Morning Coffee Ponderings.... What scare tactics???

 

So, another day and another post..... I know I said yesterday would be the last one, but there is one last thing to cover......

Multiple people have come to me to say Blaze is going to back off, saying he's done..... His actions do NOT demonstrate that though. 

Like usual he will probably blame the wrong person, like he did on who told me about his threats of trespassing to steal "his" dogs back. Blaze loves to lay blame where it does not belong...... Blaze gets off emotionally harming innocent people. It is what he has done for years and I do not see that changing anytime soon!!!

BTW Blaze you and DL both owe someone an apology over that.... Wrongfully blaming her when she was NOT the one who informed of that...... Several people have warned me of your intentions of trespassing to take dogs that do not lawfully belong to you. The next time you wanna jump the gun and blame someone MAYBE make sure you are accusing the right person, because the one you went off on had nothing to do with it. What you two did to her was disgusting and wrong considering she had nothing to do with informing me of his threat. Why DL is supporting his threat of committing a crime (trespassing and stealing dogs) is beyond me.... She never used to be like that........

Someone mentioned "scare tactics".... Sorry, not using those either. I am laying out truth and law (not my law - state law)..... If that scares someone it should!

Let me begin first with a snippet concerning the misuse of funds by the old board.....

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

Protection Act of 1997

In addition to the above general fiduciary responsibilities, the Board is also subject to special laws that govern their actions. The Volunteer Protection Act of 1997 (VPA) covers all 501(c)(3) organizations and their volunteers (including uncompensated directors) from liability, unless there is willful or criminal misconduct, gross negligence, or reckless conduct. Where reckless conduct has been described as an intentional act done with reckless disregard of the natural and probable consequence of injury to a known person under the circumstances or, alternatively, as an omission or failure to act when the actor has actual knowledge of the natural and probable consequence of injury and his opportunity to avoid the risk. Notably, the “reckless” standard is the same as in most states’ Nonprofit Corporations Acts.

Even though the Act provides some protection for the nonprofit organizations and their volunteers, it does require Directors to make sure their organization stays compliant with IRS guidelines and maintains its tax-exempt status.…one of the most common pitfalls for nonprofits is failure to file a Form 990 in a timely manner.

Easily done, right?  Yet one of the most common pitfalls for nonprofits is failure to file a Form 990 in a timely manner. That misstep, if occurring for three consecutive years, leads to auto-revocation of a nonprofit organization’s tax-exempt status – and potential loss of protection under the Volunteer Protection Act. Any number of other acts or omission can constitute recklessness as well.

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

Let me follow this with California Code concerning ADOPTION DEPOSITS

https://casetext.com/statute/california-codes/california-food-and-agricultural-code/division-14-regulation-and-licensing-of-dogs/chapter-1-general-provisions/section-30503-sale-or-gift-of-dog-that-has-not-been-spayed-or-neutered-prohibited

Section 30503 - Sale or gift of dog that has not been spayed or neutered prohibited

(a)

(1) Except as otherwise provided in subdivision (b), no public animal control agency or shelter, society for the prevention of cruelty to animals shelter, humane society shelter, or rescue group shall sell or give away to a new owner any dog that has not been spayed or neutered.

(2) For the purposes of this section a "rescue group" is a for-profit or not-for-profit entity, or a collaboration of individuals with at least one of its purposes being the sale or placement of dogs that have been removed from a public animal control agency or shelter, society for the prevention of cruelty to animals shelter, or humane shelter or that have been previously owned by any person other than the original breeder of that dog.

(b)

(1) If a veterinarian licensed to practice veterinary medicine in this state certifies that a dog is too sick or injured to be spayed or neutered, or that it would otherwise be detrimental to the health of the dog to be spayed or neutered, the adopter or purchaser shall pay the public animal control agency or shelter, society for the prevention of cruelty to animals shelter, humane society shelter, or rescue group a deposit of not less than forty dollars ($40), and not more than seventy-five dollars ($75).

(2) The entity shall establish the amount of the deposit at the level it determines is necessary to encourage the spaying or neutering of dogs.

(3) The deposit shall be temporary, and shall only be retained until the dog is healthy enough to be spayed or neutered, as certified by a veterinarian licensed to practice veterinary medicine in this state.

(4) The dog shall be spayed or neutered within 14 business days of that certification.

(5) The adopter or purchaser shall obtain written proof of spaying or neutering from the veterinarian performing the operation.

(6) If the adopter or purchaser presents proof of spaying or neutering to the entity from which the dog was obtained within 30 business days of obtaining the proof, the adopter or purchaser shall receive a full refund of the deposit.

(c) Public animal control agencies or shelters, society for the prevention of cruelty to animals shelters, humane society shelters, and rescue groups may enter into cooperative agreements with each other and with veterinarians in lieu of requiring spaying and neutering deposits to carry out this section.

(d) Any funds from unclaimed deposits made pursuant to this section, as it read on January 1, 1999, and any funds from deposits that are unclaimed after January 1, 2000, may be expended only for programs to spay or neuter dogs and cats, including agreements with a society for the prevention of cruelty to animals or a humane society or licensed veterinarian to operate a program to spay or neuter dogs and cats.

(e) This section only applies to a county that has a population exceeding 100,000 persons as of January 1, 2000, and to cities within that county.

Ca. Food and Agric. Code § 30503

Amended by Stats 2004 ch 253 (SB 1301),s 1, eff. 1/1/2005

Repealed by Stats 2004 ch 253 (SB 1301),s 2, eff. 1/1/2005.

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

NOTE THIS SECTION:

(d) Any funds from unclaimed deposits made pursuant to this section, as it read on January 1, 1999, and any funds from deposits that are unclaimed after January 1, 2000, may be expended only for programs to spay or neuter dogs and cats, including agreements with a society for the prevention of cruelty to animals or a humane society or licensed veterinarian to operate a program to spay or neuter dogs and cats.

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

So, Blaze was charging a $350 ADOPTION DEPOSIT not an adoption FEE there is a difference. The contracts he had clearly stated adoption deposit..... Blaze himself claims he created those adoption contracts......... Blaze himself locked that $350 into a program that could ONLY be used for spaying and neutering other animals. ANY OTHER USE OF THOSE FUNDS WAS ILLEGAL. 

Not only that, this code also clearly states exactly how much an ADOPTION DEPOSIT can be. Blaze was also clearly outside of the legal allowed limits on how much those deposits could be.

But Jeff, the tax LAWYER, was the asshole who didn't know shit right? Blaze knew everything right?

Obviously, Blaze doesn't know shit about California Code on how rescue's must operate, otherwise he would NEVER put the board in a position where every board member could face criminal charges of fraud and embezzlement!!!

** Something just hit me..... Blaze began turning on me when he put me on the board and he thought I would take his word as gospel, but I refused. I began ordering books and doing research.... Blaze did NOT want me to do those things..... WHY NOT? Look what I have learned so far...... Why did he NOT want me sharing the books or research with the board????? Because he KNEW he was doing wrong and the only way he could keep doing it was to keep the board members in the dark about it!

So, Blaze can claim the funds were used for rescue business..... not by law they weren't! As stated above an adoption deposit can ONLY be used to spay and neuter other animals.....

Since Blaze took in thousands of dollars in adoption deposits - where is that money??? 

Spending it on anything else IS embezzlement and fraud......

So, sorry to those who called what I am exposing a scare tactic..... As you can see it is NOT simply a scare tactic. The old board broke the law and did so because Blaze has them all convinced it was ok to do so!!!

This is why I asked if everyone on the old board is ready to go to jail with him and for him. Blaze cries no one will fight for him. blaze did NOT task me to fight for HIM he tasked me with saving the rescue!!!!!

Blaze thought saving the rescue meant it could be business as usual. But it can't!!!!

Is Jennifer, Nancy, Paula, Mike and others who served on the old board ready to do time for Blaze?

The only way they can save themselves now is to testify against him. That ball is already rolling.... Criminal complain for embezzlement is already filed....... It is for the old board to choose now how they stand. 

Ignorance of the law is no excuse..... Ask any cop that question!

So, if some think it is a scare tactic - maybe those who do have something to hide......

As for him saying he is done and will back off, I have yet to see ANY steps in that direction.

If he was going to back off then he would comply with BOTH Cease and Desist letters sent by BOTH board of director's. When I say comply I mean with every line item. 

This means archiving the old HHBR Facebook page - people can still see it, all archiving does is close ability to post or comment etc. Many good things are on that page and should stay visible to the public. Blaze did found the rescue, but his term is over and that page needs to be PERMANENTLY archived.

His using rescue related gmail accounts, Paypal etc need to end. All usage of those things must cease and he should provide proof those accounts are closed / cancelled. 

A public post would be nice, but Blaze will not do it. I think he should post PUBLICALLY an apology to the new board and the public which also states he is backing off the new boards daily operations. 

If he does those 3 things, work on the rest of the cease and desist letters, then and only then can I believe he is sincere about backing down. He must also know that public post must be 100% truthful. He is to blame for this entire fucked up mess and he needs to own that.

So, if that post tries to lay blame off on anyone else it is not acceptable to prove he is backing off or that he has owned his part in everything.

I also want a public statement concerning Salvatore..... Blaze threatened to trespass on my property mainly to steal Salvatore, he doesn't give a rats ass about Issa he never did, not even when he lived on my property, so his public statement should be addressing the dog he is really after.

Blaze abandoned Salvatore TWICE in less than 4 months! First in October 2023 at Joshua Tree when he refused to go and handle that situation, then when he left my property and shoved Salvatore and Issa into a kennel that had zero shelter and could not be properly secured. 

Why does Blaze want him so badly? Salvatore is an AMAZING dog and he knows this. Salvatore is out on foster and still waiting for his forever home, but he is by far one of the most well behaved dogs I have ever worked with! So, Blaze knows this and this makes Salvatore desirable to him because he can flip Salvatore for a few hundreds bucks.

Also, a step in the right direction would be for Blaze to cough up the $350 adoption deposit he took on Issa so it can be refunded to the lady who returned Issa. Blaze wrongfully spent those funds on things NOT approved by California Code, which is why the new board was instructed by the nonprofit attorney to file a criminal embezzlement charge on Blaze. A step in proving he is backing off would be to reimburse the rescue for that adoption deposit so it can be refunded to her. It is NOT to be turned over to the lady awaiting the refund directly, no. By law it must be reimbursed to the rescue and the rescue must issue that refund. Since there IS a criminal investigation filed on this particular adoption deposit certain legal steps must be followed. The refund is not considered valid or legal if Blaze sends it to her because the rescue has no way to document that, nor would the sheriff and DA.

I will consider baby steps, but those steps must be as stated above. A public post is non-negotiable. it must happen and must be truthful. 

Now I have to go and enjoy the rest of my day and hopefully see some compliance on these matters. 

Have a blessed day folks!