Horse sues ex-owner: Yes, really. You can't make up this lunacy. https://www.oregonlive.com/washingtoncounty/index.ssf/2018/09/udge_ponders_landmark

Rose42

Yes, really. You can't make up this lunacy.

https://www.oregonlive.com/washingtoncounty/index.ssf/2018/09/udge_ponders_landmark_decision.html

More evidence that "animal rights is mental illness masquerading as philosophy".

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

SO many asinine people in this world.....

Powder Hound

It is really too bad that these target of harassment don't counter sue for the immense damage they are causing. Such lawsuits would clog the courts and thereby deny legitimate access for real needs. That the court would allow such a lawsuit even to be filed is evidence of the judicial system's lack of intelligence and sanity. The lack of perspective just goes beyond the pale. In the case above, the judge would be walking off a cliff to allow this lawsuit, since there is a lot of clear history on denying it. And the legal system seems to value case history above real law and real principles so many times (although that is actually correct in this case). We'll see what happens.

I agree with Shakespeare on who should be the first to go in the revolution.

Cheers,

PH

Orson Burleigh Loc: Annapolis, Maryland, USA

Rose42 wrote:

Yes, really. You can't make up this lunacy.

https://www.oregonlive.com/washingtoncounty/index.ssf/2018/09/udge_ponders_landmark_decision.html

More evidence that "animal rights is mental illness masquerading as philosophy".

Would sharing a sandwich with an itinerant cat create a claim sufficient to sue for separate maintenance?

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Rose42 wrote:

Yes, really. You can't make up this lunacy.

https://www.oregonlive.com/washingtoncounty/index.ssf/2018/09/udge_ponders_landmark_decision.html

More evidence that "animal rights is mental illness masquerading as philosophy".

We have animal cruelty laws. Why is it necessary for the animal to sue?

RolandDieter

This stuff is not uncommon here in The People's Republic of Oregon. There is also a case where 21 people, the oldest is 22 and the youngest is 11, trying to get approval for a lawsuit against the federal government ... their claim is that neither the Executive Branch nor Congress have a right to pass laws or regulations; they claim it must all be done through the courts.

BobHartung Loc: Bettendorf, IA

Rose42 wrote:

Yes, really. You can't make up this lunacy.

https://www.oregonlive.com/washingtoncounty/index.ssf/2018/09/udge_ponders_landmark_decision.html

More evidence that "animal rights is mental illness masquerading as philosophy".

Who wins here? The Trial Lawyers of course. And who is going to complain if they take 90% of any judgement? The horse? I think not!

The former owner has already been fined, maybe not enough. Perhaps they should sue the person that bred the horse. There is not end to the idiocy of the lawyers and the search for new ways to make money.

PRETENDER Loc: Micanopy,Florida

Must be a leftover from our current political fiasco.

Earnest Botello Loc: Hockley, Texas

You hit the nail on the HEAD Bob. Reminds me of the suit against the tobacco companies a few years ago, who got all the money, the lawyers (billions) and the government, we the people got zilch.

BobHartung wrote:

Who wins here? The Trial Lawyers of course. And who is going to complain if they take 90% of any judgement? The horse? I think not!

The former owner has already been fined, maybe not enough. Perhaps they should sue the person that bred the horse. There is not end to the idiocy of the lawyers and the search for new ways to make money.

Alafoto Loc: Montgomery, AL

BobHartung wrote:

Who wins here? The Trial Lawyers of course. And who is going to complain if they take 90% of any judgement? The horse? I think not!

The former owner has already been fined, maybe not enough. Perhaps they should sue the person that bred the horse. There is not end to the idiocy of the lawyers and the search for new ways to make money.

Not really idiocy, just greed. In our present society that's defined as 'the spirit of enterprise.'

BobHartung Loc: Bettendorf, IA

Alafoto wrote:

Not really idiocy, just greed. In our present society that's defined as 'the spirit of enterprise.'

foathog Loc: Greensboro, NC

Yes, but what happens to these assholes who carelessly neglect their animals??? A slap on the wrist? I'm not saying I agree with this decision but surely there should be bigger penalties. Someone has to side with the poor animal. This kind of crap happens all the time

jerryc41 wrote:

We have animal cruelty laws. Why is it necessary for the animal to sue?

Rose42

foathog wrote:

Yes, but what happens to these assholes who carelessly neglect their animals??? A slap on the wrist? I'm not saying I agree with this decision but surely there should be bigger penalties. Someone has to side with the poor animal. This kind of crap happens all the time

I agree there should be stiff penalties for that kind of abuse. We are to be good stewards which is not a rights issue but a welfare issue. HUGE difference. With the Animal League Defense Fund their goal is total animal liberation. They're the ones behind this and its a calculated move. We have to be alert to these twisted folks or we will gradually lose our animals which is their end game.

drucker Loc: Oregon

I live just "over the hill" from this courtroom and surrounded by "snowflakes." The real bottom line is . . . "Follow the money," they could really care less about the horse.

paulrph1 Loc: Washington, Utah

Rose42 wrote:

Yes, really. You can't make up this lunacy.

https://www.oregonlive.com/washingtoncounty/index.ssf/2018/09/udge_ponders_landmark_decision.html

More evidence that "animal rights is mental illness masquerading as philosophy".

How can a horse sue when it cannot speak English? It cannot cross examine. I do believe that the horse was mistreated but one has to be sensible. It is not the horse suing and we know that it is one human suing another human. Who gets to keep the money. Can the horse spend it?