Allegations Disputed in Case of the Purloined Kinkajous

This letter is written to respond to allegations made against my client in two letters to the editor printed July 1. The letters were written by Priscilla Feral, a representative of Friends of Animals, and Kyle Owens, a representative of the Fund for Animals.

First, there is an allegation made in the letter by Priscilla Feral that my client, Cary Chevalier, violated court rules, and thereby “unlawfully obtained the temporary restraining order” that allowed the University of California to take possession of the subject kinkajous. Nothing could be further from the truth.

At the hearing on May 22, 1990, the court simply found that a simple procedural error had occurred regarding the return of the kinkajous. If, as claimed in the letter from Ms. Feral, the kinkajous had been “unlawfully obtained,” then it is certain that the judge would have returned the animals to Primarily Primates Inc.

Therefore, although there might have been a minor procedural error on the part of one of Mr. Chevalier’s attorneys, it did not change the findings of the court that the animals should remain in the possession of Mr. Chevalier and the University of California.

Further, Ms. Feral goes to great pains to argue that as a grand jury failed to indict the individuals who stole Mr. Chevalier’s property, that no wrong could have been committed against Mr. Chevalier. We dispute this strongly and believe that at the close of the civil litigation, there will be sufficient evidence to demonstrate the injuries suffered by Mr. Chevalier and his animals.

Mr. Owens claims that the kinkajous were not taken illegally from Mr. Chevalier, and further claims that the experimentation performed by Mr. Chevalier has no valid scientific purpose. However, Mr. Owens provides no factual support for either of these allegations. Unfortunately, it is not unusual for people in our client’s position to have to respond to allegations of his type.

Finally, all of Mr. Chevalier’s experimentation was performed without any harm to the kinkajous and with all of the appropriate authorizations pursuant to federal and state law, as well as the in-house rules of the University of California.

The only harm that has come to the animals has occurred while they were in the possession of the so-called “animal rights” groups. While the kinkajous were in their possession, two of the animals disappeared and one of the animals was castrated.

Although we prefer to have these controversies aired within the context of the lawsuit presently pending in Texas, it is clear that certain animal rights groups are bent on pursuing these allegations in a public forum. Therefore, we felt we had no alternative but to address the allegations made against our client in that same public forum.

KENNETH E. GERTZ

Hollins, Schechter & Feinstein

Orange