Day the Bear Got Out
Alternative Medicine
Court Documents
Dog Food Recall
Big Cats - Good Pets
Story of the Lion King
Barbary Lions
Other Projects of The American Trail
Animal Philosophy
Prairie Dogs

What The Future May Hold For Exotics


Audio file

Cougars: Justice vs Just-Us

Jonathan, a Sicilian ski buddy, loves large cats. When I first met Jonathan, he took me to the back of his SUV, opened the door, and there stood a large black leopard. "This is the last of my many cats," he stated.

"There has become, in the last three years, so much discrimination by government officials against exotic animals, that I have gotten rid of all my cats except this one. I love this cat so much and I don’t want to give her up. I just keep her hidden. You’re one of the few persons that I have let see her." I then surprised him by showing him my lions, tigers and six cougars, which were just a block from where we were standing.

At this time my blood went cold as dejavu set in. What I was hearing was that the state and federal agencies indiscriminately rode roughshod over non-commercial exotic animal owners to the point where they threw up their hands and closed their doors!

In my dealings with the two local game wardens, Benny and Mike, experience has taught me that justice is really "just-us." Recently we had a sick cougar, only two days old. Fifty miles away from the refuge, in
Goodland, KS, was a good vet. The cougar got arrested by Mike, in Goodland, while in the process of being taken into the vet. The County Attorney, Ms. Selby would not return the baby cougar and Sherman County ran up a two-thousand dollar vet bill! The vet saved the cub and it was sent to the Garden City Zoo. The county sued me for the $2000.00, plus all their fines and court costs. We went to court and I still cannot forget my emotion as the game warden looked me in the eye, and then turned and told the judge one lie after another, under oath. I guess, lying does not mean anything if you want a conviction at any cost.
After that case the game wardens gave me, in the next two years, eight more citations, which means a not guilty plea, which means law suits. Then another suit was filed by the Secretary of Transportation, who was trying to close the refuge, using the excuse that adjoining lots had more than nine non-running cars parked on the land. The state is suing to bring in a crusher to clean the property of all metal objects. Now this is Kansas farm land, with farms with old cars and equipment. We are also within a quarter of a mile of two repair shops with lots of cars. The animal refuge has two choices. Close the refuge and sell the animals at auction to the Shooting Farms or go to court. But this takes money. Lots of money. How much money does the animal refuge have? Just enough to feed the animals, and pay utilities. Either I will have to handle the lawsuits myself , pro se, or some one will pay the Shooting Farm to tie these lovable cats to a tree so the "bid game hunter " can shoot them.

Let’s use for example the suit with the Secretary of Transportation. They are the State of
Kansas and so they must be right. If the Judge and Jury watch the TV series Law and Order, the state is always right. Secondly, if the State says: "You have junk. You need to clean it up. It’s an eye sore." they are automatically right. Thirdly, the state knows the laws and knows how to enforce them. This is the mind set that will grind the animal refuge into obscurity before the case will have been tried.

What would have been on the side of the animal refuge in Court? The State knows, according to the
Kansas bill of rights, 10th amendment, that they are prohibited from destroying or taking property, without due process. So the refuge will get its day in court. The state constitution gives us our rights as free people. The federal constitution tells the federal and state governments what they cannot do to the citizens. So, if I am to claim a right, I would use the state constitution. If I am to tell the government to back off, I use the federal constitution.
There are two types of law in the Courts: case law/statutory law and constitutional law, which needs to be invoked. Case law/statutory law is the one used almost always. Each state and federal agency builds and continues to build its bureaucracy and so demands more tax dollars to fund itself. In order to have power and control over the citizens they will also take statutes out of context, or avoid statutes which limit or more closely define their powers and control. For example, the Secretary of State’s attorney, in court, used only the Statutes which found the cars as breaking the Law. But other statutes exempted antique cars, yet the Judge refused to let the court accept them as valid. The State uses the KSA statutes which state that if citizens have over nine non-running cars within one-thousand feet of a highway, they need their permit every year. It isn’t free. Additionally, they must have an eight-foot privacy fence around the property. The list just goes on and on. A license, a permit agreement, is a quasi-contract to do and obey anything that the State may require. This gives the agency power. Now I have lost my rights by contracting them away and the State can beat me to death with red tape, forms, and paperwork to feed their bureaucracy. Their inspectors now hold capricious and dictatorial power over me.

I told the Secretary of State attorneys, "No, I will not give you that power over me and my refuge." Now they are going to drag me into court and probably find me guilty under case law. They call themselves the people verses Jeffrey Harsh. That sounds as if I am guilty already. This agency has had hundreds of these types of cases in Kansas courts. Their attorneys present favorable Kansas statutes and object to any statute which holds them more accountable or gives a better definition as to relevancy or jurisdiction. The judge or jury will buy into the presumption of guilt as programmed and find the individual guilty.

Here is a fundamental strategy enhancing one’s odds against the soulless and unrepentant juggernaut that assumes guilt if the state has come down upon one. Claiming my rights under the Constitution, here is how I invoke the Court to use constitutional law and not case law. Every judge, by state and federal law, has to take an oath, both verbal and in writing, to uphold the state and federal constitutions. But, one cannot just tell a judge: "You have taken this oath. You should obey this oath. You should dismiss this action because it is in violation of the constitution that you have sworn to uphold."

In court one has to have affidavits or sworn testimony for the court to rule on it. So a citizen contacts the Secretary of State’s office, or where the judge’s record of oath of office is held, and asks for a certified copy of it. It has to be certified or it is void. Once, they sent me a non-certified copy, thinking that I would not know the difference.

The citizen tells the court, in written notice or oral argument, to rule by constitutional law and then he presents the judge’s certified oath of office. When dealing with the Court cases concerning the animal refuge, I declared the Secretary of State had violated said constitutional right by using statutory law out of context. There was no corpus-delita, injured party. Therefor the Court had no Subject matter Jurisdiction, so I requested the Court to have this case dismissed on the grounds that the Judge took an oath to obey the constitution. Most judges are arrogant, or set in their ways of case/statutory law, and will not rule by constitutional law. However, one can win it in appeal and get the judge called on the carpet for violating his oath of office. A judge has no judicial immunity when he/she has been found to have violated his/her oath of office or to operate outside of his/her judicial capacity. The Judge can be sued in open court.

When the game wardens, Benny and Mike, realized that the District attorneys wanted nothing to do with a non attorney messing with their secured cows, and tearing down their golden calfs (the legal system), they quit being tough guys with an S on their t-shirt. The Trojan Horse approach was their next move.

They approached me with all the charm, as a Vacuum cleaner salesman, book salesman, and a tin man, siding salesmen-personality all put together - charm oosing from every cell of their body. Were these the same guys who tried to impale me? Frankly, I was taken in by them because it restored my faith in people. I wanted to believe the game wardens were really good guys with white hats, and not A holes.

"Jeffrey," they said "your cougar cages are getting old. They are all living together and it's hard for you to clean their fecility. Now I know you love these animals and rescued them from the sportsman shooting farms, so what do you say we give them a good home. I resounded by saying "A so called refuge where they hide them out".. (That means sell their skin to a taxidermist.) "No, this is a new place, with new cages, and plenty of money, with vet service on the premises, in

Besides if you get rid of your cougars, we have no jurisdiction over lions and tigers. Only cougars do you need a state permit. You won’t hear from us again." This agreement after years of war sounded great. A date for the cougars to be picked up was set up and I agreed to help load them. The time arrived and I was eating my breakfast at the Colonial Steak House on I 70 exit 70. One of the witnesses said, "what's the big ruccus in the parking lot? Why their must be ten cars and trucks, plus two TV crews. "Jeffrey is that about your refuge?" All this action was overkill. . Reluctantly I went over to the refuge with them as we had planned. Keith from Mountain Vista wildlife park met me. He seemed like an up person full of new ideas. Keith said "The Cougars are all living in one large, many chambered pen. They all seem to get along so well, which is impossible and out of nature of Cougars."

Keith did not know that five of the cougars came from Cougar baby farms. When the Cougars had babies- after two weeks, were taken from their mothers, bottle fed, and sold on the open marker. When they came to my refuge, they were depressed and angry. The Cougars looked at humans as some one who would steal their babies, leaving them helpless. One day a baby was born at the refuge. I just left the baby boy there. After a month, all the cougars' moral totally changed. They were very happy, started putting on weight. All the mothers treated this one cougar as if it was their own. The baby was so clean, because everyone was licking it. The adults became very warm and open to me as if they knew I respected them and their life style. They could hardly believe they could keep their baby boy. They grew to loved me and revealed it by coming up to the fence where I was and rubbing against the fence. They purred like a house cat for letting them keep their new born baby boy. Later I could go in and set down on the ground and the mother Cougars and babies would climb on me, purring and licking my face., The south American cougar would put her legs around mine and then put her mouth over my leg... she did not bite down. But it still gave me the creeps.

No one seems to have much teaching on animal philosophy. When I finally got the nerve to go in and set in the middle of the cougars fearing the mothers, respect was dominate and they crawled all over me and licked me as I put the babies on my head and shoulders.

When the convoy pulled into the refuge, the tigers ran and hid, but the cougars seemed to sense they were threatened also and ran and hid in several places in their many chambered living quarters. There was a sense of stillness as if the air was charged with anticipation, fear, and reluctance.

With their arms crossed, the three game wardens wanted nothing to do with moving the cougars as they stepped back. They loaned us a pole with a loop to put around the cougar's neck. Like a leech on a pole, the half grown cripple male stuck his head out first and got snagged. The dust began to fly and the cougar fought like a two hundred pound fish. We finely got him outside, then into their plastic dog kennel. This experience increased with the size of each cougar. It seemed that time stood still, but it went on for over a hour as each cougar fought to keep its secure living quarters and not be loaded into Walmart plastic kennels. My adrenal was so high and the challenge so great, that I failed to realize that out of all that für flying, and cats crying, one very important event had not taken place. The Cougars were going out of their way consciously not to hurt me. When it finally became obvious, I was very humbled by the realization of love.

But the cats were loaded and gone and my adrenals and the rest of my body return to moral. Cougars are stronger pound per pound then any other big cat. The Male was over two hundred pounds and had all its claws. This was the first baby born and I still shutter when I realize what he could have done to me if he choose to. The Bible does not talk much about animals in heaven, but I cannot help but believe that God has some sort of redemptive plan for animals. Knowing that God is not a spiritual rapist, God also must give these animals the power of choice, ethics, and self respect. They don’t like us to deem them as doum animal unless the animals attitude is- consider the source.They get that way when their babies are taken. Cougars and humans have similar cages and "just blow it off attitudes". Our bosses, wives, husbands, what the neighbors think, credit bureaus, and other mental cages. We need to take a lesson from the big cats.

"To thine own self be true ."(Shakespeare)

The next day while feeding the lions and tigers, I went by the cougars houses. It was heart breaking. No more happy faces filled with anticipation on what new morsel of food they were going to receive. No more purring, and rubbing on the cage as a form of saying 'hello, where have you been'. A vacuum of emptiness as the space around felt lifeless. Like a science fiction movie, standing on a planet with no life forms. I had to brush all these emotions aside and walk on by. After I could no longer justify the saying "they're better off now than they were with their new facility," I decided to take a trip to
Colorado and not deal with denial any longer. Within four hours of driving, we arrived at Mountain Vista where Keith and his wife were very hospitable to us. Each Cougar had their own cage of about 150 sq. feet. The cages were new and no chaos anywhere on the ground.

Not even a speck of uneaten food could be found. Each cat was in their own plastic Walmart dog house to stay out of the 95 degree hot sun. I tried to get the Cougars to come to me but they just glared at me out of their Wal mart dog houses. Were they just hot and did not want to come out and see me?

Do they believe I betrayed them? Looking around, their was only four cages and four Cougars. What happened to the fifth baby cougar? The lovely little boy who jumped around with a gimpy lag? The vet had killed him because he did not fit in the flow. Maybe its harder to raise money when you have a sick looking cougar. The game warden called it "euthanasia" which is a fancy word now to get rid of Gramoua as a useless eater. The old cages at our refuge were as simple of safety, security, and home. It appeared from the Cougar,s reaction, their new cages was a symbol of isolation and loneliness. The
Kansas game wardens were happy, for they had won the long standing battle.

When you tie life all together as a multi dimensional matrices, its hard to feel sorry for just the cougars alone. The future will be filled with the choices (new cages and plastic dog houses) for us to allow ourselves to live. We can be children of the resurrection. Throw out the plastic Wal mart dog houses, where the blind leading the blind convincing us to believing their Samual Adams situation ethics- doing away with our God given convictions- under the disguise of separation of church and state. Telling us that big cats don't make good pets and are dangers to have in society is the final insult.

Just look at one of these big cats in the eyes and ask, "How could we believe this amassing beautiful creature, filled with life and spontaneity, could he created by accident?" Throw away the big bang evolutionary theory! Should we also believe cats win the lottery, with every ticket we purchase for them. Only God and his angels could possibly create this Michaelangelo of creation called a Cougar, Lion Tiger, your child. Its a spiritual rush... better than 10 cups of coffee; like riding the rapids or bunge jumping over the
Grand Canyon, for I speak from experience. Don't make the same mistake I did,with thc cougars in letting someone talk you into giving up your dog or cat. They are family, and to make your children feel secure, you must show them the family pet is secure.

Remember that love and respect are the synonymous. When we learn to have love and respect for ourselves, then we can give the same to our family and furry friends. The Bible states, "Love thy neighbor as thy self." We must learn to love ourselves and that means to also have the other half of love, respect. We cannot lie and mulpulate if we are to have self-respect. As an animal philosopher, for me its learning from the big cats. It makes things not just two dimensional, black and white, but gives another dimension; if we are willing to take time to see, sense, and feel. To do that, we must live in the now, present tense, not in tomorrow, which never comes.

Jeffrey Harsh
Sunflower Prairie Cat Animal Refuge

There has become such a misuse of the court’s justice. The attorneys cannot do much about it because they will get disbarred, or never win another case in front of that particular judge again. Many of the cases are tried on the golf course before they ever get to court. The justice system of today is "just us." There are still enough laws on the books and there are still enough good men in higher places, that we lay people can sometimes change it. My lawsuit with the Secretary of Transportation is on appeal. My battles with the game wardens are over. The county attorney told the game wardens: "Leave Harsh alone. You are causing too much trouble and time and it is not worth it." Disclaimer

Governor Bill Graves
Capital, 2nd. Floor
Topeka Kansas 66612

Dear Bill Graves

I have a animal refuge in western Kansas. We keep a very low profile because there are several militant groups that believe large cats should not be kept in captivity, so they will cut our locks or put antifreeze in their water.

However our biggest problem has been for the last several years, the two local state game wardens. The harassment has crescendo to a point now that they are blatantly twisting or breaking the law to destroy our refuge.

The name of our refuge is Prairie Cat Animal Refuge. The pet tiger got too big. A bachelor got a job in the city so he had to get rid of his pet cougar of five years. Reasons like this bring these large animals to the auctions. The problem is the only people who bid on them are the shooting farms. After they buy them, they tie them to a tree and let some so called sportsman shoot them.

The teddy bear was named after Teddy Roosevelt because he refused to shoot a bear tied to a tree. "That’s not sportsmanship" he replied. So we created a refuge to allow these majestic animals to live out their lives. We have two six hundred pound tigers. They were born in captivity and bottle fed so they think they are human also. They are as gentle and as sweet as a house cat. Contrary to Tiptoe Herded, they do make good pets.

We knew that our original male lion was the one that Disney turned his artist loose on to animate Simba in the Lion King. What we did not know is that he was one of fifty left from extinction. He is a lion, otherwise known as gladiator lion. The last one was killed in Morocco in 1921. They were from north Africa. Very intuitive and grow up to 17 feet long. The Egyptian used them to pull chariots. The Romans used them as pets in the +93 court yard. The Bible used them as a symbol of Christ. Many countries used them as a national symbol. We have four of them in our refuge, and Robert Smith north of Saline has several. Kansas may be 38 in tourism but we have more lions than any other state. In the last five years the Europeans, through Oxford University, have contacted the Americans to do RNA D.N.A. tests in hopes to start a breeding.



Prairie Cat Animal Refuge
US 83
Oakley, Kansas 67748
Ph: 785 672-3117, ex. 27

Sept. 26, 2002

Mr. Bill Graves
State Capital 2nd Floor
Topeka, Kansas 66612

Dear Governor Graves,

Thank you for your response to our SOS letter on July 30, 2002, of our harassment by two western Kansas Game wardens.

According to your suggestion in letter attached, and diversity of
Kansas’ interests and concerns, you recommended to contact Mike Hayden office to resolve our problem.

After talking with one of his associates I was led to believe that Mike Hayden’s office would get back with me the next day. However I received no phone call. But rather a surprise visit from Benny Young, Mike Hopper and their game warden supervisor.

I was issued six more citations for a total of eight citations. I am also told that if I will close the animal refuge they will dismiss the cases. The reason for the six new citations is the claim of not having proof of where six animals came from, even dating back eight years ago. Not even the IRS goes back that far.

The other two citations were for not having a renewed license. However officer Benny Young, who holds my application, refused to renew the license because he did not like my paper work on the six animals. This circle reasoning is "damned if you do and damned if you don’t."

Recently I went to court and presented Benny Young with updated paper work on the proof of where the animals came from. These two game wardens don’t know what their own KSA regulations are. When I inquired what book of rules we were using, Mike hopper said, "Oh the legislation gives us permission to draft our own rules".

Is this Jack Boot Mentality truly coming from our legislators? I think not. I would like to make a trip to
Topeka. Could your office get us together with the Attorney General’s office to get this legality straightened out? With Eight law suits going with the game wardens I have no time or money to upgrade our facility to our new location. We would like to get out of our temporary facilities which are not adequate for our needs.

Thank you for your consideration.


The Animal Philosopher


Letter from Kansas State University Veterinary Medical Teaching Hospital

The following is a letter from K-State stating they will not treat the Lion King unless they have their money. They also state on the phone with me that whatever the bill was, if it was not paid in time of work, that the owner could legally be put in jail.

Since we could not raise the money demanded by K-State and the local vets will not help, I then had to treat the Lion King.  The medical expenses for these animals has become so in excess of budget that we have had to train ourselves in our own treatment.




Legal Protection

The Sunflower Prairie Cat Refuge has experienced many legal problems since its origination. Below are some documents dealing with everyone from local game wardens to the Governor of Kansas.


July 25, 2001

Prairie Cat Zoological Park
Attn: Jeffrey Harsh
US 83
Oakley, Ks 67748

Benny Young,

Here is most the information you requested. When I receive the receipt from Jon Johnson, I will forward it to you.

I also compiled the medical records from the previous year, which will give you the medical condition and care of said animals. As you can see, we have spent a lot of money on the care of these animals.

Also, find enclosed an application for the Refuge, in my name.

Thank you for you patience and understanding.


Jeffrey Harsh


Prairie Cat Refuge
US 83
Oakley, Ks 67748

Benny Young
190 N. Franklin
Colby Ks. 67748

You have ask me for decimation on three different times that the Lions and Tigers are not stolen.

At all three times I have given you documents for years back. You have ask me questions upon questions with your tape recorder going of which I have no memory. You then twist the question and ask it again. You seem to know when I am taking a nap when you come by. At that point I have a low blood sugar and don’t know what ends up. There has been Cougars which have been born here and Cougars which have died here.

I have always notified Kansas Wildlife by letter. I did not keep copies of these letters. Now you are denying we even sent a letter. This is over a period of eight years. You together with officer Michael Hopper have come and taken piles of decimation three different times. I ask you to return them and you send back two documents. Most all of them I have delicate copes. But the two Tigers I received from Johnny Johnson who closed his zoo in Munjer, Kansas, and now resides in Durrance, Kansas. Would you return those documents. You have or had them or Michael Hopper has them.

I want to say something for the record. I do not sell large cats. They are personal pets which are very loving and are well cared for. I am not open to the public and am not Disney Land. I cannot change the gossip you have been listening to. The gossip about you and Hopper is you set in the coffee shop all day and take bribes from poachers. Is that true?


Jeffrey Harsh

Game wardens, circular reasoning

Article in local newspaper rewritten.

Recently, State game wardens Michael Hopper and Benny Young issued six more citations or tickets to Jeffrey Harsh of Prairie Cat Animal Refuge for six violations of not proving from where said animals came. Harsh said to the State Game wardens: "Some of the Cougars were born here. The problem is your rules have changed a dozen times in the last ten years, and not even the IRS expects paper work for more then seven years," Harsh said. "Now you are refusing to renew my state permit for Cougars because of the lack of paper work." Jeffrey Harsh has appealed to the Kansas Supreme Court on situations of tickets from Game Wardens Michael Hopper and Benny Young for not having a renewed permit.

When Harsh took a two day old sick cougar to an exotic veterinarian in Goodland, Kansas, Michael Hopper confiscated the cougar because of not having a permit. Jeffrey Harsh went to court and was fined $1900.00 for no permit and having a dangerous animal within the city limits. Said Cougar was never returned back to the Animal Refuge.

The Animal Refuge was founded in 1992. The purpose was to give a home to Cats, Lions, Tigers, Cougars and other endangered felines. Several Kansans were concerned of seeing many of the exotic animals being destroyed by poachers in the wild, and for fear of extinction would take a baby feline into their home. Even though there is no Kansas law against this, from pressure of city, county, and game wardens, these animals have been forced into auctions. The problem is about the only buyers for a six hundred pound cat is the many shooting farms. These farms charge as much as $10,000.00 to tie a tiger to a tree and let some trophy hunter shoot it. The teddy bear was named after Teddy Roosevelt, because he refused to shoot a bear tied to a tree. He said, "That’s not sportsmanship."

The game wardens have agreed not to prosecute the Animal Refuge if Harsh agrees to close the Refuge. Recently in front of three game wardens, Jeffrey Harsh,(director and founder) went in the cage of two large mother cougars who were both breast feeding their babies. He sat down on the ground in the midst of the mothers and babies, picked up one of the babies as the mother licked him on the cheek and said, "Do you think this mother, whose instinct is to take my head off, would instead show this much love and trust, if they were not getting properly cared for?"

Along with lovable tigers, the nonprofit refuge has lions, which are Barbary Lions. According to Susan Aronoff, the last Barbary was shot in the wild in 1921. A few of them were in captivity and made it to the US. Barbarys got up to 17 ft long in the last century, and said to be telepathic with humans.


Prairie Cat Animal Refugee
US 83
Oakley, Kansas 67748
785-672-3117, ex. 27

Dear Benny Young, State of Kansas Wild Life Officer:

Thank you for your information concerning the Rocky Mountain Wildlife. I have talked to the director and plan to take a trip to visit their refuge. From the video you gave me, their cages are not as heavily built as ours.

I need to say that I am very fond of my lions and tigers. They have been my pets for several years. They have cost me my marriage, Motel, and some very good job offers which would have taken me out of Kansas. However I love these animals and they love me. We have a real bond and I am having a hard time giving them up. The Cougars, however, I plan to place all or part of them, especially the four babies and the only male.

I do not sell animals however. For the record I would place them in Rocky Mountain Wildlife.

Now, Benny, let’s look at some facts concerning this matter which has evolved into eight law suits involving the last eight years of having animals.
1. Your concern is that the cages are not safe and the animals can get out. If you remember the USDA back in 1994 not only approved the facility for a refuge but for a zoo also. If you need the paper work ask me for it. The time the Cougars did get out was from a tornado-like wind which carried the building and roof of the attached clinic and dropped it 200 feet away.
2. You stop my license renewal with the State of Kansas because you did not believe my paper trail for the last eight years and felt I had stolen the lions and tigers as you have said several times in our conversations. a. I have taken a several hundred mile trip to gather up affidavits and USDA paper work to prove to you that no lions and tigers have been stolen from the Russians, and smuggled into the country. I resented this evidence to you in court and you said you would consider having six of the law suits dismissed at a later date. b. The verification of animals being donated to the refuge was from a Zoo closing in
Kansas, from an animal Breeder in Kansas, and one in Minnesota.
3. You need to dismiss these cases and reinstate our License for the following reasons.
a. It is costing myself and the animal refuge a great deal of our operating finance to be fighting your eight law suits. For instance, the Supreme Court of Kansas has given me 15 days to pay for the transcripts, of nearly $500.00, or they will dismiss my appeal to the appellate court.
b. It has taken a great deal of time to study law to defend myself from your lawsuits. You have tax payer paid attorneys to do your bidding and no expense to you of time or money.
c. By refusing to reinstate our license you have give up our quasi contract to the State of
Kansas and now have no jurisdiction over the animal refuge. The only Jurisdiction is through due process, since you have given up your Jurisdiction, through denying licensing.

If you try to move on the animal refuge through any other means than due process, you will be in violation your oath of affirmation to the State and Federal constitution. This is required by all Kansas public servants. Without your judicial immunity, you can be sued as a individual, for the user patent of power .


1. Article 6 section 3 of the united states Constitution.
2. Article 15 Section 14 of the State of
Constitution. 3. 5 USC Sec. 3331
4. Common Law Andrade V. Lauer 729 Federal 2. 1474 (1984)
5. KSA 75-4308
6. KSA 54- 106

This is not a threat but only some reasons to resolve this issue between the two of us. This feud we have had going between the two of us for the last eight years needs to stop. I also believe you are basically a good Person, and I could work with you in the future. However your fellow wild life officer Michael Hopper, I don’t trust further than I can throw him. He has lied in court more then once and I would prefer not to have anything to do with him.

Thank you again for the information on the Animal Refuge in Colorado.



Jeffrey Harsh Oct. 4, 2002

cc/ Mike Hayden

cc/ Bill Graves


The Animal Philosopher on Terrorism





Situation Ethics and Laissez-faire doctrine of wealth of nation has been the major Philosophy to cause Terrorism and civil unrest.

Situation Ethics has brought death and destruction to the twenty-first century youth and to society for the past one-hundred fifty years. It as brought a fork in the road which is diametrically opposed to foundation moral codes established by Socrates and biblical Old Testament historians.




Dietrich Von Hildebrand so defines Situation Ethics. "The individual conscience has to judge and choose. This state of things is unique and valid but once for each human action." Josh McDowell describes it in other words: "All truth is relative to the individual, his/her circumstance, because nothing is objectively true, universally genuine, or actually real in an absolute sense." Joseph Margolis states, "There are no moral principles ... just as there are no laws of nature or rules of thought."




Situation Ethics can be traced back to the beginning of man in the Garden of Eden when Adam and Eve chose what seemed right and ate of the forbidden fruit, rather than obey the moral laws of God. In the nineteenth and twentieth centuries it was reintroduced to spur the economy and that is where it is today.

It was packaged as freedom, education with no intellectual blinders, but its results boomeranged and stripped away freedom from one-third of the world for seventy years. In reaction to the problems it created it did just the opposite of freedom, education. Why? According to Robert Wolff, in 1876 Adam Smith published his Laissez-faire doctrine of Wealth of Nations. This is why it is the situation ethics of today. Here is Wolff’s definition: "Since happiness is pleasure and pleasure results from the satisfaction of desire, consumers buy goods to satisfy desires." This definition of economics which dominated the nineteenth century of "I," was incomplete and left holes in society for attack. The suffering poor were the hole for attack.

Karl Marx Philosophy took advantage of this. Karl Marx birthed the religion of no religion. He created Pantheism by changing the "I" of religious Capitalism to the "We," the state. This exploded into the Communist Bolsheviks’ reign of terror which took over one-third of the world for over seventy years, causing more murder and enslavement than in all previous historical religious wars.

I am convinced that Situation Ethics is an intellectual movement rather than a Philosophy based on reason. History and reason has shown us it does not work.

Just as the top Scientists of the world no longer believe evolution by itself was possible. Still, it’s being taught as fact in some schools. So is Laissez-faire Situation Ethics being constantly spotlighted into our subconscious. For economics! Even though it is imprisoning our children and wrecking our romantic lifestyle. Here’s how.

Thomas Sowell states, in an article of The Conservative Chronicle, August 26th, 2003, page21, entitled "Fairness in Sentencing," "For more than two centuries, the political left has crusaded against the punishment of criminals." Sowell terms it a political left issue; the ACLU and liberal politicians agree, "How terrible to lock people up."

Sowell, on the other hand, proposes "... life is unfair. Then we can move on to a serious, adult discussion of what alternatives are available, at what price, and who is to pay those prices." He asserts: "The purpose of a criminal justice system is not to be fair”. Its purpose is to protect law-abiding people from criminals."

Sowell suggests that crime rates have fallen, because of locking up people for longer periods of time. "Liberals have certainly never asked how many crime victims could have been spared violence and murder if their ideas had never been listened to in the first place.... The anti-imprisonment crusade is moral exhibitionism to score points against ‘society,’ not compassion for fellow human beings – in or out of prison," proclaims Sowell.

Sowell defends the cost of prisons by asking, "What about the cost of leaving career criminals out on the streets? Estimates of that are pretty high too, just in economic terms, not counting such incidental considerations as living in fear or dying in pain." Sowell belittles the idea of cheaper alternative programs than walls and bars, by alleging, "The evidence on this is seldom asked or given. Supposedly those who are against long prison sentences are more compassionate, though there seems to be little of that compassion showered on victims of crime."

In giving the example of a man given life imprisonment for stealing a sixteen dollar bicycle, but also his admission of a five-year history of burglaries, Sowell proposes: "So we are not really talking about stealing a bicycle, after all. We are talking about a career criminal being taken off the streets?" What is the philosophy behind his logic? Is it his sincere conviction or is it a sales job for the prison industry? It has been stated many ways that history is doomed to repeat itself, if we do not learn from it. To really understand the foundation of prison economics, let’s go back to the 16th century and the doctrine of the globalists: Laissez-faire capitalism, the bedrock foundation of what we now term Situation Ethics.

I prefer to give Laissez-faire a more modern name: Situation Ethics Capitalism. It was the bedrock foundation of what we now call Situation Ethics, established by Adam Smith, David Ricardo and James Mill. Robert Paul Wolff clarifies: "Happiness is pleasure and pleasure results from the satisfaction of desire and consumers buy goods to satisfy desires.... The capitalists, like all men and women are rationally self-interested maximizers. But the genius of the new capitalist free market system was precisely that each person seeking only his or her own good, automatically advanced the good of others. Thus selfishness could be counted on to do rationally and efficiently what altruism never quite managed – namely, to produce the greatest happiness possible for the greatest number of people."

For the following reasons, I believe, like Dr. Gatteling, that the Thomas Sowell article is a doctrine: Situation Ethics Capitalism. Dr. Gatteling invented the machine gun, then manufactured and sold it as a gun that was so terrible, that it would end all wars. Before 1991 the economy was based on the Cold War of missiles, tanks, nuclear subs and star wars technology: the US against the Russians. The Russians got smart and proclaimed: "We quit! We can’t afford it, we’re broke; eighty percent of our people don’t even have running water."

Suddenly, the US is stuck with no more Cold Wars to jack up its economy. The Laissez-faire experts decided to use prisons to jack up the economy. I have observed prisons constantly being built, even though the crime rate is going down. Why? Why has the legislature created victimless crimes, created crimes that were not crimes? To put the have-nots behind bars. Women prisoners have tripled. Children are being tried as adults. Without a victim, the Courts have no Subject Matter Jurisdiction, which means that the District Courts have no jurisdiction. But, like the Supreme Court whose ethics steal jurisdiction away from the legislature, so do the local District Courts steal jurisdiction to create members of the "Behind The Bars Club."

What does Laissez-faire economics have to do with Thomas Sowell’s article? I believe it persuades sublimely with fear and pain, promising safety and prosperity by jailing the bad guys. "It doesn’t matter what President Clinton is doing; he is helping the economy." proclaimed Monica Lewisky. "Thank God, I am not like the publican," stated the biblical religious leaders. Big me and little them.

Thomas Sowell’s teaching is snobbish and self-righteous, with the bad criminals against us honest folk. There is only the "I" of reason, based on the principles of Laissez-faire, a self-seeking, self-protecting doctrine. Do I want "living in fear and dying in pain?" Do I look bad not showing "compassion on victims of crime?" Sowell’s teaching glorifies sending a man to prison for life for stealing a sixteen dollar bicycle! It protects us from pain and fear of criminals. It helps the economy, provides more jobs, and puts cash in the hands of the honest people in the small towns that have built prisons, and takes the criminals off the streets, to protect and provide for the personal "I." Situation Ethics Economy gives a good reason to override the US Consti- tution, the Fifth Amendment which states: "no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." Black’s Law Dictionary, fourth edition, states that due process is "under such safeguards for the protection of individual rights as those Maxims prescribe for." Sowell sells his benefits by stating: "The purpose of a criminal justice system is not to be fair. its purpose is to protect law-abiding people from criminals." Policemen and Judges have bought in on this Situation Ethics Philosophy, regardless that they have taken an oral and written oath, as public officials required by law, to uphold and enforce the Constitution. Laissez-faire justice offers, instead of Justice, the "just-us" for the good old boy lodge members!

Sowell appeals to the "I" ego by calling the reader a law-abiding people, but condemns critics as left-wing liberals or ACLU members. Sowell knows this places peer pressure on us to accept his Laissez-faire Situation Ethics. For now it all looks good and pleasurable on the surface, except in practice. History has shown us it is disastrous over time. In reaction to the Laissez-faire philosophy, history testifies that it has enslaved over one-third of the world’s population into the worst spiritual, physical and personal bondage for over seventy years under Communism. More people were killed under the Communism purges, than all the religious wars in the history of mankind.

History reveals that in the eighteen hundreds, the Laissez-faire economic practice of selfishness caused much hardship to the huddled masses of the working society. In reaction, many well meaning philosophers, like the father of Communism, Karl Marx, who wrote "Capital," protested the grave injustices of the religion of Laissez-faire. They protested statements like the Queen of France concerning the starving: "Let them eat cake." But, what Karl Marx failed to realize, was that the future leaders of Communism would take away the religion of the people and place themselves as the gods of this world. Karl Marx might have reconsidered saying, "Religion is the opium of the people." Stalin and his KGB buddies would take beautiful Russian women and rape them, then throw them into a vat of sulfuric acid to hear them scream. According to my sources in Russia, they found thousands of women’s skulls from this brutal treatment. If a Russian were caught wrapping a fish with a newspaper with Stalin’s name on it, the Russian would be sent to Siberia with millions of other suffering souls to live in barracks with holes in the walls and thirty degrees zero winds blowing. Russians dying around them became a steady lifestyle.

All this suffering could have been avoided if Karl Marx had been an answer to the problem instead of part of the problem! Karl Marx created Situation Ethics, not for the individual, as Showell has shown in his article, but for the masses. The Philosophy of Karl Marx was like the Russian General who said to his soldiers, "I have good news for you and bad news. The good news is you all get a change of underwear; the bad news is, ‘Effie, you change with George and, George, you change with Effie.’ This is good for the fatherland and the masses."

Society cannot have a self-serving belief system like we have today. Our friend, History, has taught that Situation Ethics will create havoc, through the fourth and fifth generations; what goes around will come around. "Do not be deceived; God is not mocked. For, whatever a man sows, that he will also reap." Galatians 6:7, New Testament.

I believe that much of the misery of the suffering masses could have been avoided if Philosophers like Sowell, Marx, Bentham, Raugust and Adam Smith would have followed Socrates’ "rule of reason" teachings and not sold out to the pleasure seekers of the politically correct. The Rule of Reason states: "They must be set in command over the appetites, which form the greater part of each man’s soul and are by nature insatiably covetous. They must keep watch, lest this part, by battening on the pleasures that are called bodily, should grow so great and powerful that it will no longer keep to its own work but will try to enslave the others and usurp a dominion to which it has no right, thus turning the whole of life upside down."




For the last several years now I have noticed a change from the Days of television series "Father Knows Best." The black and white TV series portrayed a family living in the 1950's who looked to Dad for the answers to their daily problems. Women’s trend has changed from looking to a loving and caring husband, who puts his family first and himself second. However, due to a due to a philosophy of Laissez-faire Situation Ethics, many women believe men of today’s world have changed. These men now have big egos, sit on the pot reading "Playgirl." They make love as fast as they drive their cars, but really don’t have the depth, sincerity, and true insight into life – but whose express purpose is to control (unless they are gay). This mentality is probably true with some men as many a beautiful woman found out who married one. These men’s attitude is, "I don’t care." They feel the women of today don’t respect them so, "I have wined and dined her into marriage and now she is my sales commission and my property." If she should endeavor to discuss the issue, he brings up the query, "Why did you treat my mother so badly at the Christmas dinner?" Or, "Are you trying to wreck our marriage?"

Not that he really cares, but he wants to put guilt on her to beat and wear her down, so he can change the subject and maintain control. In the meantime he drinks with the boys, has his freedom with the ladies, and hopes he doesn’t bring anything home for his wife to catch. For then, he would probably lose control of his marriage. Yet even then, that would be okay, for his wife would be so worn out, fragmented, and mentally scattered that the Courts would give him custody of the children as the better parent. Then he uses the children to play on the sympathy of the next woman he meets.

It is so sad; this behavior is distorting the family structure and instilling situation ethics, "It’s good is it pleases me!" Situation Ethics is driving this man.

Advertising is capitalizing on this self-centered mentality.

Let’s take two examples, exhibits d and e, from Vogue magazine, November 2003. The cover depicts a beautiful woman, Uma Thurman, in a flowing gown, standing on the edge of a building, ready to jump to her death. Why? The cover asserts: "Drop-dead Gorgeous." In other words, the man has jolted her and she is going to jump. But, wait! There has to be a better answer!

Again, another subliminal message on the cover states:

"Tarantino’s leading lady on being strong, sexy and single." So, she doesn’t have to jump if she is strong, sexy and single. What is the background of this beautiful woman, and is she being condemned to a life of being strong and lonely? Most women are not beautiful and tend to resent someone who is. In high school they are afraid Miss Gorgeous will steal their boyfriend. The nice guys are afraid to date them because of their own inferiority. Therefore, the only friends the gorgeous women have are the males described in this article. Where does that leave them if they want to be sexy?

Some women get a burned-out attitude, "If men want it they are going to have to pay for it." I have found that most gorgeous women tend to be more spiritual than other women. The hair on my arms stands up when I think of she this funnel cloud cause and effect life style does to the Vogue woman’s relation to God and family. As a male, one of the answers I have learned is this; just be the woman’s friend and block out my mind and gonads from canning her body or thinking of myself.

The second example is an ad about Morgan Jewelers. A beautiful woman with a diamond on the right hand, not the left, is claiming, "Sophisticated! That’s me.!" This is a statement of her individuality and, "I’ve earned it!"

Right handed diamonds are a statement and big business. They assert, "I’m not married; I’m an individual; I earned it." In other words, no man has given it to her. "I don’t need a man; I don’t need to be dependant on one." Are advertisers promoting this mentality, or are they just reacting to a trend and using it to sell diamonds?

Nevertheless, if women don’t find some different answers to their male dilemma, rather than, "Me! Me! I! I," their independence and freedom will become slavery along with their self-centered male counterparts to which they are reacting.

Someone smarter than I once said, "Selfishness can’t wait to take; Love can’t wait to give!" True, though this be, in the balance of lives, has selfishness gone too far, for true love to be practical? No, if we get our beliefs and falues changed. Love and respect are synonymous! The yen and yang, the positive and negative, the hot and cold, the male and female. The Male needs and must have respect; the Female need and must have love.

When the female "I" ethics says, "Well, since he did not love me or show me love, I just won’t respect him," then the male "I" ethics says, "If she won’t respect me I just won’t love her or respond in love for her." Love and respect is the root of the problem.

As the prime time shows indicate, if we can put love and respect together, we can now have a chemistry which creates the proper ethics: "God’s will at a particular moment." (See exhibit c.) The Scriptures teach: "Husbands love your wives; wives respect your husbands." When the husband starts getting respect he thinks, "This is like when we were courting; she has that look like I am really great in her eyes. Now I want to love her and keep the flow going." Meanwhile, she is thinking the identical thought, "He loves me like when we were courting. Now it is easy to respect him. I am going to quit telling him what a bad business deal he made with the last car." We must mix love and respect. We must mix the "I" together, not the "I" by itself. Now we have one of the major answers to life.

When a teenager has self-love and self-respect for "I," his values motivate his good actions. His actions become what Socrates suggests, "Reason to rule with wisdom and forethought on behalf of the entire soul.... And so we call an individual brave in virtue of this spirited part of his nature, when, in spite of pain or pleasure, it holds fast to the injunctions of reason about what he ought or ought not to be afraid of." Socrates also mentioned the results of self-centered Laissez-faire Situation Ethics. "They must keep watch, lest this part, by battening on the pleasures that are called bodily, should grow so great and powerful that it will no longer keep to its own work but will try to enslave the others and usurp a dominion to which it has no right, thus turning the whole of life upside down." Socrates had no problem combining philosophy and theology. The Laissez-faire doctrine has certainly taught us: "Don’t pretend to make a pizza out of just flour alone; mix a few of the right ingredients with it."




Does it really make a difference in what we believe, in what our children believe, just as long as we are sincere? As long as our heart is right and open to truth?

When it comes to relationship with God, (my insight tells me), it is true that God is not so interested in the information stored in our heads, as He is with the condition of our hearts. When I speak of head, I mean information stored in the brain computer; when I speak of heart I mean conviction, and love that runs throughout the whole body and tingles on the nerve endings. This is my experience.

Now knowledge has been said to be a seamless patch quilt, which brings back to the mind again, with the spirit. Between the two working together, they establish prescription ethics, the biblical, moral and constitutional law. If man allows partial truths to become part of that quilt, it won’t keep him warm at night, metaphorically speaking. Still man can place knowledge on the shelf of his mind for later confirmation, to later be placed in the patch quilt of knowledge when known to be real. Man doesn’t just swallow a drink without determining the contents, because it may have a hook in it. A lie is a partial truth.

"A thief will only steal from man, but a liar will get him killed." I don’t know who said it, but I paid a man to break my twelve hundred pound mule Molly and she stopped so suddenly, she threw me into a lumber pile. My memory has still not all returned. Situation Ethics will throw me into a lumber pile just as a liar will. They are both fabricated of partial truth, like the philosophy of Jimmy Jones of Guyana. It was his cool aide that there was the kicker to boot hill.

In his book, KINGDOM EDUCATION, Glen Schultz uses the diagram to illustrate beliefs, values, and actions. (See exhibit a) I have added a second and third dimension to help give a practical view in how to understand ethics in a multi-dimensional picture. There are still more dimensions, which I don’t yet comprehend.

Mr. Schultz states, "At the foundation of a person’s life, we find his beliefs. These beliefs shape his values, and his values drive his actions.

In Josh McDowell’s booklet BEYOND BELIEF TO CONVICTIONS he asserts, "While we need to fear what our kids could be tempted to do, we need to be more concerned with what our kids are led to believe." We have the identical problem in health care today; we treat the symptom rather than the constitutional problem.

In Exhibit a, the pyramid depicts beliefs and values as the invisible; however the two create the action of life in the visible. Actions come from beliefs and values. Man is going to do what he believes, and that is where terrorism is born.

The actions of a teenager landed him before a Judge. "But, Judge, these are my values and beliefs!" Whereupon the Judge responded, "I don’t care. Thirty days in the county jail."

In Exhibit B, the pyramid shows body, mind and spirit. In this case, the ethics is a moral question. The spirit would then look to the mind to bring up a biblical prescription of what the action should be and bring life to it.

Exhibit c portrays the "I" as being the same as laissez-faire situation ethics. However, it is blended together with Love and Respect. That love and respect is for themselves, for their fellow man, and for their Creator. Together they blend together to come up with an ethical decision which is God’s will at a particular moment. Most of us would not be tuned for Pyramid C, so we will probably need to stay with Pyramid B and the letter of the law. These are some answers we can use to establish good discussion making in our ethics and personal growth. If the reader will notice, there are always three or more points of measurement in surmising ethics, just as a survivor/castaway has three points to survey a field or the stars. In Exhibit a we have genetic imprints, beliefs and values. In Exhibit b we have body, mind and spirit. In Exhibit c we have self, love and respect. These are the three points from which to measure ethics.

The question will always arise: what does God do in ethics? Is He similar to the Greek god Thor who has a smile on one side and a frown and a big stick on the other. Is he black or white or gray in his beliefs? This process will engender situation ethics.

The first miracle of Jesus occurred at a wedding feast in Cana, where the guests were already drunk, yet they had run out of wine. This man of Nazareth turned, took water, and made another one hundred-twenty gallons more. Yet, the Bible warns about being an alcoholic. John Mark wrote "The Christian moralist and the extreme individualist are at one in their rejection of legalistic conduct." God has both tactical suggestions and prescriptive norms. The tactical suggestions are through self and love and respect, all working together as shown in Pyramid, Exhibit c. Prescriptive norms are the mind, understanding the law, and the spirit, bringing life to the prescriptive legal norm, Exhibit b.

Why did Jesus make more wine? One hundred-twenty gallons more wine? God will not be put in a box. If some of His children have a legalistic mind set, God would suggest bringing them further along the road of understanding. People cannot reduce the Creator of man and the universe to the understanding of a five senses human. Man cannot presume that what God did in the past is what He will probably do today. Man must allow God to be Himself and thus experience Him day by day, moment by moment. Religion is not dead when one encounters the living God.




Is it being real? Is it blending Philosophy and Theology together? We have covered the philosophical Laissez-faire ethics. So let’s satisfy the "head in the sand," "freedom from religion" buffs. John Mark writes, "In 1966 America Episcopal moral theologian Joseph Fletcher published a popular book titled, Situation Ethics; The New Morality.... Fletcher was unwilling to embrace pragmatism and relativism wholeheartedly and without reservation; he rejected both legalism and antinomianism, embracing what remained: the law of love."

Fletcher’s moral relativism was based on these "six propositions and forming the framework of his ethical theory" are as follows (according to John Mark):
** only one thing is intrinsically good, namely love; nothing else at all;
** the ruling norm of Christian decisions is love, nothing else;
** love and justice are the same, for justice is love distributed;
** love wills the neighbor’s good whether we like him or not’
** only the end justifies the means, nothing else; and
** love’s decisions are made situational, not prescriptively.

Fletcher’s brilliance was his ability to organize many theologians’ thinking; such as CS Pierce, William James, John Daweny, and following Brunner and Niebuhr. He put it all together, forgetting that the chain’s strength is in its weakest link.


In 400 BC, Plato and Socrates did not endorse, but came up with their own thinking and convictions. Is this why they are still King of the Mountain, as it were, and are still our bedrock for moral and philosophical thinking? Fletcher’s book sounds great on the surface, but under the stress of life, it has proven to have many week links, providing "garbage in, garbage out" for his disciples. A tongue on the electric fence would have served the same purpose. Hitler loved a pure race; does love endorse fascism and death camps?

When Fletcher claims love’s decisions are made situational, not prescriptively, he endorses Laissez-faire situation ethics. Let us make a parable, using one part of an eye representing Fletcher’s philosophy. In Exhibit c pyramid, it’s made up of Fletcher’s Love and his "I." Fletcher has left out respect! All of the eye must be utilized, not just part of it, for accuracy. Fletcher is only using one eye. Why is he not using the other eye? Dimension permits perspective and ability to measure.

Exhibit b works with body, mind and spirit. The body holds the two eyes; the mind understands and finds the prescription of God’s law; the spirit brings life and contact with God to make the letter of the law engender life. The love and respect, working with the spirit, bring into focus God’s will of a particular moment.

Yes! Ethics is quite complicated. To play it safe, stay with prescription ethics. Ethics is a very important part of survival and must not be taken lightly. It is the major cause of terrorism in reaction to self centered “Just us”, rather than justice.