ResQ OK with state, feds

Kelly can you read? the article says "The group has since filed the missing paperwork, said Brenda Voeta, a spokeswoman for the California Franchise Tax Board." Now the license is current, 7 years late, seems to be more than an oversight. Or maybe you meant you are the one eating crow. Remember according to you I have trouble with my "comprehension".

Moreover, in the years between 2002 and the present, the group would be allowed to function as a 501(c)3 under California law, although it would have not been afforded certain protections provided by the state if it entered into legal disputes at the time.

A phone call to the IRS confirmed that the group is considered tax-exempt

Sorry Kelly,
You just made andjustice4all's point for her. Your quote includes the sentence; "although it would have not been afforded certain protections provided by the state if it entered into legal disputes at the time."
Which is admitting the group is NOT protected under California law, as it would have been if the 501(c)3 paperwork was valid and in place.
You and Janie Hopper make it very hard to trust in your so called rescue groups. Whether you claim non-profit or whatever, your attitude towards other people is abhorrent and not to be admired.

There are none so blind as those who will not see.
The group would be allowed to function as a 501(C)3
All the opponents of the rescue claimed it was because of her not being "legal", now what?

So I have to repeat myself, whether she is legal or not NOW, because she wasn't earlier, I would have exception to working with her or you because of your behavior.
You can attempt to save all the little toys that you want, you have alienated yourself and her with your local clientele. You can still ship to the Bay Area or Sacramento or wherever and still get away with charging several hundreds of dollars for a "rescued" dog. Local people know they could have gotten the dog at a shelter for less, or from the breeder, with papers, for less than you will charge them for your "non-profit" organization.

Kelly wrote:

Moreover, in the years between 2002 and the present, the group would be allowed to function as a 501(c)3 under California law, although it would have not been afforded certain protections provided by the state if it entered into legal disputes at the time.
A phone call to the IRS confirmed that the group is considered tax-exempt

A legal dispute like say the animal shelter charging back fee's for all of the dogs they "rescued" in the 7 years while they weren't in compliance? Lets call a spade a spade, Res-Q dropped the ball and they didn't pick it up for 7 years until it was pointed out in the media. The first article clearly stated the license was suspended. I really dont think you get it. How do you expect the public to have faith in an organization who's representative lowers herself to constant bickering and slandering rather than sticking to her cause. Your hostility speaks for itself.

FIREBRICK wrote:

So I have to repeat myself, whether she is legal or not NOW, because she wasn't earlier, I would have exception to working with her or you because of your behavior.
You can attempt to save all the little toys that you want, you have alienated yourself and her with your local clientele. You can still ship to the Bay Area or Sacramento or wherever and still get away with charging several hundreds of dollars for a "rescued" dog. Local people know they could have gotten the dog at a shelter for less, or from the breeder, with papers, for less than you will charge them for your "non-profit" organization.

The dogs from Jerry's were adopted out by Tehama County to the public and returned because they had parvo, how is THAT good for animals? You can't get 'papers" on mixed breed dogs AND Jerry charges far more than what the rescue does for fully vetted, altered dogs. Get a clue. None of your arguements hold water, get over yourself. Nothing said here is going to change the fact that ResQ is going to continue to do what they are doing and YOU saying we have lost our "local clientele" is laughable because we have never had a problem placing dogs once they are medically sound and socialized. You don't have to like it. Had Jerry been within the law, his dogs would not have been seized. PERIOD

Andjustice4all wrote:

<quoted text>
A legal dispute like say the animal shelter charging back fee's for all of the dogs they "rescued" in the 7 years while they weren't in compliance? Lets call a spade a spade, Res-Q dropped the ball and they didn't pick it up for 7 years until it was pointed out in the media. The first article clearly stated the license was suspended. I really dont think you get it. How do you expect the public to have faith in an organization who's representative lowers herself to constant bickering and slandering rather than sticking to her cause. Your hostility speaks for itself.

You're the one that "doesn't get it". If you haven't picked up on it thus far, chances are you never will. Sounds like maybe you need to go find your own cause, something you know something about.

Kelly wrote:

<quoted text>
You're the one that "doesn't get it". If you haven't picked up on it thus far, chances are you never will. Sounds like maybe you need to go find your own cause, something you know something about.

Oh I get it, since you wont say it, your cause is in it for the money. Why else would you be so loyal to a woman whos actions have proven that she is not interested in the well being of the dogs. Res-q's main concern is that they get the dogs prior to the public having a chance to adopt them from the shelter. Not that the dogs get loving homes. Belinda's post on the craigs list article speaks volumes of Janies character. Janie is quoted calling a woman a "Red Bluff hick" when her only crime was adopting a dog that Res-Q thought they could make a buck off of. Why else would she stand behind a total stranger and insult her? Certainly not because she thought the woman was about to get a diseased puppy. You claim that your main worry is that the dogs will get parvo from the shelter, yet you have posted that Burch is breeding and spreading disease. You are making it very clear that your "cause" is getting your hands on the dogs, not for the welfare of the dogs at all. As far as me getting a cause, lady you have no idea.

and the professionalism and courtesy continue...
Not all of the dogs that were seized and adopted out contracted Parvo, not all of them were returned. This proves that the Parvo was in the shelter, not at the breeder. From the previous articles in the paper, Burch was only two dogs over the limit, yet they seized 14 or 15 dogs?
I will take my "clues" from the people that actually bought a dog legitimately from Burch and found a clean, healthy, prosperous environment. Another clue is how long Burch has been operating as a legitimate business, both mentioned before in this forum. You can look them up if you like, I'm done with you...

FIREBRICK wrote:

and the professionalism and courtesy continue...
Not all of the dogs that were seized and adopted out contracted Parvo, not all of them were returned. This proves that the Parvo was in the shelter, not at the breeder. From the previous articles in the paper, Burch was only two dogs over the limit, yet they seized 14 or 15 dogs?
I will take my "clues" from the people that actually bought a dog legitimately from Burch and found a clean, healthy, prosperous environment. Another clue is how long Burch has been operating as a legitimate business, both mentioned before in this forum. You can look them up if you like, I'm done with you...

Burch had over 40 dogs at his place, at the time Tehama county came out for seizure he had moved all but 20, that is why they only took 16. Last time there were about 60 dogs. He does not have a kennel license nor is he zoned for a kennel. The dogs that came down with Parvo more than likely did get it from the shelter this time but even the ones that didn't get Parvo have ear infections, hook worms and eye infections and one with kennel cough. Bottom line is this: Jerry isn't zoned or licensed to be breeding, and him continuing to do so is a CRIME.

Andjustice4all wrote:

<quoted text>
Oh I get it, since you wont say it, your cause is in it for the money. Why else would you be so loyal to a woman whos actions have proven that she is not interested in the well being of the dogs. Res-q's main concern is that they get the dogs prior to the public having a chance to adopt them from the shelter. Not that the dogs get loving homes. Belinda's post on the craigs list article speaks volumes of Janies character. Janie is quoted calling a woman a "Red Bluff hick" when her only crime was adopting a dog that Res-Q thought they could make a buck off of. Why else would she stand behind a total stranger and insult her? Certainly not because she thought the woman was about to get a diseased puppy. You claim that your main worry is that the dogs will get parvo from the shelter, yet you have posted that Burch is breeding and spreading disease. You are making it very clear that your "cause" is getting your hands on the dogs, not for the welfare of the dogs at all. As far as me getting a cause, lady you have no idea.

We wanted to get the dogs prior to the public so that they would not be exposed to Parvo and so that they would be vetted and vaccinated as well as altered before they ended up as breeders like so many others. What a bunch of hypocrites....it's OK for Jerry to illegally ( no license) sell toy dogs to ANYONE who has the cash for $400-800 without ever having been vetted but if once seized by the county ( don't shoot the messenger) if a rescue takes them in and gets them back to health and alters them before placing them, we are damned? It just doesn't make sense. If you have a problem with his illegal breeding operation being busted, go to who busted him.

ANDREW TEHAMA COUNTY wrote:

SO GLAD TO SEE THAT THE TRUTH IS COMEING OUT--THIS GROUP HAD BETTER LEARN THAT THEY AREN'T ABOVE THE LAW AND HOPE EVERYONE KEEPS AN EYE ON THEIR ATTEMPTS TO INTIMIDATE AND SLANDER THE INNOCENT.

Looks like you are the one who has found out you're not above the law. You were the one busted. No license, illegal breeding etc etc and it doesn't matter how many years you went without getting busted, you did now. Quit trying to get around the law. If you want to breed dogs at your location, get the right permits and do it legally. There are laws in place to protect the animals from people like you, more worried about how much money can be made than the well being of the animals you are breeding. IMO

Kelly wrote:

<quoted text>
We wanted to get the dogs prior to the public so that they would not be exposed to Parvo and so that they would be vetted and vaccinated as well as altered before they ended up as breeders like so many others. What a bunch of hypocrites....it's OK for Jerry to illegally ( no license) sell toy dogs to ANYONE who has the cash for $400-800 without ever having been vetted but if once seized by the county ( don't shoot the messenger) if a rescue takes them in and gets them back to health and alters them before placing them, we are damned? It just doesn't make sense. If you have a problem with his illegal breeding operation being busted, go to who busted him.

Again with the name calling.....hypocrites is a strong word there Kel. Still referring to that license yet calling someone else a hypocrite. Remember that we are commenting on an article that states Res-Q finally filed the necessary paperwork regarding its suspended license. You FINALLY start to give a thought out, educated response, then your hostility comes out yet again. Insults seem to be prevalent with your bunch dont they?
I dont have a problem with the fact that Burch was opperating without a license and action needed to be taken. It does seem that he was attempting to downsize and become compliant though. You said yourself that he sold you a dog for $100 during you little sting. Seems to me, maybe you should have went to him with your concerns, to see if efforts were being made. You said yourself that the dogs sell for between $400-$800, so why did you get one for $100?
I dont have a problem with rescue groups who's purpose is to save dogs, but I have adopted dogs from the shelter. Had I been standing there with Janie standing behind me throwing her insults and acting like and a**, the article in the paper may have reported lady gets smacked at local animal shelter. Every dog I have adopted has gone straight to the vet, gotten vaccinated and altered. I have a loving home and treat all of my animals better than I treat most humans. So dont assume that you are the best hope for the dogs, there are people out there who can offer good loving homes, people who are in it only for the dogs.

did not nkow that

[
I was able to buy the dog for $100 because she had been sold to someone else and returned and was too old compared to the others he was selling for $400.( this is what Burch told me) so he had already profited off the dog once before.
Burch doesn't care what concerns anyone has about his breeding operation, he ignores the laws even though he has been caught and cited. All he sees is the profit he's making. He doesn't believe the law applies to him, therefore we had to do something. It may not be popular, but that isn't our concern. We're not looking for a popularity award, we're concerned about the animals. Almost every dog pulled out of his kennel last time was infected with hook worms, which is contagious to humans, the list goes on. Responsible breeding for the betterment of the breed is one thing, haphazard breeding and keeping dogs confined to rabbit cages is a different story.
Once again, the reason we didn't want the dogs to go to Tehama County Shelter was because there has recently been confirmed cases coming out of that shelter and felt it would be best if they were placed in rescue to go into foster homes and vetted. Tehama county admits to not being able to properly care for them and also admits sick dogs will be euthanized. If you can sign a check, you can adopt a dog, no application, no vaccinations, it doesn't matter they just want "their problem" gone.
Unfortunately, your love of animals and getting them vetted is an exception to what happens all too often. A large number of people who adopt toy dogs out of these situations turn around and breed them for profit as well, that is what ALL rescues don't want to happen. I applaud you for caring for animals and for taking care of your own.
As much as you want to believe that we are "the bad guys", we are trying to curb an already out of control over-population of unwanted animals and protect the rights of these animals kept strictly for profit.
Puppy mill operators that aren't within the legal confines of the law are no different than unlicensed contractors, practicing medicine without a license, giving legal advice when not an attorney......and needs to be stopped.
Before you say anything about the "list of officers" not being filed by ResQ, that is comparing apples to oranges. The only one that could have been hurt by that is the rescue and only if there had been a legal dispute during that time, which there was not. The recue's non-profit status has never lapsed.

Kelly you finally got it, you have finally been able to articulate your concerns without insults, hostility or name calling. Perhaps if you had started with this attitude, you wouldnt have been met with such opposition. Now keep it up, school your cohorts and conduct yourself with some class in the future. Trust me, people will be more apt to listen.

Oh and one more question Kelly. Are you or Janie paid a wage through the rescue group?

Andjustice4all wrote:

Oh and one more question Kelly. Are you or Janie paid a wage through the rescue group?

Absolutely not. Honestly, there are no profits, the ResQ operates in the red each and every month. I foster animals myself and it costs me to feed them, buy them toys etc...the only benefits there are are saving lives and the love the dogs return.