The Person RSZN Protects

This is the Person RSZN admin, Bethanie Gengler, is Protecting

Maria lucia Dawe
3324 Beebe Road, Newfane, NY

This is the Person RSZN admin, Bethanie Gengler, is Inspired by and working with . . .

Tyler Thomas is one of the members of the animal rights movement who have infiltrated our industry. A pathological liar, he has developed an entire defense resting on nothing but lies as to why he had the right to violate the rights of another industry member by unlawfully converting title of valuable exotic animals from her to him. In order to fight against doing the right thing and following the law as it is clearly stated, Thomas, teamed up with the government agencies from which he claimed to be fleeing in the first place by moving from New York State to Texas - the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and the United States Department of Agriculture. Perjury, violating court orders and fabrication of evidence was all Thomas needed in order to "win" out and escape from doing the right thing to a colleage and former friend. He will forever be on the run and looking over his shoulder keeping in hiding animals which were never his and will never be so either.

Leo v Thomas was plagued with attorney misconduct and an unfair judgment dismissing the action after opposing counsel (who is now a judge) fixed the court's decision by conveying lies via "secret statement" written for Thomas by Joe Therrien of the NYSDEC and which has never been given to the plaintiff thereby creating prejudice against the plaintiff and giving the defense an unfair advantage. The defense attorney rushed to get the case dismissed because he had found out that the plaintiff had filed the Texas case to enforce the order in which Judge McClusky granted repossession of her animals to the plaintiff. Within 2-3 weeks of Plaintiff filing the case in Texas, the NY defense attorney filed the Motion to Dismiss Upon Summary Judgment.

Leo v Thomas & Stacey had shown a hasty decision by the trial court judge, David A. Sanchez, in dismissing the case even though it had been properly filed to enforce an order written by NYS Supreme Court Judge James P. McClusky. The Texas case was filed while the New York action was still pending giving Plaintiff a valid opportunity to enforce the order granting her repossession of her animals. However, without holding an evidentiary hearing, as mandated by law, and without any sworn evidence filed with the trial court, the defense was erroneously awarded "Title 13 Sanctions." These sanctions are reknown throughout the legal community in Texas as being very difficult to obtain and even more difficult to lose upon appeal since the party losing an appeal on Title 13 Sanctions is not regarded highly by the legal community in terms of vying for sanctions inappropriately. Moreover, the order for Title 13 Sanctions must meet certain criteria, per state statute, and if it does not, it is an automatic flip upon appeal. This is what should have occurred in the appellate phase of the case. However, it did not.

Appellate Phase

Out of the blue, there was inappropriate remand by the appellate court to the trial court for a third go at the Plaintiff's Affidavit of Indigence.

Issues with Court Staff in both Trial and Appellate Levels:
Extreme difficulty getting Defendant served since the staff did not return calls much and wsen they did, it was very difficult getting the initiating papers filed by the plaintiff to be served by the processor for the court. The court staff likely assisted the defense counsel in filing a document with the court without notice to the plaintiff and in an untimely fashion. The staff must have assisted him in obtaining a stamped signature of the judge on the order. The reason the defense counsel wanted this particular document filed, entitled "Findings of Face and Conclusions of Law", is it is also mandated to be filed with the judge's signature to validate the Title 13 Sanctions. If there is no clear evidence of bad faith in the plaintiff filing the initial law suit, which there was not, then Title 13 Sanctions cannot be applied. Hence, the sanctions applied to the plaintiff were highly inappropriate and an abuse of the judicial process.

Plaintiff's requests for hearing were not honored by the trial or the appellate court. However, any request for a hearing filed on behalf of the defendants were immediately scheduled and held. Motions for the defense were processed whereas at least one motion filed by the plaintiff was not processed and virtually ignored by court staff and the appellate panel of judges (since it was brought up on appeal by the plaintiff that the order had been ignored by the trial court).

One remaining question is ... why did Thomas fight so hard against the enforcement of the New York order if the animals were truly deceased like he wanted the court and he plaintiff to believe? Because he lied and the animals were, and still are, alive and being secreted away by Thomas & Nichols Stacey in southern Texas.