From: "Mike Barkley" , mjbarkl@comcast.net
To:  Assemblymember.Leno@assembly.ca.gov ,
	Carole.Migden@boe.ca.gov
Subject: Legislation to prevent recurrance of the San Francisco Dog Mauling homicide
Date: Sat, 9 Aug 2003 04:56:45 -0700

Dear Assemblyman Leno,

    Last year I sent the following proposed legislation to 
Assemblywoman Midgen.  While it is unusual legislation for
a Democrat to sponsor, it did not deserve to go in her "drop
dead" pile.  Please consider sponsoring it and submitting it 
in the Assembly.  I am adding this to my web site at 
http://www.mjbarkl.com/leno.htm .

    Thank you.
- - - - - - - -
    From: "Mike Barkley" , mjbarkl@inreach.com
To: "Show -OnTheRecord" , ontherecord@FOXNEWS.COM
Subject: Skinning the cat, and the Murder of Diane Whipple
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2002 20:00:10 -0800

People like Russ Hunt, Sr., Marjorie Knoeller, and Robert Noel
lend credence to that old saying, "99% of the lawyers give the
rest of us a bad name."  Following is a suggested bill for the
California legislature I sent to Diane Whipple's Assemblywoman, 
but of course there's been no response.  The Catch 22 for the
building owners is that if they had attempted to evict Noel &
Knoeller to get rid of those dogs, they also would have risked 
prosecution by San Francisco District Attorney Terence Hallinan, 
who has been busy lately prosecuting landlords for unlawful 
evictions under the San Francisco Rent Control Ordinance.  Sigh.

If allowed to vote or influence or rule on the case, I would have
voted with the Jury as they voted, as well as to convict everyone
who was in upon the "conspiracy" to place those dogs in that
inappropriate structure.  But of course I always get kicked off
of juries....

  --Mike Barkley
- - - - - - - -
From: "Mike Barkley" , mjbarkl@inreach.com
To: Assemblymember.migden@assembly.ca.gov
Cc:  Eric.Potashner@asm.ca.gov ,
  Alan.LoFaso@asm.ca.gov 
Subject: Dog Mauling Trial and Verdict
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 23:42:03 -0800

Hello,

        My wife and I own and operate an apartment complex where we
accept pets, within certain guidelines.  From time to time people bring
onto our property animals we would never wish to have here, such as
pit bulls or rottweilers, and the legal procedure for removing the animal
and/or the tenants is complex and time consuming, during which time
my other tenants and the general public are at risk.  Nevertheless, when
I encounter such an animal on my property I begin legal proceedings to
remove the tenants and their animal as applicable.  It helps being a 
lawyer.  The ultimate horror story would be if I were not a lawyer, and
were in a jurisdiction such as San Francisco where evictions are nearly
impossible, and the possessors of the dangerous animals were 
high-profile criminal lawyers with organized crime connections.

    Looking at the map, I assume the death of Diane Whipple occurred in
what is now your District.  Please forgive me if I am mistaken.  It might
be appropriate for the state legislature to consider a Bill along the lines
of the following.  Please consider having your analysts put it in good
form and introduce it in the Assembly.  Thank you for your attention.
- - - - - - - -
     Upon belief by any lessor or any duly authorized agent of such
lessor of any property being used or intended for use as residential 
property that a person has brought into that property an animal that
is a danger to persons on that or neighboring that property or on
public property in the general vicinity, notwithstanding any other
provision of state or local law, such lessor or duly authorized agent
may proceed to any sheriff's or marshal's (as applicable) office or
substation within the county where the property is located and make
known his belief, following which the sheriff or marshal or person
authorized by such sheriff or marshal shall immediately escort the
lessor or duly authorized agent to any judge within the jurisdiction
and upon declaration under penalty of perjury by such lessor or 
duly authorized agent as to the belief that the animal in question is
such a danger, the judge shall immediately issue an alternative
order to vacate the premises or remove the animal in question.  
     Thereafter the sheriff or marshal or person authorized by such
sheriff or marshal shall immediately escort the lessor or duly 
authorized agent to the property in question and shall serve upon the
person or persons in possession of the animal in question that either
the animal must be removed from the property immediately and not ever
be returned or that the sheriff or marshal will immediately escort all 
persons and the animal off of the property at which time any rental
agreement or lease under which possession of the property was held shall
be deemed forfeit, and the sheriff or marshal shall order them not
to return until such time as they obtain a court order allowing them
to return.
     If after 7 days following the time the sheriff or marshal 
escorted such persons off the property such persons have not made 
arrangements to recover their personal property from the property, the
lessor or duly authorized agent shall dispose of such possessions 
in accordance with Section .... except that the .... day waiting 
period in Section .... shall not apply.
- - - - - - - -
Respectfully submitted,

--Mike Barkley, 161 N. Sheridan Ave. #1, Manteca, CA 95336 (H) 209/823-4817
              mjbarkl@inreach.com - Cure Multiple Sclerosis Now!