So, the story is, in one document that the squirrel bit one of the twelve people who went in to raid the home, the squirrel did not break the glove, did not break the skin, but then there’s a subsequent report that he did break the skin. Which is it? Peanut the squirrel. We sued for records for Peanuts the squirrel’s execution by New York State Government officials. I announced it a few weeks ago, I guess. Here’s a video talking about the case. Well, Judicial Watch just sued the state agency responsible for raiding his man’s home, taking his pets, including Peanut the squirrel here, and then killing them.

And now there’s a cover-up, and we’re in court to get answers. Heavy lifting necessary. So, Judicial Watch sued. We got the documents. Now, I think they’re pretending the documents weren’t because of the lawsuit, but you sue, you get the documents. It’s pretty clear what happened. And we received 163 pages of records from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, and they show that they were prepared to go in and kill the animals from the get-go. There was Peanut the squirrel and Fred the raccoon. Fred doesn’t get nearly as much attention as poor Peanut does. But it’s clear that because they were supposedly illegally kept wildlife, there was a presumption of a rabies issue, and they were going to be tested.

And the only way to test an animal is to kill it. I think they literally referenced decapitation. Thankfully, I don’t have much experience with that, but those of you who’ve been in circumstances like this probably know better than I do. And the records are really awful in terms of showing an obliviousness to the rights of the owners of Peanut and Fred, common sense application of the law, and safe application of the law. You go and raid someone’s home as a law enforcement officer, it’s a dangerous thing. It’s necessarily dangerous. That’s why when they raid homes, they go in with a lot of force or preparation and protection because it’s a dangerous, dangerous situation when you enter someone’s home.

And so to do it, you don’t do it lightly, right? You don’t do it because you’ve got someone complaining that there’s a raccoon being kept illegally. You don’t do it because you’ve had bureaucrats reviewing video footage on social media that the poor guy had a squirrel at his house. And you send 12 agents to his home because he didn’t have the proper license. It’s insanity. And we uncovered all of it in this document lawsuit we filed on this abuse of these poor people and the killing of their pets. They found Peanut in the bathtub and Fred in a suitcase and they took him and killed them.

The details are just unbelievable. They supposedly had received multiple complaints of unlawfully possessed raccoons and an unlawfully possessed squirrel that were posted to several media outlets because the family, the guy who owned them, had the pets on social media. So he didn’t think he was doing anything wrong. He was celebrating the animals he had rescued on social media. I was forwarded an email on my approved day off, such government speak, regarding assisting with possible search warrant to collect the unlawfully possessed raccoons. I met with so-and-so, they black out the name, and began researching the social media accounts of suspect Mark Longo, who was the owner of Peanut.

And I also advised blank of the case and to relay any new complaints to me. I observed several videos on TikTok, which they misspelled, Facebook and Instagram related to the suspected unlawful possession of squirrels and raccoons on the accounts held by Mark Longo. So I want you to think about this. This poor guy is posting pictures of his pet on social media, and there’s some thick-headed, frankly, government bureaucrat trolling his social media accounts looking for evidence of a crime because he’s got a raccoon in his house and a squirrel. Supposedly he didn’t have the proper wildlife conservation or wildlife rehabilitation license, and it generated a crisis in this agency in New York.

High profile, they called it. You bet it’s high profile. You go in and raid a man’s home, take their pets, and then execute them. Oh, but this was serious. Look at this part. If it weren’t so outrageous, it’d be comical. They detailed they took 70 photographs of the home after they raided it. I want to find some good stuff here because I wasn’t going to spend that much time on it, but as I look at this stuff, it’s so outrageous. I’m going to spend more time than I planned on it. Oh, this is my favorite. Well, I shouldn’t say it’s my favorite part.

So they talk about, well, Peanut bit someone, and that’s why they needed to test them for rabies. They were planning to kill them and test them for rabies before they entered the home because the so-called expert, they consult and say, well, you just have to presume they have rabies, and we have to test them to make sure. And it’s not like they can take a blood test. They’ve got to kill the animals in order to confirm whether they have rabies or not. The animals have been present at the home for a long period of time, so the likelihood of a rabies issue was, in my view, my non-expert view, ridiculous.

A squirrel or raccoon that cohabitated a common living area were confiscated during the investigation. So-and-so was advised that the squirrel had bitten an employee, that the incident and investigation is high profile, and then was asked that the animal should be tested for rabies since the raccoon is a rabies vector species. The person whose name is redacted stated that both animals should be tested as a precaution, and he didn’t want to chance it. Earlier, before the raid, they said if any of the wild animals had contact with humans, they would most likely need to be submitted for rabies testing.

So they go in knowing that they would most likely have to be killed, so they were planning to get the animals killed. So the story is, in one document that the squirrel bit one of the twelve people who went in to raid the home, the squirrel did not break the glove, did not break the skin, but then there’s a subsequent report that he did break the skin. Which is it? I think the first report is probably more accurate. So-and-so, name redacted and I met with redacted and brought the raccoon and squirrel into the facility. I assisted and another animal control officer in transferring-I assisted blank and another animal control officer in transferring the raccoon and squirrel into different enclosures so that they would be able to euthanize them utilizing drugs that they’re certified to use.

Now, the family whose animals were taken, stolen in my view, and murdered, they’re planning litigation. They sent a document request or document preservation request late last year. They want the bodies preserved. I don’t know if their bodies are still around to be preserved. And of course, you know, this event sparked public outrage. It came up during the presidential campaign. J.D. Vance mentioned it. And these documents, to me, just confirm a wild abuse of power in New York State and something that should be concerning nationally because these powers are available and often abusively exercised all across the land.

And this was something that gained national attention and rightly so. And hopefully, in a way, I know there’s a law that they’re trying to pass in New York to make it more difficult to engage in this type of abuse. So maybe there’s something that happens good out of this. And hopefully, our investigation and litigation and this disclosure of information will show that something needs to be done. New York State bureaucrats did not want to turn over these documents, but Judicial Watch’s lawsuit forced their hand. The documents show an abuse of power where 12 officers were sent in on a raid to seize Peanut and Fred, who the bureaucrats decided beforehand would be killed.

These documents show the killing of Peanut, the squirrel, and Fred the raccoon was the result of pure government abuse and insanity. So we’re going to get more documents, I don’t know. But I tell you, you wonder how President Trump’s home can be raided for no reason? I mean, they’re raiding homes to kill pets, raiding homes to take documents that some bureaucrat in Washington thinks the president shouldn’t have. I mean, that should be no surprise when you have that type of attitude generally by the government. I mean, in the case of Trump, it was an obvious political abuse.

Here, it was just the raw exercise of power. Contempt for the rights of the poor owners of the two pets. And now they’re probably licking their wounds more or less because of the negative blowback, thanks to Judicial Watch’s lawsuit and the controversy around it. But this is your government, folks, and the more you know, right? The more you know. Thanks for watching. Don’t forget to hit that subscribe button and like our video down below. [tr:trw].

See more of Judicial Watch on their Public Channel and the MPN Judicial Watch channel.