Monday, July 28, 2008

Help Save Libby And Lola


Here's the story as I understand it:

In house A there is a de-clawed cat. In my opinion, if you own a de-clawed cat, it's your responsibility to keep the cat in the house.
In the back yard of house B are two large dogs. The dogs are kept in a fenced back yard, a back yard that also has an electircal barrier buried underneath the fence.

Cat A somehow gets outside and gets eaten by the dogs of B - dogs named Libby and Lola.

Here's what the B people are now up against:


Upon arriving at the mandatory criminal trial against them, Libby and Lola's people realized too late that they were in way over their heads. After having filed multiple different testimonies to both the court and insurance agencies, the neighbors, one of which recently became a licensed attorney in the State of Texas, changed their entire story that day on the stand and under oath, claiming that Libby and Lola crawled under the cedar fence that was hotwired at the base and without causing any damage to the fence, hotwire, and boulders along its edge, attacked the helpless "T" then ruthlessly dragged him back under the fence and over to their yard as the neighbors watched in horror. The city prosecutor, who was trying Libby and Lola's people, denied them their right to provide evidence at every single request and objected to their usage of nonlegal verbage requiring them to act as their own attorney and question one another on the stand as witnesses without any prior knowledge or experience. Shortly after the trial started, it was over and Libby and Lola were deemed "Dangerous Dogs" by the city of Fort Worth. Libby and Lola's people stood horrified as they were given the paperwork offering them only two horrendous options in order to retrieve Libby and Lola from their prison, euthanize them or permanantly cage them in their own back yard. Now they have 15 days from July 16th, 2008 to comply with a laundry list of orders including $100,000 insurance policies on each dog, a permanent concrete padded enclosure with a roof, flourescent collars and jackets stating "Dangerous Dog" and muzzle for each to wear if they ever need to be out of their cage, microchipping of both Libby and Lola, signed affidavits they won't ever be sold, etc. If these requirements are not complied with and approved in time, Libby and Lola will be euthanized by the city of Fort Worth at their people's expense!
Euthanized at their people's expense? What the hell? Isn't that kinda like the Totalitarian Government practice of sending someone to the firing squad, and then sending their parents an invoice for the bullets? Do we really want to live in that kind of world? ? ? ?

If you have a de-clawed cat, you have taken away the cat's ability to defend itself. (Typing that sentence almost sent me into a 2nd amendment rant, but I don't have time.) So keep your helpless cat inside.

If there are large dogs in a back yard, they eat things. Kids, cats, shoes, burglars, etc. That's why you need to keep your stuff out of Yard B if you don't want it eaten.

Save Libby and Lola. See links above.

33 comments:

Nick M said...

I thought you Texans were a bit more robustly sensible Allen! The fault lies entirely with the cat owner for declawing it in the first place. If they wanted a soft toy and not a little hunter they should have bought a soft toy.

The Whited Sepulchre said...

That's the problem with the "Open Borders" concept.
How does one let the Mexicans in, and still keep the Yankees out?

Dr Ralph said...

WS - I agree: declawing a cat is a bad idea, although I'm not sure a cat with claws stands much of a chance against 2 dogs hellbent on destruction.

We've only gotten the story from Libby and Lola's side of the fence, put forth on their people's heart-rending website, complete with pictures of the two perps, friendly and obviously not capable of harming a fly.

Call me cynical but there is probably more than a little history between the two sets of neighbors that is being conveniently omitted.

fembuttx said...

Whatever the case may be...The declawed cat should have never, I repeat, never, been allowed to go outside. How in the hell can a little pussy defend herself is she does not have any weapons??

sandersonmom said...

How could two dogs crawl under a fence that had an electrical barrier buried underneath it? I agree with Dr Ralph in that it sounds like there are other circumstances that are not being taken into consideration.
Maybe the two dogs aren't violent and tear up things, but I bet they do bark at the cat in the neighbors yard, etc.
If the story is in fact true, I think a terrible injustice has occurred to House B. I don't feel like they should be euthanised just because they got a hold of a cat. if it were a child, then that would be a different story.
Not that I am malicious in any way towards cats, but it is nature for dogs to not like cats.

The Whited Sepulchre said...

Dr.,
This much is not up for debate.... House A is the home of a declawed cat. By all accounts, the declawed cat was found in yard B.

The owners of House A are people who own declawed cats, and (no offense) people with law degrees.

Apply Occam's Razor.

fembuttx said...

And by the way, I have a cat that is de-clawed, adopted from a co-worker. I would never ever ever let him out of the house!!

I will bet that family is from Cape Girardeau MO, as the Sepulchre may or may not agree, that town is a pain in the ass!!

Suzette said...

I agree that it is the responsibility for House A to keep the declawed cat in the house. However, I can understand people letting declawed cats out of the house under supervision if they feel that comfort level with their cat. As you said, House B changed their story and under oath said that the dogs came over in House A's yard and ate the cat. If that is the story that was presented and taken as the truth then.......House A is liable for the killing. Regardless of the claws, if I had a little Yorkie or a clawed cat in my backyard and your dog came over in my yard and killed my dog or clawed cat, you are liable. To me it soley depends on who was in who's yard.

TarrantLibertyGuy said...

I actually went to the protest rally at the dog prison. Before I waved my clever sign ("Release The Hounds!), I went to find the dog owners (House B people) to quiz them and get a truth-meter reading. Had the 'BS Meter' started buzzing, I would've gladly walked away.

Well, I gladly waved my sign as I believe their story. As I understand it, I don't believe the dog/dogs could've gotten through, under or over the fence. Lastly, according to the dog people, there has not been a cat body that has been shown. I told them this is a clear cut case of the suspension of Habeus Catus. They laughed politely.

TarrantLibertyGuy said...

...also, we adopted a declawed cat. That cat wanted to go outside more than anything! She would wait by the door and when you got home, she'd dart outside. We'd usually catch her (we were prepared after a while). One day, she slipped by LaDanian Tomlinson syle.

She never came back and was presumably eaten by something bigger. I got nobody to blame but me and my poor defensive line (me) and my secondary (kids).

Dr Ralph said...

I concur it is (a) generally not a good idea to get a cat declawed (2nd amendment et. al.) and if you do (b) it's definitely a terrible idea to let said cat outside.

My incurable cynicism arises from the presentation of the "facts" from adorable Libby and Lola's heart-rending website.

I would be equally suspicious of the "facts" if packaged up and presented by the owners of the deceased cat.

It's my own failing -- I have a small hard kernel where love of my fellow man should be. Probably from those years spent in advertising.

Anonymous said...

I happen to be the owner of the cat and he was outside.... in a crate. These dogs had been in my yard several times before (according to police reports filed- I could not remove the dogs from my yard because of the did try to bite me several times and complaints filed with animal control about the dogs being left for days without food and water). The reason that the cat was outside (in a CRATE) was because the dog owners had assured us that the electric fence would keep them in their own yard. It is record of the court and the dog owners testimony that the electric fence was NOT working that night. The cat was out there for only a short while and I saw with my own eyes the dogs esacping back under their fence. You should probably get your facts straight if you want to go post something on a forum in which you know nothing about. It is also testimony of neighbors that the dogs were out running lose several times and had actually attacked another small dog that was being walked by his owner. I even spoke to the dog owner last week and he assured me that this was over between neighbors and it was just a fight with City Hall, so I would appreciate it if the world would keep their opinions to themselves about what kind of people my family and I are. Bash the City of Fort Worth if that is your cause. I didn't bring these charges, the CITY did. By the way, the family of the dogs had two solid months from incident to trial to start working for their cause and they didn't do a thing to try to change the law until the dogs were found guilty.

fembuttx said...

So, what you are saying is this...that two dogs, that don't have thumbs, opened a crate, because I imagine that it was locked, and got to the cat??

Anonymous said...

It was unlawful for the dogs to be in my yard regardless if I had the cat out there without a crate. I have a right to have whatever I want in my backyard if there isn't a possibility of it being a nuisance to others.

sandersonmom said...

We agree that it was unlawful for the dogs to be in your backyard, however, it seems to me that you are, again, changing your story from what you just previously wrote.
Did you or did you not, have the cat in a crate?

Dr Ralph said...

Why do the facts as presented in the dog website have any authority in this matter? Sounds like there is more up for debate than there initially appeared to be.

This is going to get ugly real soon.

sandersonmom said...

Dr Ralph, this has already gotten ugly. The two households obviously has more going on than what's out in the open.

Dr Ralph said...

I meant it's going to get ugly here.

fembuttx said...

These are miracle dogs!! They can did through rock. Open animal crates....Tell me, can they play Beethoven's Fifth on the Piano??

sandersonmom said...

See Dr Ralph, you spoke too soon. It has gotten ugly in here...fembuttx speaks again...

Dr Ralph said...

What can I say? I've always had a terrible sense of timing.

Anonymous said...

Perhaps if you knew the whole story you could speak with authority on what is going on here. But you don't, so you can't. You didn't live next door to these dogs and if you're really so invested in the matter to post your opinion on this blog then maybe you should consult the City of Fort Worth Police and Animal Control Departments for the records of violations against these dogs.

sandersonmom said...

You obviously have trouble distinguishing between what is truthful and what is just going to get you what you want in court.
If you are not going to present your side of the story for us involved in this free speech blog, then you put yourself in the pit of fire.

fembuttx said...

No I don't know the whole story, but I do know when stuff does not add up....Don't get me wrong, I am not siding with the dog owners. But, who is so STUPID to let their cat out, A cat that has been de-clawed? I don't buy that the cat was in a crate. An open crate maybe, but not in a closed crate.

What I would like to know is this: Why does someone with a Law degree feel that it is necessary to prove his/her point on a blog amongst individuals who under their 5th amendment rights of freedom of speech are expressing their constitution given opinions.

I have never seen anything in the constitution or the 10 commandments that say that it is okay to let a declawed cat outside!!!

fembuttx said...

And, you never did answer my question...Can they play the Piano or maybe the harpsichord??

Dr Ralph said...

While perceived changes in "the Lawyer's" story seem to be bandied about with abandon, what about the dog owners' story? People are perfectly content to take that at face value. Why should I trust their case (which failed to convince people in a court setting)?

It's interesting so many people feel compelled to bring up "Law Degree," "Lawyers," and the like when discussing this.

What does that have to do with anything?

By the way, free speech is a first amendment right, not fifth. I didn't realize a person's profession prevented them from exercising their first amendment rights here.

FYI -- fifth amendment protects you against self-incrimination, as in, "I plead the fifth."

fembuttx said...

Oh crap!! I plead the fifth!! You got me Dr Ralph!! I must have had Beethoven's fifth on the brain!! I consider myself admonished!!

Dr Ralph said...

Fembuttx: I'm looking forward to having another kind of fifth on my brain before too long --shaken, not stirred. Cheers!

Anonymous said...

The innocent victims are the dogs that cannot tell their side of this story. It is obvious to me the new attorney is hungary and has a few too many law loans to repay... and started with the next door neighbor to get the next loan payment in. And...
How did the dead cat body get removed from the backyard of the Dog's house? I assume the cat people went into their back yard and took it? What happened to evidence. Those dogs have not been proven guilty without cat blood pictures or proof the cat was mouled or something? This is invasion of the cat snatchers!
DO not kill two human,kid-loving dogs without real evidence these two cat owners are just not trying to get paid without proof.

Anonymous said...

As the sister of the cat owner, I can tell you how the cat got out of their yard. My dad had to go into their yard and get what was left of the cat since my sister was too upset to do it. He then went and buried the cat. I have advised them to dig up the cat and take it to a vet to attest that it was indeed torn up by the dogs. Maybe some graphic pictures of the cat on a web site would tell the truth. Anyone ever thought that these people are just trying to get your money?

Anonymous said...

I am the one who went into the back yard to wrench the cat out of the dog's mouth. It was obvious that the dogs had dug under the fence and drug the cat back under the fence and no - there was no hot wire activated that night - I touched it myself. So much for that preventative. There was cat hair from my daughter's yard over into their yard where they had drug the cat under the fence. This was just one of many times that the dogs had been over in her backyard and had destroyed property - this time it just happened to be their cat. And yes, we can produce a body because we buried it in our backyard. My daughter was on the phone with the "loving caring parents" of the dog - he knew we were going into the backyard to retrieve the body of the cat and he chose not to come home. So if you want facts, you need to hear the whole story instead of a one-sided "tear jerking" story from people who are exploiting the public for money and advertising for their band. We can produce a body if anyone needs to see it. This is such a waste of taxpayer money and funny that it didn't matter to them at all until they lost the case. Ray C.

Anonymous said...

The only good cat is a dead cat. Good riddance.

Dr Ralph said...

On the internet, nobody knows you're a dog.

Woof!