Anonymous donor helps Humane Society after it loses case
December 6, 2012 at 11:55 pm in The Jamestown Sun
A judgment for more than $500 was awarded to the defendant in a small claims court lawsuit against the James River Humane Society on Wednesday.
However, the entire judgment amount was donated by a JRHS supporter and the original judgment will also be donated by the plaintiff to help animals. Continue Reading
The JRHS already removed the language from their mission statement that claims they would attempt to seek pets’ owners, yet they tout being a taxpayer assisted entity? How do the people of Jamestown feel about this? My bet is that they don’t care. I think it’s time that we take a serious look at funding this place with any tax money. If they aren’t here to help the taxpayer, then what’s the point? Property taxes are high enough as it stands.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
59 
21
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
34 
57
It is one’s right to spay or neuter their pets, not the law. That shouldn’t matter. A majority of people I’ve talked to support Mr. Williams, it has been a lot more than five. I would’ve done the same thing if this were my dog. The JRHS should’ve been more helpful in returning his pets. The police report does reflect two male cats being lost and my friend, whom is a volunteer at the JRHS, stated they were never aware of it being a male and female missing. Two cats that come in together and matched the age and description should be enough anyway.
You must be the individual on the face book page that decided to turn it into a family issue instead of the real issue at hand. Good work, maybe you should take your personal issues elsewhere next time.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
60 
20
Also, the Jamestown Sun has written twice the JRHS receives roughly $13,500 in taxpayer dollars annually from a half-mill tax levy. Mr. Williams wasn’t the one touting that fact. If he didn’t care about the cats as you say, I highly doubt he would’ve gone to this extent to retrieve them.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
55 
16
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
21 
53
Yes I am the same Joe that had the same opinion in the previous article. I personally don’t know Mr. Williams and my last name is not Williams. My support for him grew after reading the immature postings from my daughter’s face book. I’m sure it won’t be hard for anyone to get a copy of the court transcript. I myself am interested to see it. Obviously the judge made the ruling as he seemed fit. If there were so many discrepencies as you say, I think the ruling would’ve been different. I’m not here to argue with anyone on this topic as you seem to be.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
48 
11
So if you despise the fact that he won the lawsuit and was awarded anything, what do you think of the Humane Society for not offering him the remaining kitten back as a settlement? They didn’t even attempt to rectify the situation. I think they assume that the people of Jamestown think they are a righteous organization, when in actuality they are prone to mistakes and corruption. They shouldn’t be enabled by the taxpayer or the law to take one’s animals and give them away without first servicing those who fund them. I’m not interested in paying taxes to an organization who doesn’t care about what I think. Public funds mean public say.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
47 
16
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
19 
40
David, couldn’t agree more. They had no right refusing him his cat. They still didn’t give it to him. My views have changed significantly. I appreciate the volunteers who help but who determined to not return animals? Maybe they need to lose their position. You will get people who think the JRHS can do no wrong because they help animals but it’s evident they are also not helpful all the time. The word righteous is very appropriate. Since when was it this right to determine if you get your property back?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
41 
14
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
14 
43
Dog Mom, I can’t believe what I’m hearing come from you. According to the mission statement (which has been revised without public input) the JRHS was supposed to seek and attempt to return the cats to their original owner. They didn’t, which makes them wrong.
And we don’t have the right to get back what we lose? That’s true, I suppose. Sure doesn’t seem very ethical or “Christian” of you.
By the way, the JRHS doesn’t list their board members on their website, or at least I couldn’t find them. I probably wouldn’t want my name associated with this fiasco anyway.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
37 
12
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
8 
37
The JRHS was promised the donation by the donor before the court case even proceeded. They weren’t supposed to return the cats or work to resolve this becuase of personal issues between donor/donor’s daughter and plantiff. I’ve heard this story several times now and it sounds like corruption to me. They shoudn’t base their decisons on personal issues of thier supporters.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
41 
8
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
12 
32
And that is why it went to court, it started in small claims court and then he had to go further… he never intended for the amount of $10,000 but that is the smallest amount that you have to sue for after small claims. He wanted his cats back and that is the main concern. Yes, the humane society does the best that it can, but it should be a lesson to them that a mistake was made and hopefully we can all learn from this. The court made a decision… whether you agree with it or not. It is a done deal. Learn from it and move on.
Like or Dislike:
16 
3