The Dogfight Moves From the Pit to the Courthouse

Dana Campbell, ALDF's chief contract attorney and a former deputy district attorney, blogs this week on the indictment of NFL quarterback Michael Vick. Read on for ALDF’s take on the issue, and what you can do to help.

With my blog assignment falling this week on the heels of the announcement that NFL player Michael Vick was indicted in Virginia on federal dog fighting conspiracy charges, it would be negligent of me not to comment on it here. The easy thing to do would be to pile on with all the other media commentators, animal advocacy groups, and most of the public decrying the gruesome details of dogfights and the outrageousness of the facts alleged, and wag my finger in disapproval. But I’m not gonna do that. Frankly, I’ve seen it all before in the many other less high-profile animal fighting cases that we’ve worked on at ALDF, and I’m glad the public and the media are finally catching on to the fact that this horrendous “sport” exists and is pervasive in our midst, apparently even among millionaire athletes.

Instead I’d like to share with you ALDF’s unique perspective, being that we are a law organization for animals, peopled by lawyers experienced in the practice of criminal and other types of law. What surprised us most about the announcement this week was the fact that the charges were filed not by the local Surry County district attorney based on Virginia’s fairly typical dog-fighting statute, but by the U.S. Attorney’s office using federal conspiracy laws and a little-used (if ever?) federal dog fighting law.  Here are the actual charges that were filed in Richmond Virginia on July 17th.

While the federal dog fighting law was updated a bit in May of this year, it has been around for years, yet I found only 1 reported appellate case involving this law being used by federal prosecutors; 3 others discussed whether this federal fighting law preempted state anti-cruelty or fighting laws, and in all 3 cases the courts ruled it did not (an interesting idea for the local DA to consider…). Nearly all animal anti-cruelty laws are state laws tried in state courts. Thus it has been particularly difficult for ALDF to get federal prosecutors, who are generally inexperienced in animal cases, interested in any animal cruelty matter that occasionally does come under federal jurisdiction by virtue of either happening on federal lands or being prohibited by a federal law. Years ago we tried to get several U.S. attorney offices interested in shutting down and prosecuting those responsible for “crush videos” (made underground for fetishists who enjoyed watching small animals or birds being crushed to death by a woman’s high heel) after the federal law was passed making them illegal. We got few takers.

Not so with the high-profile, career-making prosecution of the Vick dogfight case. With it being brought in federal rather than state court, it will have the advantages of a wider jury pool, greater sentences that can actually be enforced (I hear there’s more room in federal prisons than in state ones!), and all of the financial resources of the U.S. government.

Now it looks like we’ve got a good public spectacle going: the probably limitless resources of Michael Vick and his football millions against the limitless resources and ambition of a federal government prosecutor.

That’s a fight I won’t mind watching.

What you can do:

1) Contact the commissioner of the NFL and urge the league to suspend Vick.

National Football League, Inc.
Commissioner: Roger Goodell
280 Park Ave.
New York, NY 10017
Phone: 212-450-2000
Fax: 212-681-7599

2) Contact the owner of the Atlanta Falcons and urge him to direct his coaching staff to exclude Vick from all team activities (including workouts and practices) regardless of what the NFL does.

Atlanta Falcons Football Club
Owner and CEO: Arthur M. Blank
President and General Manager: Richard McKay
4400 Falcon Pkwy.
Flowery Branch, GA 30542
Phone: 770-965-3115
Fax: 770-965-2766

3) Contact the NFL Players Association, which works to promote the image of the players, to denounce Vick's alleged involvement with dogfighting.

National Football League Players Association
Executive Director: Gene Upshaw
President: Troy Vincent
2021 L St. NW
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: 202-463-2200
Fax: 202-296-3486
Toll Free: 800-372-2000

4) Contact Nike and thank them for dropping their endorsement contract with Vick. In response to public outcry, Nike has dropped their contract with Vick! Please send them a letter of thanks.

Nike
Chairperson: Philip H. Knight
President, CEO, and Director: Mark G. Parker
1 Bowerman Dr.,
Beaverton, OR 97005-6453
Phone: 503-671-6453
Fax: 503-671-6300
Toll Free: 800-344-6543

Max!

My daughter has named him Max.  “Him” being a three pound ball of mixed breed fluff who was rescued from a puppy mill/hoarder when he was only two weeks old.  I haven’t had a puppy since I was a child (my husband and I have always adopted adult dogs), but when my daughter pleaded with us to be allowed to foster a puppy from one of the cruelty cases I work on, we caved, and oh, how glad I am that we did!  At twelve weeks old, Max is a hopping, tumbling, running and jumping bundle of joy.  I bring him to the office every day where he is greeted with shouts of “Maaaaaaaax!!!” by my colleagues.  The other dogs that come to our office weigh 70 lbs on average, but Max, the three-pound wonder-dog, is already ruling the roost.  It’s amazing to see the effect he has on those around him, both canine and human.  (In how many law offices will you see otherwise professional and serious attorneys, law clerks and support staff rolling around on the ground talking baby talk to a puppy?)  My other rescue dog (Abby, the golden retriever), is still not quite sure whether having a puppy in her life is a good thing.  But Abby is such a gentle soul, that I am confident she and Max will soon become the best of friends (if Max would just learn to stop jumping on her face.)

When we work on cruelty cases, whether they be criminal or civil, we focus on the legal issues, the procedural posture of the case, and the strategic possibilities.  At times, we can get so wrapped up in the technical details that we almost forget the case involves living, breathing sentient beings who need and deserve our protection.  Max and the other rescued dogs and cats that form our larger ALDF family are daily reminders that the work we do is not simply abstract legal work.  I know that the work we do on Max’s case will have a profound impact on his life.  The thought of Max going back to his abuser is horrifying to me, my family and my colleagues.  The thought of his abuser being allowed to harm other animals is equally horrifying, and can not happen.   

So, although Max is quite the distraction these days, he is also quite the motivator.  Max and the other thousands of animals we work for each year deserve the best.  OK.  Enough puppy talk.  I need to get back to work…..

Pet Noir

A few years ago I saw a painting by Damien Hirst—not a darling of the animal rights set, thanks to his fondness for displaying dissected sheep and cow carcasses preserved in formaldehyde—entitled “Do you know what I like about you?” It’s a giant canvas covered with thick yellow paint and the tiny, trapped bodies of butterflies who were intentionally captured, and died, on the artwork while the gloss was still drying.

I think of this painting when considering our strange, confused, often misguided infatuation with animals. In many ways, it is their exoticness, their wildness, their non-humanness that draws us to love them—yet that is also the source of our predictable failure to protect them from our own frailties and misconceptions. Yeah, we dress up our schnauzers in Halloween costumes, we teach gorillas American Sign Language, we put rhinestone collars on panthers and pose them next to sports cars for magazine ads. But, really, isn’t so much of this fascination with animals because they are, in their essence, not like us?

When we make dogs, cats, and other companion animals part of our families, we find that they often become subject to the same perversities we inflict upon our human relatives. In our society, we’ve more or less formalized ways to deal with child abusers, wife batterers, war criminals, and garden-variety sadists. But we’re still figuring out what to do when our dysfunctions end up crushing the wild out of the animals we attempt to love or, more tragically, to control. At the Animal Legal Defense Fund, we hear such stories every day: cats doused in gasoline and lit on fire by “boys being boys,” chimpanzees having the “smiles” beaten on to their faces for Hollywood appearances, tigers kept as house pets mauling their keepers (to whose surprise?).

*This entry was excerpted from the afterword for Pet Noir: An Illustrated Anthology of Strange but True Pet Crime Stories. A portion of the proceeds from Pet Noir are donated to the Animal Legal Defense Fund.

"Standing" for Animals

The biggest difficulty animal advocates face in helping animals get their day in court is "standing." Simply put, legal standing is a person's right or ability to sue. For a "person" under the law to have standing it must prove three things which are, again, in very simple terms: (1) that you have been "injured," (2) that the injury was caused by the action of the defendant for which you are suing, (3) and that the court has the ability to redress the injury to you with a favorable decision. But, back to that first little detail, you must be a "person."

I used the word "it" to describe a person on purpose because while most of us think of a person as an individual human, U.S. courts have granted personhood to nonhuman entities that are the subject of legal rights and duties. A few examples of such recognized "legal persons" are corporations, ships, estates, and political parties.

Animals, however, are considered "things" by the law and they are classified in every state as property, much like a desk or a chair. And, like a desk or chair, an animal cannot bring a lawsuit or have one brought for them by a person as is the case, for example, with children. That means to sue for an injury to an animal, such as one that has been injured or killed, animal advocates generally have to prove injury to a person. An example would be to sue for harm done to a human person by witnessing abuse. Sadly, without such proof of injury to "persons" the courts can, and do, simply dismiss a case without ever hearing the facts of the abuse or injury.

There are exceptions to these limitations where the law has granted animals specific legal protections, like our criminal anti-cruelty laws. But where there are not such specific protections it can be very difficult for an animal, no matter how abused, to get their day in court.

One day, hopefully, animals will have more opportunities to be represented in courts so that we can more effectively fight the many injustices they face – perhaps as another kind of recognized "legal person." In the meantime we must be resourceful and creative in bringing lawsuits to win justice for animals.

Why Would Anybody Want to Use a Fox to Guard the Henhouse?

What the heck are judges thinking when they order a convicted animal abuser to serve community service at the local animal shelter?  I’ll save the discussion about the use of community service as a sentencing option in violent crimes for another day and focus solely on the issue of where the community service is to be performed. 

Would a competent judge order a thief to work off a community service beef at a jewelry story?  Would a competent judge sentence a burglar to do community service by installing home alarm systems for ADT?  Would a competent judge order a child abuser to work in a day-care center?  The obvious answer to all of these questions is a resounding, “Hell no!”  So, then, why is it that we see so many animal abuse cases where the trial judge orders the defendant to pay back his or her debit to society by working for the animal shelter?  Sure, some of this is invited error by either a misguided prosecutor or the defense attorney looking to minimize his client’s exposure.  However, the buck stops at the bench and trial judges continue to make the mistake of thinking that society and the animal abuser are both going to somehow benefit by requiring a person with a demonstrated capacity to harm animals to care for captive animals in less than tightly supervised conditions. 

This is such an obvious recipe for disaster not just for the animals placed at risk but also for the animal shelter staff and board.  So, next time you read a story in your local news about a similar case, fire off a letter to the editor pointing out the issue and help educate your local judges.