First, Thank you Heather.
 
Now some responses to Bill Gruber. I'm taking the time because it
is important that those helping us understand what is going on
here.  Bill is quite right about the need to understand the
facts.  I've tried to minimize the quoting for spaces sake so you
can reference issue 406 if you need to.  Thanks...
 
>Date:    Sun, 24 Jan 1993 10:45:35 -0500
>From:    Bill Gruber <BIGCU@CUNYVM>
>Subject:      Re: Issue 406 NYC legalization
 
>In issue 406 Jeb Weisman mentioned a few things about the mess
>with legalization efforts in NYC.  I understand the issue to be
>a little different and beg for clarification....
 
>NYC calls them wild animals, and it is not legal to keep wild
>animals in NYC. The state's attitude is marginally better - they
>still require a special license.
 
This is true, but it is still only an administrative ruling that
makes them impermissible as pets.  There is nothing in NY State
or City that actually says they are wild or domestic and that is
what will be decided, in part, here.  Further, it was by verbal
request only by a Health department official that the state
included a statement against ferret licensing in New York City.
On the basis of this the owner was not able to get a license.
When we complained about the lack of written and appropriate
documentation for this request this wording has come into
question.  We currently have people in NYC applying for licenses.
 
Checks have been cashed, but no licenses have appeared.  We are
pursuing this separate issue through separate channels.
 
 
>I've *never* heard of something like that.  True, people have
>had their ferrets taken away, but not without due process.
>"Tickets", or summonses are sometimes given out - just another
>revenue maker for the city - but I'm not aware of ferrets being
>taken away unless neighbors complain, or the ferret bites
>someone, etc.
 
I'm afraid Bill is mistaken here.  This is why facts and primary
sources are so important.  Through a FOIL request (Freedom Of
Information Law) we have obtained the names of 5 individuals who
have had their ferrets destroyed within 24 hours (this is the
City's documentation, not ours).  Further the defendant in this
case was initially told the animal would have to be sacrificed in
order to be tested.  That is why he refused and hid the animal.
DoH officials (and we have witnesses) threatened the defendant's
mother with jail if she didn't surrender the ferret.  As for
revenue, don't you think the $130,000 the city is imposing on the
defendant is a bit excessive, especially as it's because he
didn't have a license which the City, itself, said he couldn't
have to begin with?
 
 
>NYC Health Code Section 161.01.  Isn't that a law?  (Who knows,
>a "law" might have a more specific meaning).
 
No Bill, it is NOT a law.  It is an administrative ruling.  It
was simply a decision that ferrets were too dangerous to own.
Our FOIL requests for its bases seems to indicate it is based on
the Colorado study.  We have spoken with members of the health
department about this and they confirm its origins, though only
verbally.
 
 
>I am aware of one challenge that has been dragging on for about
>a year now... One lawyer, William Bryk, who has been mentioned
>here before, took the case pretty far....
>Turns out I met Mr. Bryk pretty much by accident a few weeks ago
>and I unofficially discussed the case with him.  He said that
>the article 78...
>Since Bryk is not a criminal lawyer, he is stepping aside until
>the time is right to file the article 78 stuff - which might be
>very soon...
 
Well Bill, where should I begin.  First, when you talked to Bill
Bryk did you ask him how Gary was (the person that got him
involved in the case?)  Anyway, I think we're talking about the
same case.  Except, of course, it was in April and it was first
reported in the NY Post and the ferret's name is Boo-Boo.  The
young, unemployed construction worker has the ferret because we
told him not to surrender it.  William Bryk could not pursue the
case because he works for the City and as you probably guessed,
that would be a conflict of interest in a criminal proceeding.
BTW, those ridiculously low fees, guess who's been paying them
out of his own pocket with the assistance of three other people
<g>?  Furthermore, guess who is bankrolling the criminal lawyer
who is now handling the case?  Yup me and the other 3 people.  As
for the article 78 stuff, it's true.  When the city decided to
prosecute this young man we had a choice and the decision was to
take it as far as the defendant felt comfortable going.
 
 
>Actually, I believe this is the GOOD news!  For two reasons....
 
It's not particularly good news, just potentially expensive.
Luckily, Bill, I was in the court room so I can tell you what the
judge said.   BTW, you couldn't have seen or even heard of the
judges ruling because he didn't make one. (Wasn't it funny what
he did to the city's attorney?)  He said we will meet again on
February 11th and at that time we settle with the City or he'll
rule against us which sends us immediately for a stay and the
Appeals court.  Immediately afterwards we all stood outside the
court room discussing this with the attorney who has handled
other animal rights-related cases.  He explained what the judge
was doing, why, and what our various options are.  Bill where did
you get your version of a "ruling" that you "can't swear by."
Such misinformation concerns me greatly especially as none was
reported or handed down and only the four of us (including the
defense attorney were at the Bench)?
 
 
>Ehhh.. didn't you claim above that they do this already?
 
No, I said this is what they do and we are challenging it.  If
they win, then there will be a precedent supporting this
activity, Bill.  That's different.  We also have found that
legally if the government takes an animal and destroys it to test
for rabies they are supposed to compensate you for the loss.
Again, we have discovered that this has never been done (don't
you love FOIL?)
 
 
>(Jeb then goes on to say that you should send a letter to the
>judge)...
 
Well Bill, we discussed this with the attorney first and had him
check with the defendant, other attorneys, and animal rights
people.  They said absolutely we should send letters NOW.  As the
attorneys involved have explained it to us, the judge does not
consider this a significant case (understandably).  Therefore he
is going to get rid of it by forcing it to another court.  By
indicating that there is strong public interest in the case we
may be able to either a) end this now, or b) force the City to
have to Appeal which will represent a dubious investment in the
City's already stretched resources.  That is also why we need to
get the letters to him prior to February 11th.
 
 
>I certainly am pleased that there is some movement.  My
>understanding of the case may be incorrect - I will try to get
>some more info for the FML. Even better - Jeb - can you explain
>some of what you said?  I'd like to help - most people reading
>this would probably like to help -  but since I don't see it the
>way you do Jeb, I'd like some assurances that this is the proper
>way to proceed and not, in fact, hurting.
 
 
Bill, I hope this helps you and others understand things better.
I also hope that as I have been at the hearings, funded much of
the work, worked with the Defense Attorney, and so on it doesn't
disqualify my ability to present these things.  Please don't
hesitate to ask if there's anything else we can clarify and
if appropriate take to e-mail?
 
 
-Jeb  (Thanks for the bandwidth Chris)
 
[Posted in FML issue 0408]