The law allows for civil forfeiture of property and such cases are filed as the “United States v. [property to be seized]” which gives you weird cases like “US v. a diamond ring valued at $19,000” — the “defendant” is the property to be seized. It’s not going to be thrown in jail.
I didn’t read thru it because I saw someone else say it describes horrific abuse of these & other dogs. But elsewhere in the thread someone noted the dogs have been turned over to a contractor for rehabilitation. (Unclear how “rehabilitation” is defined but it’s got to be better than what they had.)
That it did. My aunt is a state officer whose job is to bust this type of thing so I should have known when I saw the amount of dogs and not loaded that PDF. Way in the opposite direction of happy here.
It's in rem jurisdiction, they're treated as property. Just like United States v. Article Consisting of 50,000 Cardboard Boxes More or Less, Each Containing One Pair of Clacker Balls https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_rem_jurisdiction
Thanks for the explanation! Not sure I fully understood the wikipedia article but I guess it's not as wild as I originally thought, except for the "approximately" 2 dogs...
we seriously need to do something about them a) perpetuating the myth that aggression is related to breed, b) framing systemic animal abuse which does result in aggression in sanitized terms like “conditioning” and “training” and c) make sure these lawyers know about bait dogs and cats.
I’m confused. are approximately two terrier mixed type dogs running a dog fighting ring out of Thomas Rayford’s house that two other dogs were seized from? or should the defendant be Rayford?
Yes, awful inside view. The complaint itself was a bit of a mess--not chronological and had 3 separate paragraphs stating more or less the same thing (16, 24, and 30). This made me suspect the complaint was done in a tremendous hurry as they are normally much more polished.
I read it, it’s terrible. How did the other two dogs die? Why are the dogs the defendants, that seems ridiculous. When Vick went to prison for dog fighting, where his dogs the defendants or him? I don’t get it. Poor dogs, I wonder if they are too aggressive to be rehomed?
What will make us happy is to see the FBI, USDA, & DOJ working to protect innocent pups & enforce the the Animal Welfare Act. It looks like this is part of an ongoing enforcement action that almost all Americans would applaud. These dogs are not being confiscated; they are being rescued.
Assuming its defendant as the lawyer is acting in defense of the dogs? As in defending their case to be removed? He's guardian ad litem (kind of)? Or they've err'd completely & he's there because the dogs started the fight.
That’s an excellent observation! Under US civil procedure, a court can have jurisdiction either in personam — over the person — or in rem — over the property. Suits filed in rem, especially in asset forfeiture cases, usually list the property as the defendant.
It's actually pretty normal in the legal world. It's called in rem jurisdiction and it's basically a way for courts to have jurisdiction over the property when there's no personal jurisdiction over the person who owns it, and when the case is only about that property and not any personal liability
It is an “in rem” case in which the property to be taken via forfeiture is sued. Here, sadly enough, are two ex-fighting dogs as the generically described defendants.
Having dealt with dog fighters in the past (former CA Humane Society President) the dogs always lose. Unless it’s a big enough bust to catch the interest of HSUS or some other organization, most likely the dogs will be killed. Vick’s dogs all found homes because of publicity. Most don’t.
People that engage in dog fighting should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Hopefully these dogs can be successfully rehabilitated and placed with loving homes.
It says they are in the care of people providing rehabilitation and veterinary services. Usually in these cases, they will do everything they can to save the dogs unless the dogs are too dangerous and cannot be rehabbed. Source: me, directly experienced in pit rescue from dog fighting rings
Oh good! Though I do think our options for dog rehabilitation of seriously dangerous-to-humans dogs are not robust, which is a shame. Thanks for doing that work though!
It’s really hard to rehab a violent dog. With how many dogs are in shelters every year, it’s not worth the risk of the dog killing a person or another animal. Violent animals are high strung and not always happy. It’s one of the harsh realities of animal rescue, there are fates way worse than death.
That sweet baby has been forced to have such a hard life. I'm so glad they were taken out of this awful situation. (Obviously they are innocent but their owners are very much not, it seems) Look at that face! 💔
Am Pit Bull Terriers and (Am) Staffordshire Terriers were bred from the now extinct "Bull and Terrier" breed in the mid 1800s. Originally "terrier" just meant any dog bred for vermin hunting. So the name is historically accurate even if it seems out of step with present usage.
i thought you could measure the number of dogs by counting them my mistake i did not realize one approximated the number of dogs i have approximately one dog
Punctuation, please. You can say "comma" where you want a comma and your phone will magically put one there for you. Very accommodating, these little robot overlords in our hands.
I ordinarily follow such rules, including capitalization, and share your sentiments. This skeet was a stylistic effort in keeping with one of my favorite posters, @darthbluesky.bsky.social, who would, I believe, share my thoughts on the countability of dogs and, alas, their finite numbers.
Actually, the case was against humans who bred and used dogs for fighting.
Two more pitbulls physically and mentally scarred for life. If charging them allows the DoJ to arrange witness protection for them at some government safehouse, I'm all for it.
Why *approximately?* I’d think specificity would be possible. The circumstances under which you’d have less than a whole number of dogs would be tragic beyond belief, and for the existence of that possibility I decline to read the filing.
How can it be *approximately* two? Counting past two is one of the first things kids learn. If it's more than one but less than three, it's not approximately anything.
In all seriousness this is probably a civil forfeiture case and the pups are just named as a way to get ownership from the person they were taken from.
The dogs were used for dog fighting. The suit is to grant permanent seizure of the dogs from the people abusing them. They’ve been placed with a contractor for vet care and rehabilitation.
Why is "approximately" part of that sentence? How hard is it for lawyers to count canines? Are they like... "It could have been more, but we're like 80% sure it was only two"?
Omgosh….lol. Breeding pitbull’s, then calling them a terrier or lab mix and then letting them go free to good homes… is really no better than the 80s when the cops sold crack. They just want to justify when they had to shoot a dog. “Very vicious, no choice”.
The first case is actually a very important one in the annals of obscenity jurisprudence in the US. The hardback edition of 'Ulysses' that I've had since high school (over 50 years ago) included Judge John Munro Woolsey's landmark ruling allowing publication.
At first I thought that was quirky and cute and then I remembered how America is and that the context of this is almost certainly "we want to kill some dogs for clearly evil reasons"
Nah, I'd like our nation's top law enforcement agency to focus on our nation's most urgent criminal matters. But I also realize that type of prioritization might not be shared by all citizens.
Good thing it's not in admiralty court, or it would be "Approximately Two Terrier Type Dogs, Their Fur, Legs, Bones, Teeth, Internal Organs, and all Elements Related Thereto."
I was heartened to read that the government is paying for the rehabilitation of the dogs. They're gonna need it if they were being conditioned to fight.
Appreciate the posting of the complaint - as an animal lover I appreciate the govt taking these actions…found myself thinking that some (DOGE) would see this as wasteful…
While many of us see it as working toward that “more perfect union” thing, enforcing humane treatment of animals…
Fun fact (slightly off topic), do you remember the former Secretary of Energy Rick Perry. He went to Texas A & M and got a "D" in a course called "Meats."
Our legal system is so messed up! The dogs are being sued for dog fighting, which I'm sure they engaged in, poor beasts, but isn't that a little bit victim blaming?
Is this like when airlines say a flight is due at 'approximately 8.47'? Which I've always understood as airline-speak for 'Oh hell, it'll be in while it's still light out. Maybe.'
go crazy. since i'll be coming straight from the sold-out 6:10pm advance screening of BABYGIRL, the team name will hopefully have already been locked in by the time i'd be arriving a smidge after 8pm.
Comments
They are good boy and good girl.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.insd.218574/gov.uscourts.insd.218574.1.0.pdf
What about the owners? The people running the fight?
How do you sue animals, ffs?
Does Garland have his head up his ass???
🤯🤯🤯
Rarely do people who hurt animals NOT go on to hurt humans.
Monsters in human form
https://www.wthr.com/article/news/crime/1-wounded-in-anderson-indiana-shooting/531-e65dbc31-8429-43e7-a898-c9c1102203e6
https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-approximately-64-dogs-1
I hate ppl.
Sick to train dogs & watch them tear each other apart!
...But dogs?
Also look at the stereotyping. I saw Lawyer = he!
I suck at feminism.
As a non-lawyer it seems weird that the dogs are listed as defendants rather than the people the dogs are being seized from. What's up with that?
If all else fails, these pups can be managed simply by being an only pet when necessary.
Heist of a dog food store?
Mugging cats?
Two more pitbulls physically and mentally scarred for life. If charging them allows the DoJ to arrange witness protection for them at some government safehouse, I'm all for it.
2-9/16 dogs?
Free the dogs! Jail the humans!
You are joking ?
Befuddled judge: “Nothing in the rules says a dog can’t appear pro se.”
Today I learned it can also be a small dog!
https://open.spotify.com/track/0c2DAekH6ZEnHhf8dM1leK?si=G6irj16_S5eHBmHiEwQn4w
https://www.cbs17.com/news/court-rules-suspect-asked-for-a-lawyer-dog-not-a-lawyer-dog/
approximately 64 dogs
approximately 64,695 pounds of shark fins
approximately one terrier mix type dog
The case is against the property being seized for some weird reason that probably somehow goes back to English
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2017/10/suspect-asks-for-a-lawyer-dawg-judge-says-he-asked-for-a-lawyer-dog.html
I know how in rem cases work but *approximately*?
While many of us see it as working toward that “more perfect union” thing, enforcing humane treatment of animals…
https://www.tiktok.com/@its.avery.warwick/video/7472812241109142814?lang=en
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2889420084009305725&hl=en&as_sdt=2006
Occasionally you’ll see one that’s like “US Government vs. Approximately 7,500 Beanie Babies”
This is probably my favorite one
United States v. Forty Barrels & Twenty Kegs of Coca-Cola
United States v. 11 1/4 Dozen Packages of Articles Labeled in Part Mrs. Moffat’s Shoo-Fly Powders for Drunkenness
United States v One Solid Gold Object In The Form Of A Rooster
United States v. Article Consisting of 50,000 Carboard Boxes More or Less, Each Containing One Pair of Clacker Balls
(This post is sarcastic, fuck dog fighters.)
(Yes, I know this is what all in rem cases sound like.)
a little spoiled & cherished & all.
❤️👍
albino pittie?
Saving big ones 👍
https://bsky.app/profile/rlheppner.bsky.social/post/3lcy556rezk2z