|
Post by mmderdekea on Feb 15, 2008 21:30:50 GMT -5
www.dailynews.com/ci_8260752?source=rssMore on Culp and the Lawsuit. The judge has allowed the zoo to keep building the exhibit until the trial in July. Culp will appeal. I'm really starting to dislike the LA Zoo!! Mona
|
|
|
Post by HoudiniDerek on Feb 15, 2008 22:15:47 GMT -5
Unfortunately for Culp, there is no other legal recourse based on what was filed. Hopefully this will keep the zoo in the news to treat their animals better.
|
|
|
Post by MelMac on Feb 15, 2008 22:30:49 GMT -5
Unfortunately for Culp, there is no other legal recourse based on what was filed. Hopefully this will keep the zoo in the news to treat their animals better. The ruling on the injunction being denied will stand I'm getting that, but could he refile it? I do agree though, maybe this will get LA Zoo thinking and do something that helps the animals. If there's something found out to be wrong, they need to fix it, and if not, then it's over.
|
|
|
Post by HoudiniDerek on Feb 15, 2008 23:25:40 GMT -5
As Mona mentioned, he can appeal. However, it is unlikely to get overturned based on the article Mona posted because the same reason will be given by the appeals court: No evidence.
|
|
|
Post by MelMac on Feb 15, 2008 23:30:16 GMT -5
As Mona mentioned, he can appeal. However, it is unlikely to get overturned based on the article Mona posted because the same reason will be given by the appeals court: No evidence. Hmm... makes you wonder if someone will try a hidden videotape like I've seen PETA do. Then again, the zoo might do what it can to keep everyone save the lawyers/investigators on this case out of the zoo until it's decided.
|
|
|
Post by HoudiniDerek on Feb 15, 2008 23:39:19 GMT -5
I am sure someone will, but most things like that are not permissible in court.
|
|
|
Post by MelMac on Feb 15, 2008 23:44:31 GMT -5
I am sure someone will, but most things like that are not permissible in court. Yep, but doesn't mean someone won't try. I remember someone threaten to sue Stanley Marsh in Amarillo because he created these crazy signs and place them around town. They're about the size and are the shape of warning signs, but are painted in all sorts of colors and designs with witty sayings. The signs are still there, so apparently the person's case was dropped or ruled in Marsh's favor.
|
|
|
Post by HoudiniDerek on Feb 15, 2008 23:52:23 GMT -5
I am sure someone will try. That doesn't mean anything.
|
|
|
Post by MelMac on Feb 16, 2008 0:05:10 GMT -5
I am sure someone will try. That doesn't mean anything. I know that too. My point is... people do silly things like this and wonder why the court is considered a circus at times.
|
|
|
Post by HoudiniDerek on Feb 16, 2008 1:03:50 GMT -5
I know what your point was...I was making mine.
|
|
|
Post by MelMac on Feb 16, 2008 1:14:18 GMT -5
I know what your point was...I was making mine. No words...
|
|
|
Post by HoudiniDerek on Feb 16, 2008 1:20:08 GMT -5
I know what your point was...I was making mine. No words... If only that were ever possible with you.
|
|
|
Post by MelMac on Feb 16, 2008 10:06:50 GMT -5
No words... If only that were ever possible with you. Says "Mr. 10,000+" ...
|
|
|
Post by mmderdekea on Feb 16, 2008 18:08:52 GMT -5
Hello, everyone,
Please be aware that this lawsuit was not dismissed, just the request by Culp/partner for the zoo to stop building the elephant exhibit while WAITING for the lawsuit trial later this year. They can appeal the decision of the judge to grant the zoo continued building allowance. But, the lawsuit is still on; Culp can still win. Considering he has a vet who worked for the zoo who can testify to how badly the elephants have been treated there, and the zoo admits they have no clue what to do with the increasing family members they plan to breed, Culp's lawsuit looks winnable to me!
Mona
|
|
|
Post by HoudiniDerek on Feb 16, 2008 19:32:04 GMT -5
I understand that the lawsuit is not dismissed, but if there was not enough emphasis to stop the building exhibit, there is probably not enough evidence to win a trial. There could be, but it seems unlikely.
|
|
|
Post by mmderdekea on Feb 16, 2008 23:24:37 GMT -5
No, HD, I don't think that's not the case at all. Please note the judge merely said there was no evidence that BUILDING the exhibit would hurt the elephants, and of course, he's right in that. That leaves open completely that the exhibit itself WOULD hurt the elephants when it all comes to trial, which, unfortunately, given the LA Zoo's apparent past treatment of elephants, seems sickingly likely. Remember judges base their replies on the most specific of points.
Mona
|
|
|
Post by HoudiniDerek on Feb 16, 2008 23:56:48 GMT -5
No, HD, I don't think that's not the case at all. Please note the judge merely said there was no evidence that BUILDING the exhibit would hurt the elephants, and of course, he's right in that. That leaves open completely that the exhibit itself WOULD hurt the elephants when it all comes to trial, which, unfortunately, given the LA Zoo's apparent past treatment of elephants, seems sickingly likely. Remember judges base their replies on the most specific of points. Mona Exactly...and just because Culp has someone willing to testify that treatment was poor in the PAST will not convince a judge to rule in Culp's favor unless there is current and overwhelming evidence that it is likely to continue. All my years studying law were not wasted thankfully. The Counselor would be proud.
|
|
|
Post by mmderdekea on Feb 17, 2008 12:32:13 GMT -5
Well, there is no use arguing what will happen in the future at the trail. That is pointless, years of studying law or otherwise. Since the lawsuit is scheduled for a trial around June (or so) and is going through, Culp, his partner, and his lawyer think they still have a solid chance at winning. I'd rather put out positive energy they are successful. This minor setback--which is just considered by Culp to be a waste of taxpayer's money since he/etal believe the lawsuit will be successful--does not really portend the future result of the trial.
Mona
|
|
|
Post by MelMac on Feb 17, 2008 13:01:29 GMT -5
I do agree with HD that there is an increasing likelihood that the case can (note I don't say will) be lost by Culp and his group based on the denial of the injunction, but that all depends on a few factors.
Part of this will probably stem from what they see during the construction of the exhibit. You can get a court order to visit the construction on a regular basis as well as see the animals that are currently on display to determine their condition. One can make an educated evaulation by looking at what's being constructed and to see if it would harm the elephants. If it does, then they will lose the case and then it continues. Even then, the newly-built enclosure could be used to house other smaller animals that are, for example nursing or raising a family, so regardless there it can be a win-win.
There is another issue that gets me in regard to the animals - and that is the listing of how many "died before they should." One sad statistic that is shown with many animals is that a lot of zoo animals die younger than their counterparts out in the wild. Not all mind you, but some, and the elephant is one of them (giraffe is another one). The cause of death, however, would play a key factor in how many of those deaths were caused by the zoo itself though.
I want to make it clear that if the LA Zoo is in fact abusing animals, I want it to stop. But there are a few key factors that I've learned while following this case that make me look at both sides of the scenario. It's the same with the whole Clemens/McNamee drug scandal going on in baseball. Difference there is that both will lose long term, regardless of the outcome.
|
|
|
Post by HoudiniDerek on Feb 17, 2008 14:41:30 GMT -5
I think the trial is going forward more to increase awareness and get people to react to the treatment. Legally, it will be an uphill battle and losing the injunction is not a good sign.
|
|