Cooper, where did you go to the school of politics - Canada? You write a piece about legislation in Virginia with the headlines that this bill will "Stop It (PeTA) From Slaughtering More Pets". That made for a good laugh. Did you even read the bill before you wrote about, have you read it since you wrote about it?
These No Kill Fools are already posting this initiative as a victory, but the reality is that PeTA never claimed to be a shelter to begin with. That's the catch. This is in their favor. Since they will no longer be considered a shelter, then they won't have to report their numbers to the State. Is that the victory you wanted Whino? Of course you have to come riding in on your white horse after the fact trying to claim credit. Typical.
And bringing up the rear, appropriate observation I think, is that Dumb Ass Cooper, trying to scoop up the crumbs of Winograd's cookies. His 'interview' was really a hoot to read and I would like to point out the more laughable areas.
First of all, this woman is the lowest of the low because she waited 15 years to report this alleged cruelty she supposedly witnessed. I mean, c'mon, give me a break. Cooper calls her "an exceptionally brave woman" and I call her a coward.
Winograd has always made claims of him seeing cruelty in shelters, he makes pictures (supposedly) of it. BUT he fails to report it at the time to make it stop. He walks away from that cruelty and takes about it later. He did nothing to stop it, no reporting of it, nothing. He blogs about it but when called on the carpet about why he failed to report it at the time, he has no answer. Coward. If you see cruelty and walk away like that, Winograd, it makes you more guilty of the cruelty than the perpetrator, just like this woman.
Cooper notes the statute of limitations, very important here. Fifteen years, too late to call witnesses to dispute these accusations, too late to obtain proof, and Cooper knows that. I dare say there would be no interview if this happened last week when witnesses could be had and proof given to dispute what this coward has to say.
I will venture to say that this coward is eat up with guilt because she probably did the very things she is accusing others of doing. I would like to say that but personally, this is a set up. Winograd has pulled this tactic before, more than once. Suddenly these people just show up out of the blue at the last moment with exactly what Winograd needs to overcome objections. The fact that it was so long ago prevents rebuttal.
Winograd is hoping to prove the accusations against PeTA and the Maya story with this coward's blog. I will guarantee you that when that story of Maya ends, Nathan Winograd and his crowd will be at the root, a set up. I firmly believe they had something to do with it.
This is what the Attorney General of Virginia had to say about the situation. It plainly shows how badly Cooper and the Whino distort the truth.
"Commonwealths Attorneys cannot always make popular decisions, rather they are charged with making responsible decisions. Prosecutors must decide if evidence gathered provides proof beyond a reasonable doubt each element of the criminal offense. The criminal intent required to convict someone for theft or property (or dog) it must be shown that the defendant intended to steal the property (or dog) it must be shown that the taking was coupled with the intent of depriving the rightful owner of their property.
The facts appear be that PETA was asked to help when an adjacent landowner reported that they should see how his cow with her udders ripped up from abandoned and stray dogs in the trailer park area amounted to a menace not to be tolerated. He complained to PETA that the abandoned and stray dogs attacked his livestock, injured his milking cow, killed his goat and terrorized his rabbits.
Abandoned and/or stray dogs and cats have appeared to have been considerable in what is known as Dreamland 2. PETA responded and the trailer park management encouraged their efforts in an attempt to gather stray/abandoned cats and dogs. Additionally the leases provided that no dogs were allowed to run free in the trailer park.
Approximately three weeks before Mr. Cerates dog was taken by the women associated with PETA, Mr. Cerate asked if they would put traps under his trailer to catch some of the wild cats that were in the trailer park, and traps were provided to him as requested. Additionally, parties associated with PETA provided Mr. Cerate with a dog house for two other dogs that were tethered outside of Mr. Cerates home.
On or about October 18 a van that was operated by the ladies associated with PETA arrived the at the trailer park. The van was clearly marked PETA and in broad daylight arrived gathering up what abandoned stray dogs and cats could be gathered. Among the animals gathered was the Chihuahua of Mr. Cerate. Unfortunately the Chihuahua wore no collar, no license, no rabies tag, nothing whatsoever to indicate the dog was other than a stray or abandoned dog. It was not tethered nor was it contained.
Other animals were also gathered. Individuals living in the trailer park were present and the entire episode was without confrontation. Mr. Cerate was not at home and the dog was loose, sometimes entering the shed/porch or other times outside in the trailer park before he was put in the van and carried from the park. The dogs owned by Mr. Cerate that were tethered were not taken.
Whether one favors or disfavors PETA has little to do with the decision of criminality. The issue is whether there is evidence that the two people when taking the dog believed they were taking the dog of another or whether they were taking an abandoned and/or stray animal. There have been no complaints on the other animals taken on that same day, and, like the Chihuahua, had no collar or tag. From the request of the neighboring livestock owner and the endorsement by the trailer park owner/manager the decision as to the existence of criminal intent beyond a reasonable doubt must be made by the prosecutor. More clearly stated, with the evidence that is available to the Commonwealth, it is just as likely that the two women believed they were gathering abandoned and/or stray animals rather than stealing the property of another. Indeed, it is more probable under this evidence that the two women associated with PETA that day believed they were gathering animals that posed health and/or livestock threat in the trailer park and adjacent community. Without evidence supporting the requisite criminal intent, no criminal prosecution can occur.
The animals were not euthanized in Accomack County, so this jurisdiction makes no determination on those issues.
Signed,
Gary R. Agar
Commonwealths Attorneys Office"
Now one has to ask several questions here. Why did the owner restrain his other dogs, bigger dogs, yet let this poor little one run around loose? No collar, no tags, nothing. Can one say irresponsible owner? And it is what is NOT shown on the video that needs to be questioned. Yet Whiney boy supports this irresponsible owner.
Then the ultimate reason for all of this - Sam Simon's money. It was announced that Sam Simon, creator of the Simpsons, was dying and leaving his wealth to PeTA. He has been a Board member for years, that makes sense he would do that. Immediately, actually too quickly, after the story of Maya, No Kill Nation is sending a dying man a letter begging him for his money. And basically saying to this man that he was an idiot for following PeTA.
Disgusting, tacky displays of behavior from all of them. Scourge of the humane community, Cooper, Winograd, and No Kill Nation. They are desperate now because their ship is sinking and all the rats are jumping off. More and more people are letting me know they are over No Kill and Winograd. They are. He had really poor attendance for his 'movie', does anyone know of any officials that showed? His boat is dead in the water since his deceitful lies about how many 'communities' are No Kill were exposed.
I'm waiting for the ending because I know it won't be the way Winograd wants it to be.
