L'affaire/Le cas de Stu est maintenant devant la Cour d'appel. Jeff a agi en tant que son propre avocat pendant la dernière année et le cas est pleinement informé à faire valoir cet été avant la deuxième Cour d'appel du district de Los Angeles.
Pour voir les infos sur ce cas, cliquez sur le lien ci-dessous et entrez le numéro du dossier No. B202071 :
1) Signez la pétition
Dites aux commissionaires, qui savent très bien que Stu n'a pas reçu un procès équitable (il s'est vu refuser la demande des témoins et s'est vu refuser la possibilité d'être évalué par le Dr Richard Polksy, ( http://dogexpert.com/ ) qui n'a finalement pu faire une évaluation de Stu qu'en Septembre 2006 et a trouvé que Stu n'est PAS DANGEREUX. Son gardien, l'expert-formateur Bobby Dorafshar STIPULE QUE STU n'est pas dangereux et a dit cela à la ville. Il existe des preuves manquantes dans les dossiers de la cour qui a été bâclé par le Département des Services Animaliers. Ces 4 pages permettraient de sauver la vie de Stu, mais le papa de Stu ne peut pas obtenir de la Cour qu'elle les examine.
Le conseil des commissionaires doit agir maintenant pour informer la Cour que Stu n'est pas dangereux et que le dossier devant la Cour est défectueux. Dites au Conseil d'assumer sa propre erreur et de donner à Stu un nouveau procès équitable. Si Jeff perd devant la Cour, Stu sera tué par Ed Boks.
Click on the yellow "PETITION" for signing
2) Envoyez un mail pour sauver Stu
Merci d'envoyer votre mail aux adresses ci-dessous :
AAN : Rocky.Delgadillo@lacity.org, Laurie.Rittenberg@lacity.org, Todd.Leung@lacity.org, Dov.Lesel@lacity.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, Councilmember.Parks@lacity.org, Bernard.Parks.Jr@lacity.org, email@example.com, Dennis.Zine@lacity.org, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, David.Hersch@lacity.org, Mike.Hernandez@lacity.org, Moniquea.Roberson@lacity.org, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, Jim.Bickhart@lacity.org, Ani.Commission@lacity.org
Sujet : Stu's Case: a decent dog has less rights than a serial killer...
Voici la lettre à envoyer :
To the News Staff at the LA Times,
I am writing on behalf of Stu, a decent and affectionate dog, who due to a minor transgression has landed on death row, where his time is about to run out.
Americans pride themselves for their love of dogs and on being compassionate . In reality it seems they are neither....Every year 6-8 million young, healthy dogs are put to death in the name of convenience... America prides itself on being a 'First World' nation with an enlightened view. It is not. In reality innocent dogs such as Stu, who have harmed no one are condemned to death because they are not protected under the law as living beings, but rather they are viewed as property. Disposing of property is a trivial matter. The disposal of a living being is a serious matter.
If Stu lived in India, he would be at home now with his loved ones, as India which is often viewed as a third world nation, is more humane and compassionate towards animals than the western nations. There is a clause in the Indian Constituion stipulating that every citizen has a 'Duty of Compassion' towards animals. This principle is a reflection of religious beliefs which honor and respect the lives of all beings. The laws in India regarding animal protection consider animals as living beings, not property. It is NOT legal to kill a dog for any reason other than extreme injury or illness, as the philosophy of Ahimsa, non-violence to all beings, is at the root of the Indian religions of Jainism and Hinduism:
"For there is nothing inaccessible for death. All beings are fond of life, hate pain, like pleasure, shun destruction, like life, long to live. To all life is dear." Jain Acharanga Sutra.
Because of the self-serving premise of man's Dominion over animals, as taught by the Judeo/Christian tradition, a dog has no rights, even a decent, companionable one, such as Stu, who is not a threat to anyone, can be seized and condemned to death for a slight misstep.
The premise of dominion, with its hierarchical scheme of man/animal and its corollary, that animals may be harmed or killed to benefit man is irrational and cruel, as a friendly, loving dog has less rights than a violent human criminal, and can be put to death on spurious and trivial charges or simply because he is homeless.
It is my hope that you will print a human interest story on Stu's plight. Should the wheels of injustice turn and result in the killing of Stu than I hope you will have the courage to report on the truth about 'disposable dogs' in America. For additional information on the problem of disposable dogs please refer to the No-Kill Advocacy Center, founded by Nathan Winograd, a Standford University Law School graduate:
The archaic religious beliefs of the Judeo/Christian tradition towards animals belie the myth that the United States of America is a compassionate, humane nation.which respects the life of a dog or any other animal..
Stu's Case: The Facts
-- I respectfully demand that L.A. Board of Animal Services hold a special meeting BEFORE 7/13/09, to form a written recommendation to spare Stu and send him home.
-- Please do not allow Stu's execution. The bite incident occurred when a pet-sitter tried to harness him after he'd sustained a torn ear in an atypical scuffle with another household dog. It is accepted knowledge that injured animals may react defensively.
-- Commissioner Archie Quincey, a 30-year veteran of L.A. Country Animal Control, later described the bites as "a couple of puncture wounds."
-- Stu was wrongfully seized from a locked kennel in Jeff de la Rosa's backyard in Aug. 2005. After that, L.A. Animal Services mismanaged the case, resulting in two years of court proceedings. During this time documents and attempts to reveal the truth about Stu were inexplicably blocked.
-- Dr. Richard Polsky, a co-creator of City criteria for gauging dangerous dogs, and Bobby Dorofshar of New Leash on Life, also a City advisor and one-time member of its Spay/Neuter Advisory Committee -- have testified that Stu poses no threat to humans and is not considered dangerous.
-- Conclusions that Stu is non-aggressive stem from expert assessment of Stu's pre- and post-incident behavior, plus comprehension of how the victim's actions may have triggered the bites.
-- Please let a now elderly dog, who aged from 6 to 10 while impounded, live his final days at home with Jeff de la Rosa. Stu's life depends upon the Board's move to hold a special meeting BEFORE 7/13/09. People worldwide hope you take this step to save Stu's life.
Merci pour Stu, sa vie dépend de la décision de ce conseil, SVP ECRIVEZ EN MASSE, INONDEZ-LES DE MAILS, UN SERIAL KILLER OU UN PEDOPHILE AURAIT PLUS DE DROITS QU'UN CHIEN AFFECTUEUX ET INOFFENSIF ???
NON ET NON, LEVEZ-VOUS POUR STU MAINTENANT,