Finally!!! We can give some justice to these people. Looks like Renee’s mom was the first one to bite the DUST! More charges are to come and hopefully this is just the beginning. Say goodbye to freedom Marjorie and Richard Sundberg. Might wanna stop and smell the Roses on your way by since it will be the last time you get to for awhile.
By ROB PIERCY / KING 5 News
BOW, Wash. A week after being removed from cages that had them trapped in their own filth, dogs that spent the first days huddled together, scared of people, are becoming more social.
“I believe that animals can sense when someone loves them,” said Sandy Nelson, Director of the Skagit Valley Humane Society.
It’s one of many shelters and foster homes now caring for the dogs.
“It’s a happy day to see them all out of that kind of condition, and we hope we never have to see any other ones in this county like that,” she said.
Marjorie and Richard Sundberg have been charged with four counts each of second degree animal cruelty.
On Jan. 21, the Skagit County Sheriff’s Dept. seized more than 135 dogs from the Sundberg property. On Jan. 23, another 308 dogs were seized.
The couple owns a $500,000 home in rural Snohomish County. No one answered when KING 5 News knocked on the door.
Authorities say the Sundbergs are connected to the alleged puppy mills busted near Gold Bar last week.
In a search warrant affidavit, a deputy wrote that a witness told him “…he could be killed for what he was going to tell me…” and that the puppy mills are “…dealing with millions of dollars a year in revenue.”
“I have never been able to understand in this business the way people abuse animals and I do feel this is abuse,” said Nelson.
But that was not the opinion of the Sundberg’s vet, Timothy O’Rourke. Last year when the Sundbergs tried to get a permit to run a kennel, he wrote to Skagit County Commissioners, telling them the Sundbergs take good care of their dogs.
On Thursday, O’Rourke’s office was closed.
You may be asking, “Why only four counts of second degree animal cruelty?” First, there will likely be more charges to come. Second, to prove first degree you have to show someone “intentionally inflicted pain.”
I’m struggling here to spectacular degree. In today’s Herald it was reported that, “These details and more were released Thursday, as Skagit County prosecutors filed four second-degree animal cruelty charges against a Mount Vernon couple as part of an expanding investigation into an alleged multimillion-dollar puppy mill.”
Second Degree???? After reading RCW 16.52.205, how is possible that this is not first-degree animal cruelty? There was “intention” here as in “intentionally inflicts substantial pain”. Dogs trapped in cages weren’t put there by themselves. Dogs left in cages with dead animals reflects intention. Dogs that had to be put down due to malnutrition does not lead one to believe that the dogs went on a hunger strike. Dogs hair pulling away from their skin because it’s matted down with their own feces does not make me think the dog refused a bath.
What on earth is legal definition of intention if this isn’t it? I went up to Mount Vernon to volunteer. I saw what was there. What is going on here? Please, please tell me. These people with only a second degree charge can now petition to get the animals back! Please help me understand this. Please!
According to Skagit County Prosecuter’s office, intent is very difficult to prove in these type of cases. The legal definition of intent that I could find says this: An intent to produce the precise consequences of the crime, including the intent to do the physical act that causes the consequences. For example, the crime of larceny is the taking of the personal property of another with the intent to permanently deprive the other person of the property. A person is not guilty of larceny just because he took someone else’s property; it must be proven that he took it with the purpose of keeping it permanently.
So, this says to me, that in order for it to be 1st degree animal cruelty she would have had to have done all of this with the intent of causing the dogs great harm. That would be virtually impossible to prove because what they have done could be more characterized as Negligence not intent to harm.
I hope that helps everyone understand a little bit more where the prosecutor’s office is coming from.
So sad that the laws don’t allow for the punishment we all know they deserve.
Digg this story here:
http://digg.com/pets_animals/Charges_filed_against_Marjorie_and_Richard_Sundberg