Illegal v. Unconstitutional Laws--New Development in Louisville KY
Sunday, February 7, 2010 8:25 PM
From: "Elizabeth Brinkley"
On October 1st of 2009, federal Judge Charles Simpson ruled in the case of Louisville Kennel Club et al v. Metro Louisville/Jefferso n County KY that the section of the Metro Animal Ordinance which allowed for a forfeiture bond was unconstitutional because it had the potential to deprive an innocent person of their property (pets) through the mechanism of not being able to post a cash bond rather than by being found guilty in a court of law. In fact, they could be stripped of their property/animals BEFORE going to court, much less found guilty of anything.
Judge Simpson found this to be so egregious, that he issued a PERMANENT INJUNCTION against it ever being carried out.
Now, this law was reviewed inumerable times BEFORE it was enacted. The last page of the law even bears the nice big seal and signature of then-County Attorney (and now state judge), Irv Maze saying it was all hunkey-dory by him and passed his department's legal 'sniff test'.
However, that's just standard procedure. In truth, while County Atty's can advise Councils that a law they want to pass is unconstitutional or could be rendered invalid due to some other legal challenge, they have no authority to prohibit Councils from passing legislation that is faulty. Add to that the fact that most folks elected to local (and even state) legislatures have NO legal training and are not required to know or understand anything about law and you have the ingredients for what passes today as 'leadership' in America.
But what happens when not even the County Attorney is aware of (or cares) that a proposed ordinance is unconstitutional or faulty?
Since Simpson's decision came out, Metro Council has been scrambling to fix the current ordinance (which had several other problems beyond the forfeiture bond issue). They've gone through a couple of drafts on this, and the most recent one came out of the County Atty's office just this week. And it contained... forfeiture wording!
When the key Council person contacted Bill Warner, the County Atty who has been redrafting the ordinance to ask why in the name of God it still had a forfeiture provision, Mr. Warner told him it was 'Because Pam Rogers (Kentucky's HSUS representative) wants it in there.'
HELLO! Who elected Pam Rogers to office? Where did Pam Rogers attend law school to be put in a position to give LEGAL ADVICE to a County Atty on how to craft a law that will affect all taxpayers in this county? And, wasn't it this same woman who insisted on the forfeiture wording in the original ordinance to begin with, which resulted in the county being sued and having to shell out a large amount of moolah to the plaintiffs?
When the Metro Council member pointed out to Warner "That provision will only affect poor people" ATTORNEY Warner replied, "So what?".
Can they pass an amended version of the ordinance that is still not constitutional? Yes. Will the new law be legal? Yes. Until it's challenged in court.
In the meantime, even though they might pass a revised law that includes forfeiture, Simpson's permanent injunction remains in place. Could the new law be used against someone? Yes. But the moment it is and we find out about it, the County will be found in contempt of court and that particular bond will be declared null and void by Simpson. Let's just hope that in the meantime, nobody loses their pet because of how much the HSUS 'cares' for animals.
Permission to x-post
Barbara Haines
