un-served litigant

[scottzagoria]

What is the name of your state? CA
thanks in advance. i'm writing on behalf of albert, my friend, who is still trying to reclaim his dogs from the county after an 'adversarial' de novo judgment. forgive me, i'm not an attorney, and i do not mean to wax eloquent. my question is in fact quite straightforward. albert mentioned to me prior to his initial hearing that he had not been served. i have read online that it doesn't take much to serve someone, but the minutes of the trial states this in no uncertain terms, i.e., 'un-served'. albert has had a bit of online help with filings from a nice attorney, but he's been through the ringer, so to speak. i'm wondering if anyone can comment on whether the 'un-served' is conceivably something albert can exploit in some fashion. thank you all very much for your consideration and very best wishes.

 

[quincy]

What is the name of your state? CA
thanks in advance. i'm writing on behalf of albert, my friend, who is still trying to reclaim his dogs from the county after an 'adversarial' de novo judgment. forgive me, i'm not an attorney, and i do not mean to wax eloquent. my question is in fact quite straightforward. albert mentioned to me prior to his initial hearing that he had not been served. i have read online that it doesn't take much to serve someone, but the minutes of the trial states this in no uncertain terms, i.e., 'un-served'. albert has had a bit of online help with filings from a nice attorney, but he's been through the ringer, so to speak. i'm wondering if anyone can comment on whether the 'un-served' is conceivably something albert can exploit in some fashion. thank you all very much for your consideration and very best wishes.

Instead of “de novo” do you mean “default” judgment?

You say Albert knew about the “initial hearing” prior to the initial hearing. Did Albert attend the hearing?

What was the “judgment?” Why does the County have his dogs?

I don’t understand what Albert thinks he can “exploit.”

 

[scottzagoria]

i would rather not quibble about my usage of the term 'exploit'. albert has/had 2 dogs. one of them bit someone. albert did attend the hearing which he found out about on his own. he also attended the de novo trial. he didn't have much chance to present a case. i wonder if there is anyone who could respond to my question, and if not, thanks for your efforts.

 

[quincy]

i would rather not quibble about my usage of the term 'exploit'. albert has/had 2 dogs. one of them bit someone. albert did attend the hearing which he found out about on his own. he also attended the de novo trial. he didn't have much chance to present a case. i wonder if there is anyone who could respond to my question, and if not, thanks for your efforts.

You really have not provided enough information to say if or how Albert can reclaim his dogs. If he knew about the hearings and attended both the initial hearing and the appeal, proper service at this point is a bit of a nonissue. He appeared and had the chance to present whatever evidence he had regarding his dogs.

Is Albert unable to pay the fees for dog licensing, microchipping and vaccinations or the fines assessed by the County, and/or is he unable to afford the housing conditions that must be met before the County will release his dogs? If one or both were designated dangerous or vicious dogs, does the County intend to euthanize the dog(s)?

Here is a link to the “dangerous dog” statutes in California:
https://www.animallaw.info/statute/ca-dangerous-california-dangerous-dog-statutes

If Albert is looking for some low cost or free legal assistance, California has legal aide clinics sprinkled throughout the state. If he is questioning the Court’s decision that his dogs are dangerous, he might also find some assistance from an animal rights organization.

 

[scottzagoria]

thank you, quincy. your comment re: a 'nonissue' pretty much answers my question. i do appreciate it. albert has 2 dogs. one bit someone. they took both dogs. they have been in lock-down for about 3 months. it seems they found the dogs not vicious and want to give them to someone else. albert was in fact granted a de novo hearing, but with the same results. he has online help from an animal attorney in a different county, but he was not able to get an attorney to plead in court. the local defenders office stated they don't handle civil cases. in short, it is fairly obvious albert cannot afford 100k insurance and a 10 foot fence around his property since he resides in his vehicle. and that is why albert has not been able to find a public defender presumably. there seem to be a lot of irregularities, which presumably is why the de novo hearing was scheduled. anyway, thanks again for answering the question and apologies if i appeared 'testy', i.e., i'm just feeling a bit of albert's frustration, i guess. very best wishes!

 

[quincy]

thank you, quincy. your comment re: a 'nonissue' pretty much answers my question. i do appreciate it. albert has 2 dogs. one bit someone. they took both dogs. they have been in lock-down for about 3 months. it seems they found the dogs not vicious and want to give them to someone else. albert was in fact granted a de novo hearing, but with the same results. he has online help from an animal attorney in a different county, but he was not able to get an attorney to plead in court. the local defenders office stated they don't handle civil cases. in short, it is fairly obvious albert cannot afford 100k insurance and a 10 foot fence around his property since he resides in his vehicle. and that is why albert has not been able to find a public defender presumably. there seem to be a lot of irregularities, which presumably is why the de novo hearing was scheduled. anyway, thanks again for answering the question and apologies if i appeared 'testy', i.e., i'm just feeling a bit of albert's frustration, i guess. very best wishes!

I am sorry that Albert might lose his dogs because of his current living conditions and the costs of the conditions placed on him by the county for the dogs release.

California has a pet assistance and support program which Albert might want to check out. I really don’t know much about the program but he might ask about it at an area homeless shelter. The shelter potentially could direct him to additional resources.

https://www.hcd.ca.gov/grants-and-funding/programs-active/pet-assistance-and-support-program#undefined

Thanks for the apology. I was low on caffeine and took offense when none was intended, so I apologize to you, too.

 

[scottzagoria]

thanks, quincy. i will pass the link along to albert although i daresay it won't likely cheer him up too much. also, for whatever it might possibly be worth, i don't think you need to worry about the caffeine issue. i did express a bit of an attitude, but it was because i had mistakenly characterized you. in fact, you are very nice and i wish you the best. as for albert, his kafkaesque ordeal has likely run its course although he is likely going to try the mandamus route since he's a bit of a masochist and the system is rather sadistic in its own fashion.

 

[zddoodah]

my friend . . . is still trying to reclaim his dogs from the county after an 'adversarial' de novo judgment.

Why do you have the word "adversarial" in between two apostrophes (which I assume you used in lieu of quotation marks)? Who entered this judgment? What did the judgment say?

albert mentioned to me prior to his initial hearing that he had not been served.

Had not been served with what? Since you said he attended this hearing, any service issue is moot.

the minutes of the trial states this in no uncertain terms, i.e., 'un-served'.

Huh? The "minutes . . . state[]" what?

i'm wondering if anyone can comment on whether the 'un-served' is conceivably something albert can exploit in some fashion.

Without knowing much of anything about the proceeding, and without having read the judgment, it's very difficult to make any helpful comments.

it is fairly obvious albert cannot afford 100k insurance and a 10 foot fence around his property since he resides in his vehicle. and that is why albert has not been able to find a public defender presumably.

Public defenders handle the defense of criminal actions. If your friend hasn't been charged with a crime, then that is why he can't get a PD to take the case.

 

[quincy]

thanks, quincy. i will pass the link along to albert although i daresay it won't likely cheer him up too much. also, for whatever it might possibly be worth, i don't think you need to worry about the caffeine issue. i did express a bit of an attitude, but it was because i had mistakenly characterized you. in fact, you are very nice and i wish you the best. as for albert, his kafkaesque ordeal has likely run its course although he is likely going to try the mandamus route since he's a bit of a masochist and the system is rather sadistic in its own fashion.

Thanks for the nice words, Scott, but I definitely need to worry about the caffeine issue. Caffeine is what keeps me semi-sane.

I know how important pets can be when the rest of life seems to be beating you down. Albert’s living conditions might not be ideal right now but I can almost guarantee that, if his dogs had food and water and exercise, his dogs didn’t care if they lived in a mansion or a minibus.

I encourage Albert to seek help from one of the organizations that are working to keep the homeless and their pets together. These organizations may have the legal resources necessary to get Albert’s dogs back from the County.

Although I personally can’t vouch for any of the following organizations and depending on Albert’s County, they could be good places to check out, in addition to homeless shelters:

https://heart4pets.org/safe-haven-program/

https://animalcare.lacounty.gov/keeping-pets-and-families-together/

https://www.obol.info/pets-of-the-homeless/

Good luck.

 

[scottzagoria]

Why do you have the word "adversarial" in between two apostrophes (which I assume you used in lieu of quotation marks)? Who entered this judgment? What did the judgment say?




Had not been served with what? Since you said he attended this hearing, any service issue is moot.




Huh? The "minutes . . . state[]" what?




Without knowing much of anything about the proceeding, and without having read the judgment, it's very difficult to make any helpful comments.




Public defenders handle the defense of criminal actions. If your friend hasn't been charged with a crime, then that is why he can't get a PD to take the case.

thanks, zd. it is all seemingly increasingly moot at this point and i do appreciate your reply. i think i answered most of your questions in a previous discussion w/ quincy. i used adversarial in single quotation marks since the system is inherently biased against the alberts of the world -- as opposed to the legal connotation. lastly, it actually has 'un-served' printed on the minutes from the first hearing. thanks again for your advice/feedback and very best wishes.

 

[scottzagoria]

Thanks for the nice words, Scott, but I definitely need to worry about the caffeine issue. Caffeine is what keeps me semi-sane.

I know how important pets can be when the rest of life seems to be beating you down. Albert’s living conditions might not be ideal right now but I can almost guarantee that, if his dogs had food and water and exercise, his dogs didn’t care if they lived in a mansion or a minibus.

I encourage Albert to seek help from one of the organizations that are working to keep the homeless and their pets together. These organizations may have the legal resources necessary to get Albert’s dogs back from the County.

Although I personally can’t vouch for any of the following organizations and depending on Albert’s County, they could be good places to check out, in addition to homeless shelters:

https://heart4pets.org/safe-haven-program/

https://animalcare.lacounty.gov/keeping-pets-and-families-together/

https://www.obol.info/pets-of-the-homeless/

Good luck.

hi, quincy. thanks again for your kind words. in short, albert is not a shelter kind of guy. if he were, the system might not be so intent on making an example. albert also is not easily overcome in this case since his dogs are crucial to his well-being. and the situation is a bit hard to handle considering the dogs were held as vicious animals, which they aren't...and now that they realize albert doesn't have 50k to meet their requirements, they have decided to give the dogs to a family that has young children. it's kind of a slap in the face since the calif. law generally allows citizens to reclaim their dogs after an initial bite and a non-vicious dog determination. peace.

 

[quincy]

hi, quincy. thanks again for your kind words. in short, albert is not a shelter kind of guy. if he were, the system might not be so intent on making an example. albert also is not easily overcome in this case since his dogs are crucial to his well-being. and the situation is a bit hard to handle considering the dogs were held as vicious animals, which they aren't...and now that they realize albert doesn't have 50k to meet their requirements, they have decided to give the dogs to a family that has young children. it's kind of a slap in the face since the calif. law generally allows citizens to reclaim their dogs after an initial bite and a non-vicious dog determination. peace.

Animal laws in all states do impose requirements on all pet owners, for the health of the pet and the health and safety of the public - but, across the board, laws that are enacted to benefit the public often seem to ignore the large part of the public that is poor.

I have to applaud the efforts made by the state of California to assist the homeless in keeping their pets (through the PAS program), and it is nice to see organizations forming or stepping up to make sure all members of a family (including pet members) can stay together while these families work on finding stable housing.

Although I keep hoping that someday a few benevolent billionaires will use a portion of their vast amounts of money to buy up old buildings and convert them to apartments, or build individual houses, specifically to house the homeless, I don’t see this happening - at least on a wide enough scale to combat the homeless crisis in this country.

Good luck to Albert.

 

[scottzagoria]

hi, quincy. re: '...laws that are enacted to benefit the public often seem to ignore the large part of the public that is poor,' it has become more the norm that the laws you speak of are increasingly intended to identify and isolate rather than to benefit anyone other than property owners. on the other hand, the really rich folks are all in davos making agreements about how to give their money away! they seem to feel bereft being mega-wealthy; if only their wealth would be taxed, they bemoan. albert appears to have gone awol for the bye and bye, which isn't too surprising under the circumstances, but i will let you know if there is any resolution forthcoming...

 

[quincy]

... albert appears to have gone awol for the bye and bye, which isn't too surprising under the circumstances, but i will let you know if there is any resolution forthcoming ...

Thanks. This thread will be here waiting for any Albert-update you might have.