Whistleblower Asks California AG to Remove Remaining Animals From Miranda’s Rescue

A whistleblower who helped bring evidence from Miranda’s Rescue to law enforcement is now asking California’s attorney general to intervene at the Fortuna animal facility. Jennifer Raymond filed the complaint late Monday through Advancing Law for Animals, the San Francisco Chronicle reported on August 25.

The filing asks the state to appoint a receiver and move the animals that remain at the facility to other organizations. It also asks the state to protect charitable assets and ultimately dissolve Miranda’s Rescue. These are requests in a complaint, not actions the attorney general has ordered.

What the complaint asks California to do

The Chronicle describes the filing as a six page complaint submitted on Raymond’s behalf. According to the report, the complaint alleges misuse of charitable assets and asks Attorney General Rob Bonta to seek control of the organization through a court appointed receiver.

Raymond’s attorneys estimate that approximately 40 dogs remain at Miranda’s Rescue. They say an unknown number of cats, equines and birds are also there. Buddylio hasn't independently counted the animals, and no public state removal order was available when this article was checked.

The requested receiver would take control of the animals and arrange transfers to other nonprofit organizations, according to the Chronicle’s account of the filing. The complaint also seeks protection for any remaining assets, dissolution of the charity and other civil remedies the state considers appropriate.

A complaint doesn’t mean the state has taken action

California’s Attorney General has primary responsibility for supervising charities in the state. Its Charitable Trusts Section reviews complaints involving possible misuse of charitable assets, fundraising practices and breaches of fiduciary duty.

Every charity complaint receives a review, the office says, but not every complaint becomes an investigation. Complaints are kept confidential, and the office doesn’t confirm or deny whether a particular matter is under investigation.

That makes the present public record narrow. Raymond’s complaint has been reported, but the state hasn't publicly confirmed an investigation, appointed a receiver or ordered the animals removed.

The filing follows a separate Sheriff’s Office investigation

That Attorney General complaint is separate from a criminal investigation led by the Humboldt County Sheriff’s Office. The Sheriff’s Office said it began work after receiving information on April 22 concerning alleged animal abuse, animal cruelty, fraud and conspiracy connected to Miranda’s Rescue.

Detectives served a search warrant on May 1 and returned for a second search in June. In a June 26 release, the Sheriff’s Office reported recovering 117 intact canine remains from two excavation sites. It also reported finding 21 canine skulls, hundreds of additional bones and six loose microchips at another location.

A team of USDA and forensic veterinarians examined 70 of the intact dogs on site. Many showed evidence of bullet fragments, the Sheriff’s Office said. Gunshot wounds were the preliminary cause of death for many of the dogs examined. Time constraints kept the remaining 47 intact dogs from being examined on site. Investigators collected all 117 intact remains as evidence.

No criminal charges have been announced

The Sheriff’s Office has described its work as an active investigation. It said a case would be submitted for prosecution if investigators find sufficient evidence of criminal violations. Buddylio didn’t find a public announcement of criminal charges against Shannon Miranda in the official releases and current reporting checked through August 26.

The distinction is important. Allegations in Raymond’s civil complaint and allegations under criminal investigation are not findings of guilt. The Attorney General process, county permit enforcement and the Sheriff’s Office investigation are three separate matters.

Miranda disputes the allegations

Shannon Miranda has publicly disputed accusations against him and criticized the investigation and news coverage. In statements published on the rescue’s website and by a local blogger, he said the organization accepted animals that other shelters couldn't place. He said euthanasia was considered for terminal illness or a serious, ongoing safety risk.

Miranda also denied killing animals simply to create space and said money received from shelters was used to care for animals. Those statements represent his account. They don't resolve the allegations or determine the outcome of the active investigation.

Permit and tax status are separate issues

Humboldt County Planning and Building Director John Ford told the Chronicle that the facility’s conditional use permit is suspended. According to Ford, Miranda’s Rescue can't take in or adopt out animals until required corrective work is completed.

The Chronicle also reported that the operation had expanded onto parcels not covered by its permit. According to the report, the permit prohibited euthanasia, carcass disposal and an unapproved modular building at the site. These are county land use issues, not criminal findings.

California Franchise Tax Board data separately lists MIRANDAS RESCUE in Fortuna with a state tax exemption revocation date of January 25, 2024. That record concerns state tax status. It doesn't establish the allegations in Raymond’s complaint or the criminal investigation.

What happens next

A complaint to the Attorney General doesn't create an automatic deadline or public enforcement action. Because the office keeps complaint reviews confidential, the next visible development may come only if the state files a court action or announces another public step.

The Humboldt County investigation also remains unresolved. For the animals still at Miranda’s Rescue, the immediate question is whether their custody will change. The state complaint, county permit process and criminal investigation are moving forward on separate tracks.

How we reported this: Buddylio reviewed the named sources, checked the organizations and figures shown above, and added context for animal lovers. Any illustration is labeled and does not depict the actual animals or scene. This report was checked on August 26, 2026. Although the complaint had been reported, the California Attorney General hadn't publicly announced an investigation, receiver or animal removal order. The separate Sheriff’s Office investigation remained unresolved. Articles are editorial content, not veterinary advice.