Four Key Questions for Today’s Hearing in the Ridglan Case

Wayne recited this blog to legal support from jail.

Today, I’ll face a court hearing for my part in a mass open rescue at Ridglan Farms. And unlike most defendants, I plan to be fully transparent about everything I did. I was a lead organizer of the rescue. I smashed open a window with a sledgehammer. And I carried one of the first dogs out.

But my guilt or innocence won’t be decided today. This first hearing, to set bail and conditions of potential release, probably won’t dive much into the facts at all. That does not mean it’s unimportant. Indeed, four key questions will be answered today that could shape the direction of the case—and the future for the Ridglan dogs.

Question 1: Will the defendants be freed?

The first hearing after an arrest is focused on whether a defendant is likely to reoffend, flee prosecution, or otherwise pose a danger to the community. If the court determines any of these things is true, it can set exorbitant bail or deny a defendant pre-trial release. The court will likely find that the Ridglan rescuers are not flight risks and that we are not dangers to the community. But there is a risk that the court finds that one or more of us is at risk to reoffend, especially for a defendant with a long rap sheet such as Alexandra or me. This is particularly true where defendants refuse stay away orders that bar them from returning to the site of the “crime.” There will be tension, in other words, between our belief in the right to rescue and our own right to be free.

Question 2: Will the prosecution make any charging decisions?

Our fantastic local attorney, former prosecutor Kristin Schrank, set out the possible charges in an open rescue case on the second day of our recent summit. And those charges range from the serious (conspiracy and burglary) to the hilarious (dognapping). While the prosecution often won’t make a charging decision so quickly, if they do, it will be a sign of their motivation to prosecute. Minor charges like trespass will be a sign that they want the case to go away. But Ridglan, at least, has indicated to the press that they want to pursue the case vigorously. That did not go well for them last time when they charged me for felony burglary and theft. Let’s hope they repeat the mistake. The greater the repression, the more powerfully it will backfire.

Question 3: Will the government make any public statements about the case?

Even if there is no charging decision, the government public statements say a lot about their future intentions. And, so far, it seems they are digging in their heels and refusing to acknowledge past mistakes. A respected Dane County judge already reprimanded the District Attorney for failing to prosecute Ridglan Farms one time. But the government’s sole statement so far suggests they are intent on repeating this dereliction of duty.

The Sheriff not only got the facts wrong by claiming all the rescued dogs had been returned to Ridglan Farms. They also conveniently ignored in their statement the multiple crimes committed by Ridglan, including vehicular assaults, property damage (smashing into a van and slashing car tires), and criminally abusing the dogs. It’s as if the government is trying to paint themselves as villains in a superhero movie.

Question 4: Will the Ridglan dogs seized by the police be returned to a safe place?

This is the most important question—and one that kept me up on my first night in jail. 8 dogs were torn from rescuers and apparently brought back to a Ridglan cage. This is a blatant violation of proper criminal procedure. Property seized in an investigation must be retained by the police for a court to assess its disposition, and for a defendant’s legal team to inspect. The return of the Ridglan dogs is particularly vile given that the government acknowledges that Ridglan is guilty of criminal animal abuse. It’s akin to a woman fleeing with her children to the police after being victimized by domestic violence, only to be sent with her children back to her abuser.

The retrieval of the dogs from Ridglan has huge legal implications. Ridglan’s abuse of the dogs makes suspect any of their claims about the “value” of the “property stolen.” Indeed, so many dogs face psychosis and injury at Ridglan that the company’s sales have slowed to a halt. If Ridglan claims animals have some value, as is required for a prosecution for burglary or theft, the defendants need to be able to inspect the animals and assess that alleged value. This requires that the dogs be delivered to a safe place, for example, the Dane County Humane Society. The judges in Madison are bright and fair, in my experience. I’m hopeful they will make the legally correct—and moral—choice.

—

Perhaps the biggest outstanding question won’t be answered today: what does the rescue and prosecution mean for the thousands of other dogs at Ridglan Farms—or the millions trapped in vivisection cages across the nation?

The answer to that question depends on what you choose today. If there is enough public outcry, we won’t just defend the rescue. We will turn this into an inflection point for animal rights.

Please sign to support Wayne and the other rescuers and consider making a donation.