ILNews

Lawyer helps dogs find homes in New England

Dave Stafford
May 21, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Rescue-1-15col.jpg Hendricks Superior Magistrate Judge Tammy Somers, left, and teacher Stacy Sereyka-Bogart on an animal rescue mission. (Submitted photo)

Hendricks Superior Magistrate Judge Tammy Somers recently took a weekend road trip that saved 60 dogs – animals that otherwise may have been euthanized.

Somers joined CanINE Express, an organization that last month sent a convoy of three vans carrying dogs to New England, where they found new homes.

“When we dropped our puppies off in Vermont, the shelter director said the animals all will be adopted by next week, and it was really emotional,” Somers said. “These are animals that most likely would have been euthanized if they had stayed here in Indianapolis.”

Somers explained that states such as New Hampshire and Vermont have stricter dog and cat sterilization laws, so shelters there are more easily able to find adoptive homes for pets.

In this case, the animals that had been linked to new homes through petfinder.com included a number of beagle puppies. “They talk,” Somers said of her chatty companions during a roughly 18-hour transit.

The animals were taken from the Humane Society of Indianapolis to the New Hampshire Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals in Stratham, N.H., and to North Country Animal League in Morrisville, Vt.

Somers has been involved in animal rescue efforts for years, dating to the 1990s when she worked in the Lake County Prosecutor’s Office.

About every other weekend, Somers volunteers with local groups that transport rescue animals, such as Cruisin’ Critters Transports and Rescue Railroad. Other weekends she volunteers at the Indianapolis Zoo.

She said the fact that volunteers have to save animals by transporting them to states where tighter laws are on the books shows that Indiana could be saving money and animal lives if stricter laws were in place. “It’s a little disappointing,” she said.

Somers’ journey to New England was her first long-distance delivery, but it’s unlikely her last.

“To see people so happy and excited, it’s really rewarding to be involved,” she said.•

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT