I. Forgie information

"The Wizard knew that if Dorothy's pet was found guilty and condemned to death the little girl would be made very unhappy; so, although he grieved
over the piglet's sad fate as much as any of them, he resolved to save Eureka's life."

Dorothy and the Wizard in Oz by Baum, L. Frank
View in context

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/guilty

http://baum.thefreelibrary.com/Dorothy-and-the-Wizard-in-Oz/18-1#guilty

"Nevertheless, while we acknowledge that the Act requires registration by a person who acts, in specified ways, at a foreign principal's "request," we caution that this word is not to be understood in its most precatory sense. Such an interpretation would sweep within the statute's scope many forms of conduct that Congress did not intend to regulate. The exact perimeters of a "request" under the Act are difficult to locate, falling somewhere between a command and a plea. Despite this uncertainty, the surrounding circumstances will normally provide sufficient indication as to whether a "request" by a "foreign principal" requires the recipient to register as an "agent." "Agency is the fiduciary relation which results from the manifestation of consent by one person to another that the other shall act on his behalf and subject to his control, and consent by the other so to act." Restatement (Second) of Agency § 1 (1958) See § 1(c)(1)(i)-(iv) of the Act, 22 U.S.C. § 611(c)(1)(i)-(iv), 668 F2d 159 Attorney General of United States v. Irish Northern Aid Committee 409 U.S. 1080. 93 S.Ct. 679. 34 L.Ed.2d 669. "The reason usually assigned for this prerogative is that the sovereign is not answerable for the delinquencies of his agents. But whatever the true reason may be, such is the general law -- such the universal law except where it is expressly waived. The privilege, however, is a prerogative one, and cannot be challenged by any person inferior to the sovereign, whether that person be natural or corporate. Metropolitan Railroad Company v. District of Columbia, 132 U.S. 1, 11 (1889). stated in [I.FORGIE v CANADA pages 73 and 74"In cases involving dogs, ownership is determined pursuant to state and local law.

638. A person who exercises acts of ownership over property is presumed to be the owner of it. The courts have had to step in to fill the gaps created by these very general, Californian statutes. The caselaw has established, for example, that "[o]ne of the chief incidents of ownership in property is the right to transfer it." (Bias v. Ohio Farmers Indemnity Co. (1938) 28 Cal.App.2d 14, 16.) "A common characteristic of a property right, is that it may be disposed of, transferred to another." (Douglas Aircraft Co. v. Byram (1943) 57 Cal.App.2d 311, 317.) One or more persons may be an "owner," and thus liable for the injuries of a third party, even though no such "owner" possesses all of the normal incidents of ownership.'" (Springmeyer v. Ford Motor Co. (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 1541, 1571-1572, citing Stoddart v. Peirce (1959) 53 Cal.2d 105, 115.) Ownership is a question of fact to be determined by a jury under appropriate instructions of law. (Kaley v. Yachts (1986) 187 Cal. App. 3d 1187.) Also see Coakley v. Ajuria, 209 Cal. 745, 290 P. 33.

The following analysis was used in Ellsworth v. Elite Dry Cleaners, etc., Inc. (1954) 127 Cal.App.2d 479 to uphold the trial judge's finding that the defendant was the owner of a dog named "Eric":"

Rule 33A — Stated Cases Under

The Authority of the Supremacy and Equal Protection Clauses of the United States Constitution.

Attorney General of United States v. Irish Northern Aid Committee 409 U.S. 1080. 93 S.Ct. 679. 34 L.Ed.2d 669

Bias v. Ohio Farmers Indemnity Co. (1938) 28 Cal.App.2d 14, 16.

Coakley v. Ajuria, 209 Cal. 745, 290 P. 33

Douglas Aircraft Co. v. Byram (1943) 57 Cal.App.2d 311, 317

Ellsworth v. Elite Dry Cleaners, etc., Inc. (1954) 127 Cal.App.2d 479

Kaley v. Yachts (1986) 187 Cal. App. 3d 1187

Metropolitan Railroad Company v. District of Columbia, 132 U.S. 1, 11 (1889)

Springmeyer v. Ford Motor Co. (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 1541, 1571-1572

Stoddart v. Peirce (1959) 53 Cal.2d 105, 115

Statutes and Regulations Cited.