The one comment below, the poster is exactly right. Chimpanzee's Legally are considered property, they do not have any legal rights as of yet. Therefore, if Eli was sold from the Missouri Primate Foundation by Connie Casey to Gini-Virginia Valbuena, or anyone else, while under a court stipulation that no babies were to be sold, then that should be a federal case of theft. Since Gini is saying that the value of Eli is 65K, that would fall under Grand Theft which could and should be jail time. This case needs to be brought before the courts as a theft case and both Connie Casey and Gini Valbuena should be made to show proof of where Eli was born and transfer papers from the breeder to the buyer.
Federal charges should be brought against all parties involved in the selling, buying, transferring of this (Property) Eli the chimpanzee. The rightful owner, Mike Casey should then be awarded his property, Eli.
Virginia Valbuena has used the name Gini Valbuena for all of her adult life, I wonder why she has decided to use Virginia instead of Gini? Perhaps to avoid her past? The articles on this Library?
Cute until it chews your face off.
To: Daffynition
No chimps, I baby sat for one in my home once, never again.
He was a dangerous creature.
He was a dangerous creature.
2 posted on Friday, January 22, 2010 7:13:20 PM by ansel12 (anti SoCon. Earl Warren's court 1953-1969, libertarian hero, anti social conservative loser.)
To: Daffynition
This is an intentionally misleading headline. This has nothing to do with “custody” and everything to do with ownership. It is well established in American jurisprudence that it is not custody of animals that is determined in a divorce proceeding, but ownership. Animals are, and should be, viewed legally as property, nothing else.
While it is a somewhat interesting set of circumstances, considering that the plaintiff is alleging that his stolen property was pregnant at the time of the “theft” (and I really don’t know what the case law is in this regard) this isn’t about custody, but about stolen property, and the possession or receipt of stolen property and not about custody. The last thing we want to do is assign “rights” to an animal that are reserved exclusively to human children and their parents. That would be a dangerous and extremely slippery slope.
While it is a somewhat interesting set of circumstances, considering that the plaintiff is alleging that his stolen property was pregnant at the time of the “theft” (and I really don’t know what the case law is in this regard) this isn’t about custody, but about stolen property, and the possession or receipt of stolen property and not about custody. The last thing we want to do is assign “rights” to an animal that are reserved exclusively to human children and their parents. That would be a dangerous and extremely slippery slope.
To: ansel12
No barrel full 'o monkeys, eh?Comments found here
No comments:
Post a Comment