requires
JavaScript to
display properly.
breed ban does not work and its unconstitutional. Last year the legislation did not
withstand a challenge in the Margolius v Denver case.
Below is important data that Denver is not making the public aware of and hundreds of
responsible dog owners in Denver are being denied their right to own property while at
the same time being charged with criminal citations for dogs that are not dangerous.
denyng US Citizens their right to be heard under the "Due Process Clause" of the United
States Constitution
Denver Colorado Legislative Update Denver's City Attorney Kory Nelson has been
contacting cities across the United States and providing them information on Denver's
breed ban on American Pit Bull Terriers. This data is not accurate and below are facts Mr
Nelson is failing to reveal.
tried to stop HB1279 from passing to be signed by the Governor. Mr Nelson presented documents Denver had used in the past, all
manipulated data provided by radical animal rights organizations. The Senators and Legislators of Colorado did not find Mr
Nelsons arguments credible and voted to end breed specific legislation in Colorado by voting yes to HB1279 which prohibits
banning specific breeds of dogs in Colorado at the local and state level.
2. In 2004 Mr Nelson lost a legal battle in the Denver Municipal Court July 7, 2004 ( Margolius v Denver ) Mr Margolius was
charged with violating Denver's breed ban. ACF challenged Denver's breed ban and at trial all of Denver's animal control officers
were disqualified because they could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt they could identify what is known as the American Pit
Bull Terrier. Mr Margolius's case was dismissed.
3. In 2004 Denver sued Colorado arguing they had a right to home rule over their breed ban. The state of Colorado asked ACF to
intervene to provide expert testimony and research proving Pit Bull Terriers and others breeds are not genetically vicious or
dangerous and do not inflict more severe injury than other breeds. The court hearing the case denied ACF's intervention without
giving any reason. Then Colorado resident Marci Grebing filed a motion for intervention and the court denied that motion also giving
no reason. A trial was heard on April 7 2005 regarding Denver's right to home rule, no constitutional arguments were raised, the trial
lasted less than one day, Denver's expert Dr Borchelt had testified in a previous case ( Tellings v Toledo ) that he had done no
research on American Pit Bull Terriers. In reviewing the evidence used at the Denver trial it was found to be erroneous and outdated.
The judge reached his decision within minutes of the end of the trial . The court made no effort to consider current scientific data,
accurate fatal dog attack data and hear from some of the countries leading experts on canine behavior and genetics.
4. Marci Grebing filed an appeal over the denial of intervention in Colorado v Denver, Mr Nelson filed a motion to dismiss Ms
Grebings appeal, Ms Grebing responded addressing Mr Nelson's credibility to the court. The court of appeals denied Mr Nelsons
motion and the case is moving forward. Ms Grebing is asking for a new trial where Denver dog owners and Colorado residents can
be represented correctly.
5. Mr Nelson has been calling cities up providing them with misleading data telling them Denver's breed ban withstood a court
challenge. This is not true and last year in the Margolius case Denver's breed ban did not stand up to court litigation. Mr Nelson's
data was found not credible by the Colorado Legislature in 2004. Mr Nelsons motions in the Colorado Court of Appeals regarding
the Denver v Colorado lawsuit were also found not credible.
6. Mr Nelsons behavior and that of animal rights agenda, of which Mr Nelson is promoting when he supports Denver's breed ban
is one of the leading causes of the violence directed at American Pit Bull Terriers and their owners. The manipulation and
intentional false data , the media hype, the sensational stories and all the lobbying for breed bans has resulted in death threats,
domestic violence, the killing of family pets and the loss to the right to own property while at the same time criminalizing United
States citizens.
Refer to ACF Report ( REGULATION AND CONTROL OF DANGEROUS DOGS )
AMERICAN CANINE FOUNDTION 2005
ACF's Marci Grebing filed for intervention in Denver v Colorado to provide expert testimony and accurate data to prove no breed
if dog is inherently dangerous upon a request from the State of Colorado. Denvers District Court denied the motion to
intervene and Marci Grebing filed an appeal in the Colorado Court of Appeals. Above is a copy of the recent Appeals Court
Order denying Denvers motion to dismiss Marci Grebings appeal.
Summer for Trial Exhibit 11 from Dr Estep Phd place that below the appeals court data with this caption
SCIENTIFIC PROOF DENVERS BREED BAN IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL
Below is an exhibit used in the April 7 2005 Denver v Colorado lawsuit where Denver won the right to home rule regarding their
failed Pit Bull ban, the court ignored all scientific evidence in the case.
By reading the research below it is clear there has never been a rational
bases for breed specific legislation
WAFinc
