Supreme Court, U.S.
`FILED
`FEB 1 <i 2020
`OFFICE OF THE CLERK
`
`loso
`No. 19-
`in tfje
`Supreme Court of tfje Unttefc States
`
`KAREN BISHOP,
`
`v.
`
`PALM BEACH COUNTY,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`Respondent.
`
`On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the
`Florida Fourth District Court of Appeals
`
`PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
`
`Karen Bishop
`Petitioner Pro Se
`650 N. Penrod Road, #533
`Show Low, AZ 85901
`(928) 266-5437
`
`February 14,2020
`SUPREME COURT PRESS
`
`♦
`
`(888) 958-5705
`
`♦
`
`Boston, Massachusetts
`
`RECEIVED
`FEB 1 9 2020
`OF-FICE OF THE CLERK
`SUPREME COURT; II R
`
`
`FILED
`FEB 1 <i 2020
`OFFICE OF THE CLERK
`
`loso
`No. 19-
`in tfje
`Supreme Court of tfje Unttefc States
`
`KAREN BISHOP,
`
`v.
`
`PALM BEACH COUNTY,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`Respondent.
`
`On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the
`Florida Fourth District Court of Appeals
`
`PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
`
`Karen Bishop
`Petitioner Pro Se
`650 N. Penrod Road, #533
`Show Low, AZ 85901
`(928) 266-5437
`
`February 14,2020
`SUPREME COURT PRESS
`
`♦
`
`(888) 958-5705
`
`♦
`
`Boston, Massachusetts
`
`RECEIVED
`FEB 1 9 2020
`OF-FICE OF THE CLERK
`SUPREME COURT; II R
`
`
`
`1
`
`QUESTION PRESENTED
`
`How can a definition or determination of fitness
`be assessed when the Florida Statute 828.073(4)(a)
`provides a vague description of fitness, puts the
`definition and determination into a judges hands, and
`in spite of the evidence provided by the owner at
`bench trial and partially suppressed by the court
`that the animals will be adequately provided for by
`the owner, gives away the petitioners animals and
`property.
`
`
`
`11
`
`LIST OF PROCEEDINGS
`
`District Court of Appeal of the State of Florida,
`Fourth District,
`4D19-3152
`Karen Bishop v. Palm Beach County
`Date of Final Order: November 20, 2019
`
`In the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in
`and for Palm Beach County, Florida
`50-2018-AP-000062-CAXX-MB
`Karen Bishop v. Palm Beach County
`Date of Final Opinion: September 17, 2019
`
`
`
`Ill
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`1
`
`11
`
`Vll
`
`1 1 1 2 4 7
`
`20
`
`QUESTION PRESENTED................................
`LIST OF PROCEEDINGS.................................
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES..............................
`PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI....
`OPINIONS BELOW..........................................
`JURISDICTION.................................................
`CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY
`PROVISIONS INVOLVED.........................
`STATEMENT OF THE CASE..........................
`REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION
`CONCLUSION...................................................
`
`
`
`IV
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS - Continued
`
`Page
`
`la
`
`2a
`
`4a
`
`5a
`
`7a
`
`9a
`
`APPENDIX TABLE OF CONTENTS
`Opinions and Orders
`Order of District Court of Appeal of the State of
`Florida Denying Petition for Writ of Certiorari
`(November 20, 2019).............................................
`Order of District Court of Appeal of the State of
`Florida Denying Motion to Reverse Strike
`(November 7, 2019)...............................................
`Order of District Court of Appeal of the State of
`Florida for Filing Petition for Writ
`(October 14, 2019).................................................
`Mandate from the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth
`Judicial Circuit of Palm Beach County
`(October 1, 2019)...................................................
`Opinion of the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth
`Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County,
`Florida (September 17, 2019)..............................
`Final Judgment of the County Court of the
`Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm
`Beach County (May 18, 2018).............................
`Order of the County Court of the Fifteenth
`Judicial Circuit Denying Defendant’s Motion
`to Continue (May 4, 2018)...................................
`Order on Citations of the County Court of the
`Fifteenth Judicial Circuit Court in and for
`Palm County (August 17, 2017).........................
`
`14a
`
`16a
`
`
`
`V
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS - Continued
`
`Page
`
`19a
`
`Statutory Provisions
`Relevant Statutory Provisions..................................
`Other Documents
`Motion to Remove Label of Animal Cruelty and
`Response to Expert Specialty Visit
`(May 14, 2018).......................................................
`27a
`Motion to Visit Pets Filed in the County Circuit
`Court of the Fifteenth Circuit
`(April 27, 2018)......................................................
`34a
`Defendant’s Motion to Prohibit Filed in the County
`Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Circuit
`(April 23, 2018)......................................................
`Defendant’s Motion to Visit Pets
`(April 23, 2018)......................................................
`Initial Brief of Appellant
`40a
`(March 11, 2019)...........................................
`
`36a
`
`38a
`
`
`
`VI
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`Anderson v. Liberty Lobby,
`All U.S. 242 (1986)....................................
`Brown v. State,
`166 So.3d. 817 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015)
`Daskalea v. Washington Humane Society,
`480 F.Supp.2d 16 (D.D.C. 2007)...............
`Davis v. State,
`806 So.2d 1098 (Miss. 2001)......................
`First Natl Bank of Arizona v. Cities Service
`Co., 391 U.S. 253, 88 S. Ct. 1575 (1968).
`Horning-Kea ting
`v. Employers Insurance of Wausau,
`969 So.2d 412 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)...
`
`Page
`
`8
`
`13
`
`15
`
`10, 12
`
`8
`
`18
`
`CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS
`U.S. Const, amend. I..........................
`U.S. Const, amend. IV......................
`U.S. Const, amend. V........................
`U.S. Const, amend. VII.....................
`U.S. Const, amend. VIII...................
`U.S. Const, amend. IX......................
`U.S. Const, amend. XIV, § 1............
`
`2
`..2, 8, 9, 17
`2, 9, 17, 18
`3, 8
`..... 3, 15
`..... 3, 10
`3, 11, 17
`
`
`
`Vll
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued
`
`Page
`
`1
`..4, 19
`4, 5,9
`4,5
`i, 4, 15
`...4, 18
`14
`
`4
`4, 18, 19
`
`4 4
`
`12
`
`STATUTES
`28 U.S.C. § 1257(a)...
`F.S. § 90.065(1)........
`F.S. § 828.073(2).......
`F.S. § 828.073(3).......
`F.S. § 828.073(4)(a)(l)
`F.S. § 934.03(l)(c)(d).
`RCW 16. 52.207, § 4 ..
`
`JUDICIAL RULES
`Fla. R. App. P. 9.110(a).............
`Fla. R. App. P. 9.200(b)(4)........
`Fla. R. App. P. 9.420(d).............
`Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.516(b)(1)
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`Sonja A. Soehnel,
`What Constitutes Statutory Offense of
`Cruelty to Animals, Modern Cases, 6
`A.L.R., 5th 733 (1992)..............................
`
`
`
`1
`
`PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
`Petitioner, Karen Bishop, respectfully asks that
`a writ of certiorari issue to review the judgment and
`opinion of the Florida Court of Appeal, [DCA#] Appel
`late District, filed on November 20, 2019.
`
`OPINIONS BELOW
`The order of the Florida Fourth District Court of
`Appeals, dated November 20, 2019, denying a Petition
`for Writ of Certiorari is included below at App.la. The
`Opinion of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit Civil Court,
`dated September 17, 2019 is included below at App.8a.
`
`JURISDICTION
`The Fourth Circuit District Court of Appeal denied
`a Petition for Writ of Certiorari on November 20, 2019.
`This petition is filed within 90 days of the Fourth
`District Court of Appeals denial of discretionary review,
`under rules 13.1 and 29.2 of this Court. The jurisdic
`tion of this court is invoked under 28U.S.C. § 1257(a).
`
`
`
`2
`
`CONSTITUTIONAL AND
`STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED
`U.S. Constitution
`U.S. Const, amend. I
`Congress shall make no law respecting an estab
`lishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
`thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of
`the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
`assemble, and to petition the Government for a
`redress of grievances.
`U.S. Const, amend. IV
`The right of the people to be secure in their
`persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unrea
`sonable searches and seizures, shall not be vio
`lated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon pro
`bable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation,
`and particularly describing the place to be sear
`ched, and the persons or things to be seized.
`U.S. Const, amend. V
`No person shall be held to answer for a capital,
`or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a present
`ment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in
`cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in
`the Militia, when in actual service in time of
`War or public danger; nor shall any person be
`subject for the same offence to be twice put in
`jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in
`any criminal case to be a witness against himself,
`nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without
`
`
`
`3
`
`due process of law; nor shall private property be
`taken for public use, without just compensation.
`U.S. Const, amend. VII
`In Suits at common law, where the value in con
`troversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of
`trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried
`by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any
`Court of the United States, than according to the
`rules of the common law.
`U.S. Const, amend. VIII
`Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive
`fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments
`inflicted.
`U.S. Const, amend. IX
`The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain
`rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage
`others retained by the people.
`U.S. Const, amend. XTV, § 1
`All persons born or naturalized in the United
`States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are
`citizens of the United States and of the State
`wherein they reside. No State shall make or
`enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges
`or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor
`shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty,
`or property, without due process of law; nor deny
`to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
`protection of the laws.
`
`
`
`4
`
`Florida Statutes
`The following provisions are reproduced in the Appendix:
`• Florida Rules of Judicial Administration,
`2.516(b)(1)
`• Florida Statute Section 828.073(2)
`• Florida Statute Section 828.073(3)
`• Florida Statute Section 828.073(2)(b)
`• Florida Statute Section 828.073(4)(a)(l)
`• Florida Statutes, Title VII, Evidence Chap
`90, Evidence Code, 90.065(l)
`• Florida Statute Section 934.03(l)(c)(d)
`• Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule
`9.110(a)
`• Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule
`9.200(b)(4)
`• Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.420(d)
`
`STATEMENT OF THE CASE
`On May 18, 2018, the lower civil tribunal court
`of Palm Beach County awarded custody of petitioners
`animals, finch aviary, and driftwood perches with
`linen cover that had previously belonged to Petitioners
`great grandmother, Mrs. Winters-Riley to Palm Beach
`County, in addition to abridging petitioners rights to
`pet ownership except by evidentiary Hearing in Palm
`Beach County or be arrested, and a demand for a
`$10,404.28 judgment.
`
`
`
`5
`
`On April 19, 2018 the County of Palm Beach filed
`a “Petition For Emergency Hearing” Pursuant to
`Florida Statute Section 828.073. According to Florida
`Statute Section 828.073(3), written notice is to be
`served under Florida Statute 828.073(2) within three
`days of the animal custody hearing to the owner and
`by service of process. Petitioner received a letter in
`the United States mail to attend the hearing. A hearing
`date was requested for a determination of custody for
`13 animals (cats, dogs, and birds) allegedly in the
`possession of petitioner. The County of Palm Beach
`claimed that it had received numerous complaints
`regarding petitioners animals and that petitioner
`had refused to allow officers access to petitioners home.
`The County of Palm Beach failed to indicate the reason
`for the access refusal, as petitioner asserted this was
`a violation of petitioner’s Constitutional rights, and
`petitioner would bring the pets outside, whereby the
`outside inspection was declined. The county reported
`it had issued citations to the petitioner in May and
`June of 2017. In an effort to demonstrate adherence
`to the County Ordinance, Petitioner agreed to bring
`the pets outside. On the scheduled meeting date and
`1 day later, petitioner produced only 2 dogs and 1 cat
`due to inability to obtain the necessary vaccinations
`at the time. Petitioner feared more monetary fines
`for the other pets, which would have posed an addi
`tional financial burden due to the fact that petitioner
`had just vaccinated 2 of her dogs, and purchased the
`required tags. The County reported that it received a
`complaint on April 11, 2018 regarding over 30 cats
`living in the home and then carried out a search
`warrant on April 14, 2018. On subsequent veterinarian
`examination the county claimed that the animals were
`in poor health conditions, including one dog in heart
`
`
`
`6
`
`failure and other dogs with wounds that were not
`treated, in addition to broken teeth, ear mites and
`fleas.
`Petitioner filed a Motion to Visit Pets on April 23,
`2018. A Motion to Prohibit was also filed to prohibit the
`sale, transfer or killing of her pets until they were
`returned back to Petitioner. On April 27, 2018, Peti
`tioner filed a response to the [Petition For] Emergency
`Hearing. Petitioner recounted her version of events
`from 2007 when her animals were seized, in addition
`to the events of April 2018. Petitioner elucidated that
`much of what the Animal Care and Control Agency
`had alleged was untrue. Petitioner recounted how she
`took an emergency trip to Washington, D.C. on March
`23, 2019. Petitioner hired a pet sitter after several
`interviews with the pet sitter to care for the pets in
`their home and in petitioners absence, until March 25,
`2019. Petitioner reported that the pet sitter had made
`an anonymous report to Animal Care and Control of
`Palm Beach County after petitioner left a negative
`report regarding the pet sitter to the pet sitter agency.
`Petitioner reported she had unrepaired hurricane
`damage in her home. Petitioner asserted that she took
`basic care of her pets and demanded her pets back.
`On April 27, 2018 Petitioner filed another Motion
`to Visit Pets. On May 4, 2018 Petitioner filed a Motion
`to Reschedule Hearing, requesting the hearing to be
`scheduled for one week later. The Motion was denied
`the very same day by the trial court, with the reasoning
`that Petitioner had failed to demonstrate good cause
`as to why the hearing should be rescheduled in one
`week. On May 9, 2018 the County filed a Request to
`Take Judicial Notice. The county requested the trial
`court to take notice of the Order on Citations, which
`
`
`
`7
`
`were entered in four separate county court cases; these
`were county court case files in which the County had
`proceedings against Petitioner. The particular August
`16, 2017 Order On Citations ordered that Petitioner
`produce all of her animals on August 17, 2017, for an
`inspection by Palm Beach County Animal Care and
`Control. On May 14, 2018 Petitioner filed a Motion to
`Remove Label of Animal Cruelty And Response to
`Expert Specialty Visit, arguing that the seizure of
`petitioners pets was malicious and violated the Con
`stitution. The trial court entered an order allowing
`the specialist to appear telephonically at the upcoming
`Hearing. The trial took place May 18, 2018. A Final
`Judgment was entered on May 21, 2018, Book #29868,
`Page 1967-1970, and the case was disposed by the
`judge. On May 21, 2018, Petitioner filed a Notice of
`Appeal and an application for determination of civil
`indigent status. On September 16, 2019 the Circuit
`Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit filed an Opinion,
`Per Curium Affirmed. On September 25, 2019, Peti
`tioner filed a Motion For Opinion which was Denied/
`clerk to close the case on September 27, 2019. On
`October 10, 2019 Petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal
`to the Fourth District Court of Appeals and received
`the Order on October 14, 2019 that the Appeal would
`be treated as this Writ of Certiorari.
`
`REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION
`This case presents important issues as to whether
`trial by jury be held when Petitioners seized animals
`and property are decided to be given away by a court,
`in addition to abridgment of pet ownership in Palm
`
`
`
`8
`
`Beach County and a demand for a $10404.28 judgment^
`“[T]he judges function is to not himself weigh the evi
`dence and determine the truth of the matter but to
`determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial”.
`Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, All U.S. 242, 249 (1986).
`“[T]here is no issue for trial unless there is sufficient
`evidence favoring the non-moving party for a jury to
`return a verdict for that party”. 477 U.S. at 249; 106
`S.Ct. at 2510 (Citing First Natl Bank of Arizona v.
`Cities Service Co., 391 U.S. 253, 288-89, 88 S. Ct. 1575,
`1592 (1968). According to the Seventh Amendment of
`the United States Constitution, in suits at common
`law where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty
`dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved
`and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re
`examined in any Court of the United States, then
`according to the rules of the common law. In this case
`the controversy’s exceed $20.00 but the right of trial
`by jury was not preserved. The judges weight of the
`evidence was tilted heavily towards the County,
`affecting the outcome of the hearing as evidenced by
`giving away pets and property to the County of Palm
`Beach, in addition to abridgment of pet ownership
`rights and inflicting a $10,404.28 judgment even in
`the face of evidence that Petitioner had been suffering
`severe financial distress. On April 14, 2018 Palm
`Beach County Animal Control Officers entered into
`Petitioners family home and seized Beatrice, in addi
`tion to the other pets that Petitioner owned, claiming
`they had a search warrant; however, the Fourth
`Amendment of the United States Constitution asserts
`that the right of the people to be secure in their
`persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unrea
`sonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,
`and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
`
`
`
`9
`
`supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly^
`describing the place to be searched, and the persons
`or things to be seized. The significant words in the
`Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitu
`tion are probable cause and Oath, which were absent
`from the search warrant due to the fact that Adam
`Moulton provided false testimony to a criminal court
`in order to gain a search warrant. The search warrant
`stated that there were 30 cats, 4 dogs, and 4 birds.
`The search warrant stated that 6 months earlier there
`were more than 50 cats in Petitioner’s residence, which
`precisely contradicts what Adam Moulton wrote in his
`animal care and control reports, and these facts were
`greatly exaggerated by the malicious intent of the
`animal control officer and his attorney. At the time of
`seizure Beatrice was sleeping comfortably as Beatrice
`had finished eating her largest meal of the day which
`was breakfast. Petitioner was pulled outside and
`then held at gunpoint outside of her home, while the
`pets were seized and taken from the family home.
`According to the Florida Statute 828.073(2)(a)
`animals found in distress, the statute calls for removal
`while Beatrice was sleeping peacefully the morning
`of April 14, 2018 and no other animal was in distress.
`Petitioner was then informed outside of her house
`her animals probably wouldn’t be taken, but a call
`would be placed to the county attorney. After the phone
`call, Animal Care and Control began taking Petition
`er’s animals and things, breaking furniture in the
`process, which is a violation of the Fifth Amendment
`of the United States Constitution.
`Beatrice suffered from a chronic condition most
`likely cardiac in nature, as evidenced by our last trip
`to Peggy Adams approximately eighteen months prior.
`
`
`
`10
`
`It was recommended to take Beatrice either to cardiac
`or pulmonary specialty as Peggy Adams animal clinic
`provides primary care only at reasonable cost. This
`was important as Petitioner had recently lost her main
`source of income the same month she took Beatrice
`to Peggy Adams. Euthanizing Beatrice was out of the
`question as was an expensive specialty visit, and
`Petitioner opted for comfort care at home, to include a
`holistic heart worm formula from Wolf Creek Ranch
`(http://wolfcreekranch.net/heartworm_free.html) and
`a holistic bronchodilator called LungGold (https://
`www.petwellbeing.com/products/lung-gold). The right
`to choose this medical treatment is a constitutional
`right guaranteed by the Ninth Amendment of the
`United States Constitution.
`These holistic medications had worked well for
`Beatrice comfort and easy breathing. Petitioner case
`was similar to the case of Petitioner Mr. Davis, who was
`found guilty of animal cruelty against his horse with
`a broken leg. Mr. Davis felt this was unjust and filed
`his timely appeal to the Supreme Court of Mississippi.
`Davis v. State, No-2000-KM-00630-SCT (Miss. 2001).
`Mr. Davis had a young colt who slipped and fell,
`sustaining an injury/break very close to the joint
`supporting the colts hoof. The colt received care at
`home that included an injection and compresses. A
`veterinarian was called who examined the colt and
`provided to Mr. Davis options for further treatment
`of the colt. One of the options was a surgical correction,
`or care at home that included weight off the foot,
`isolation, medication for pain, and allowing the fracture
`to calcify which would leave a permanent limp. Due
`to the difference in cost, Mr. Davis chose the second
`
`
`
`11
`
`option. For Mr. Davis to euthanize his colt was out of
`the question.
`About eleven months later, two animal care and
`control officers from the SPCA received a complaint
`regarding a colt that limped. The two officers obtained
`a search warrant and proceeded to inspect the colt,
`determining that it was suffering and in pain. A
`veterinarian connected with animal care and control
`was consulted and the veterinarian concluded that
`the colt was in chronic pain as opposed to acute pain.
`Subsequently and because of this, the veterinarian
`euthanized the colt that belonged to Mr. Davis. Mr.
`Davis was not notified of this event, and he found out
`about it by reading the incident in the local town news
`paper.
`Ultimately Mr. Davis case was reversed and
`rendered by the Mississippi Supreme Court as he had
`no way of knowing from the face of the Mississippi
`statute that he was in violation of the law, and the
`Supreme Court of Mississippi discharged Mr. Davis.
`The Supreme Court found the Mississippi statute
`unconstitutional under the due process Clause of the
`Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Consti
`tution and found further that the language of the
`statute was too vague for the proper determination of
`the mens rea.
`In this instance it is not a state right to dictate
`to Petitioner whether comfort care may be provided
`or not, as that that is a violation of Petitioners con
`stitutional rights, as in the Due process clause of the
`Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Consti
`tution. The Florida Statute 828.073 makes no refer
`ence as to provision of comfort care for the animal by
`the owner so Petitioner has no way of knowing if pro-
`
`
`
`12
`
`viding comfort care and holistic medications at home
`is a definition of unfitness or a violation of the statute.
`Davis v. State, 806 So.2d 1098 (Miss. 2001). Other
`courts have reviewed modern state cases that involve
`the interpretation of animal cruelty statutes, and one
`of the key issues is the intent with which the accused
`has acted. See Sonja A. Soehnel, What Constitutes
`Statutory Offense of Cruelty to Animals, Modern
`Cases, Annotation, 6 A.L.R., 5th 733, 755 (1992), See
`Davis v. State, 806 So.2d 1098 (Miss. 2001). At the
`time of the bench trial Petitioner did not have and
`could not locate the Peggy Adams receipt as it was in
`a password protected laptop. Additionally and at
`initiation of the lower court trial opposing council
`informed Petitioner the county was seeking custody
`of all of Petitioners animals except for one, Beatrice
`who was deceased. This came as a great shock to Peti
`tioner as Beatrice was not expected to die and no
`one had informed Petitioner of the death of Beatrice.
`Opposing council further stated the county was seeking
`a judgment of an excess of $10,404.28 and that the
`county was pursuing criminal charges against Peti
`tioner.
`Prior to the trial the court denied a one week ex
`tension requested by the Petitioner, which precluded
`the location of important documentation. Opposing
`council then went on to inform the lower court how
`petitioner did not provide water to her animals as
`the water had been shut off by the City of Boynton
`Beach for non-payment, without acknowledging that
`the City of Boynton Beach had charged Petitioner
`over $600.00 for water that Petitioner had difficulty
`paying, and had overcome this obstacle by using non-
`traditional sources of water.
`
`
`
`13
`
`The county alleged that Beatrice had a severe
`hookworm infestation but did not provide at trial evi
`dence of a complete blood count which proved anemia.
`Brown v. State, 166 So.3d. 817, 819 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App.
`2015). The county alleged Beatrice had ear mites and
`provided no picture of a mite. The county alleged
`Beatrice was flea infested but provided no pictures of
`a flea or fleas, and no laboratory evidence of anemia,
`indicative of a severe flea infestation due to loss of
`blood from flea bites. The county further alleged that
`Chewey had a blind eye and a rotten tooth, while
`refusing to acknowledge that Chewey was adopted with
`preexisting conditions.
`Chewey had a habit of biting one of his paws,
`and Petitioner would treat the area with Sulfodene, an
`over the counter remedy to treat hot spots in canines
`to cause a healing. The county did provide darkly tinted
`black and white photographs negatively portraying
`Beatrice and Chewey in a troubling state. The county
`did not acknowledge the fact that Petitioner provided
`holistic medications to Beatrice which were effective
`and affordable in providing cardiac comfort and bron-
`chodilation. Some of these items, including the artificial
`tears, Sulfodene astringent (https://www.amazon.com/
`Sulfodene-Medicated-Spot-Relief-Spray/dp/B00X12NL
`SM), Diatomaceous earth, Richards Shampoo, handy
`man invoice and note, construction supplies receipt
`and check off list which Petitioner kept were omitted
`in the evidence list, although Petitioner brought them
`to the trial. On the above mentioned primary care visit
`for Beatrice and approximately 12 months earlier with
`receipt not locatable at time of trial, it was recommend
`ed to visit either cardiac or pulmonary specialty for
`further consultation, and that heart surgery in canines
`
`
`
`14
`
`was not and is not yet perfected and (Borgarelli,
`M., Lanz, O., Pavlisko, N., Abbott, J. A., Menciotti, G.,
`Aherne, M.,... Gammie, J. S. 2017). Since euthanasia
`was out of the question and the specialty visit was
`cost prohibitive at the time, Petitioner opted for
`comfort care at home and which is called palliative
`care in human terms. The trial court was asked to look
`to the Washington statute RCW 16. 52.207, section 4,
`if established by the defendant by a preponderance of
`the evidence, that the defendant’s failure was due to
`economic distress beyond the defendant’s control,
`then that defense is an affirmative defense in any
`prosecution of animal cruelty. Petitioner ordinarily
`would purchase higher quality products for the pets as
`was customary in the past before Petitioner suffered
`economic distress, and was also qualifying for the
`Florida Hardest Hit Fund (www.treasury.gov). The
`court repudiated the Washington statute or the eco
`nomic distress. Petitioner provided evidence of newer
`income that was initiated two months prior, and a
`signed contract with a start date entered into the
`contract and dollar figure amount of a salary in black
`and white, where Petitioner and the animals would
`be relocating to a new state in 3 months, along with
`home repair receipts. The court repudiated the evi
`dence of present income which was a social security
`pension transitioning into a weekly salary as evi
`denced by future income and the handyman’s letter
`to the court providing evidence of the cosmetic repairs,
`noting that the structural joists of the roof were intact.
`The court stated that the handyman must be physically
`present to provide testimony. Regarding the repairs,
`the court stated, it was glad that petitioner porch
`had been repaired. The court stated that Petitioner
`had proven financial distress towards the conclusion
`
`
`
`15
`
`of the trial, and before issuing the Summary Judg
`ment. In looking over the evidence, Petitioner did not
`see the Handyman note or materials receipt from Home
`Depot entered into evidence. Providing this evidence
`demonstrated fitness according to Florida Statute
`Section 828.073(4)(a)(l), which states that if the
`owner is adjudged by the court to be adequately able
`to provide for and have custody of the animal(s) in
`which case the animal shall be returned to the owner
`upon payment by the owner for the care and provision
`for the animal(s) while in the agent(s) custody. Peti
`tioner met the above burden by demonstrating ade
`quacy through the evidence brought to trial. The
`judgment charge of $10,404.28 is a violation of Eighth
`Amendment of the United States Constitution in that
`it was an excessive fine and a cruel and unusual
`punishment.
`Petitioners’ decision to provide care at home for
`Beatrice was not unlike the decision plaintiff Willie
`Jackson was faced with in Daskalea v. Washington
`Humane Society, 480 F.Supp.2d 16, 19 (D.D.C. 2007).
`Mr. Jackson alleged that on October 11, 2003, members
`of the Humane Society entered his family’s home and
`illegally seized the family dog which had previously
`developed terminal cancer. The Jacksons were pro
`viding comfort care to their family dog at the time,
`and despite numerous demands to the Humane
`Society to free the family dog, the Humane Society
`refused to return the animal until Mr. Jackson would
`approve and pay for major cancer surgery. In an
`attempt to satisfy the Humane Society, Mr. Jackson
`provided veterinary records from four years prior
`demonstrating exemplary medical treatment. This did
`not satisfy the Humane Society and a demand was
`
`
`
`16
`
`made to Mr. Jackson that his animal was to receive
`“radical treatment”. Mr. Jackson was then compelled
`to agree to the cancer surgery. The treatment was a
`failure and the family dog died. Mr. Jackson did not
`receive the opportunity to contest the reasonableness
`of the radical cancer surgery treatment. Prior to the
`seizure of Beatrice, she was comfortable at home, had
`a good appetite and drinking plenty of water. After
`Beatrice was seized from her home on April 14, 2018
`she was taken to a veterinary cardiology specialty
`visit by Palm Beach County Animal Care and Control
`Officer Adam Moulton on May 4, 2018. Petitioner has
`knowledge of this fact because Petitioner contacted
`the veterinary specialty office regarding the treat
`ment and handling of Beatrice. Beatrice was sub
`jected to a long and very hot truck ride. On entering
`the specialty visit, Beatrice was placed supine which
`she could not tolerate, and most probably sedated for
`the testing, which the county denied. No one consulted
`Petitioner for permission to perform the radical
`testing although Beatrice was the property of Peti
`tioner. According to the veterinarian who testified on
`behalf of the county or Palm Beach County Animal
`Care and Control, Beatrice was prescribed two cardiac
`medications at the time of the cardiac specialty visit.
`On May 7th and just two days after initiation of the
`“new treatment” Beatrice died. The temperature of
`the kennels in the Palm Beach County Animal Care
`and Control environment were sweltering to over a
`recorded 122 degrees, which Adam Moulton and his
`attorney concealed at trial. Beatrice was returned
`from the specialty visit back into filthy and inhuman
`conditions where she ultimately succumbed to the
`environment. In this event Petitioner feels that Bea
`trice was euthanized without her owners knowledge
`
`
`
`17
`
`or permission. Petitioners position was similar to Mr^
`Jackson in that both parties were providing to their
`pet the care they felt was best at the time without
`government interference. The management and treat
`ment of both Mr. Jackson’s and Petitioners family
`dog by the government agency ultimately ended in the
`demise of the beloved pets. In this event Respondents
`conduct violates Petitioners rights under the Fourth,
`Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment by illegally detain
`ing Beatrice, by extorting unjustified fees for Beatrice
`and the other seized pets, and by compelling Beatrice
`to medical treatment that killed her. Respondents
`Adam Moulton of Palm Beach County Animal Care
`and Control cloaked as Palm Beach County and his
`attorney then moved on by filing criminal charges
`holding Petitioner accountable for the death of Beatrice,
`and alleging that the finches and other animals,
`including Beatrice were unlawfully contained and
`abandoned, which is not true.
`Respondents alleged that the other animals were
`in poor condition, however and seven days prior to
`the seizure of Petitioners animals, Officer Jarrett of
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
