Dante Di Pirro, Esq.
Animal law attorney Dante DiPirro urges Ocean County Prosecutor to investigate and prosecute torture and killing of raccoon in Lacey Twp. NJ
Author Archives: Administrator
Cornell University necropsy finds strangulation cause of death for dog dragged by the leash by Tai Nero of Allstars Working Dogs of Wyandanch NY
“Madison Blue”
Press Release
For Immediate Release:
Contact:
Pam Dixon
dscradopt@gmail.com
Cornell University necropsy finds strangulation cause of death for dog dragged by the leash by Tai Nero of Allstars Working Dogs of Wyandanch NY
Wyandanch NY (January 29, 2019)
This past December, Deep South Canine Inc., a non-profit animal rescue, and friends marked the one-year anniversary of the death of a wonderful dog with blue eyes named “Madison Blue.” A post-mortem necropsy conducted by Cornell University found clear and convincing evidence that the dog’s death was due to “strangulation from restraining and dragging this dog by its leash.” Necropsy Report
Tai Nero of Allstars Working Dogs of Wyandanch New York, who had been hired by the Rescue for dog training, admitted that he “dragged/pulled Madison up the stairs by her leash” and that soon after the dog “collapsed,” and he had to rush her to the vet. Upon arrival at the vet’s office, Madison Blue was comatose and unresponsive and had to be euthanized. Vet records
The incident happened in December 2017. The Rescue had turned custody and care of the dog over to Tai Nero and Allstars Working Dogs for a two-week training period. At the time of the incident, Madison Blue was apparently not being cared for in an animal facility but was crated along with other dogs at a residential house owned by Nero at 104 S. 25th Street, Wyandanch, New York, 11798-2902.
Both the treating veterinarian and Cornell University attributed the dog’s death to having been dragged by the leash.
According to the vet records, the dog had “ventral neck abrasion/excoriation” that was “likely from a choke collar while being dragged.” The dog was comatose and unresponsive with likely severe brain damage. As the direct result of the trauma, Madison Blue had to be euthanized.
The necropsy conducted by the Cornell University Animal Health Diagnostic Center concluded that the dog had been strangulated. The necropsy report found: “Clear and convincing medical evidence indicated that the cause of the coma is asphyxiation attributed to strangulation from restraining and dragging the dog by its leash.” The necropsy report also found that Madison Blue had a fractured tooth (with 70% of the tooth missing), blunt force trauma to the head, and puncture wounds on the muzzle and head.
Deep South has asked the Suffolk County District Attorney’s office to conduct an animal cruelty investigation into the conduct of Tai Nero and Allstars Working Dogs.
Deep South Board Member and Executive Director, Pam Dixon, said: “Everyone who knew Madison Blue is heartbroken at her unexpected death. We want to make sure that no other dog dies in the custody of Tai Nero or Allstars Working Dogs.”
Deep South’s animal welfare lawyer, Dante DiPirro, Esq. of Westhampton Beach, New York, said: “If anyone knows of any dog that has been injured while in the custody of, or while being trained by, Tai Nero or Allstars Working Dogs, or has any other relevant information, please contact us.”
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION:
Deep South Canine Inc.
Pam Dixon
Email: dscradopt@gmail.com
The Rescue’s Animal Welfare Lawyer:
Dante Di Pirro, Esq.
48 Rogers Avenue, Westhampton Beach NY 11978
Telephone: 609-429-0779
Email: dante@dantelawyer.com
2018-12-14 PennEast: Bad News for residents and the environment: Today Federal District Court in Trenton has granted a preliminary injunction authorizing PennEast, upon posting of a bond, to immediately enter and take possession of citizens’ private land in the right of way of the proposed pipeline
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
____________________________________
IN RE PENNEAST PIPELINE : First Filed Civ. A. No.: 18-1585 COMPANY, LLC : (See Exhibit A for all Case Numbers) :
ORDER
____________________________________:
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff PennEast Pipeline Company, LLC’s (“PennEast”) application for orders of condemnation and orders granting preliminary injunctive relief under the federal power of eminent domain pursuant to the Natural Gas Act (“NGA”), 15 U.S.C. § 717f(h), authorizing immediate access to and possession of the rights of way (“Rights of Way”) as defined in the respective Verified Complaints in Condemnation of Property Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 71.11, for the purpose of “constructing, operating, and maintaining a natural gas transmission pipeline and appurtenant facilities (part of an interstate natural gas transmission system) and conducting all other activities required by the Order of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [(‘FERC’) issuing certificates (‘FERC Certificates’)] dated January 19, 2018, [FERC] Docket No. CP15-558-000 (‘FERC Order’)” (Am. Not. of Condemn. 2; Compl. ¶ 8). PennEast’s request is made in advance of any award of just compensation. In response thereto, upon the request of PennEast, and for good cause appearing, the Court entered an Order to Show Cause ordering Defendants to show cause why an order for condemnation should not be granted. Having heard the arguments of the parties pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78(a), and having carefully reviewed the numerous submissions filed in support of and in opposition to PennEast’s application and in response to the Order to Show Cause, for the reasons set forth in the accompanying Opinion, and for good cause shown,
IT IS on this 14th day of December 2018,
ORDERED that the State Defendants’ request for dismissal is DENIED; and it is further
ORDERED that PennEast’s application for orders of condemnation and for preliminary injunctive relief allowing immediate possession of the respective Rights of Way in advance of any award of just compensation is GRANTED, and it is further
ORDERED that PennEast shall post security in the form of a surety bond into the Court’s Registry pursuant to Local Civil Rule 67.1(a) in the amount of three times the appraised value for the Rights of Way as determined by the independent appraiser retained by PennEast; and it is further
ORDERED that, upon PennEast’s post of appropriate security, PennEast is authorized to immediately enter and take possession of the Rights of Way for all purposes allowed under the FERC Order, and it is further ORDERED that this Order does not affect Defendants’ rights to receive just compensation for the condemnation of the Rights of Way; and it is further
ORDERED that the Court, on its own motion, hereby appoints, at the sole cost and expense of PennEast, the following individuals as Special Masters/Condemnation Commissioners to adjudicate and determine the quantum of just compensation:
• The Honorable James R. Zazzali, C.J. (ret.) Gibbons P.C.
One Gateway Center Newark, New Jersey 07102 jzazzali@gibbonslaw.com
• The Honorable Joel A. Pisano, U.S.D.J. (ret.) Walsh Pizzi O’Reilly Falanga LLP One Riverfront Plaza 1037 Raymond Blvd., Suite 600 Newark, New Jersey 07102 jpisano@walsh.law
• The Honorable Kevin J. O’Toole O’Toole Scrivo Fernandez Weiner Van Lieu, LLC 14 Village Park Road Cedar Grove, New Jersey 07009 kotoole@oslaw.com
• Joshua Markowitz, Esq.
Markowitz Law Firm LLC 3131 Princeton Pike Building 3D, Suite 200 Lawrenceville, New Jersey 08648 joshm@mgs-law.com
• Shoshana Schiff, Esq.
McManimon, Scotland & Baumann, LLC 75 Livingston Avenue Roseland, New Jersey 07068 sschiff@msbnj.com and it is further
ORDERED that the Court, along with the Special Masters/Condemnation Commissioners, shall hold a case management conference on February 14, 2019, at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 1 of the Clarkson S. Fisher U.S. Courthouse, 402 East State Street, Trenton, New Jersey 08608, regarding the protocol for determining just compensation; and it is further
ORDERED that PennEast shall provide via CM/ECF by no later than January 4, 2019, revised, case-specific forms of orders, which reflect the Court’s decision as set forth herein and which include descriptions of the property, the Rights of Way, the appraisal for the Rights of Way, and the amount of the bond, to be calculated at a rate of three times the appraisal amount; and it is
finally
ORDERED that, in the event of a violation of this Order by property owners, the United States Marshal Service, or a law enforcement agency it designates, shall be authorized to investigate and to arrest, confine in prison and/or bring before the Court any persons found to be in violation and in contempt of this Order, pending his/her compliance with this Order.
/s/Brian R. Martinotti HON. BRIAN R. MARTINOTTI
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dante DiPirro delivers speech against PennEast Pipeline at rally against new fossil fuel projects
New Jersey Governor has legal authority to cancel bear hunt
Last month Governor Murphy doubted that he has legal authority to cancel the bear hunt. Acting on his own or through his DEP Commissioner, he has the authority.
The Governor as the head of the Executive Branch has broad authority to set policy and take care that the laws be faithfully executed.[1] He also enjoys substantial authority and deference in the issuance and implementation of directives to his administration.[2]
For her part, the Commissioner has the authority to set policies that govern the department and its councils, including the Fish and Game Council.[3] As held by the Supreme Court, the statutory scheme is designed to consolidate all natural resources divisions under a single department, led by a Commissioner whose obligation it is to coordinate a unitary approach to conservation.[4] As such, the Commissioner sets departmental policies and then uses her approval authority to ensure that all policies of the department — including those of its councils — comport with those policies.[5]
The Supreme Court has already ruled in the context of the bear hunt that the Fish and Game Council can only call for a hunt if it has adopted a comprehensive bear management plan that justifies the hunt, and if the Council’s adoption of the plan was after “consultation with the Commissioner and with [her] approval.[6] There are two reasons.
First, the Council is only legally authorized to formulate a comprehensive policy — like a comprehensive bear management policy — with the Commissioner’s approval.[7] Accordingly, the Supreme Court has ruled that the Council’s “ability to authorize a bear hunt is subject to the statutory condition precedent of the Commissioner’s earlier approval of the very comprehensive policies governing the propagation of black bears.“[8] Here, the Commissioner has not reviewed nor approved the comprehensive bear management policies of the prior administration. Therefore, the Council lacks legal authority to proceed with a bear hunt unless and until the Commissioner approves.
Second, the Council’s call for a hunt in the absence of the new Governor/Commissioner’s approval, violates the law and expressly empowers the Governor/Commissioner to intervene to stop the hunt. The Supreme Court has ruled that “the Fish and Game Council clearly does not function as a completely autonomous body, unaccountable to the department head. Rather, the Commissioner must approve the Fish and Game Council’s comprehensive policies. It is the Commissioner’s approval that, in turn, insures that those policies comport with department-wide goals for environmental protection.”[9] The Supreme Court further explained: “The entire statutory scheme was intended to create a unified approach to conservation and environmental protection under the authority of the Commissioner. Although the Fish and Game Council may act without day-to-day veto by the Commissioner, its actions exist within a larger universe of comprehensive environmental policies. If it does not act in accord with those policies, the Commissioner is empowered to intervene.“[10] Here, the new Governor and Commissioner have the clear authority to set policy on black bear management and if the Council adopts a policy that is inconsistent with the departmental policy, the Council’s policy is invalid and the Commissioner is empowered to intervene to stop the hunt.
In a non-binding comment in the U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance case, the Supreme Court opined that if the Commissioner had approved the comprehensive management plan and the Council had acted on it to call for a hunt, the Commissioner would not have been able to intervene to stop it.[11] Those were not the facts in that case and they are not the facts here because this Commissioner has not approved the Council’s plan. Moreover, it would be improper to deny this new Governor/Commissioner the right to approve/disapprove a Council’s plan simply because the plan had been approved by the prior administration.
In conclusion, the Governor has the power to cancel the hunt and the courts are likely to accord him deference, especially where, as here, he is setting his own policies in the first year of his administration. The governorship is one of the most powerful in the nation. If the Governor wishes to deliver on his long-standing promise to cancel the bear hunt, he can exercise his authority.
End notes:
[1] “The Governor is vested with the executive power of the State. N.J. Const. (1947), N.J. Const. (1947), Art. V, § 1, par. 1. As the head of the Executive Branch of government he has the duty and power to supervise all employees in each principal department of that branch. Id., Art. Art. V, § 4, par. 2. Of necessity, this includes the inherent power to issue directives and orders by way of implementation in order to insure efficient and honest performance by those state employees within his jurisdiction. Such power stems from the Governor’s responsibility under the foregoing constitutional provisions as well as Art. V, § 1, par. 11, which requires that he ‘take care that the laws be faithfully executed.'” Kenny v. Byrne, 144 N.J. Super. 243 (App. Div., 1976)
[2] Shapiro v. Fauver, 193 N.J. Super. 237 (App. Div., 1984)
[3] New Jersey Constitution of 1947 mandates that “[a]ll executive and administrative offices, departments, and instrumentalities of the State government… shall be allocated by law among and within not more than twenty principal departments.” N.J. Const. art. V, 4, 1. The Constitution further places a single executive, appointed by the Governor with Senate approval, at the helm of each principal department. N.J. Const. art. V, 4, 2. An example is the Commissioner of the Department of Environmental Protection. As a matter of statute, the Commissioner is authorized to administer the work of the department and perform, exercise and discharge the functions, powers and duties of the department. N.J.S.A. 13:1B-3
[4] U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance, 867 A.2d 1147, 1155, 182 N.J. 461 (2005).
[5] U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance at 1155.
[6] US Sportsman’s Alliance at 1157
[7] N.J.S.A. 13:1B-28
[8] U.S. Sportsman’s Alliance at 1156
[9] U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance at 1155.
[10] U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance at 1156.
[11] U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance at 1158.
Links:
Governor Murphy’s August 20, 2018 Executive Order No. 34 :
http://d31hzlhk6di2h5.cloudfront.net/20180820/82/2a/71/f5/25912cf54e1ea0981186c1fc/EO-34.pdf
Governor’s Office August 20, 2018 Press Release on Executive Order 34:
https://www.nj.gov/governor/news/news/562018/approved/20180820a.shtml
Come hear Mr. Sustainable, Dante DiPirro, speak on Living Sustainably in the Sourlands, Tuesday, 9/18/2018 in Hopewell NJ.
2018-08-21 Animal attorney Dante DiPirro on WOR TV talking about stopping Hamilton Township NJ from killing animals in violation of the 7-day hold law
After his cease and desist demand letter to Hamilton Township NJ caused the township to end its policy of killing pets in violation of the 7-day hold law, animal lawyer Dante DiPirro appeared on WOR TV’s “Chasing News” show to debunk the township’s claim that it was only helping suffering, terminally-ill animals.
DiPirro read from the shelter’s own records which documented that animals of all ages were euthanized “at owner’s request” and without any examination from a veterinarian.
In addition, on the TV panel, the township health officer was forced to admit that the township’s policy was in fact to kill animals turned in by their owners with no questions asked, and for each killing the township made $100.
DiPirro pointed out that state law specifically required shelters to hold animals — including owner surrendered animals — for at least 7-days and that the township’s needless killing of animals violated the law and deprived the poor animals of the legislatively-mandated opportunity to be adopted before they were killed.
The TV segment can be viewed at:
[The Hamilton Township Animal Shelter and Adoption Center is under scrutiny for its euthanasia practices. Bill Spadea talks with the Hamilton Township health officer and animal law attorney Dante DiPirro of Hopewell NJ who sent the cease-and-desist letter.]
In response to the letter from animal lawyer Dante DiPirro Hamilton Twp NJ ceases killing owner-surrendered animals in violation of the 7-day hold law
Upon learning that the Hamilton Township Animal Shelter was killing animals without giving the mandated 7-day opportunity for adoption, the firm send the township a cease and desist letter.
On receipt of the letter, which set forth the law and public policy served by the law, the township ceased the policy.
Animal Attorney Dante DiPirro calls on Hamilton Township to cease and desist killing owner-surrendered animals in violation of the 7-day hold law
On July 20, 2018, on 
behalf of residents, Animal Attorney Dante DiPirro wrote to the Mayor, Council Members, Shelter Director and Shelter Veterinarian concerning the unlawful killing of animals in the Hamilton Township animal shelter in Mercer County New Jersey.
State law mandates with regard to an owner-surrendered animal that the shelter “shall offer the animal for adoption for at least seven days before euthanizing it.” N.J.S.A. 4: 19-15.16(e) (emphasis added). That provision exists to allow the animals an opportunity to be adopted before they are killed.
However, statements made at the council meeting this week by Shelter representatives show that they are aware of the law, refuse to follow the express and unambiguous language of the statute, and fail to comply with their non-discretionary, mandatory duty to offer each such animal for adoption for at least seven days.
DiPirro called on the township to immediately cease and desist the violations of law or face a law suit asking a Court to order the township and shelter to comply with the law.
Previously, DiPirro handled law suits in Monmouth and Gloucester Counties which ended the unlawful killing of animals in those counties.
Click link below to view the letter to Hamilton Township officials:
20180720 Lt DiPirro to Hamilton Twp 7 day hold law violations SENT
PennEast Update: Denial of challenge to FERC’s use of tolling orders does not stop on-going challeng e to Penn East Pipeline project
Update on challenge to PennEast Pipeline: In a separate case, Delaware Riverkeeper Network v FERC, USCA Case # 17-5084, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals has denied a facial challenge to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s process in issuing tolling orders. While unfortunate for citizens — because FERC’s use of tolling orders limits important access to the courts — the ruling does not stop the on-going challenge to the proposed PennEast pipeline project.
Trump’s denial of climate science is hurting farmers and threatening America’s oldest farmland
Flooding And Rising Seas Threaten America’s Oldest Farmland – https://www.npr.org/616151979
Trump trying to prop up coal and nuclear instead of promoting clean energy industry and jobs
#SourlandConservancy asks #FERC to rescind #TollingOrder in #PennEast as violation of due process in papers filed by #EnviromentalLawyer #DanteDiPirro
On February 22, 2018, the Commission issued a “tolling order” in PennEast Pipeline Federal Energy Regulatory Commission proceeding.
In the tolling order, the Commission gave itself an indefinite extension of time to rule on requests for rehearing and stay, and allowed the project to continue (including allowing condemnation of residents’ homes and cutting down of trees), while attempting to block judicial review of the Commission’s orders on the grounds that its orders are not yet “final.”
Today, environmental lawyer, Dante DiPirro, filed papers on behalf of the Sourland Conservancy, a non-profit that protects the 90-square mile Sourland Mountain Region in Central New Jersey — contending that the Commission cannot allow harm while depriving parties of their day in court, and that rigging the process — which is what the tolling order is doing– is improper and contrary to law.
The papers conclude that the Commission must must act immediately to either: (1) rescind the Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (for all of the reasons set forth by the parties that requested rehearing and stay); or (2) rescind the Tolling Order, which would cause the requests for rehearing and stay to be deemed denied, thus allowing the parties to seek relief in the courts.
March 19, 2018 HALT sues Penn East for due process violation over “tolling order”
The PennEast Pipeline Company, LLC (PennEast) is using FERC’s conditional certificate to file lawsuits against landowners who refuse to sign easement agreements. Over the past six weeks, PennEast has filed more than 180 complaints against them in three federal district courts. FERC’s Tolling Order helps PennEast because it allows the eminent domain cases to move forward while blocking judicial review of the validity of its orders. HALT maintains that FERC’s Tolling Order violates homeowners’ due process rights because it denies them a judicial hearing on the validity of FERC’s certificate before their land is taken. this certainly seems like a violation of due process. hopefully the courts will step in and restore justice.
#DanteDiPirro files papers with #FERC on behalf of #SourlandConservancy opposing #PennEast pipeline
Cover Page jpg
March 15, 2018, today Dante DiPirro filed papers with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on behalf of the Sourland Conservancy requesting rehearing of the Commission’s Order granting a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to PennEast Pipeline Company, rescission of the Order, and a stay pending rehearing.
Link to filing:
20180315 Sourland Conservancy Comment PennEast
Background: The PennEast Pipeline threatens drinking water and the environment in New Jersey and Pennsylvania, preserved lands, and the homes of residents along the 120 mile route, in the name of continuing dirty fossil fuels that should be replaced by clean renewable energy.
In opposing the pipeline, the Conservancy joins a large number of groups and concerned citizens, including, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Sierra Club, New Jersey Conservation Foundation, Stony Brook Millstone Watershed Association, numerous municipalities and numerous individuals.