavin will require extensive dental work in the future, likely implants.   For breed advocates who might like to make a contribution, there is a gofundme page.   Somebody please ask Jane Berkey for a donation.

Gavin's mother has made it abundantly clear that the dog is a "blue nose pit." 



Gavin Tobeck returns home.

Ohio Pibble March, part one.

The Ohio Pibble march is history.

Let me begin with a simple fact. In their shrill attempts to wrest home rule rights from Ohio communities pit bull advocates claim that breed neutral law will make Ohio safer.  If that was the case then the states that already have laws to prohibit BSL would each be a peaceful paradise.  Not so much. Your risks of being killed by a pit bull are HIGHEST in states with an anti-BSL law.

Texas passed a statewide anti BSL law in 1991.  Since passage of that law 42 Texans have been mauled to death by pit bulls, 36 of them in the last 10 years. (See update at the bottom of this post) California passed an anti-BSL law in in 1989.  Since passage of that law 39 Californians have been killed by pit bulls, 30 of them in the last 10 years.  In 1990 Florida passed an anti-BSL law, since that time 22 Floridians have been killed by pit bulls, 13 of them in the last 10 years.

Those who promoted the Pibble March promised an announcement during the festivities at the event. That announcement appears to be the tactic to be used by the Ohioans Against Breed Discrimination. The linked photo is from the public Facebook page of OABD, this is their publicity material.  And that tactic is

CONSTITUTIONALITY !

Here is a link to their promotional material.PLEASE click on the link.  We have Steffen Baldwin, looking positive biblical claiming that BSL is unconstitutional. 

Interesting tactic but totally false.

Let's take a stroll through Ohio law.

The State of Ohio v. Anderson.  In 1991 the Supreme Court of the State of Ohio ruled that Ohio's BSL was constitutional AND that "dog owners of average intelligence" can identify pit bulls.  Here is the court's summary and keep in mind that this remains the Ohio Supreme Court's official opinion on pit bulls.

"In sum, we reject the appellee's contention that the phrase "commonly known as a pit bull dog" is so devoid of meaning that R.C. 955.11(A)(4)(a)(iii) is unconstitutionally void for vagueness. Pit bull dogs possess unique and readily identifiable physical and behavioral traits which are capable of recognition both by dog owners of ordinary intelligence and by enforcement personnel. Consistent and detailed descriptions of the pit bull dog may be found in canine guidebooks, general reference books, statestatutes and local ordinances, and state and federal case law dealing with pit bull legislation. By reference to these sources, a dog owner of ordinary intelligence can determine if he does in fact own a dog commonly known as a pit bull dog within the meaning of R.C. 955.11 (A)(4)(a)(iii). Similarly, by reference to these sources, dog wardens, police officers, judges, and juries can enforce the statute fairly and evenhandedly. Consequently, we find that R.C. 955.11(A)(4)(a)(iii) is not unconstitutionally void for vagueness."

More from the Ohio Supreme Court's 1991 ruling.

"Furthermore, the dog owner of ordinary intelligence, when determining whether he or she owns a pit bull dog, need not rely solely on the dog's physical traits. Rather, the pit bull possesses certain distinctive behavioral features which differentiate it from other dog breeds. In Vanater v. South Point, supra, the court found that pit bulls have the following behavioral traits: "* * * a) grasping strength, b) climbing and hanging ability, c) weight pulling ability, d) a history of frenzy, which is the trait of unusual relentless ferocity or the extreme concentration on fighting and attacking, e) a history of catching, fighting, and killing instinct, f) the ability to be extremely destructive and aggressive, g) highly tolerant of pain, h) great biting strength, i) undying tenacity and courage and they are highly unpredictable." Id. at 1240. The court further found that pit bulls possess the quality of gameness, which it described as "the propensity to catch and maul an attacked victim unrelentingly until 173*173 death occurs * * *." Similarly, in Singer, supra, the evidence presented at trial established that pit bulls "possess inherent characteristics of aggression, strength, viciousness and unpredictability not found in other dog breeds. * * * [U]nlike other breeds which retreat if they are injured in a fight or an attack, a pit bull will often bite, clamp down with its powerful jaw, and maintain its hold until separated from its victim." Finally, the Florida ordinance regulating pit bull ownership which was upheld in State v. Peters(Fla. App. 1988), 534 So.2d 760, states that pit bulls are distinguished by "* * * a high [in]sensitivity to pain, extreme aggressiveness towards other animals, and a natural tendency to refuse to terminate an attack once it has begun * * *." Id. at 764."

The court's statement that "a dog owner of ordinary intelligence" can identify a pit bull is repeated  several times.  Why can't pit bull owners identify pit bulls? 

Moving on to the 2007 Ohio Supreme Court Ruling City of Toledo v. Tellings. The Ohio Supreme Courts's conclusion.

" {¶ 35} In conclusion, the state and the city of Toledo possess the constitutional authority to exercise police powers that are rationally related to a legitimate interest in public health, safety, morals or general welfare. Here, evidence proves that pit bulls cause more damage than other dogs when they attack, cause more fatalities in Ohiothan other dogs, and cause Toledo police officers to fire weapons more often than people or other breeds of dogs cause the firing of weapons. We hold that the state ofOhio and the city of Toledo have a legitimate interest in protecting citizens from the dangers associated with pit bulls, and that R.C. 955.11(A)(4)(a)(iii) and 955.22 andToledo Municipal Code 505.14 are rationally related to that interest and are constitutional."

Tellings appealed the ruling to the United States Supreme Court.  The United States Supreme Court refused to hear it.  

In 2011 the United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division ruled in favor or the city of Lakewood's breed ban in the case of Tarquinio v. the City of Lakewood.  The court ruled Lakewood Ohio's pit bull ban was constitutional.  

Courts in other states have also ruled BSL constitutional as well.
  

In 2009 the United States District Court, D, Colorado ruled in support of Aurora's breed ban in American Canine Foundation and Florence Vianzon.

"11. Accordingly, I find that the ordinance is not an abuse of the City's police power. I further conclude that the classification of pit bulls and restricted breeds in Aurora'sordinance is rationally related to its undisputed legitimate interest in protecting the health and safety of its residents. Accordingly, there has been no deprivation of due process nor has there been a violation of the Equal Protection Clause."

This quote comes from the same ruling and should be noted.  The city tried the breed neutral/education tactic so loved by breed specific advocates and it was a failure. 

" 8. At trial, Cheryl Conway testified that the Aurora City Council initially considered breed specific legislation in 2003. During that time frame, Aurora was the recipient of a number of dogs banned in other cities close to and/or bordering Aurora, andAurora's animal control officers were voicing concern about the increasing numbers of these animals and their aggressiveness. Further, a concern was noted that breeding was a lucrative business in Aurora, and that these banned dogs were being bred increasingly for their aggressive tendencies. Finally, Aurora was receiving calls from constituents complaining that they were afraid of these dogs.

9. Rather than enact a breed-specific law at that time, the Aurora City Council opted instead to strengthen its dangerous and vicious animal ordinance. It did so by requiring certain animals to be spayed and neutered and increasing the penalties under that ordinance. The City also started a campaign to educate the public regarding these changes in the dangerous and vicious animal ordinance. Ms. Conway testified that this attempt to strengthen the dangerous and vicious animal ordinance fell short of its goal, as the number of reported bites continued to rise, the request for services from people related to dangerous and vicious animals increased, and the numbers of these dogs in shelters continued to increase."

An additional fact on this ruling.  Pit bull advocates continued in their attempts to bully the Aurora City Council into dropping the breed ban.  The Aurora City Council was so fed up with the constant battles that they put the issue on the ballot so that Aurora residents could have the final say on the matter. Voters in Aurora supported their breed ban by a landslide vote.

Pit bull advocates did not react well to the loss.  In an editorial for the Aurora Sentinel titled "No surprise that pit bullies won't let Aurora election loss go" editor Perry gives the response seen at his newspaper.  Take a moment to read this editorial, an absolute gem.  Don't miss the comment by well known New Jersey pit bull advocate Bob Cronk.  

In 2008 the Colorado courts ruled in Sonia Dias et al v. the City and County of Denver.  The Denver breed ban was ruled constitutional AND the court also ruled that the plaintiffs must pay the legal expenses of the city and county of Denver. Loved it!  

The District of Columbia Court of Appeals ruled in favor of local regulation in 2005 McNeeley v. United States.

In 1989 the state of Florida the United States District Court, S.D. Florida ruled in American Dog Owners et al v. Dade County Florida.

" Based upon the substantial evidence presented at trial, this court finds that DadeCounty Ordinance No. 89-022 provides sufficient guidance to dog owners, both in its explicit reference to pit bull dogs, and in its definitional section, to enable pit bullowners to determine whether their dogs fall within the proscriptions of the ordinance. Whether the ordinance will be applied in a discriminatory fashion is a question that cannot be determined in the context of this pre-enforcement action. Certainly there are some applications of the ordinance which pass constitutional muster. As long as the enactment is not impermissibly vague in all its applications, this court must uphold its constitutionality. Upon consideration of the evidence presented at trial, the pleadings, memoranda, exhibits and arguments of counsel and upon application of the controlling authority, this court finds that plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden of proof and that the Court is required to uphold the constitutionality of Dade CountyOrdinance No. 089-22."

U. S. District Court in Pennsylvania in 1986 rules in favor of local BSL.

State Supreme Court ruled in favor of local BSL in West Virginia in 2013.

In 1991 the Colorado Supreme court ruled in favor of local BSL. 

In 1991 the Supreme Court of the State of Arkansas ruled in favor of local BSL. 

In 1991 the Supreme Court of Utah ruled in favor of local BSL.

The list of court rulings upholding BSL is very long, goes back MANY years.  No point is served in going any further with this.  The claim that BSL is unconstitutional?  That ship has sailed and we need wave goodbye and move on.

We will be back with MUCH more from the Ohio Pibble March very soon.

                                                                         * * *

7/2/2015 Update.  Your odds of being killed in the breed neutral heaven of Texas get even worse.  An elderly man, 83 year old Norberto Legardo of Pecos Texas has been killed by pit bulls today.  This gives us 43 Texans killed by pit bulls since BSL was prohibited, 37 of them in the last ten years.

10/20/2015 update. The number of Texas pit bull fatalities now stands at 44,with 38 of them in the last 10 years,  A five year old Texas child,Tanner Smith, was killed by two pit bulls on 10/19/2015 in Orange County Texas.


Tanner Smith

This is what breed neutral law brings to a state.