Filed In Arkansas...........

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

FORT SMITH DIVISION

ANNA M. SLAVIN                                                                                                                   PLAINTIFF

VS                                                                      CIV No. 03-2091

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA                                                                                               DEFENDANT

COMPLAINT

Now comes Anna M. Slavin, and for her Complaint, the Plaintiff would state:

I.

The Plaintiff is a citizen and resident of the Western District of Arkansas, Fort Smith Division. The Defendant is the United States Government. This action is brought pursuant to 18 USC Sec. 1983, the

amount of damages sought herein exceeds Ten Million Dollars. This Court has jurisdiction over the parties,

subject matter and venue is proper. THE PLAINTIFF DEMANDS TRIAL BY JURY.

II.

The Plaintiff has been engaged in the business of raising chickens since 1987 and generated an income as a result thereof, with her primary place of business located in Sebastian County, Arkansas.

III.

The Defendant has recently passed the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 which in effect, results in the taking of the Plaintiff’s property without just compensation in violation of the United States Constitution.IV.

Said Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 is unconstitutional in that it violates the Plaintiff’s due process rights, equal protection rights and is in violation of the Interstate Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution and as such the same should be declared unconstitutional and an injunction should be immediately issued pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, specifically Rule 65.V.

In the event that this Court should not issue an immediate injunction or declare the same unconstitutional, the Plaintiff is entitled to a Judgment against the Defendant for the wrongful taking of her property in an amount which may be shown at trial, which the Plaintiff believes will be in excess of Ten Million Dollars. These damages include not only current compensatory damages but also future compensatory damages. Furthermore, the Plaintiff is entitled to a Judgment for her costs laid out herein as well as a statutory attorneys fee and pre and post judgment interest.WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff prays for immediate injunction relief as setforth hereinabove, for a declaratory judgment declaring the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, or the relevant portions thereof, unconstitutional as applied to this Plaintiff and others similar situated, or alternatively for judgment in an amount that as may be shown at trial plus costs lied out herein, A statutory attorneys fee and for pre and post judgment interest, as well as all other relief to which the Plaintiff may be entitled to whether specifically prayed for or not.

Respectfully Submitted

Anna M. Slavin

New Cockfighting Law

 
Supporters call it tradition, opponents call it cruelty to animals. The rest of us call it cockfighting.

Starting Wednesday May 14th, anyone in Louisiana caught transporting game birds across state lines face stiff penalties.

Lloyd Plumbar has been fighting his roosters for six years in Sunset. He says the new law is ridiculous. "Well I dont see the point in it, I don't see what their trying to accomplish by putting a law on trafficking of the birds except but try to isolate the fighting. I don't see the point."

Be that as it may, from this point on anyone caught bringing game birds across state lines or overseas will face a maximum fine of 15 thousand dollars and up to a year in jail.

Kelly Savoy is glad to have the new federal law on the books. She's the Humane Society President for Saint Landry, Acadia and Evangeline Parishes.

Savoy says "its definitely a step in the right direction, but no matter what law passes people are going to try to get around it. I think we need to crack down real hard, this is a good step in the right direction".

And as for fight business in Acadiana, Lloyd plumbar says "most definitely its gonna hurt it a lot cause most of the fighters come from Texas, Florida, and Mexico. This is the only place to fight, and if they can't come here, they can't fight."

Plumbar says Sunset draws hundreds of people to Saint Landry Parish every month to watch rooster fights.


Louisiana and New Mexico are the only two states where cockfighting is still legal.

By: Tim Reid

Source: http://katc.com/Global/story.asp?S=1278916&nav=EyAzFpNa

 
Replies To The AR Media Campaign Of.......
.......lies and falsehoods........
 
Cockfighting

Firing back

From Steve Valdez:
This letter is in response to Wayne Pacelle’s April 30 article on cockfighting (“It’s time to put a halt to cruelty of cockfighting and dogfighting”).

Pacelle spews lies and falsehoods about people involved in raising and breeding gamefowl. Breeding and testing gamefowl is very much a large part of many people’s culture and heritage.

Because Pacelle and his cohorts do not agree with our cultural practices does not mean we are, in Pacelle’s own words ...z “a lawless subculture, engaged in not only animal cruelty but also narcotics traffic, illegal gambling and violent acts against people.”

The outright lies and slander are common practice for Pacelle and the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), told to purposely mislead people.

Pacelle has one thing right, gamefowl is a huge industry that generates over $1.3 billion a year into our economy. What will happen when these laws affect our rural economy? Will we be reimbursed for what we legally raise, breed and export one day, and become felons for the next?

HSUS has no intention to save any animals, their only intention is to end ALL animal use. Here is another direct quote from Pacelle to prove his intentions. ... “We have no ethical obligation to preserve the different breeds of livestock produced through selective breeding. ... One generation and out. We have no problem with the extinction of domestic animals. They are creations of human selective breeding.” (Wayne Pacelle, in Animal People, May, 1993).

These special interest groups such as HSUS are one and same that are on the Joint Terrorism Task Force list for supporting domestic terrorism.

It is time to stop these special interest groups from continually eroding our rights as citizens.

Corinth, Texas

Animals are private property

From Jim Demoruelle:
I have just read in horror the article by Wayne Pacelle of the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) in your April 30 special report on Trade and Agriculture (“It’s time to put a halt to cruelty of cockfighting and dogfighting”).

His article leads one to believe that it has been established that gamecocks are responsible for spreading Exotic Newcastle Disease (END) to domestic poultry and other birds, when we learned from the last outbreak of Newcastle in California that the opposite is true — wild birds are responsible for the spread.

Pacelle will say almost anything to enrich the war chest of the HSUS and to confuse decision making about the rights of all Americans. Most Americans do not understand that the purpose of the HSUS and most of the animal rights groups is to stop all animal use in our world. Truth is not the most important part of their war against meat eaters and animal users.

The fighting-animal issue is used to stop animal use because, and only because, it has such an emotive nature. The animal rights groups often describe cocking as a criminal enterprise. Yet it is the only illegal activity where a citizen uses his own money, on his own property to behave in his own chosen way that is not in anyway contributing to issues of public safety.

All other illegal activity has a public safety or property issue that is being forced on another citizen. Animals are private property and as such decisions on how the animal is to be used must be the decision of the owner and not that of the public unless the use causes public safety problems.

Check the science when reading anything by animal rights groups.

Ville Platte, La.

One cheer for cockfighting

From Bill Hughett:
Wayne Pacelle’s April 30 article about cockfighting (“It’s time to put a halt to cruelty of cockfighting and dogfighting”) demanded that I write this reply. I’ve read his “pieces” in newspapers all over the country and get a little tired of his distortions.

Pacelle always tries to portray cockfighters as “a lawless criminal element” when nothing could be further from the truth! Several scholarly studies have been done of the cockfighting fraternity and all came to the same conclusion — most are blue-collar working citizens, patriotic, tend to be married and stay married and are rather old fashioned. In short — the very people that made this country great!

Pacelle also implied that infected gamecocks from Old Mexico brought Exotic Newcastle into the United States, which is one of the latest in the Humane Society’s long litany of “little white lies.” None of the USDA inspectors have even surmised that! The most popular theory is that it was brought in by smuggled wild parrots, known carriers of the disease, which have tremendous black market value in California.

If our lawmakers have nothing better to do than kowtow to these radical animal rights activists I feel sorry for our great country! The USDA has already bent over backwards to accommodate these extremists, much to the detriment of animal agriculture. Can you imagine allowing the known enemies of animal agriculture and sports being allowed to dictate policy?

Springtown, Texas

Greyhounds born to race

Your April 9 article about adoption of racing greyhounds (“Staffer has room for one more”) was riddled with inaccuracies and radical animal-rights propaganda. As a former greyhound trainer who is now a print commentator on the sport, I want to set the record straight.

Approximately 18,000 retired racing greyhounds are adopted each year in the United States. New registrations number about 25,000 per year. Approximately 3,000 to 4,000 are also retired, yearly, for breeding purposes. Those facts can be verified through the National Greyhound Association in Abilene, Kan., the registry of the racing greyhound and keeper of the studbook. The sporting industry of greyhound racing is very close to achieving nearly 100 percent adoption of all those retired racing greyhounds.

The insinuation that greyhounds are somehow “deprived” by racing is preposterous. The breed has been bred to race and to compete for centuries. Greyhounds love to race. It is as natural for a greyhound to race as it is for an Alsatian to protect. In the raising, racing and post-racing environment, the greyhounds are abundantly well-cared for, as any finely tuned, highly adapted athlete must be.

Simple common sense might correctly infer that a poorly cared-for greyhound will perform poorly on the racetrack, and will not earn purse money — which is the lifeblood of the sport and those who are involved in it, as well as the breed — which, by the way, is thriving.

Arguably the most remarkable athlete in the world, pound for pound, the racing greyhound is 10 times faster than a thoroughbred racehorse. It is renowned for its longevity, reliable temperament and steadfast character — and all of the above are results of the cause-and-effect relationship between greyhound racing and the racing greyhound.

You do the breed, its custodians and its caretakers a disservice by giving credence to the inane mythologies of animal rights zealotry.

Swansea, Mass.

‘Chicks’ comment criticism

From U.S. Ambassador William S. Farish:
A column by Dick Carlson and Bill Regardie in your April 16 issue suggested that I directed “not a word of criticism” to the Dixie Chicks after Natalie Maines’s comments following their London concert. This is simply untrue. I considered the remark she made about President Bush to be inappropriate and offensive, and I stated my views — directly and clearly — to Ms. Maines immediately after the concert.

Source: http://www.thehill.com/letters/051403.aspx

 
 
Government For The People Or By The AR?
........they did agree that the practice of cockfighting will not be condoned in Beauregard Parish........

Rooster breeders cry "fowl" in face of parish limitation

Determined to keep gambling out of their neighborhood, Beauregard Parish police jurors have drafted an ordinance which would prohibit cockfighting within the parish. In a Legislative Committee meeting Tuesday afternoon, they also addressed concerns of residents whose businesses center around the breeding and sales of the game fowl.

Concerned about the sport, which is not illegal in Louisiana, police juror Mike McLeod first approached jurors last month, advising that residents from the Singer district had approached him. They pointed out that a rooster breeder had recently moved into the area and constructed pens on six acres of land. Although there was no law to stop the man from raising the fowl, McLeod asked jurors to think about the possible consequences, including the traffic problems which might arise, should the resident be allowed to enter the roosters in fighting competitions locally.

Since that meeting, jurors have looked at similar ordinances from other parishes in the state and on Tuesday were prepared to review the first draft. However residents who might be affected by the ordinance asked for equal time to voice objections and offer alternate solutions.

From the southern part of the parish, Dwain White explained that, along with several of his neighbors, he currently raises and sells roosters. Agreeing with jurors in their desire to keep neighborhoods clean and safe, he said he had no problem with a ban on cock-fighting in the parish. "The ordinance will affect me in no way," he said.

Alternatively, breeder Mark Johnson, who does own a cockfighting pit in Calcasieu Parish, asked jurors to consider mandating an ordinance that would call for pit owners to obtain permits. As operator of one of the largest pits in the United States, he said he did not object to the panel refusing permits because it would mean less competition. He spoke about a federal law, set to become effective at midnight Tuesday, which would make it illegal to cross state lines to fight roosters. Looking at that possible prohibition and with a belief that a total ban on cockfighting would infringe upon a citizen's rights, Johnson reminded jurors that soldiers have gone overseas to fight and uphold the laws already in place. Therefore he questioned the reasoning behind making new laws rather than solving the problem through licensing.

Bringing up another aspect of the sport, juror Greg Nothnagel asked about the animal cruelty involved in raising two animals to fight until the death. When Johnson attempted to compare the business of breeding champion fighting roosters with raising beef cattle, Nothnagel stopped him short. "Food animals are not raised to kill one another," he said.

Another rooster breeder, Johnny Moss, said part of the process in showing roosters as fighters for potential sale includes a demonstration of the fowl's abilities and willingness to fight. This process involved the practice of fitting two roosters with special protective gear and allowing a short "spar" or fight to take place. Moss asked if the ordinance were to be adopted as written, would the practice fall under the definition of a fight. Voicing his opposition, in that event, he said the police jury would be taking away much of his livelihood.

Other breeders in attendance agreed.

Asking for clarification on distinguishing between fighting and sparring, juror Jerry Kern turned to legal council Steven Landreneau, who had helped draft the ordinance. Landreneau first explained that Johnson was not entirely correct in his offered solution of refusing permits. He said that adopting a law that suggested permits would be granted and then simply refusing to issue, would not be a legal means of handling the situation. As for defining fighting opposed to sparring for demonstration purposes, he said additional study, revisions or ammendments might be called for in the proposed ordinance.

Jurors did not make a decision on the issue, but instead chose to allow more time for review of the draft. While they intend to gather more information about the status or laws concerning the sport in other parishes, and will continue to listen to the concerns of breeders, they did agree that the practice of cockfighting will not be condoned in Beauregard Parish.

By J. SHIRLENE COOPER

Associate Editor

Source: http://www.deridderdailynews.com/display/inn_news/news3.txt
From A Claimed To Be Unbiased Reporter.......
 
Senate OKs longer jail time for cockfighters; bill goes to Assembly
By ALAN SCHNEPF
STAFF WRITER
 

Cockfighters may face longer jail sentences, thanks to a bill that breezed through the state Senate on Monday and is now headed for the Assembly.

Sen. Nell Soto, D-Pomona, said she sponsored the bill because cockfighting contributes to the spread of exotic Newcastle disease, which has spurred agriculture officials to place a quarantine on birds in most of Southern California.

The disease spreads easily from bird to bird through feces and bodily fluids, but poses no health risk to humans.

Forcing stiff penalties on cockfighters could actually hurt the effort to fight Newcastle, said Bucky Harless, a spokesman for the Association for the Preservation of Gamefowl. He contends that cockers will be scared of providing information about their birds.

"The harsher you make the punishment, the further you're driving it underground," he said.

The law now treats cockfighting as a misdemeanor, punishable by up to a year in jail with a fine of up to $1,000. Soto's bill would mandate a six-month jail sentence for a second conviction. Those convicted twice also would face a maximum fine of up to $25,000. Spectators of cockfighting are exempt.

Harless said it's a measure that could hurt families that have a member who fights gamefowl for a hobby. He cites the scenario of a father losing a half-year of pay, or his job, because of the mandatory sentence. Most cockfighters are conservatives who follow the law, except for the measure against their hobby, Harless said.

Soto said it's no excuse for participating in what she called a "cruel and inhumane" sport.

"That logic doesn't make any sense to me," she said. "Is it OK to break the law, even if it's a small law?"

The original version of Soto's bill would have given prosecutors authority to treat cockfighting as a felony. That provision was taken out when other senators worried about cockfighters getting 25-years-to-life sentences under California's three-strikes law.

Sen. Roy Ashburn, R-Bakersfield, was one of two in the Senate who voted against the measure.

"My reaction was, "We're talking about serious penalties for chickens to kill themselves,"' Ashburn said. "When the victim is chicken, that doesn't rise to the right level of seriousness for me."

Harless said cockfighting, which predates the birth of Christ, will survive in the state in spite of any increased penalties. For many families, it's a tradition handed down from generation to generation, he said.

"They can make any law they want and the sport won't go away," Harless said.

Officials at the joint federal-state task force set up to stamp out Newcastle said they have no evidence that cockfighters are responsible for the introduction and spread of the disease.

Communicating with gamefowl breeders is a key element to quelling the outbreak, according to Larry Cooper, a spokesman for the California Department of Food and Agriculture.

Harless said the state's cockfighters have been cooperative with state and federal officials who are trying to eradicate the disease.

Source:  http://www.dailybulletin.com/Stories/0,1413,203~21481~1388843,00.html

 
Who Did You Say Those Authorities Were?
.......Some authorities contend that......
 
Bill targets Newcastle disease

STATE: The Senate passes legislation increasing the penalty for individuals convicted of cockfighting.

05/13/2003

By JIM MILLER
SACRAMENTO BUREAU

SACRAMENTO - The state Senate overwhelmingly passed legislation Monday meant to slow the spread of exotic Newcastle disease.

The bill by Sen. Nell Soto, D-Pomona, would increase the penalty for people convicted of cockfighting. A second offense would carry a mandatory jail sentence and a fine.

The bill now heads to the Assembly.

Some authorities contend that cockfighting, by bringing together birds from around Southern California for bloody battles, helps spread the highly contagious Newcastle virus that has led to a federal poultry quarantine on Riverside and San Bernardino counties. Ventura, San Diego, Los Angeles and Orange counties are also under quarantine.

So far, a government task force has destroyed 3.2 million chickens and more than 141,000 backyard birds that were sick or at risk of infection. The government has spent at least $101 million fighting the disease.

Many law enforcement and animal-rights groups, as well as some poultry-industry organizations, back Soto's bill. The measure, SB 732, passed 31-2.

Soto said she wrote her bill to fight Newcastle disease and to deter what she called the cruelty of cockfighting.

Officials with the state Department of Food and Agriculture have said there is no evidence that cockfighting contributes to the spread of Newcastle disease.

But Bill Mattos, president of the Modesto-based California Poultry Federation, said he is convinced there is a link between the fights and the virus.

"They are where it was spreading. A lot of things go on there in very close proximity," he said.

Under current law, people convicted twice of cockfighting face a maximum of a year in jail and a $1,000 fine, but law enforcement officials say the punishment is usually more lenient. Soto's bill would require a six-month jail sentence and fine on a second conviction.

As originally written, Soto's legislation would have made cockfighting a felony. But she changed the bill to win support from some Democrats who oppose long, expensive prison terms for cockfighting.

Reach Jim Miller at (916) 445-9973 or jmiller@pe.com

Source: http://www.pe.com/localnews/stories/PE_NEWS_nafight13.a1573.html

Courtesy: Marc R.