FERRET-SEARCH Archives

Searchable FML archives

FERRET-SEARCH@LISTSERV.FERRETMAILINGLIST.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Anonymous Poster <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Tue, 6 May 1997 06:28:53 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (44 lines)
>Unless things have radically changed over the past year, Mr. Sellers is not
>an attorney, and therefore you should not take his writings as legal advice
 
If you read the article in question you will note that it clearly states
that the author is not an attorney and cannot give legal advice.  In
speaking to Randy you will find that he will not hide this fact and will
tell you up front that the knowledge comes from years of experience DOING
the job.  You cannot be involved in over 200 bite cases over a 12 year
period without learning something from the attorneys and public officials
you deal with.  The advice given in that particular article is no more than
what every child used to be taught in basic civics class (am I dating
myself?)
 
>Secondly, there is now case law (and I am sorry that I do not have the
>actual case, although it was recently discussed on the FML I believe) which
>goes against Mr. Sellers ideas of suing the Government when a ferret is
>taken from it's owner for rabies testing.  Plaintiffs recently sued a local
>government for the value of the animal after their ferret was destroyed for
>rabies testing.  The court found (I am paraphrasing here) that the
>government had the right to test for rabies without compensation to the
>owner.
 
Yes, the Rasha case was lost on appeal.  This is one instance.  Despite this
one case there have been at least a dozen where the principle was upheld and
the owner compensated.  And for each of these cases there are probably as
least as many where the compensation has been agreed to without litigation.
It is a mystery to me how Maryland ruled the way it did (although I haven't
read the actual papers).  This is black letter law which means it is right
out in the open and does not rquire interpretation.
 
In closing, let me drag out a favorite quote of mine:
 
When asked if I thought I was some kind of attorney or something (because I
was quoting an ordinance to a cop) I replied, "You don't have to be an
attorney to understand the law any more than you have to be a proctologist
to recognize an asshole."
 
Part of the problem with the world today is that people think that
understanding their legal rights rights is something only a highly trained
lawyer can do.  We can and must take the time to at least learn the basics.
 
[MD]
[Posted in FML issue 1925]

ATOM RSS1 RSS2