Scientology attacks animal sanctuary
Robert Vaughn Young
THE SCIENTOLOGY CULT IS ATTACKING AN ANIMAL SANCTUARY
Hello.
My name is Robert Vaughn Young. My wife and I have been operating a small
non-profit animal sanctuary in Seattle, Washington. Over the last two
years, we have rescued and adopted out nearly 500 cats and dogs. That
effort is now jeopardized because the Scientology cult is attacking the
sanctuary and trying to get it closed down.
Why would a cult try to close down an animal sanctuary?
Please read on. It will take a few screens.
OUR ANIMAL RESCUE/SANCTUARY WORK
Our initial work started with my wife volunteering at PAWS (Progressive
Animal Welfare Society, based north of Seattle, in Lynwood), by being both
a foster home and helping with off-site adoptions. The effort was so
successful that my wife, Stacy (the initiating and moving force), was
featured in a news article and given an award from PAWS for the hundreds
of cats that were adopted out through her effort.
As we continued to fill this need, our "foster home" grew faster and was
more successful than we ever imagined or planned for. One reason, we
discovered, was that there is no such sanctuary in Seattle. The closest is
the Humane Society in Bellvue, an affluent community to the east of
Seattle. The only thing in Seattle is Animal Control, the "Pound." So the
word began to spread and our popularity grew. By "kitten season" (those in
rescue work know what this means) our too-small home was bursting with
felines. Very young kittens take up little space, until they begin to dash
about under foot and up the wall. Children walking by with their parents
would see the kittens in the window and would drop in as if we were a
"petting zoo" and be surrounded with playful felines. (There is a lot of
therapy to be found being surrounded by adorable kittens.)
We finally gave our effort a name, calling it Friends of the Animals
Foundation (FAF), dba, West Seattle Cat Rescue or WSCR - pronounced
"whisker." (We're not in the phone book under WSCR as we are operating
from our home.) In July, we incorporated as a non-profit, with an eye to
the day that we could establish an actual sanctuary. We are seeking
501(c)(3) tax-exempt status for FAF because we plan to provide sanctuary
to other animals, one we can find and create adequate facilities.
To date we have adopted out nearly 500 kittens, cats and a few dogs. These
animals were homeless, abandoned, sick, injured, abused, handicapped or
destined to be euthanized. Here are some examples:
* Lionel - More than any other animal, Lionel was the inspiration for
our no-kill philosophy. A three-year-old gray male tabby and an abandoned
stray, Lionel was found in some bushes about a year ago by one of our
neighbors who called us to help. Lionel was in a horrible, bloody
condition, obviously hit by a car. We rushed him to emergency and were
told that both front legs had been crushed and the side of his head was
badly scraped, apparently dragged by the car. (We have no idea how he got
to the bushes.) They said that he would definitely lose one leg and
probably the other and recommended he be euthanized because such care
would be too expensive. We made a decision which defined FAF/WSCR. We
refused to kill him and found a feline orthopedic surgeon the next day who
said he would try to reconstruct Lionel's legs. We had no idea how we
would pay for it, but we agreed. After a five-hour operation, and 24
screws and two plates to hold the shattered bones together, Lionel emerged
with two - repeat, two - of the most beautiful blue and yellow bandaged
legs you have ever seen. (We still show pictures of him.) Then, hearing of
his plight through a local news item, the West Seattle community rallied
and Lionel's entire bill (about $3000) was paid by donations to the clinic
and a large community weekend yard sale. The best news is that he
recovered. He lost a few toes due to infection but he can run and jump and
today he lives in a new home with two other cats adopted from us.
* Lily - blind due to a congenital defect and with an eye infection,
Lily was to be euthanized but we took her in. She was treated and adopted
out to a fine home where she lives happily today with another cat, proving
that even blind cats can lead happy lives.
* Beauregard - a tall golden retriever who should have weighed over 100
pounds, he was skin and bones (only 63 pounds when weighed at the vet),
and was barely able to walk, when he was found abandoned. After months of
care and good food, he made a full recovery and finally weighed in at a
healthy and robust 110 pounds. He now can run and play at his new Seattle
home.
* Lucky - a black short-hair cat, she was found by a neighbor at a
shelter when she was literally being taken from her cage to a back room
for euthanization as "unadoptable." The neighbor adopted her on the spot,
renamed her "Lucky" (for obvious reasons) and brought her to WSCR. We
found a home for her one week later, which proved her name.
* Walter - a three-month old kitten, he was found trying to stay afloat
in the middle of Lake Union. How he got there and how he survived for how
long until found by a passing boat, no one knows. Hauled out, he was
hypothermic but alive. They rushed him to us where he warmed up and
recovered and now lives happily with a new family on solid land.
* Trey - a three-legged (hence the name), declawed Cornish Rex, Trey
was found crying in a dumpster. Brought to us, we first thought he was
feral (wild) because of his behavior but it turned out he was completely
incensed at being deserted in a dumpster. We took out ads and posted
notices around the area for weeks but no one claimed him. He finally
calmed down and became an incredibly loving cat. He is still looking for a
home.
Not all of those we take in are so distinctive, of course. Most are
otherwise ordinary cats and kittens (and some dogs) that simply have no
home and thus are susceptible to being killed. So we take them in or get
them to foster homes until adopted. None are put down for lack of
adoption. We have found homes for every animal taken in, even if it takes
many months.
Our adoption policy (so you know we are serious) is rigorous but simple.
No animal comes in without an examination by a licensed veterinarian and
tested negative for feline leukemia and feline AIDS. As part of the
adoption, the animal is spayed/neutered (if not already) and given their
first shots. Those seeking to adopt are given an application to fill out
and are interviewed to ensure they have the home and are serious about the
adoption. We also require that the person agree to no declawing and should
there be any problem, the animal is to be returned to us, and not
euthanized or sent to the pound.
This is how we have adopted out about 500 animals over two years.
But we made one mistake: As valuable as our effort is - and there is only
one group that disagrees with that - we didn't check the zoning
regulations. That gave Scientology the chance they needed.
SCIENTOLOGY'S ATTACK ON THE SANCTUARY
One morning, our neighborhood awoke to find that someone had left a sheet
of paper on every doorstep. It was anonymous but purported to be from a
"concerned neighbor" and said our cats were a nuisance and urged neighbors
to complain to Animal Control and the city. (It should be noted that the
WSCR cats are all kept indoors. Our three cats are allowed in and out and
there are a number of other outdoor cats that belong to neighbors.) A
special anonymous letter was attached to our door saying that we better
get rid of the animals or else.
We soon identified the attack as coming from Scientology when a private
investigator, David Lee, began to call around Seattle, using the same
allegations that appeared in the anonymous flyer. He also told people he
was investigating us for "animal abuse," trying to plant seeds of doubt
about us in people's minds. He said he was working for LA Private
Investigator Eugene Ingram, widely known to work for Scientology attorney
Kendrick Moxon. (Moxon is the lead Scientology in-house attorney. After
Ingram was thrown off the Los Angeles Police Department for his
connections to drugs and prostitutes, he went to work for the cult. He is
wanted in Florida for impersonating a police officer.)
There was no doubt a campaign was being orchestrated against us. After no
complaints to the city in two years, they were pouring into city officials
on a daily basis. Calls were made to various Seattle City offices,
including Animal Control, from people who asked to "remain anonymous."
According to officials we spoke with, the callers (there are apparently
only two) said the house was filthy and our cats were diseased with "open
sores." Besides calling various agencies, they also called city council
members to complain that the agencies were not acting fast enough against
us, urging political pressure. At least two offices responded.
Under such a barrage, Seattle Land Use visited and did an inspection. He
had no objections to the state of the house or the grounds. (We have a
5x5x18 outdoor enclosure that resembles an aviary, with driftwood and
shelves for cat climbing and sleeping. The cats can access if from the
house through a cat door/window.) The section of Seattle law being used
says that a residence cannot have more than three small animals. Anyone
walking by could see we had more than three. It was hardly a secret. When
we asked if the fact that the animals are transitory (between homes) made
any difference. We were told it does not, unless we get a variance to the
zoning code, which we cannot do since we rent. So we were issued a
citation, giving us 14 days to comply (get rid of the animals) or to
respond. He would not tell us who had complained.
The next day, Animal Control visited us, unannounced, saying they had
received numerous complaints about animals with "open sores" and "filthy
conditions" etc. We invited the officer into the house. The officer
commented how clean it was, how it smelled very nice, that the cats were
well-behaved and that he saw no abused animals, let alone any with "open
sores." (This was the second visit by Animal Control. During an earlier
visit, the officer reported the cats were fine and there was no odor to
the house.) Despite the fact that the environment was completely contrary
to the complaints, he gave us citations for having 10 extra unlicensed
adult cats. (Kittens did not count.) We have 14 days to pay the fine ($50
each) or request a hearing. He would not tell us who had complained.
To show further how we are being harassed, we also had a visit from two
county mental health workers who asked for Stacy. They said they had a
call from a "concerned neighbor" (anonymous again) who said a Stacy was
acting erratic, not eating and was "collecting cats." It was obvious that
they were there to see if Stacy should be committed. We invited them in to
see that the information they had been given was completely bogus. (They
too had been told the house was filthy and the cats unhealthy.) We also
explained our role as witnesses in a Scientology homicide case. (See
below.) They left, apologizing.
In the meantime, there has been more harassment every day, ranging from
abusive telephone calls to anonymous hate mail. (Yes, we report it.)
WHY IS SCIENTOLOGY ATTACKING A SANCTUARY?
There are three reasons.
1. Scientology learned that my wife and I may be key witnesses in a
prominent homicide case (featured in Newsweek and other national media -
see below) in which the cult is the defendant.
2. Scientology is terrified of a rumor that my wife and I were recently
interviewed about them by "60 Minutes," a hard-hitting investigative show
that, with 30 million viewers, is the most-watched program on American TV.
3. Scientology has apparently heard that the German federal government
wants me to testify about the cult's crimes and abuses before a
parliamentary body.
For you see, between my wife and I, we spent 35 years in the cult. I
became the cult's national spokesman as early as 1977. (See the NY Times
Index.) We fled the cult in 1989 and have been willing to speak out about
the abuse. Scientology does not like that. The cult is notorious for
terrorizing anyone it fears, from ex-members to federal judges, as an
attempt to intimidate them. In the words of Scientology founder, L. Ron
Hubbard, "find or manufacture" enough threat against the person to cause
them to "shudder into silence." It is Scientology's "fair game" law. (see
below)
That is why our animals are now under attack by this cult. Scientology
knows how important our animal rescue work is to us. They were unable to
silence us so now they are seeking to "find or MANUFACTURE" enough threat
to the innocent animals, hoping we will "shudder into silence."
Can one go lower than threatening an animal sanctuary?
SCIENTOLOGY AS A "MAFIA-LIKE" ORGANIZATION
There is no scarcity of proof that Scientology terrorizes people.
As Time magazine pointed out in their 1991 cover story, "The Thriving Cult
of Greed and Power," Scientology is a "hugely profitable global racket
that survives by intimidating members and critics in a Mafia-like manner."
(See below.)
In a 1984 civil case, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Paul Breckenridge,
Jr., after listening to months of testimony about the cult said, "In
addition to violating and abusing its own members' civil rights, the
organization over the years with its 'fair game' doctrine has harassed and
abused those persons not in the church whom it perceives as enemies."
(For more, see below.)
That is why Scientology is threatening innocent animals. They want to
intimidate and frighten my wife and me. They know that we will not
sacrifice these animals and so -- like terrorists taking hostages -- they
came after the innocent and the defenseless. They know that our first task
is to protect the animals and that is what we will do.
The other purpose is to intimidate and influence our friends, neighbors
and supporters, to make them back away from us, to apply more pressure to
us. However, it has had an opposite effect. Many are outraged at the
tactics and have increased their support.
WHAT WE ARE DOING IN RESPONSE
The State of Washington has a "public disclosure" law and we have begun
filing requests to get the records and reports.
As far as the animals themselves, we will protect them. They will not be
abandoned and we will not give up our work. While dealing properly with
the various citations, we will find a new location for them so that our
work can legally continue, by whatever miracle. (If anyone has a lead -
especially in unincorporated King County, even temporary - let me know.)
In the meantime, as I write this (Oct. 2), I received a call that David
Lee is in Seattle, making his rounds and asking questions about our
animals - clevery pushing and citing the "complaints" already planted -
and our private lives.
I want the world to know the extremes that this cult of thugs will go to.
Scientology already has a reputation for harassing Netizens, as well as
the media and others. Now let Scientology add a new credit to their list
of abuses: innocent animals.
Robert Vaughn Young
wri...@eskimo.com
Web Resources:
The Newsweek article on the death where we might testify is at
<http://www.primenet.com/~cultxpt/newsweek.htm>.
Time magazine's award-winning cover story on Scientology is at
<http://www.cs.cmu.edu/People/dst/Fishman/time-behar.html>.
An article I wrote for QUILL, for the Society of Professional Journalists
<http://www.scientology.no.net/archive/media/young-quill.html> and
<http://wpxx02.toxi.uni-wuerzburg.de/~krasel/CoS/books/quill.html>.
A declaration I wrote about Scientology's "fair game" policy of attack at
<http://wpxx02.toxi.uni-wuerzburg.de/~krasel/CoS/aff/aff_rvy94a.html>
and <http://www.sky.net/~sloth/sci/young4.affidavit>
Another declaration I wrote regarding "fair game" is at
<http://wpxx02.toxi.uni-wuerzburg.de/~krasel/CoS/aff/aff_rvy94b.html>
Put "fair game" into this search engine to read Scientology's rules at
<http://thingy.apana.org.au/~fjc/scn/search/>
Most of my postings to alt.religion.scientology are archived at
<http://www.islandnet.com/~martinh/rvy/rvy.htm>.
One of the most-cited pages about Scientology is Ron Newman's at
<http://www.cybercom.net/~rnewman/scientology/home.html>.
Read how Scientology set up a woman author to be falsely arrested at
<http://wpxx02.toxi.uni-wuerzburg.de/~krasel/CoS/cooper/pcintro.html>.
Judge Breckenridge's decision is at
<http://www.sky.net/~sloth/sci/breck.html>
Read "The Two Faces of Scientology," from American Lawyer magazine at
<http://superlink.net/user/mgarde/amlaw.txt>.
FACTNet has quotes from judges about Scientology at
<http://www.factnet.org/crtquot.htm>.
FACTNet has listed out instances of Scientology's Human Rights Abuses at
<http://www.factnet.org/Scientology/rights.htm>.
Electronic Freedom Foundation archived the cult's attack of the Net at
<http://www.eff.org/pub/Censorship/CoS_v_the_Net/>.
Scientology's problems in Germany can be found at
<http://www.snafu.de/~tilman/>.
The German State of Bavaria has a few things to say about Scientology at
<http://www.bayern.de/STMI/Scientology/welcomeE.htm>.
Scientology was raided in Greece with information at
<http://w4u.eexi.gr/~antbos/SCIENTOL.HTM>.
For some of their problems in France, see (in English)
<http://www.mygale.org/01/tussier/toulon1.htm>
See the Los Angeles Times story on how Scientology attacks critics at
<http://homepage.cistron.nl/~davel/la/la90-6a.html>.
And see Scientology's President (now out on bail) in handcuffs at
<http://www.lermanet.com/cos/index.html>
thank you
RVY
Tilman Hausherr
In <614sgi$727$1...@eskinews.eskimo.com>, wri...@eskimo.com (Robert Vaughn
Young) wrote:
>
>Scientology's problems in Germany can be found at
><http://www.snafu.de/~tilman/>.
The section about scientology's german problems is here
http://www.snafu.de/~tilman/faq-you/germany.txt
good luck with the cats - hopefully seattle newspapers will write about
it, which should help you to find a new place. Be also sure that there
is always someone home, as scientology or scientologists might do an
"Enid Vien" (*) type of operation.
Tilman
(*) As part of her settlement, Enid Vien no longer believes that the
"R2-45" (a scientology technique involving a .45 caliber) operation on
one of her cats was done by scientology.
Mike O'Connor
In article <614sgi$727$1...@eskinews.eskimo.com>, wri...@eskimo.com (Robert
Vaughn Young) wrote:
> THE SCIENTOLOGY CULT IS ATTACKING AN ANIMAL SANCTUARY
[...]
> In the meantime, there has been more harassment every day, ranging from
> abusive telephone calls to anonymous hate mail. (Yes, we report it.)
[...]
If you tape the phone calls and place them on the Net, perhaps someone
could identify the voice. If you post the hate letters on the Net, perhaps
the writing style could be analyzed.
Here is some sacred Scientology scripture penned by dead cult founder L.
Ron Hubbard that says what is to be done with cult enemies. More than just
advice, this writing is immutable, sacred, cult scripture which must be
followed agressively and to the letter. There are many interesting
"religious" scriptures which instruct this sort of thing. Cult critics
routinely see these scriptures in action. So can you, if you read
alt.religion.scientology. The tactics used by the cult and the way they
get away with it is endlessly fascinating! Check alt.religion.scientology
for more about what TIME magazine called "the thriving cult of greed and
power."
++++++++++ SACRED CULT SCRIPTURE +++++++++++
HCO Policy Letter of 18 October 1967 Issue IV
PENALTIES FOR LOWER CONDITIONS
[...]
ENEMY SP Order. Fair game. May be deprived of property or injured by
any means by any Scientologist without any discipline of the
Scientologist. May be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed.
-- L. Ron Hubbard
++++++++++++ SACRED CULT SCRIPTURE +++++++++++++
NEVER agree to an investigation of Scientology. ONLY agree to an
investigation of the attackers.
This is correct procedure:
(1) Spot who is attacking us.
(2) Start investigating them promptly for FELONIES or
worse using own professionals, not outside
agencies.
(3) Double curve our reply by saying we welcome an
investigation of them.
(4) Start feeding lurid , blood sex crime actual
evidence on the attackers to the press.
-- L. Ron Hubbard
HCO Policy Letter 15 Feb 1966
++++++++++ SACRED CULT SCRIPTURE +++++++++++
THE ONLY WAY YOU CAN CONTROL PEOPLE IS TO LIE TO THEM. You can write
that down in your book in great big letters.
-- L. Ron Hubbard
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
-Mike
Gwen A Orel
Wow. I knew the Sceintologists were a bit weird, to say the least, but
had no idea they were vindictive and manipulative too. I'm so sorry for
you to be dealing with them. It sure looks like they will stop at nothing.
But G-d sees your good work for the animals. Please don't stop. It does
look like you will have to move, I would just cut my losses if I were you.
Next time make absolutely sure thant everything you do is legal according
to every code conceivable, they will surely find a loophole if they
can.
Good luck and G-d bless you,
Gwen
--
"Live as one already dead." --Japanese saying
I live in fear of not being misunderstood.-- Oscar wilde
Joesep E. Cisar
This isn't the first time Scientology has been accused of violating
not only human rights, but animal rights.
Who drowned the judge's dog?
New York Times, Sunday, March 9, 1997
An Ultra-Aggressive Use of Investigators and the Courts
by Douglas Frantz
states:
In 1992, Judge Ronald Swearinger of Los Angeles County Superior
Court told The American Lawyer magazine that he believed
Scientologists had slashed his car tires and drowned his collie
while he was presiding over a suit against the church.
The Church denied the accusations, ... but the founder of the
Church, L. Ron Hubbard wrote:
"The purpose of the suit is to harass and discourage rather than
win. The law can be used very easily to harass, and enough
harassment on somebody who is simply on the thin edge anyway
... will generally be sufficient to cause his professional decrease.
If possible, of course, ruin him utterly."
In the U.S., a religion is not required to have a god.
Joe Cisar
--
Walk this way! http://www.innernet.net/joecisar/conmenu.htm
Sanity and honesty consist of producing a valuable final product
..... Modern Management Technology Defined, (C) 1976, p.259
Martin Hunt
In article <618khi$1...@isn.dac.neu.edu>,
hosb...@lynx.dac.neu.edu (Hilary B Osborne) wrote:
>Indeed. I was already an SP (will some clam notice me so I can get my
>SP2?), but I can use this to convince the animal-lovers I know. I work
>with critters and know several people at the local humane society, so...
>
>This is a good angle for the ARSCC(wdne) to play up--we've got the
>human-rights violations, the silly hidden beliefs, and now cruelty to
>animals. I wouldn't be surprised if there are other stories of $cn
>hurting or killing critters. Anyone?
Well, there's this report by Steve Fishman about Scientology's treatment
of animals:
Article #159059 (159197 is last):
From: xe...@ix.netcom.com (STEVEN FISHMAN )
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Gravy, The Babble-on, babbles on
Date: Thu Mar 14 14:03:59 1996
[...]
Listen Vera,
You have a lot of nerve talking about inflicting pain on small animals
when it was your filthy, disgusting cult that cut up a rabbit into four
pieces and left it on my doorstep for my two daughters to see while I was
confined in the halfway house one year ago.
And what about the dead rats your cult left on the doorstep of Margaret
Singer, my clinical psychologist and expert witness in the criminal
case? This happened twice, once before and once after your cult stole
all of my folders from her garage.
Don't tell me about large animals either. Remember Duke, Judge
Swearinger's dog? You drowned him.
You also poisoned Dr. Geertz's chickens after Eugene Ingram told all of
his neighbors that Dr. Geertz was running illegal cockfights (a lie).
And Dr. Geertz's German Shepherd was poisoned --- that never happened
to any of his neighbors.
Crimes against animals are typical of your stinking cult. What ever
happened to the fifth dynamic? Or are these animals fair game because
they were connected to suppressives?
Vera, your hypocrisy is only exceeded by the foul odor of your body
thetans oozing through your stubble runty fingers onto the keyboard.
I hope that in your next life, you come back as a Sea Org dog who gets
starved and neglected in an RPF. (You are already a plain dog in this
life, with out a doubt, Vera).
And when are you going to stop picking on Grady? Haven't you tortured
his mother enough, (you and your pimp boss)?
People see through your transparent plethora of evil conundrums. You
are the typical cultic ghoul incarnate. But don't post your two-faced
comments about animals. If you had as much compassion as an animal
you might even pass for being human.
--- Steve Fishman
--
Cogito, ergo sum. Use "Xenu" in Subject: line of email.
David Gerard
On 4 Oct 1997 21:28:56 GMT,
Gwen A Orel <gao...@pitt.edu> wrote:
:Wow. I knew the Sceintologists were a bit weird, to say the least, but
:had no idea they were vindictive and manipulative too. I'm so sorry for
:you to be dealing with them. It sure looks like they will stop at nothing.
:But G-d sees your good work for the animals. Please don't stop. It does
:look like you will have to move, I would just cut my losses if I were you.
:Next time make absolutely sure thant everything you do is legal according
:to every code conceivable, they will surely find a loophole if they
:can.
$cientology are vindictive a'holes.
For the story of how they drowned a judge's dog when he looked like ruling
against them:
http://www.xemu.demon.co.uk/clam/faq/woofglug.html
For how this has actually been used as a subject of protests against them
(these are all the same page):
http://thingy.apana.org.au/~fun/scn/demo/howto/uk-props.html
http://www.suburbia.net/~fun/scn/demo/howto/uk-props.html
http://wpxx02.toxi.uni-wuerzburg.de/~gerard/demo/howto/uk-props.html
For a quick FAQ, check http://www.xemu.demon.co.uk/clam/faq/index.html
I also have an extensive web page about them (see .signature).
They are not just weird; if they were, that would be fine. They're evil
with it. That is not tolerable.
[posted + emailed]
--
http://thingy.apana.org.au/~fun/scn/ http://www.suburbia.net/~fun/scn/
I hereby encourage all earthlink.net users to leave for a provider whose
email and Usenet messages are not boycotted by the rest of the net, and
for ISPs to continue to block earthlink.net email and Usenet messages from
Earthlink, until earthlink.net *stop* the flow of junk email and spam.
Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine
In article <618k5a$o...@alexander.INS.CWRU.Edu>,
>This isn't the first time Scientology has been accused of violating
>not only human rights, but animal rights.
>Who drowned the judge's dog?
>New York Times, Sunday, March 9, 1997
>An Ultra-Aggressive Use of Investigators and the Courts
>by Douglas Frantz
>states:
>In 1992, Judge Ronald Swearinger of Los Angeles County Superior
>Court told The American Lawyer magazine that he believed
>Scientologists had slashed his car tires and drowned his collie
>while he was presiding over a suit against the church.
As he was a judge what he actually said was, with complete fairness,
that while he was trying a case against Scientology some strange things
happened e.g. he came home and found his car tyres slashed and
his collie dog drowned in the pool. I always read this from the way
it was put as being the same night. Car tyres do not slash themselves
and, if it was the same night, one might reasionably assume the dog
just didn't commit suicide by tying bricks to its paws and diving in
but was forcibly drowned by others. He did not say (could not prove)
that it had been forcibly drowned and did not say (could not prove)
who was behind it, but simply stated the absolute facts. Scientology
would no doubt alledge the dog had a criminal past anyway! See webpage
|~/ |~/
~~|;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;||';-._.-;'^';||_.-;'^'0-|~~
P | Woof Woof, Glug Glug ||____________|| 0 | P
O | Who Drowned the Judge's Dog? | . . . . . . . '----. 0 | O
O | answers on *---|_______________ @__o0 | O
L |{a href="news:alt.religion.scientology"}{/a}_____________|/_______| L
and{a href="http://www.xemu.demon.co.uk/clam/lynx/q0.html"}{/a}XemuSP4(:)
IG-88
Now I don't like Scientology in fact I believe they are the most evil
cult around, but as you have stated your operation is in violation to
the zoning laws the Scientology didn't make thoses laws the city did
all the Cult did was use a REAL law to get at you. In order to defeat
them you need to move to a location in the city that is zoned for the
type of operation you are running. I have a question you need to
ponder would you have blamed a neighbor of attacking your animal
sanctuary if they had called the city?
n 4 Oct 1997 07:50:42 GMT, wri...@eskimo.com (Robert Vaughn Young)
wrote:
>:
>:
>: THE SCIENTOLOGY CULT IS ATTACKING AN ANIMAL SANCTUARY
Phillip Zadarnowski
wri...@eskimo.com (Robert Vaughn Young) wrote:
> THE SCIENTOLOGY CULT IS ATTACKING AN ANIMAL SANCTUARY
Looks like another chapter in history of Scientology to be added to
200 odd web pages. They never cease to amaze. They have no honesty
at all and shows themselves as heartless to animals as they are
towards people. The average staff scientologist wouldn't know
what having a pet was, and would regard a cat or dog as a
"downstat non-producer" - pretty much the same way they view
children.
Bastards. You hear that, David Miscavige? You personally signed
off on the "Get RVY" for OSA Special Ops. I know you did. And
I'm sure the underlings you get to do this are just so thankful
they can lie to the police and other authorities for you, and
that they report in daily that special "product" of how many
lies they told that day.
I'm sure a few animal activists will report this typical
fraudulent activity of Scientology's - new to them, but
to us, yet more proof of an anti-social cult at work.
Robert Vaughn Young
IG-88 (spic...@hotmail.com) wrote:
: Now I don't like Scientology in fact I believe they are the most evil
: cult around, but as you have stated your operation is in violation to
: the zoning laws the Scientology didn't make thoses laws the city did
: all the Cult did was use a REAL law to get at you. In order to defeat
: them you need to move to a location in the city that is zoned for the
: type of operation you are running. I have a question you need to
: ponder would you have blamed a neighbor of attacking your animal
: sanctuary if they had called the city?
Looking again at my post (below) I can see that I should have emphasized
that if our cats were in filthy conditions and with "open sores" that
would be "animal abuse" and a felony. Thus accusing us of that is accusing
us of a felony. Too many unlicensed cats is not a felony. It is as
different as saying you are guilty of overtime parking vs. you are guilty
of drunk driving. Falsely accusing someone of a felony is when one moves
into slander and that is what some people are now learning, that a serious
line was mistakenly crossed. City officials don't like to be put into that
position.
Robert Vaughn Young
wri...@eskimo.com
: n 4 Oct 1997 07:50:42 GMT, wri...@eskimo.com (Robert Vaughn Young)
: wrote:
--
*----------------------------------------------*
Robert Vaughn Young * The most potent weapon of the oppressor is *
wri...@eskimo.com * the mind of the oppressed. - Steve Biko *
*----------------------------------------------*
Mike O'Connor
In article <61g441$92v$1...@eskinews.eskimo.com>, wri...@eskimo.com (Robert
Vaughn Young) wrote:
[...]
> Looking again at my post (below) I can see that I should have emphasized
> that if our cats were in filthy conditions and with "open sores" that
> would be "animal abuse" and a felony. Thus accusing us of that is accusing
> us of a felony. Too many unlicensed cats is not a felony. It is as
> different as saying you are guilty of overtime parking vs. you are guilty
> of drunk driving. Falsely accusing someone of a felony is when one moves
> into slander and that is what some people are now learning, that a serious
> line was mistakenly crossed. City officials don't like to be put into that
> position.
I guess it makes sense in cult-logic, that the cult was trying to get you
arrested for a felony. The sacred scripture instructs that with an enemy,
the proper procedures if to look for felonies or worse:
++++++++++++ SACRED CULT SCRIPTURE +++++++++++++
NEVER agree to an investigation of Scientology. ONLY
agree to an investigation of the attackers.
[...]
This is correct procedure:
(1) Spot who is attacking us.
(2) Start investigating them promptly for FELONIES or
worse using own professionals, not outside
agencies.
(3) Double curve our reply by saying we welcome an
investigation of them.
(4) Start feeding lurid , blood sex crime actual
evidence on the attackers to the press.
-- L. Ron Hubbard
HCOPL 15 Feb 1966
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
If they gave a false report saying there were sores on the animals, I
guess that makes sense in cult-logic too, because without it, the threat
of a felony would not have been raised. I believe the scripture instructs
members to find or manufacture enough threat to cause the enemy to give in
- to "sue for peace", as they put it:
++++++++++++ SACRED CULT SCRIPTURE +++++++++++++
If attacked on some vulnerable point by anyone or anything or any
organization, always find or manufacture enough threat against them to
cause them to sue for peace. Peace is bought with an exchange of
advantage, so make the advantage and then settle. Don't ever defend.
Always attack. Don't ever do nothing. Unexpected attacks in the rear of
the enemy's front ranks work best.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
If they lie while manufacturing threat, I guess that is ok in cult-logic
too, because the cult creed teaches not to fear hurting another in a just
cause, and the sacred scripture instructs that it is ok to trick, lie to,
or destroy declared enemies, and that the only way to control someone is
to lie to them. I believe there even used to be a course for cult PR
people in how to "outflow false data effectively".
Lies are part and parcel of things in the thriving cult of greed and
power, it seems, because withholding information from members is required
procedure from day one. My understanding is that you do not even learn
that Scientology is a SECRET UFO CULT, that YOU ARE NOT AN EARTHLING, and
that we are all victims of an ALIEN MIND IMPLANT, until you have
sacrificed enough time and cash to be worthy. -Mike
Ex Mudder
In article <343833a7...@news.accessone.com>,
spic...@hotmail.com (IG-88) wrote:
>Now I don't like Scientology in fact I believe they are the most evil
>cult around, but as you have stated your operation is in violation to
>the zoning laws the Scientology didn't make thoses laws the city did
>all the Cult did was use a REAL law to get at you. In order to defeat
>them you need to move to a location in the city that is zoned for the
>type of operation you are running. I have a question you need to
>ponder would you have blamed a neighbor of attacking your animal
>sanctuary if they had called the city?
>
Actually, I contend that that ordinance is unconstitutional. Pet
ownership is a recognized right, and any limitation thereon by a
governmental agency must pass at least minimal scrutiny (there is even
one judge who called it a fundamental right requiring strict scrutiny,
but I digress). You can put limitation on noise or sanitation (like
pooper scooper laws), but not a flat limitation on the number of
animals you may possess without justification.
I think RVY should get some of his local supporters to either
contact the local govt. and ask them to overturn the law, or to come
up with the money to fight its validity.
IANAL, however.
James L. Ryan
The fact remains that the "cat sanctuary" is in direct violation of the
zoning codes. The city has no recourse, upon receipt of a complaint, no
matter who the complainant is, but to force the operators of the sanctuary
to operate within the constraints of the law. I have a feeling that this
is a notion not fully appreciated by the operators of the cat sanctuary.
--
James L. Ryan -- bosw...@waterw.com
IG-88
On 8 Oct 1997 14:08:01 GMT, wri...@eskimo.com (Robert Vaughn Young)
wrote:
>:IG-88 (spic...@hotmail.com) wrote:
>:: Now I don't like Scientology in fact I believe they are the most evil
>:: cult around, but as you have stated your operation is in violation to
>:: the zoning laws the Scientology didn't make thoses laws the city did
>:: all the Cult did was use a REAL law to get at you. In order to defeat
>:: them you need to move to a location in the city that is zoned for the
>:: type of operation you are running. I have a question you need to
>:: ponder would you have blamed a neighbor of attacking your animal
>:: sanctuary if they had called the city?
>:
>:Looking again at my post (below) I can see that I should have emphasized
>:that if our cats were in filthy conditions and with "open sores" that
>:would be "animal abuse" and a felony. Thus accusing us of that is accusing
>:us of a felony. Too many unlicensed cats is not a felony. It is as
>:different as saying you are guilty of overtime parking vs. you are guilty
>:of drunk driving. Falsely accusing someone of a felony is when one moves
>:into slander and that is what some people are now learning, that a serious
>:line was mistakenly crossed. City officials don't like to be put into that
>:position.
>:
Whoa hold on there Tex!!! look at my original post where the hell did
I say you were "abusing the cats"? NO all I stated is that your
problem is with the zoning of the neighborhood you live in. You jumped
the gun and really are in the need for a hit with the old reality
stick. And again I ask would you be PISSED!! off if one of your
neighbors called the city? because it doesn't matter one way or
another because YOU ARE STILL IN VIOLATION OF A CITY ORDINACE period!!
Some people just can't accept they are at fault, and need to blame
everyone but themselves. Just because you feel you are helping out the
little kitties doesn't absolve you of the fact your are in violation
of the local zoning laws. Whining about this in the newsgroup wont
help you the only thing that can is 1. Move or 2. get rid of said
cats.
>:Robert Vaughn Young
Rob Clark
no, he addressed that issue. further, it is not as if residents
spontaneously complained, the attacks were based on manufactured
libels and false accusations. the zoning issue may remain, but now
there are also issues which could be addressed in a civil suit.
i suspect, though, that they just want to save the cats instead of
sending them to be needlessly killed.
---
Rob Clark
spic...@access1.com (IG-88) wrote:
>Some people just can't accept they are at fault, and need to blame
>everyone but themselves. Just because you feel you are helping out the
>little kitties doesn't absolve you of the fact your are in violation
>of the local zoning laws. Whining about this in the newsgroup wont
>help you the only thing that can is 1. Move or 2. get rid of said
>cats.
what is your real name, anyway? are there any zoning violations in
your residence?
the point you seem to have missed is not that the animal sanctuary is
in violation of zoning regulations. that should be dealt with by the
government, not by vigilante cults libelling and falsely accusing of
felony animal abuse. the investigation in fact proved those
allegations false.
rob
Donna
How about filing for a zoning variance, it happens all the time. This
might solve some of the immediate problem. Yes it is costly and takes a
bit of time, but consult a lawyer. I wouldn't be surprised if animal
lovers and shelters in the area might even help with funding your legal
bills, to help support a reputable haven.
Or ask an attorney to donate there service.
If this doesn't work, use the old trick that gets results. Call all the
local, state, and national news media and tell them or sad story, let them
know that the cats might face being destroyed if this isn't solved.
Believe me the scientologist don't want bad publicity. If it doesn't help
the sanctuary perhaps a few of the kitties will find a good home.
James L. Ryan <bosw...@waterw.com> wrote in article
<bosworth-091...@access1.accsyst.com>...
> In article <343c45f1...@news.mindspring.com>, xe...@mindspring.com
wrote:
>
> > bosw...@waterw.com (James L. Ryan) wrote:
> >
> > >The fact remains that the "cat sanctuary" is in direct violation of
the
> > Looking again at my post (below) I can see that I should have
> > emphasized that if our cats were in filthy conditions and with "open
> > sores" that would be "animal abuse" and a felony. Thus accusing us of
> > that is accusing us of a felony. Too many unlicensed cats is not a
> > felony. It is as different as saying you are guilty of overtime
> > parking vs. you are guilty of drunk driving. Falsely accusing someone
> > of a felony is when one moves into slander and that is what some
> > people are now learning, that a serious line was mistakenly crossed.
> > City officials don't like to be put into that position.
> >
> > Robert Vaughn Young
> > wri...@eskimo.com
>
> Whether the cats were kept in filthy conditions, etc. is _not_ relevant
to
> the fact that the number of cats kept was in excess of the zoning codes,
> and as I suggested above, once a complaint has been received, regardless
> of the intent of that complaint, the authorities, and in this case also
> the operators of the shelter, have no choice but to act in accordance
with
> the established codes.
Zed
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
This thread is bordering on excessive crossposting, but please bear with me:
there's an animal shelter that needs some help to survive. Followups narrowed a
teensy bit.
spic...@access1.com (IG-88) wrote:
>On 8 Oct 1997 14:08:01 GMT, wri...@eskimo.com (Robert Vaughn Young)
>wrote:
>>:Looking again at my post (below) I can see that I should have emphasized
>>:that if our cats were in filthy conditions and with "open sores" that
>>:would be "animal abuse" and a felony. Thus accusing us of that is accusing
>>:us of a felony. Too many unlicensed cats is not a felony. It is as
>>:different as saying you are guilty of overtime parking vs. you are guilty
>>:of drunk driving. Falsely accusing someone of a felony is when one moves
>>:into slander and that is what some people are now learning, that a serious
>>:line was mistakenly crossed. City officials don't like to be put into that
>>:position.
>>:
>Whoa hold on there Tex!!! look at my original post where the hell did
>I say you were "abusing the cats"?
You didn't. The people who complained about the sanctuary did. That's what Mr
Young stated in his original post.
> NO all I stated is that your
>problem is with the zoning of the neighborhood you live in. You jumped
>the gun and really are in the need for a hit with the old reality
>stick. And again I ask would you be PISSED!! off if one of your
>neighbors called the city?
Well now, that depends on what they say to the city authorities. If someone
calls the city and complains about violation of zoning laws (which is not what
happened), I wouldn't be pissed off - I'd remember that person didn't like pets,
but I wouldn't be pissed off. If someone repeatedly calls the city and
repeatedly makes false allegations about animal abuse (which _is_ what
happened), you bet I'd be pissed off.
>because it doesn't matter one way or
>another because YOU ARE STILL IN VIOLATION OF A CITY ORDINACE period!!
Yes. Mr Young has already indicated that he's aware of this. He appears to be
asking the people in Seattle- and pet-related newsgroups for help in resolving
this unfortunate situation. Allow me to reiterate that request for help: an
animal sanctuary in Seattle can't continue functioning at its current location
due to zoning ordinances. Is there anyone out there who can provide any
assistance in helping Mr Young continue his good work in a way that complies
with the letter of the law?
>Some people just can't accept they are at fault, and need to blame
>everyone but themselves. Just because you feel you are helping out the
>little kitties doesn't absolve you of the fact your are in violation
>of the local zoning laws. Whining about this in the newsgroup wont
>help you the only thing that can is 1. Move or 2. get rid of said
>cats.
Please point out where Mr Young has been "whining" about zoning laws. He has
given every indication that he wants to comply with the letter of the law. The
basis of his complaint is the constant barrage of false allegations that he is
abusing the animals in his sanctuary. He has every right to complain about that
IMHO.
Zed
Xenu Remailer for a.r.s.:http://www.magna.com.au/~zed/remailer.html
"I try to use only the strongest evidence in my criticism.
Part of that must include pointing out where other evidence
is lacking." - Rogue Agent
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3ia
Charset: cp850
iQEVAwUBND3SRisxIzhyTOOxAQEKwwgAka5KBiI1I8+Vb3EbsxcdLgJlMjI4ena4
0AQm8phb4MEzvo7YNrp6d1oyS7iuTSiKogRysFXAF+mTB/t9m//o0yUIgP8rlyxx
NV6ruzP0x3ouj8kTyDjyaN39XsQxu5+NnuOgRsdY83tx+qvP6+8PcjP8IbQtYXmX
VmatZE6qvBAPZd6N56dOnLD7afgkQKLtZYMX+3SHALrN8S+lZjJb7jywy8+QodUv
ywmPl/KeWspy/RKZP8A6rAzD1E62lU1ucaZMn6/L3IchhNuvDL8uOvuh7QGypxb8
1KTSuHLrnB+tLNbz6rRSdEglyvfIcxinYRKhmh1g+Kgqhv9kpExoBA==
=ow1M
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
James L. Ryan
In article <343d6aaf....@news.mindspring.com>, xe...@mindspring.com
(Rob Clark) wrote:
[snip]
>
> On Wed, 08 Oct 1997 21:35:36 -0400, bosw...@waterw.com (James L. Ryan)
> wrote:
>
> >The fact remains that the "cat sanctuary" is in direct violation of the
> >zoning codes. The city has no recourse, upon receipt of a complaint, no
>
> which zoning codes? can you cite chapter and verse on that, specifically
> on any sections regarding enforcing compliance or on variances?
>
[snip]
My statement that the cat sanctuary was in violation of the zoning codes
is based upon information contained in Robert Vaughn Young's posting of
Saturday, October 4, 1997, 3:50:42 AM, the posting which I believe
initiated this whole discussion.
<<But we made one mistake: As valuable as our effort is - and there is
only one group that disagrees with that - we didn't check the zoning
regulations. That gave Scientology the chance they needed.>>
<<The section of Seattle law being used says that a residence cannot have
more than three small animals. Anyone walking by could see we had more
than three. When we asked if the fact that the animals are transitory
(between homes) made any difference. It was hardly a secret. We were told
it does not, unless we get a variance to the zoning code, which we cannot
do since we rent.>>
<<Despite the fact that the environment was completely contrary to the
complaints, he gave us citations for having 10 extra unlicensed adult
cats. (Kittens did not count.) We have 14 days to pay the fine ($50 each)
or request a hearing.>>
--
Rob Clark
[I'm dropping the general rec.pets.cats and rec.pets.dogs newsgroups, as
well as seattle.general, as they are no longer strictly relevant. As
further groups become further irrelevant, please feel free to continue
dropping groups on further followups.]
On Wed, 08 Oct 1997 21:35:36 -0400, bosw...@waterw.com (James L. Ryan)
wrote:
>The fact remains that the "cat sanctuary" is in direct violation of the
>zoning codes. The city has no recourse, upon receipt of a complaint, no
which zoning codes? can you cite chapter and verse on that, specifically
on any sections regarding enforcing compliance or on variances?
i'm also fairly certain that legal updates will be forthcoming.
>matter who the complainant is, but to force the operators of the sanctuary
>to operate within the constraints of the law. I have a feeling that this
>is a notion not fully appreciated by the operators of the cat sanctuary.
actually, a zoning board is usually not a dictatorial body, and they seem
to vary not only from state to state but even from county to county in the
degree of control they choose to exert.
a zoning board, or other local government body serving the same purpose,
has any number of options in such a situation, from granting a variance or
other form of exemption, to amending the rule, to fining the owner on a
per-day basis until the owner comes in to compliance, or in extreme
circumstances to file a civil suit or even impound the property.
this is usually at the discretion of the board.
on the other hand, malicious and manifestly false accusations of felonies
deliberately orchestrated are the sort of thing for which a civil course
has very little discretion, they are more or less obliged to find for the
plaintiff in any libel action. i would rather be on the bad end of a
zoning violation than in the realm of criminal libel.
>James L. Ryan -- bosw...@waterw.com
rob
Rob Clark
[I'm dropping the general rec.pets.cats and rec.pets.dogs newsgroups, as
well as seattle.general, as they are no longer strictly relevant. As
further groups become further irrelevant, please feel free to continue
dropping groups on further followups.]
On Thu, 09 Oct 1997 08:05:59 -0400, bosw...@waterw.com (James L. Ryan)
wrote:
[robert vaughn young wrote]
>> Looking again at my post (below) I can see that I should have
>> emphasized that if our cats were in filthy conditions and with "open
>> sores" that would be "animal abuse" and a felony. Thus accusing us of
>> that is accusing us of a felony. Too many unlicensed cats is not a
>> felony. It is as different as saying you are guilty of overtime
>> parking vs. you are guilty of drunk driving. Falsely accusing someone
>> of a felony is when one moves into slander and that is what some
>> people are now learning, that a serious line was mistakenly crossed.
>> City officials don't like to be put into that position.
>> Robert Vaughn Young
>> wri...@eskimo.com
>Whether the cats were kept in filthy conditions, etc. is _not_ relevant to
>the fact that the number of cats kept was in excess of the zoning codes,
>and as I suggested above, once a complaint has been received, regardless
>of the intent of that complaint, the authorities, and in this case also
>the operators of the shelter, have no choice but to act in accordance with
>the established codes.
actually, as i've pointed out previously, the issue of the zoning board is
one which the board has great leeway in deciding, though it is of course
possible they will utilize their discretion in a manner unfavorable to the
cats.
it is certainly a political choice which they ought to consider wisely.
the issue of malicious libel, however, is another question. the board may
be swayed simply by the outrageousness of the false accusations, which were
proven false on cursory examination. i know my sympathies would be with
the person outrageously and falsely slandered, libelled and accused of
felonies, and might be inclined to be more lenient than usual in the matter
of any "letter of the law" violations when its spirit has so obviously been
abused by the anonymous complaints stirred up at the behest of a
non-resident cult.
>--
Shawn Hicks
IG-88 wrote:
> Give this man a cigar!!
For overstating the obvious? Please. The original messages had
no complaints about the zoning board enforcing the rules, just
a matter-of-fact admition that they broke them and were fined.
It's a dead issue that you've latched on to. Let go before
it rots in your mouth.
=========================================
Shawn Hicks
http://www.wizard.com/~balistik
Seagull
[several newsgroups removed from cross-posting]
IG-88 (spic...@access1.com) wrote:
:
: I'll play the devils advocate here for a moment.... I may feel that
: having 20 or 30 animals living in a single residency house as "abuse"
: I call the city they then come out and find all animals healthy they
: find no abuse, but they do cite the home owner with a zoning violation
: now was I wrong in calling the city because "I" felt there being so
: many animals in a single building constitutes abuse and the
: owner/renter gets cited for a totally different violation?
But that's not what happened here. Either you misssed the
original post, or didn't read it close enough. Or, you are so hung up
on playing Devil's Advocate that you forgot that to do so, one's point
must be relevant. The abuse complaints that were filed were not some
random definition of "abuse", they mentioned specifics which were
entirely untrue. Here's a directo quote from the original poster:
The next day, Animal Control visited us, unannounced, saying they
had received numerous complaints about animals with "open sores" and
"filthy conditions" etc.
Now, "filthy conditions" may be a debatable and subjective point, but
"open sores" is awfully specific. One would either have to see the
animals up close to know whether or not this was true. There is very
little room for interpretation on this point, and filing such a
complaint is either the act of a malicious person with an axe to grind,
or someone with too much time and paranoia on their hands.
Cheers,
-+JLS
--
sea...@netcom.com \ carpe cavy!
sea...@aracnet.com \
http://www.aracnet.com/~seagull \ (seize the guinea pig!)
James L. Ryan
In article <343E4696...@wizard.com>, bali...@wizard.com wrote:
> James L. Ryan wrote:
>
> > My statement that the cat sanctuary was in violation of the zoning codes
> > is based upon information contained in Robert Vaughn Young's posting of
> > Saturday, October 4, 1997, 3:50:42 AM, the posting which I believe
> > initiated this whole discussion.
>
> [..three quotes deleted...]
>
> This has expired from my site...but am I not right in remembering
> that they also admitted they needed to find a new place, asked
> for help doing it, and never *once* said that the zoning board
> was acting irresponsibly by enforcing the rules?
>
> The issue of whether or not they are, in fact, violating the
> zoning rules was *never* in question. It was *never* the
> point, either. It's a dead cat, stop beating on it. :)
>
> Maybe you can help them find a place for their cats?
>
> =========================================
> Shawn Hicks
> http://www.wizard.com/~balistik
Shawn,
The comment of mine you quote above was in direct response to one directed
at me by Rob Clark in which he asked me for proof that the cat sanctuary
was in violation of the zoning codes. I referred Rob Clark to the original
posting by Robert Vaughn Young. If you go back to that posting you will
see that Young makes no claim that he was not in violation of the zoning
codes, but he also comes across with somewhat of a "poor me, the victim"
attitude, as though he feels that the codes should not be enforced in his
case.
Andy Collier
In article <bosworth-101...@access9.accsyst.com>,
bosw...@waterw.com says...
Actually, if you refer to the original post, RVY seems more at trouble
with the potential felony allegations that the animals were kept "with
open sores" and so forth. The zoning seems to be a minor thing - its the
nature of the people and reasons behind the bringing of charges that has
him worried - and the false allegations of animal abuse and mental
problems. How would you like being accused of a felony (animal
abuse/cruelty) without knowing the source or reasons for such
allegations? Dont overlook the real depth of the original post whilst
arguing about the surace.
A.C.
Jesse
>I'll play the devils advocate here for a moment.... I may feel that
>having 20 or 30 animals living in a single residency house as "abuse"
>I call the city they then come out and find all animals healthy they
>find no abuse, but they do cite the home owner with a zoning violation
>now was I wrong in calling the city because "I" felt there being so
>many animals in a single building constitutes abuse and the
>owner/renter gets cited for a totally different violation?
This is a valid argument.Rember, though, what Robert was trying to convey
was not that he was in no wrong, but that the accusations against him were.
>was I wrong in calling the city because "I" felt there being so
>many animals in a single building constitutes abuse and the
>owner/renter gets cited for a totally different violation?
No I'd call that a concerned humanitarian act.
But, Calling once is fine...
Lets say that after you called the citty and they came out, and everything
was fine.You called again stating false acusations because you fellt that
you were right? What if you started doing this regularly.What if you went so
far as to post a note on the "Abusive Hosehold". And publish letters to all
the negboring houses stating those FALSE acusations? What if you hired a
detective to invetigate the "suspect house"?
Are you still a concerned person?
Or are you a fanatic?
I definatly think that ordinary people whith ordinary concerns would not
take a situation like this one as far as they did without some sort of
alterior motive or outside influnce....
Jesse,
P.S. It is rare that I meet a person who, after personaly researching
scientology, could honestly call it a viable and law abiding religion. I am
not a religious person myself and hold no bias
Rob Clark
On Fri, 10 Oct 1997 05:54:21 GMT, spic...@access1.com (IG-88) wrote:
[the general newsgroups rec.pets.cats,rec.pets.dogs and seattle.general
have been removed as not strictly relevant.]
>My real name isn't relevant here and is a pretty shallow attempt at
>misdirection, as to any zoning violations in my residence I can say
>zero I don't have any pets larger then a hedgehog, don't run a meth
>lab nor are then any vehicles up on blokes in my front yard. The point
>being whether or not the clams called and lodge a bogus complaint
>isn't relevant here since there was a violation sure it wasn't the
>violation of animal abuse but just having too many animals at the
>resident it's just that easy to understand. If Mr. Young had only 2 or
>3 cats and the clams had called the city on him for abuse I would have
>sided on his side on this subject but hey we can't go around ignoring
>laws just so because it pleases us.
if you know so much, why not quote the specific zoning code, specifically
anything about what discretion the zoning board has. zoning boards are not
necessarily autocratic institutions forced to interpret their own rules
strictly, and can do anything from granting a variance (young can not
himself file for a variance, the owner of the property must), to levying a
fine, to evicting the owner or criminal prosecution in outrageous cases.
i believe the penalties for libel or slander are in all likelihood more
serious when attempting to subvert local authorities with false,
prejudicial accusations, and that the "balance of harms" lies strictly in
young's favor.
i doubt it would be easy enough to prove in court that it would be worth a
lawsuit, young certainly has more clear instances of libel than this to
choose from should it come to that.
>I'll play the devils advocate here for a moment.... I may feel that
>having 20 or 30 animals living in a single residency house as "abuse"
>I call the city they then come out and find all animals healthy they
>find no abuse, but they do cite the home owner with a zoning violation
>now was I wrong in calling the city because "I" felt there being so
>many animals in a single building constitutes abuse and the
>owner/renter gets cited for a totally different violation?
yes, perhaps, if you really thought they were abused. now, as you ignore
in your hypothetical, in the case which occurred in reality-land as opposed
to your fantasy scenario, there were specific allegations with specific
details, such as open sores and general filth, which on investigation
proved utterly false. instead of simply having to involve the zoning
board, other government bodies were called in and their time wasted
investigating completely false and libellous accusations of felonies.
certainly, not only the youngs, but the government bodies themselves, and
the taxpayer's paying the salaries of the people investigating false
accusations have cause to be interested. one can still say, of course,
that the cats must be relocated, but that would have been a simple enough
matter for a zoning board to decide on way or another.
now the situation has been complicated and completely unrelated third
parties have had their time wasted investigating bogus accusations instead
of doing their real jobs, and i imagine their annoyance at this might tend
to place their sympathies with the locals so harassed rather than with the
out-of-town agitators orchestrating a well-planned campaign of libel and
harassment.
>If you play with the "Clams" you had better watch your back they have
>in the past showed that they play dirty and with little regards to the
>law.
true.
rob
William Barwell
In article <slrn63dt7...@thingy.apana.org.au>,
David Gerard <f...@thingy.apana.spaaaamtraaaaap.org.au> wrote:
>On 4 Oct 1997 21:28:56 GMT,
>Gwen A Orel <gao...@pitt.edu> wrote:
>
>:Wow. I knew the Sceintologists were a bit weird, to say the least, but
>:had no idea they were vindictive and manipulative too. I'm so sorry for
>:you to be dealing with them.
Vindictive and manipulative is the heart and soul of Scientology.
They have a 30 year history of this. This is what Scientology is.
This is typical.
Pope Charles
SubGenius Pope Of Houston
Slack!
CJM CJM
ARE YOU TELLING ME that scientoligits are prventing someone from having
too many cat somewhere they dont like? I dont understand? explain in
laymens terms. are you saying that John Travolta AND Tom Cruise
ACTUALLY BELIEVE THIS CRAP ABOUT ALIENS
Pantherpdx
Did you look into applying for a variance or other exception to the zoning
code. Also, you could urge the local government to adopt new zoning laws that
adhere to a performance standard rather than limiting the number of cats;
i.e., people can have as many cats as they can care for without creating
adverse impacts on the surrounding properties. This is a progressive sort of
ordinanace that cat lovers should be pushing for, rather than assuming that
those who make the laws are always right. They may not have heard from the
cat lover's lobby