Despite its name, PETA is an unethical organization: it steals animals to kill, it files frivolous lawsuits to harm animal lovers, it rounds up and kills community cats, it fights shelter reform, it lies to people to acquire their animals to kill, it defends abusive shelter practices, and it puts to death thousands of animals — including healthy puppies and kittens. In short, they are contemptuous of our collective values.
It is no surprise then, it would hire lawyers who also demean themselves unprofessionally and contemptuously. As many followers of this page know, PETA is being sued by the family whose dog they stole from their property and immediately put to death. Maya was a healthy, happy dog when, in violation of law, PETA operatives took her off her porch and killed her with an overdose of barbiturates that very day. The theft was caught by a surveillance camera and after initially lying to the family that they did not have their dog, they later admitted taking and killing her. Their excuse? They mistook her for another perfectly healthy dog they intended to impound and kill that day. In other words, killing of healthy animals is so routine at PETA they can’t keep them straight (although, in truth, there is little doubt that they knew exactly who they were killing when they killed Maya and little doubt they stole her to do precisely that).
In defending PETA’s killing of Maya, the attorney hired by PETA has used every unscrupulous tactic possible to claim PETA is not responsible for the death of an animal they were filmed stealing from a porch and later admitted to killing. PETA’s lawyer has argued that Maya had no value and the family was not entitled to compensation for the theft and killing because she was unlicensed, which has not been the law in Virginia for half a century. That statute was repealed before Neil Armstrong walked on the moon.
He also argued that since the owner of the trailer park gave PETA permission to round up and kill community cats, PETA had the right to steal and kill a resident’s dog who was sitting on her family’s property. The Judge ruled that permission by one person to be on the property for a specific reason is not an open invitation to steal and kill another person’s dog. Specifically, he ruled that a “dog is not a cat.”
Not only has the Judge overseeing this case countered many of the ludicrous claims made by PETA’s attorney, he now appears to be getting tired of the lawyer’s inappropriate behavior, for casting aspersions against the lawyer for Maya’s family. In a rare rebuke, the Judge hearing the case threatened PETA’s lawyer with removal from the case and other sanctions for what he termed “unprofessional” and “contemptuous” conduct in court.
But as they say, water finds its own level…
Have a comment? Join the discussion by clicking here.