
07/19/2025
PRECEDENT SET IN LAWSUIT AGAINST PETA!
On October 18, 2014, in Parksley, VA, People For The Ethical Treatment Of Animals (PETA) stole Maya, a happy and healthy Chihuahua, from her porch while her family was out. When the family returned and found their beloved Maya missing, they searched the neighborhood, then checked the video on the surveillance camera. The film showed a PETA van and employees stealing their dog. They called PETA and asked for Maya’s return. Shortly afterward, a PETA attorney called and informed the family that Maya was dead. PETA had killed her that very same day, along with several other dogs they also took from the same area. PETA was convicted in criminal court and fined a paltry $500 for the crimes of trespass and theft of Maya.
Now, Maya’s family has brought a civil suit against PETA. They are seeking a nine million dollar judgment against the organization, and rightly so! PETA, an organization that professes to be advocates for animals, stole and killed Maya (and others) and then argued in court that doing so was not such a big deal, because doing so was not outrageous and the dog was worthless, because she wasn’t licensed. But, a judge has set precedent, by ruling that according to current law, dogs are property, whether licensed or not, and therefore, have value. He also struck down PETA’s argument that Maya's family wasn't entitled to punitive damages, because PETA's behavior did not meet the test for "outrageous conduct:" that is used for determining whether or not punitive damages can be claimed. The judge in the case, Everett A. Martin, Jr. was direct and concise in addressing this point when he wrote, "I believe reasonable people can find that taking another's dog and killing it is outrageous and intolerable. I overrule PETA's [argument] on this ground."
Court decisions have meaning far beyond the current case being argued, which is why decisions, like this one are typically filled with references back to other similar cases. The decisions set precedent, that are then used to help decide future cases involving similar issues. In other words, if PETA had prevailed in their arguments, as absurd as they were, they could have set the legal precedent to allow others who steal and kill pets to go unpunished. The fact that the judge in this case smacked down so many of PETA’s arguments has many of us smiling and laughing, knowing that the more their donors get to see who they really are, behind the glossy ads and PR tricks, the more PETA's multi-million dollar coffers will dry up.
http://www.thenokillnation.org/ #!Court-Documents-Show-PETA-is-Worthless-PetaIsWorthless/c1rn0/576e6b9b0cf233125dbeca4e
http://www.delmarvanow.com/story/news/local/virginia/2015/12/08/details-emerge-maya-lawsuit/76932438/