A sampling of the posts made by Bird Paradise supporters:
eectech2001 has made a comment
PETA is a joke! I'm gonna go kill some bird just because I saw this video!
NastyShoe1 has made a comment
If they would have come to my place of business and started their crap I would have knocked Her the f--k out
zimman has made a comment
Fags screwing with normal folks
because they have little s-- holes like you guys at there door step trying to f--- trees
From Deborah Plaia, Bird Paradise's hired gun:
From: Deborah Plaia <daplaia@yahoo.com>
To: ____________
Subject: Protest at Bird Paradise
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2008 13:58:08 +0000
Please see the attached letter.
This office represents Bird Paradise. Please be advised that on Friday, April 4, 2008, I filed an Order to Show Cause and a Verified Complaint based on New Jersey Statute, N.J.S.A. 27:5-5 et seq. and the New Jersey Administrative Code, N.J.A.C. 16:4-4.1.
Suit was filed in the Chancery Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey in Burlington County naming as defendants the following: 1. Reach Out For Animal Rights; 2. New York Bird Club; 3. City of Burlington; and 4. City of Burlington Police Department. Thank you.
Very truly yours,
Deborah A. Plaia, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF DEBORAH A. PLAIA, P.C.
Ashurst Mansion Office Bldg.
100 Ashurst Lane, Suite 201
Mount Holly, NJ 08060
Tel 609-267-3868
Fax: 609-267-5556
_______________________
Upon information and belief, Ms. Plaia even posts on public chat boards on behalf of her client, Bird Paradise...
Click
here for original post
| D Plaia |
 04/12/08 at 02:03 PM |
 #11 |
You may wish to ask yourself why is it that the ACLU is claiming victory but has never identified what the allegations were in the complaint. The complaint is a matter of public record and can be viewed by anyone who takes the time to investigate. There were no constitutional rights issues involved. Instead, the first allegation is for trespass, the second allegation concerns a lack of proper permitting and the third allegation is a failure of the City to enforce the law.
The events transpiring prior to the filing of the law suit were as follows: the protesters wanted to protest on Bird Paradise's private property. When Bird Paradise objected and tried to amicably settle this without resorting to legal action, Bird Paradise was told they had to get a court order. Hence, Bird Paradise was forced to file a complaint.
Moreover, Bird Paradise repeatedly told everyone, including the Attorney for the ACLU that the area where the protest was being held is a dangerous area. Bird Paradise also offered an alternative area where the protest could be safely conducted and which would have given them more exposure to its clients. However, the ACLU attorney was not concerned about the safety of his clients.
Ultimately, the ACLU conceded that the protest could not be held on private property. Further, they were unaware that a permit was needed. The attorney for Bird Paradise, not the ACLU, contacted the D.O.T. who is responsible for issuing permits.
Once it was agreed that the protest would not be conducted on private property and once the protesters agreed to obtain the proper permits, Bird Paradise voluntarily dismissed its complaint.
You should also be aware that a grievance is being filed on Monday with the Office of Attorney Ethics against the ACLU attorney who has disseminated false information to the public.
|
_________________________
Yet another threat by Bird Paradise:
From: KATHIE@mybirdstore.com
To: ___
Subject: PROTEST AT BIRD PARADISE
Date: Sat, 24 May 2008 02:49:33 +0000
To <____>,
You may have a right to protest; however, you DO NOT have a right to
maliciously slander our good name, through deceit and misrepresentation,
nor do you have the right to interfere with our business.
You have sent out a very deceiving email, copies of which have been
forwarded to me by many. You are fully aware of the deceitful intent
behind that email by attaching a picture depicting two horrendous
cockatoos.
I strongly suggest that you immediately forward an email to EACH AND EVERY
recipient of your original email, with a copy to me, advising that the
picture attached was not taken at our store and in no way d epicts the
condition of our birds.
You are setting yourself up for a civil suit for which the ACLU will not
provide a defense. Libel, slander, malice, along with interference with
business, misrepresentation and deceit, are not part of freedom of speech.
Furthermore, I suggest that you post on the Manhattan Bird Forum a
statement retracting the said picture immediately and advising.
Kathie Hahn
BIRD PARADISE
