Mary Cummins Animal Advocates Los Angeles California Wildlife Rehabilitation Real Estate

Mary Cummins Animal Advocates Los Angeles California Wildlife Rehabilitation Real Estate
WEBSITE       FACEBOOK       YOUTUBE        MARY CUMMINS RESUME
Showing posts with label hsus. Show all posts
Showing posts with label hsus. Show all posts

Tuesday, August 8, 2017

Why the USDA does not enforce the Animal Welfare Act regulations? Because they have no enforcement power - Animal Advocates

usda, awa, animal welfare act, enforce, violations, regulations

I'm a licensed wildlife rehabilitator and have a small wildlife sanctuary of unreleasable wildlife. I must have a USDA permit to keep these animals. The USDA inspectors told me they have no regulations on size of enclosures, enrichment, type of food...for raccoons, skunks, opossums or squirrels. They only state they must be "sufficient." That said California Fish & Wildlife does have specific regulations for each animal. Our enclosures, treatment are always superior to these minimum standards.

People have asked why the USDA does not go after people who violate AWA regulations. I asked my USDA inspectors who are all licensed veterinarians the same question. They have pets and love animals. They told me they have no enforcement power. If someone is a repeat violator, they will cancel their USDA permit. That is all they can do. They don't have the power to seize the animals, arrest the people or bring charges. They said if they take away the permit, the person will just operate without one with no oversight at all.

Now the California Department of Fish & Wildlife does have enforcement power in regard to wildlife. They can take away someone's permit. If they continue to operate without it, they've committed multiple felonies. They can seize all the animals, arrest the person and file charges against them.

That said someone should write, propose legislation to give the USDA enforcement power just like the Dept of Fish & Wildlife. All that said even with enforcement power the departments don't have the resources to seize and hold all those animals. They have to keep them as evidence until the case is settled or the owner agrees to give them the animals. These cases are long and drawn out.

The only time I've seen Fish & Wildlife take action is when a non-profit rescue has offered to care for the animals during litigation and agrees to take them if the owner or court allows it. That was the only way Fish & Wildlife went after Tiger Rescue. Fund for Animals took care of the tigers and eventually placed them all after the owner signed them over. This is the reason why Fish & Wildlife won't go after the Waystation who has been in violation for years and years.

The only success I've seen is the HSUS Humane Officers who can enforce animal control, animal cruelty, wildlife, regular police...regulations. They only go after cases where they have the resources to care for the animals. They just don't have the resources to help with all the cases.

Mary Cummins of Animal Advocates is a wildlife rehabilitator licensed by the California Department of Fish and Game and the USDA. Mary Cummins is also a licensed real estate appraiser in Los Angeles, California.


Google+ Mary Cummins, Mary K. Cummins, Mary Katherine Cummins, Mary Cummins-Cobb, Mary, Cummins, Cobb, wildlife, wild, animal, rescue, wildlife rehabilitation, wildlife rehabilitator, fish, game, los angeles, california, united states, squirrel, raccoon, fox, skunk, opossum, coyote, bobcat, manual, instructor, speaker, humane, nuisance, control, pest, trap, exclude, deter, green, non-profit, nonprofit, non, profit, ill, injured, orphaned, exhibit, exhibitor, usda, united states department of agriculture, hsus, humane society, peta, ndart, humane academy, humane officer, animal legal defense fund, animal cruelty, investigation, peace officer, animal, cruelty, abuse, neglect #marycummins #animaladvocates #losangeles #california #wildlife #wildliferehabilitation #wildliferehabilitator #realestate #realestateappraiser #realestateappraisal #lawsuit

Monday, February 13, 2017

Lawsuit behind the USDA deleting inspection and permit reports - Contender Farms, Show inc, Lee McGartland, horse soring

USDA, HSUS, Contender Farms, Lee McGartland, Mike McGartland, Show Inc, united states department of agriculture

UPDATE: I just found the documents which the McGartlands wanted removed from the USDA website. They publicly filed them in their public lawsuit against the USDA. Therefore the documents are privileged and can be publicly shared. The documents attached to their February 2016 lawsuit against the USDA include Tab, Exhibit 8 which are official warning letters and form 7060. They involve four horses who showed evidence of soring at two events on three different days. The documents in order are as follows,

August 23, 2012 form 7060 violations of federal law, unlawful acts, case TN130373-AC, violator Mike McGartland, 15 U.S.C. Sec 1824(7) showing of horse with substance used to sore a horse, ( C.F.R. Sec 11.2(c) prohibited substance, horse tested positive for sulfur, horse "Low on Gin," 74th Annual Tennessee Walking Horse National Celebration in Shelbyville, TN.

Same violation against Lee McGartland.

Same violation against Chris Alexander.

August 30, 2012 form 7060, case TN130155-AC, against Mike McGartland, 15 U.S.C. Sec 124(2), horse is sore. 9 C.F.R. Sec 11.3 scar rule, horse is sore, horse "He's Shady in Black," in the 74th Annual Tennessee Walking Horse Naional Celebration in Shelbyville, TN.

Same violation against Lee McGartland.

Same violation against Chris Alexander.

February 17, 2016 official warning letter from the USDA, case TN150128-AC. Letter states USDA could impose civil penalties up to $2,200 or other sanctions for each violation. USDA decided not to pursue penalties as long as they don't violate the regulations again. They offered them the opportunity for a hearing.

August 26, 2014, Lee McGartland, TN150128-AC, 15 U.S.C. sec 1824(2)(A), horse is sore, horse "She's A Shady Sister" (class no. 120, entry no. 1001) at the 76th Annual Tennessee Walking Horse National Celebration in Shelbyville, Tennessee.

Same warning letter as February 17, 2016 but to Michael McGartland.

Same for 7060 as above August 26, 2014 but to Michael McGartland, case TN150127-AC. This time the horse is "Blue's Master" (class no. 139B, entry no. 982), same show.

Below is the link to the documents.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxE8KfVPjYF4dUhGeFJwRFp3YjQ/view?usp=sharing

It's really shocking that the McGartlands would demand that the USDA remove all inspection, permit, violation reports because of a few warning forms and letters. In their lawsuit they said they were denied a hearing. In the letter the USDA offered them a hearing if they wanted to contest the warnings. The USDA could have cited them, fined them but they didn't.

From personal experience I can tell you that USDA is not very strict on enforcing regulations. You have to do something really bad to even get a warning. Even after warning letters they don't start any action unless the person refuses to correct their behavior and defies the USDA like the Wildlife Waystation and Tiger Rescue did numerous times. I personally feel that the Texas attorneys who owned the horse just wanted to bully the USDA into silence. They almost succeeded. Hopefully the USDA will be able to stop them. We need those records to be public for this reason.

February 3, 2017 USDA removed permit and inspection reports along with the search engine stating it was in part due to litigation. February 7, 2017 they updated their reason, see below.

https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/animalwelfare/enforcementactions

"Last Modified: Feb 3, 2017  Print
Courts are continuously issuing decisions that provide agencies with guidance on interpreting and applying laws applicable to the release of information to the public by the Federal government, including the Privacy Act and Freedom of Information Act. In addition, the U.S. Department of Justice maintains comprehensive guidance involving the Privacy Act, Freedom of Information Act, and other laws, and updates such guidance based on legal developments. APHIS, with the support from the Office of the General Counsel, continuously monitors these sources of information and makes refinements to APHIS’ practices, as needed.

Based on our commitment to being transparent, remaining responsive to our stakeholders’ informational needs, and maintaining the privacy rights of individuals, APHIS is implementing actions to remove documents it posts on APHIS’ website involving the Horse Protection Act (HPA) and the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) that contain personal information. These documents include inspection reports, research facility annual reports, regulatory correspondence (such as official warnings), lists of regulated entities, and enforcement records (such as pre-litigation settlement agreements and administrative complaints) that have not received final adjudication. In addition, APHIS will review and redact, as necessary, the lists of licensees and registrants under the AWA, as well as lists of designated qualified persons (DQPs) licensed by USDA-certified horse industry organizations to ensure personal information is not released to the general public.

Those seeking information from APHIS regarding inspection reports, research facility annual reports, regulatory correspondence, and enforcement records should submit Freedom of Information Act requests for that information. Records will be released when authorized and in a manner consistent with the FOIA and Privacy Act. If the same records are frequently requested via the Freedom of Information Act process, APHIS may post the appropriately redacted versions to its website. In addition, some enforcement records (such as initial decision and orders, default decisions, and consent decisions) are available on the USDA’s Office of Administrative Law Judge’s website (https://www.oaljdecisions.dm.usda.gov). For more information on preparing and submitting Freedom of Information Act requests, please visit https://efoia-pal.usda.gov/palMain.aspx."

USDA stated they removed the documents because of litigation. I went and found a couple of the cases related to the take down of this public information. One of the cases is CONTENDER FARMS, LLP, LEE MCGARTLAND, MIKE MCGARTLAND and SHOW, INC., Plaintiffs vs.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, Case No. 4:16-cv-163-Y, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS, FORT WORTH DIVISION.

This is the second lawsuit the McGartlands who are both lawyers, attorneys filed against the USDA over their alleged violations and public reports. From the Washington Post,

Lee Wall McGartland, Michael "Mike" McGartland, Texas, lawyers, personal injury, tennessee walking horses, usda, lawsuit


"Three summers ago, Lee Wall McGartland and Mike McGartland entered a horse named The Royal Dollar in the 74th annual Red Carpet Show of the South. A veterinary medical officer from the U.S. Department of Agriculture was there, too.

The animal placed third in its class in the competition for Tennessee walking horses, which have a high-stepping gait that enthusiasts say comes from breeding and training. But it can also come from the application of caustic chemicals to a horse’s legs and other painful practices called “soring.” These are outlawed under the federal Horse Protection Act, and the Agriculture department is responsible for horse owners’ compliance. During a post-show inspection, the veterinary officer determined that The Royal Dollar was sore.

The finding resulted in one of several official warnings between 2013 and 2016 that identified the McGartlands as “violators” — warnings that appeared on a public USDA database and that now underpin a legal battle between the Texas couple and the department. The McGartlands sued, arguing that the enforcement program denies due process to those accused of violations and breaks privacy laws by publishing personal information."

In this case the USDA noted that the Plaintiffs violated the Horse Protection Act. USDA posted in the USDA website their inspection reports, inventory of animals, warning letters and other related USDA documents.

Plaintiffs sued the USDA stating that posting that information is a violation of Plaintiff's privacy. Plaintiffs also state that they feel the reports are false and defamatory. Plaintiffs state they were never allowed a hearing before a court of law before the violations were listed on the USDA website even though they did receive warning letters. From the second amended complaint which is linked below,

"Plaintiffs in this case allege that both USDA’s use of warnings and publication of the Form 7060s and other enforcement-related information are unlawful and not authorized by the HPA. (ECF No. 45, Second Am. Compl. ¶¶ 44-51, 58, 64)."

Previously USDA said there could be no settlement of this lawsuit. Now all of a sudden after the documents were purged Plaintiffs said there could be a settlement. HSUS then intervened because they need online access to the documents because they cannot be timely obtained through FOIA requests. Below is the motion and memorandum in support. If you look at the linked USDA documents in the memorandum, they're now missing. You get a 403 page.

Second Amended Complaint by Plaintiffs.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxE8KfVPjYF4V3dVY2dxUi1icVU/view?usp=sharing

HSUS Motion to Intervene.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxE8KfVPjYF4bkZHMWdsQVdHd3M/view?usp=sharing

HSUS memorandum in support of motion to intervene.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxE8KfVPjYF4c21IdWxzcUNFbXc/view?usp=sharing

Here is the docket.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxE8KfVPjYF4NmtqQ1dzdHFHTFE/view?usp=sharing

Plaintiffs argue that having the documents online is a violation of the Privacy Act §552a(b).

"The legal wrong about which the McGartlands and Contender Farms complain results from
USDA employees unlawfully deciding the McGartlands violated the HPA and imposing sanctions
on them by assessing penalties that are then published on USDA databases. 5 U.S.C. §551(10)(C)
and (13). SHOW complains that the USDA has wrongfully publicized on these same databases
that SHOW has violated the HPA."

The McGartlands also complain that the USDA has violated their privacy rights by
disclosing and publishing false and misleading personal information about them on USDA
databases in violation of the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. §552a(b).

"D. The USDA Unlawfully Disclosed the McGartlands’ Personal Information
Without Their Consent in Violation of Privacy Act §552a(b).
69. On June 8, 2015, the McGartlands saw on the USDA’s website that they were identified as
having violated the HPA on August 23 and 30, 2012. The USDA was immediately contacted and
informed of the McGartlands’ concern that it had been publically disclosed that they had violated
the Act, pointing out that the HPA does not authorize the Agency to release allegations about those
it investigated or believed had violated the Act. The USDA was requested to remove the website
and inform the world that it was a mistake to have said the McGartlands violated the Act.
70. On June 12, 2015, the McGartlands wrote the USDA complaining of the lists the Agency
was publishing that identified them as having violated the Act, pointing out that the USDA was
violating HPA §1825(b) and the Privacy Act. The McGartlands requested the Agency stop making
disclosures about them. The disclosures about the McGartlands on the Searchable Violations List
and Enforcement Actions List were materially false and misleading."

Plaintiffs further argue that the documents should not be released in a FOIA request.

"76. The Privacy Act and FOIA Exemption 7(C) protect from disclosure information compiled
for law enforcement purposes where release “could reasonably be expected to constitute an
unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” 5 U.S.C. §552(b)(7)(C). There can be little question
that Agency disclosures, that the McGartlands have been targets of USDA law-enforcement
investigations and enforcement actions, can, and have subjected them to embarrassment and
potentially more serious reputational harm."

They request their information be removed.

"118. Plaintiffs seek a declaration holding unlawful and setting aside Defendant’s alternative
enforcement programs to Formal Enforcement Proceedings, under which the USDA decides that
people have violated the HPA, penalizes them for the violation and falsely and misleadingly
publishes their names on database list as having been determined to have violated the Act.

119. Plaintiffs seek an order enjoining the USDA from publishing the Searchable Violations
List, Enforcement Actions List and HIO Penalty Lists, which falsely or misleadingly identify
people as having been determined to have violated the HPA.

120. Under the APA, HPA and Privacy Act, the McGartlands request this Court declare that the
USDA has violated and is violating the Privacy Act by disclosing the McGartlands’ personal
information in violation of 5 U.S.C. §552a(b). The McGartlands request that the Court enjoin such
violations from occurring in the future, and order that all USDA lists identifying the McGartlands
as having been the subjects of investigations into HPA violations or identifying them as having
been penalized with a public reprimand or Form 7060 be removed from the USDA’s website."

Below is HSUS answer to Plaintiff's complaint. They state Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim and lack standing. I believe if Plaintiffs feel they were defamed, they should have sued for defamation. As the reports are now outside of the statute of limitations of one year for defamation in Texas, they cannot bring a suit for defamation.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxE8KfVPjYF4WExpMGZFZE1kZU0/view?usp=sharing

Plaintiff previously sued USDA for similar things. They lost in district court under fair Judge Terry means, appealed, it was affirmed in part and reversed in part. Below is the docket of the previous case.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxE8KfVPjYF4TTA2aDVSSjJsZ2c/view?usp=sharing

Opinion on the appeal.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxE8KfVPjYF4MUNpMmpCeUtZZkk/view?usp=sharing

http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions%5Cpub%5C13/13-11052-CV0.pdf

Legal summary about the case.

http://www.courthousenews.com/2015/02/23/5th-circuit-nixes-usda-horse-protection-rule.htm

In summary it appears that Lee and Mike McGartland of Show Inc and Contender Farms show their Tennessee walking horses. They were upset that USDA passed a regulation in 2012 making it mandatory for horse shows to suspend horses which show evidence of soring per USDA inspectors. One of their horses place third then was suspended when a USDA inspector found evidence of soring. The McGartlands sued. They lost in district court, appealed. It was affirmed in part and reversed in part. The McGartlands sued on a technicality stating that the law states there should be a horse inspection but never stated it should be by a USDA inspector.

The McGartlands sued the second time to remove their inspection reports, violation reports and warning letters from the USDA website claiming privacy violations. They also sued because they feel they were noted as having violations without being given a chance to have their case heard before a judge. My opinion is that they could have appealed the USDA's violation report. I did that with the California Dept of Fish & Game. I didn't have a violation report. I appealed an administrative issue and won. The owners of the horse and Plaintiffs in the lawsuit are both personal injury attorneys.

As I see it the Gartlands were found to have sored horses by the USDA. The received violations and their inspection reports were posted online. They felt this hurt their reputation and business. They sued to have evidence of their horse soring removed from the public websites. Sounds to me like someone who committed cruel acts on an animal and they just don't want everyone to know it. These lawsuits bring even more attention to the alleged cruel acts.

Previous article on this USDA issue.

http://animaladvocatesmarycummins.blogspot.com/2017/02/animal-advocates-starts-usdachallenge.html

Here is another one of the lawsuits behind the USDA document dump.

http://marycumminsrealestatemarycummins.blogspot.com/2017/02/usda-removed-documents-because-of-party.html

Mary Cummins of Animal Advocates is a wildlife rehabilitator licensed by the California Department of Fish and Game and the USDA. Mary Cummins is also a licensed real estate appraiser in Los Angeles, California.


Google+ Mary Cummins, Mary K. Cummins, Mary Katherine Cummins, Mary Cummins-Cobb, Mary, Cummins, Cobb, wildlife, wild, animal, rescue, wildlife rehabilitation, wildlife rehabilitator, fish, game, los angeles, california, united states, squirrel, raccoon, fox, skunk, opossum, coyote, bobcat, manual, instructor, speaker, humane, nuisance, control, pest, trap, exclude, deter, green, non-profit, nonprofit, non, profit, ill, injured, orphaned, exhibit, exhibitor, usda, united states department of agriculture, hsus, humane society, peta, ndart, humane academy, humane officer, animal legal defense fund, animal cruelty, investigation, peace officer, animal, cruelty, abuse, neglect #marycummins #animaladvocates #losangeles #california #wildlife #wildliferehabilitation #wildliferehabilitator #realestate #realestateappraiser #realestateappraisal #lawsuit

Tuesday, March 22, 2016

What will actually happen at SeaWorld after they announced end of the breeding program and shows - Animal Advocates, Mary Cummins

SeaWorld, Tilikum, Joel Manby, marina mammal, orca, parks, captive breeding, empty the tanks, free willy, black fish, move, mary cummins, animal advocates
UPDATE: 03/24/2016 We were just notified that the breeding and show ban only applies to orcas, not dolphins. Dolphins also need to swim miles a day. They also live in families. On top of this they stated they will "rescue" marine mammals that are "unreleasable." This means they will take animals from other aquariums and water parks. Those other aquariums and water parks may breed and show animals. They may obtain then give, sell animals to SeaWorld. I know our local Fish & Wildlife gives perfectly healthy orphan sea otters to SeaWorld and other aquariums when they could be raised to be released back to the wild. We need to keep a very close eye to see if any real change will happen.

______________

SeaWorld announced the end of their orca breeding program on March 17, 2016 in all their marine parks around the US. They will also stop their "theatrical orca shows" and concentrate more on rescuing marine mammals. From their CEO Joel Manby "We will introduce new, inspiring, natural orca encounters rather than theatrical shows, as part of our ongoing commitment to education, marine science research and the rescue of marine animals." If you read the press release, you can tell that while things will be changing, the changes may not be that dramatic.

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/03/17/470720804/seaworld-agrees-to-end-captive-breeding-of-killer-whales

They stopped taking baby orcas from their moms years ago because making them with artificial mating and insemination was cheaper. Their main sperm donor Tilikum is on his death bed/tank in Florida. No more Tilikum, no more free sperm. Notice they announced they would stop their breeding program a day after they announced Tilikum was dying. SeaWorld was forced to stop their breeding program in California by the California Coastal Commission. They were forced to stop their breeding program in all SeaWorlds around the US when they announced Tilikum who lives in Florida was dying. The only reason they stopped their breeding program was because Tilikum is dying and the public no longer wants to view their cruel orca shows and exhibits because of the documentary “Black Fish.” The main reason was the almighty dollar.

That said I’m still glad they are stopping the breeding program and the current orca shows. Still, animal activists can’t yet rest. SeaWorld will be doing “educational” shows showing “natural behaviors.” Based on what I’ve seen of “educational” marine mammal shows they will still show them breaching, spyhopping, tail-lobbing, pectoral fin slapping and eating. They will also show them doing all SeaWorld learned behaviors so they can be examined by a veterinarian such as rolling over, swimming up to and on a platform... I’m sure they will still do some parts of their regular shows calling it “enrichment” so they get “exercise and don’t get bored.” All in all I doubt much will really change. They may even have some “oops” babies like other zoos do. Babies bring in the crowds and the money. So do the live “shows.” We need to still keep our eyes on SeaWorld to monitor what they will actually do.


Mary Cummins of Animal Advocates is a wildlife rehabilitator licensed by the California Department of Fish and Game and the USDA. Mary Cummins is also a licensed real estate appraiser in Los Angeles, California.


Google+ Mary Cummins, Mary K. Cummins, Mary Katherine Cummins, Mary Cummins-Cobb, Mary, Cummins, Cobb, wildlife, wild, animal, rescue, wildlife rehabilitation, wildlife rehabilitator, fish, game, los angeles, california, united states, squirrel, raccoon, fox, skunk, opossum, coyote, bobcat, manual, instructor, speaker, humane, nuisance, control, pest, trap, exclude, deter, green, non-profit, nonprofit, non, profit, ill, injured, orphaned, exhibit, exhibitor, usda, united states department of agriculture, hsus, humane society, peta, ndart, humane academy, humane officer, animal legal defense fund, animal cruelty, investigation, peace officer, animal, cruelty, abuse, neglect #marycummins #animaladvocates #losangeles #california #wildlife #wildliferehabilitation #wildliferehabilitator #realestate #realestateappraiser #realestateappraisal #lawsuit

Thursday, February 5, 2015

Nathan Winograd admits he is just an "author." Perhaps he should clarify that as "fiction author."

Nathan Winograd, author, nokill, consultant, slow hill, inhumane, liar, attack, defamation
Finally Nathan Winograd shows his true colors. He admits he is merely an "author." He doesn't state he's a nokill consultant anymore as that business went under years ago. He also is not a shelter director. All he does is write fiction. 99% of what he writes is hate speech and defamation against HSUS, PETA, ASPCA....

While he lists he's an author he still has a non-profit No Kill Law and Advocacy. He asks people to donate to that organization. What does that organization do? It pays Nathan an annual salary. It also pays for office expenses, internet, travel.... He does do one event a year where he charges people to listen to his hate speech. At the event he tries to sell his book. In fact he went on a book tour that was paid for by his non-profit. The tour coincided with him speaking in some small rooms wherever he was.

The nonprofit also paid to make a movie about himself. He used donations to make a "documentary" about himself being the "originator of nokill."

He just paid for this ad and website against PETA. He bought this domain name. It's listed as his. Donations well spent?

Nathan Winograd, whypetakills, fraud, liar, nokill, 
Why does Nathan Winograd hate PETA, HSUS, ASPCA, Best Friends....? He's jealous of their money, huge donations. He gets $5, $10 there from little old cat ladies. The big groups get major donations from major companies. No big sane group would give him a penny except the meat, fur, dairy industries.

NoKillLaw $300,000
HSUS $125,000,000
PETA $35,000,000
ASPCA $171,000,000
Best Friends $64,000,000

This is too much. Nathan is verifiable. He spent money to send out a press release asking Sam Simon to take back the money he is giving to PETA. His wife, family need to do an intervention with him. This is very crazy.

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/an-open-letter-to-sam-simon-from-no-kill-nation-mr-simon-please-reconsider-100000000-can-kill-a-lot-of-pets-283030241.html

Mary Cummins of Animal Advocates is a wildlife rehabilitator licensed by the California Department of Fish and Game and the USDA. Mary Cummins is also a licensed real estate appraiser in Los Angeles, California.


Google+ Mary Cummins, Mary K. Cummins, Mary Katherine Cummins, Mary Cummins-Cobb, Mary, Cummins, Cobb, wildlife, wild, animal, rescue, wildlife rehabilitation, wildlife rehabilitator, fish, game, los angeles, california, united states, squirrel, raccoon, fox, skunk, opossum, coyote, bobcat, manual, instructor, speaker, humane, nuisance, control, pest, trap, exclude, deter, green, non-profit, nonprofit, non, profit, ill, injured, orphaned, exhibit, exhibitor, usda, united states department of agriculture, hsus, humane society, peta, ndart, humane academy, humane officer, animal legal defense fund, animal cruelty, investigation, peace officer, animal, cruelty, abuse, neglect #marycummins #animaladvocates #losangeles #california #wildlife #wildliferehabilitation #wildliferehabilitator #realestate #realestateappraiser #realestateappraisal #lawsuit

Wednesday, November 19, 2014

Nathan Winograd spends 100% of his time and donations NOT helping animals but himself

Nathan Winograd claims his non-profit No Kill Law and Advocacy Center's mission is "The No Kill Advocacy Center Is working to end the systematic killing of animals in shelters through direct assistance, education, litigation, legislation, advocacy, conferences, seminars, publications, studies, and more." His main programs are his annual conference which costs him $111K and brings in $82K. Another one of his "programs" is a "feature length film about himself." $21K in expenses, no revenue in 2013. He says he DIRECTLY helps shelters, rescue groups which costs him $79K with no revenue. He admits he's a lobbyist. How is he helping them directly when he  has no animal related expenses, costs? Telling a dog that PETA kills animals does not help dogs.

Nathan works 40 hours a week and makes $60,000/yr paid by donations to his non-profit. He lives off of his non-profit.


Nathan Winograd, income, salary, $60,000, year, No Kill Law and Advocacy Center

He pays $55K/yr for "professional programmatic services." WTH is that? Is this just a way to secretly funnel more money to himself? He claims he is an SPCA, humane society. No, he is not. He did not file as an SPCA. That is a completely different type of corporation. He's a lawyer and knows he's not a 10400 corporation i.e., "§ 10400. Formation; number and qualifications of organizers; articles of incorporation. Corporations for the prevention of cruelty to animals may be formed under the Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation Law (Part 2 (commencing with Section 5110)) by 20 or more persons, who shall be citizens and residents of this state. If the corporation is formed on or after January 1, 2011, its articles of incorporation shall specifically state that the corporation is being formed pursuant to this section."

He claims he provides direct assistance to animals, animal shelters and animal rescue groups. I don't see $1 spent on animal food, animal supplies, veterinary bills....nothing. He spends less to help animals than PETA, HSUS, ASPCA, Best Friends... Who the hell is he to state they barely spend anything to help animals when he spends nothing, zero, zip?

Nathan Winograd has received $1,234,145 from the public from 2009 to 2013 yet he has not spent one penny on animals. Nathan tells people to follow the money and that is what I'm doing.


Below is first page of Nathan Winograd's 990 tax return for 2013 for his non-profit personal piggy bank No Kill Law and Advocacy Center. Obviously having a non-profit is more profitable to him than having a for-profit No Kill Solutions which he had to shut down because he was not making enough money. Notice Nathan is the accountant and did the books.
Nathan Winograd, 2013, 990, tax return, No Kill Law and Advocacy Center.

2013 990
http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2013/201/648/2013-201648359-0a47c658-9.pdf

I went back two more years. Nathan has not spent anything on animals. How does he think yelling at PETA, HSUS, ASPCA helps animals? It doesn't. For people in the know he looks like an idiot. All the well respected organizations have no respect for Nathan Winograd who just rabble rouses. Cities, Counties definitely don't want to have anything to do with him after he's stabbed them in the back. There's a reason he was fired from SFSPCA besides mere breach of contract.

2012 990
http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2012/201/648/2012-201648359-0900b1c2-9.pdf

2011 990. He spent $147K making a film about himself, $90K to host a conference to honor himself, $54K to help shelters, rescue groups by talking at them. No direct assistance with animals. He spent $291K and not one penny went to animals. He gave himself another $60K in salary. Every penny went to Nathan or to honor him. He made $165K in membership dues. People pay to join his group just to read his articles? He got $50K from people who registered for his conference where he praises himself. He had $55K in office expenses. He doesn't even have an office. He spent $90K for himself to go to other conferences and meetings. I think this was his book tour. He had $96K in professional services. Like what? I bet he shoveled more money to himself in this category.
http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2011/201/648/2011-201648359-08254e04-9.pdf

Here is the history of Nathan Winograd when he was No Kill Solutions a for-profit consulting company that went under. I wrote these articles years ago and just reposted them here.

http://animaladvocatesmarycummins.blogspot.com/2014/11/nathan-winograd-no-kill-solutions.html

My personal history and interactions with Nathan Winograd dating back to 2005

http://animaladvocatesmarycummins.blogspot.com/2013/10/nathan-winograd-no-kill-solutions-no.html

Nathan Winograd the misinformation machine. His attacks against PETA, HSUS, ASPCA, Best Friends are generally false.

http://animaladvocatesmarycummins.blogspot.com/2014/11/nathan-winograd-misinformation-machine.html

Here's a Nathan Winograd timeline I made when I tried to verify his claims.

http://animaladvocatesmarycummins.blogspot.com/2014/05/nathan-winograd-no-kill-solutions.html

Honest article about one of Nathan Winograd's presentations. I was there and can vouch for the crazy things he said. They are also directly quoted in his book. He really said that "cats are more likely to get rabies from humans than we are to get rabies from cats."

https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2010/04/14/18644737.php

Mary Cummins of Animal Advocates is a wildlife rehabilitator licensed by the California Department of Fish and Game and the USDA. Mary Cummins is also a licensed real estate appraiser in Los Angeles, California.


Google+ Mary Cummins, Mary K. Cummins, Mary Katherine Cummins, Mary Cummins-Cobb, Mary, Cummins, Cobb, wildlife, wild, animal, rescue, wildlife rehabilitation, wildlife rehabilitator, fish, game, los angeles, california, united states, squirrel, raccoon, fox, skunk, opossum, coyote, bobcat, manual, instructor, speaker, humane, nuisance, control, pest, trap, exclude, deter, green, non-profit, nonprofit, non, profit, ill, injured, orphaned, exhibit, exhibitor, usda, united states department of agriculture, hsus, humane society, peta, ndart, humane academy, humane officer, animal legal defense fund, animal cruelty, investigation, peace officer, animal, cruelty, abuse, neglect #marycummins #animaladvocates #losangeles #california #wildlife #wildliferehabilitation #wildliferehabilitator #realestate #realestateappraiser #realestateappraisal #lawsuit

Sunday, November 16, 2014

Breed specific legislation (BSL) and pitbulls. Mary Cummins, Animal Advocates, Los Angeles, California

Pitbull, breed specific legislation, bsl, mary cummins, animal advocates, los angeles, california
Preface: I'm not against pitbulls. I don't want them all killed. I'm not calling for making ownership of pits illegal. I fostered a pit. I am just asking people to look at the data, research, facts and make an informed decision about which breed of dog is best for you, your family and the public.

Many organizations are against breed specific legislation or BSL. HSUS is against BSL. Below is an article they wrote. http://www.humanesociety.org/issues/breed-specific-legislation/fact_sheets/breed-specific-legislation-flaws.html

Then there are those who are for BSL and outlawing any dangerous dog regardless of breed. http://www.dogsbite.org/dog-bite-statistics.php

HSUS states we have no statistics which show that one breed is more dangerous, more likely to bite or injure than another. That is not true. Independent insurance companies, the US post office, trauma surgeons, animal experts...have indeed done research backed with data, see above link. This research shows that pitbulls are the most likely breed to cause severe mauling and/or death. While chihuahuas are more likely to bite, pits are more likely to kill you if they bite. They also don't show any pre-bite warnings. They seem to bite, attack out of the blue. When they bite, they don't stop. They try to go for the jugular, head and face which is a clear attempt at trying to kill the victim.

HSUS states that dogs just need proper training, neutering, treatment...in order to not bite. I have seen quite a few pitbull attacks. They seem to come out of the blue from healthy, happy, well cared for homes. They attack for no reason. I fostered a pit, took the pitbull classes in LA and trained my dog. I wanted to take all precautions so he would never harm any animal or human. He never did during his entire life as far as I know. I've also seen quite a few videos of attacks. Again, some attack for no reason and refuse to let go of the victim. I've seen the injuries to humans and other dogs.

Note that I said "some." I didn't say all. I don't think that every pitbull will kill someone. That is ridiculous. I just believe based on data that if one is attacked by a pitbull, they are more likely to suffer catastrophic injury and/or death than if they were attacked by another non-molosser breed. This is similar to motorcycle verses car accidents. Motorcyclists are less likely to be involved in an accident but they are more likely to be injured in an accident for obvious reasons.

I am not calling for people to ban, kill pitbulls. I just want people to look at the data and reality of the situation. Make an informed decision about bringing one into your home or out on the street. Making up the false pro-pit propaganda makes matters worse. Pits were never nanny dogs. That is a myth. They were intentionally selectively bred for fighting from mastiffs, bulldogs and terriers. See link directly above for their history. They used to fight bears and bulls. When that was outlawed they trained the dogs to fight each other. They intentionally breed the strongest, fiercest dog that won't ever stop fighting, won't let go, can take a massive beating but still fight, won't warn that they will fight, will still fight if they see submissive posture from another dog or person....

Stop telling people pits are great with kids. Many people believed this and intentionally adopted a pit only to have it maul and kill their child. Read the articles in Voices of the Victims website linked below. These people were suckered in by the nanny dog myth. They paid for that with the life of their children and family. They clearly state this in the articles written in the first person by the victims' family members.

We already have breed specific legislation. It's illegal to own a wolf, coyote, fox, raccoon dog, jackal, dhole, painted dog... without proper permits and in proper secured enclosures where they cannot pose a danger to the public. They are illegal because governments have deemed them to be dangerous to humans. The government already stated some canines pose a threat to humans. Some are just plain illegal in some cities and/or states period. All dogs are in the canine family. We humans have specifically bred "domestic" dogs from wolves. http://mentalfloss.com/article/30959/14-your-dogs-wild-relatives

If we already have BSL, why are dog owners saying that BSL is wrong? It's very hypocritical to be for and against BSL at the same time. If one can't own a wolf, why another breed with a similar history of fatal maulings? Currently in the US you are more likely to be killed by a pitbull than a wolf, coyote, fox... Wolves, coyotes, foxes, raccoon dogs were bred through natural selection to survive. That means through natural selection the wolves, coyotes, foxes who could find food, mate, stay away from predators...would breed and pass on those genes. They were not selectively bred to fight to the death and never stop fighting. That would make no sense in the wild. We humans selectively bred pitbulls to do very unnatural things such as fight to the death for no reason and never stop. We did this so we could gamble and make money on the fight outcome.

Another thing about the anti-BSL movement is that it is breed discrimination. If you are against banning pits, you are against people adopting other breeds of dogs. For each pit that gets adopted, another breed of dog dies in the shelter. That's okay? Again, I am not for making ownership of pitbulls illegal. I'm against any and all dogs, canines that pose a threat to humans. If I had a poodle that bit people, I'd muzzle it in public, get it training...do everything to prevent it from harming someone. When I fostered my pit I had him on a prong and slip collar with a strong leash. I never let him off leash ever except in the house with my cats locked in another room. I never let him get near kids or dogs without me right there holding him tight on his leash.

A last note, why adopt, buy a pitbull over all the other many breeds of dogs? I realize people do this so they can feel like a hero adopting the ugly, unwanted, "misunderstood" pitbull. Others do it to look macho and manly or to fight. I can't find one reason why someone would adopt this dog breed over all others. Why not a labrador, golden retriever, dalmation, german shepherd if you want a larger breed of dog? They are all loyal, sweet, playful... This is the point of my article. Why adopt, buy a pit over all other breeds of dog? I just want people to think about that. Look at the research and facts. Make an informed decision. Don't get a pit because someone said it'd be great with your baby. Get a dog based on your lifestyle, family, needs and wants. Don't adopt a pit just to feel like a savior. You're a savior if you adopt any dog or cat. It goes without saying don't get one to look macho or to fight.

Here is a website from the victims of pitbull attacks below. They forewarn you about gory content such as eyes, ears, hands ripped off, complete scalping, bites down to the bone, severed fingers, noses, lips, jaws.... so don't worry. http://voicesofthevictims.org/

In closing here I am with my foster pit Buddy. He was a great dog who never harmed anyone. Would I foster another pit? No, I would foster another breed from a shelter. It's just not worth the risk and worry. There is no reason why the pit breed is better than all the other breeds. I can also tell you that it took me a year to find him a home because of his breed. I could have saved five other dogs during that time. Five other dogs died because I chose to foster this one. I only chose to foster him because three people said they'd instantly adopt him if I went and picked him up. They all flaked.

Mary Cummins, Animal Advocates, Buddy the dog, pitbull, pit, Los Angeles, California
Mary Cummins of Animal Advocates is a wildlife rehabilitator licensed by the California Department of Fish and Game and the USDA. Mary Cummins is also a licensed real estate appraiser in Los Angeles, California.


Google+ Mary Cummins, Mary K. Cummins, Mary Katherine Cummins, Mary Cummins-Cobb, Mary, Cummins, Cobb, wildlife, wild, animal, rescue, wildlife rehabilitation, wildlife rehabilitator, fish, game, los angeles, california, united states, squirrel, raccoon, fox, skunk, opossum, coyote, bobcat, manual, instructor, speaker, humane, nuisance, control, pest, trap, exclude, deter, green, non-profit, nonprofit, non, profit, ill, injured, orphaned, exhibit, exhibitor, usda, united states department of agriculture, hsus, humane society, peta, ndart, humane academy, humane officer, animal legal defense fund, animal cruelty, investigation, peace officer, animal, cruelty, abuse, neglect #marycummins #animaladvocates #losangeles #california #wildlife #wildliferehabilitation #wildliferehabilitator #realestate #realestateappraiser #realestateappraisal #lawsuit

Wednesday, November 12, 2014

Nathan Winograd, no kill solutions, advocacy center, book redemption, fraud


I generally don't talk about Nathan Winograd because he's not a nice person. He defames, attacks and threatens to sue anyone if they don't support him. He's been attacking me for a while. He also plagiarized an article I wrote about wildlife in shelters. He added it to his newsletter and then to his Philadelphia nokill consulting report. I have copies. I will write a little bit about my personal history and involvement with Nathan Winograd to clarify things for people.

I first heard about Nathan Winograd in late 2004 from another rescuer. He said he could make any shelter nokill overnight. He said he's made every shelter he consulted with "nokill" over night. You just have to follow his ten basic programs which he outlined on his old website nokillsolutions.com. That was a California for profit consulting corporation C2673735 filed in 2004 then dissolved address 49 Via Palacio, San Clemente, California.

Nathan Winograd, No Kill Solutions, corporation, dissolved

This was his father in law's home which they bought in 2005 for $890K and sold in 2013 for $717K. Nathan Winograd was a consultant and gave seminars to teach others how to make shelters nokill. He sold a newsletter. That's how he made his living. Here is a copy of his old website http://web.archive.org/web/20041204055050/http://www.nokillsolutions.com/home.htm . This all sounded too good to be true but I could find no evidence at that time that he had failed, or succeeded. It was all just Nathan Winograd's word. Below is his brochure which he gave to me.


Nathan Winograd, No Kill Solutions, corporation, nokillsolutions.com
Nathan Winograd, No Kill Solutions, corporation, nokillsolutions.com

I was campaigning hard for Antonio Villaraigosa for Mayor in Los Angeles, California. I wanted LA to be "nokill." Antonio had a pro-animal campaign platform. He wanted LA to be nokill. Who wouldn't want the city to be "nokill?" I contacted Nathan Winograd and asked if he'd consult for LA if Antonio became Mayor. He said yes. I thought at the time maybe he charges $3,000 to $3,500 so I offered to pay for it. He said he would charge $20K per shelter and he included the annex (a warehouse) as a shelter. He wanted $140K to do approximately a month worth of work. I was like "whoa! I can't afford that. Neither can the City." Nathan then told me that his activists ADL ... would force the city to hire him and give him $140K. Then he said ADL told him that Guerdon Stuckey was going to get a $800K golden handshake. I told him that was not true. He said ADL's people got that inside information. I did an info act request and it turns out ADL was wrong. $800K was a waste management contract. Stuckey got a $50K handshake which was public.

Antonio became the Mayor and I asked Nathan to give him a proper estimate to consult. Nathan told me the Mayor himself must fill out his online form requesting a consultation. I told him someone in his office can do it. He said, no, it must be the Mayor. Here is the form. The incoming Mayor would have no way of knowing any of this information. The GM of Animal Services would but Nathan Winograd said the Mayor "MUST" fill it in personally.

http://www.animaladvocates.us/nathan_winograd_consulting_form.pdf

Mayor did not fill out his silly online form because he was swamped. The Mayor did agree to meet him thanks to stupid me and a person in the Mayor's office. Nathan Winograd then submitted a proposal to consult for LA City. I assume it was for a month of work for $140,000 as he quoted me. The Mayor offered Nathan Winograd the GM position of LA Animal Services. That paid $150,000/year at the time. Nathan Winograd declined. I believe he declined because he realized he could never make LA nokill overnight as he promises everyone. Nathan Winograd would also prefer $140,000 for one month worth of work instead of $150,000 for 12 months worth of work. He probably also knew the employees would eat him alive.

Nathan Winograd admitted later that day when he gave a "nokill" presentation at the Beverly Garland Hotel that he was offered the GM position. I was at that presentation in 2005. 99% of the presentation was how animal control enjoys killing animals. He spent 1% of the almost two hour presentation quickly rattling off the basic programs. Nathan Winograd did not invent the programs. They were "invented" many years earlier by others in New York and San Francisco.

Another group told me that Nathan already wrote a free nokill plan for LA City. I said "great! Where is it?" Nathan refused to give it to the city. If someone knew how to make a shelter nokill over night, why wouldn't they want to do that especially if they call themselves an animal lover? I give free consultations for humane wildlife control and how to save wildlife in shelters. I don't charge because I want to save animals. If I had the key to ending euthanasia in shelters, I would gladly give it to the world for free.

Nathan then was upset he didn't get the paid consulting gig. He told me that he took the equity out of his home to start for profit "no kill solutions" and was then forced to sell his home and shut down no kill solutions because he didn't make enough money selling consulting services. He then put his efforts into nonprofit corporation No Kill Law and Advocacy Center C2674760 IRS 20-1648359http://www.guidestar.org/organizations/20-1648359/no-kill-law-advocacy-center.aspx

Nathan Winograd, No Kill Law & Advocacy Center, 


Before Nathan Winograd shut down No Kill Solutions he did consult for a few cities such as Philadelphia. The failure in Philadelphia was huge. Nathan Winograd wrote a report, got his check, posted the report (I have a copy), said the City, shelter and employees were "committed." Soon after that an expose came out about the horrific conditions in the shelter from overcrowding. The SPCA had to step in and take over. Then Nathan blamed the City, shelter and employees saying they weren't "committed." He threw his client under the bus.

Nathan was hired to do a report for King County. Nathan got his check then posted a scathing public report online with data and photos taken during his private inspection of the shelter. The City had to write a rebuttal to his claims. They didn't get a consulting report with suggestions to make their shelter no kill. They paid money to be attacked.

Nathan consulted with another shelter after this. They asked for a confidentiality agreement after the vicious attack at King County. Consultants should always agree to confidentiality agreements. Nathan said "no" then viciously attacked that shelter and told everyone they wanted a confidentiality agreement which meant they were "evil" and "hiding dirty laundry." That was the last consulting he did as far as I know. If he really could have made a shelter nokill, he would have done it by now and be a multi-millionaire. Obviously he can't.

Nathan Winograd receives $60,000/year from this non-profit. His wife Jennifer is a board member. Nathan admits there is lobbying activity (see Guidestar link above). He spent approximately $200K to make a documentary about his book "Redemption" in the last two years. He has high unspecified "professional services" expenses yet they are not legal or accounting. Most of his income is from donations. Some is from selling tickets to his conference. I believe he is the sole author and owner of his book selling business. I don't think that is part of the non-profit. He now has four books including a Vegan cook book which oddly enough recommends using products with palm oil which is not vegan. He also recommends unhealthy vegan junk food.

His book publisher Almaden Books is actually just Nathan Winograd. His book is self-published. Here are some reviews of his book. I agree with them. His book is a long winded nasty rant against other animal rights, welfare and rescue organizations. He spews nasty misinformation which I feel harms the animal issue. There is pet overpopulation. 99% of the book is Nathan saying that animal shelters enjoy killing animals, there is no pet overpopulation and he alone has made shelters no kill. Only 1% a few pages in the back talk about the no kill programs. I've never seen anyone do this in a book before in my life. He footnotes his personal opinion in his book. He also cites many "personal communications" in his bibliography. Then in the end he admits his wife's parents are supporting them financially. If he could make an animal shelter no kill, he'd be wealthy He can't which is why his business went under.

People should realize that Nathan Winograd is friendly with the Center for Consumer Freedom. CCF is a paid lobby group that promotes alcohol, tobacco, animal research, fur industry, breeders, dairy, meat ranches, leather, anti-union. They are a non-profit that receives "donations" of about $1.4M/year to attack groups such as MADD, PETA, HSUS... They give almost all of that money to a "consultant" who does PR for these industries who happens to be the President of CCF. I believe it's a sham which I have posted about in this blog.

http://animaladvocateswildliferehabilitation.blogspot.com/2013/12/center-for-consumer-freedomhumane-watch.html

No animal lover should ever have anything to do with CCF. Because Nathan Winograd hates PETA which CCF attacks that is why Nathan is friends with CCF. Nathan Winograd has attacked PETA so viciously that PETA's lawyer had to send him a cease and desist letter. Here is the rest of the letter. http://www.rescuenetwork.org/articles/WinogradLetter.pdf

PETA cease and desist to Nathan Winograd who lies about PETA. I'll try to find the rest. 

A little history on Nathan Winograd. Nathan Joseph Winograd born August 1, 1966 in Los Angeles County, California. Mother is Dolores Nayer born June 13, 1932. Father is Azriel Winograd born May 15, 1921, became a US citizen in 1964 in California after marrying Dolores in Clark County, Nevada January 31, 1964, divorced October 1970 in Los Angeles, California. 2007 Nathan tried to get a conservatorship on his father and was denied. Nathan is married to Jennifer Holdt born June 17, 1968. They have two kids which they publicly post about on all their websites, pages and most recent books. Jennifer's parents are Terry Holdt  and Sharon Holdt. All of these people are public persons who have been in the public spotlight and media deliberately. I'm not sharing and will never share any confidential information.


Mary Cummins of Animal Advocates is a wildlife rehabilitator licensed by the California Department of Fish and Game and the USDA. Mary Cummins is also a licensed real estate appraiser in Los Angeles, California.


Google+ Mary Cummins, Mary K. Cummins, Mary Katherine Cummins, Mary Cummins-Cobb, Mary, Cummins, Cobb, wildlife, wild, animal, rescue, wildlife rehabilitation, wildlife rehabilitator, fish, game, los angeles, california, united states, squirrel, raccoon, fox, skunk, opossum, coyote, bobcat, manual, instructor, speaker, humane, nuisance, control, pest, trap, exclude, deter, green, non-profit, nonprofit, non, profit, ill, injured, orphaned, exhibit, exhibitor, usda, united states department of agriculture, hsus, humane society, peta, ndart, humane academy, humane officer, animal legal defense fund, animal cruelty, investigation, peace officer, animal, cruelty, abuse, neglect #marycummins #animaladvocates #losangeles #california #wildlife #wildliferehabilitation #wildliferehabilitator #realestate #realestateappraiser #realestateappraisal #lawsuit
Mary Cummins of Animal Advocates is a wildlife rehabilitator licensed by the California Department of Fish and Game and the USDA. Mary Cummins is also a licensed real estate appraiser in Los Angeles, California.


Google+ Mary Cummins, Mary K. Cummins, Mary Katherine Cummins, Mary Cummins-Cobb, Mary, Cummins, Cobb, wildlife, wild, animal, rescue, wildlife rehabilitation, wildlife rehabilitator, fish, game, los angeles, california, united states, squirrel, raccoon, fox, skunk, opossum, coyote, bobcat, manual, instructor, speaker, humane, nuisance, control, pest, trap, exclude, deter, green, non-profit, nonprofit, non, profit, ill, injured, orphaned, exhibit, exhibitor, usda, united states department of agriculture, hsus, humane society, peta, ndart, humane academy, humane officer, animal legal defense fund, animal cruelty, investigation, peace officer, animal, cruelty, abuse, neglect #marycummins #animaladvocates #losangeles #california #wildlife #wildliferehabilitation #wildliferehabilitator #realestate #realestateappraiser #realestateappraisal #lawsuit