The amazing stubbornness of stalkers and haters: a rant for once

At every stage of the way, regardless of the number of unfair and cruel actions of various authorities and agents, a crazed core of strange people manages to weave them into a twisted narrative that makes me the villain. Safe in their internet hideouts, these obsessives now insist I am now blocking the city from adopting out Brindi.

The emails from prosecutor Katherine Salsman I posted weeks ago make it very clear that HRM had not done the court-ordered assessment, nor made any decision about Brindi by the appeal deadline. The only decision it made was to keep the results of said assessment private. It had no intention of doing anything, however. 

So while the idea that I am blocking is ridiculous, it's all the more astounding just how persistent these people are. No matter what happens, no matter how absurd the spin. I guess they count on a certain percentage of people who rarely think for themselves, or try to discern fact from opinion.  The litany of untruths, some hatched as far back as 2009, get pretty threatening in this age of Google. Fortunately most people see them for what they are and go on their way.

My house is not a home.

Brindi and me, seen through the fence at the SPCA Shelter, which served as the Halifax pound, 2010.
According to rules invented on the spot (no official policy existed or was ever adopted by the HRM council), my visits were limited to 30 minutes once a week, on a day and time set by HRM; I could take no photos, not talk to staff; have no friends accompany me, give my own dog treats, and if I was late for whatever reason, they subtracted the time from the 30 minutes.
Even though there was (and is) no law or rule in place forbidding owners from visiting their dogs in the pound, Halifax refused to let me see Brindi for ten months, barring a single, torturous visit in January 2009, right after the court decision quashing the euthanasia order. At the time I believed she'd be let go in a few days, but it was neverthless horrifying to see her condition and horrible to have to leave her 25 minutes later, after freezing in the subzero weather (they wouldn't let us visit indoors). It wasn't until ten months after they took Brindi away from me that I was allowed regular visits under the same strict rules mentioned above. Then, HRM terminated the visits, just before Xmas 2009, on a claim that I had violated the rules. Which ones and when - forget it; there's no impartial review anyhow. The decision more or less coincided with the onset of Brindi's illness, when it was difficult to get precise medical information. Thanks to that, and the court's insistence that it didn't have jurisdiction to grant visits, I didn't see my dog for another six months.
As of today I haven't seen her for almost two years. Fortunately, I was able to have my vet see her at the clinic on a fairly regular basis, and her assistant took photos. Here's one of the last shots, from June 20. You can see how much she's aged. That probably happens faster when a dog is kept in a cage, I suppose. I know I've aged a lot more than four years.

Meanwhile, I have posted the trainer's recent assessment results, along with her statement to the court. And you can read her in-court testimony here.


"Once you have had a wonderful dog, a life without one is diminished." - Dean Koontz 

Appeal filed Aug. 1: another marathon begins

The reason the judge told HRM that they must wait to take any action until after August 1 was because that was the last day to file an appeal of any kind before the Supreme Court.

I dearly wish it weren't so, but the outcome of this trial was a very odd twist, not what the law envisages, and certainly not what anybody I know expected. The judge waited till weeks after the trial was finished to deny motions I filed before it started and mid-stream: one to dismiss the charges on constitutional grounds, one moving to dismiss evidence as inadmissible, and a motion declare a mistrial. Motions to dismiss are heard before trials begin, and usually decided on the same day. Mine was to be heard orally on March 2. Instead, I ended up filing it in writing, and it was never argued in the courtroom.

The other motions were handled in similar fashion; written arguments were never even completed for them.

Trying to find out what Halifax is up to: it's not easy!

From: Francesca Rogier

Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 15:24:55 -0300

To: "Salsman, Katherine"

Cc: "MacDonald, Andrea", "Scolaro, Lori", (the court clerk; Animal Services; David Hendsbee; the vet; the trainer; Mayor Kelly; legal consultant Kirthi Jayakumar)

Conversation: Awaiting response to July 23 email: HRM's plans for Brindi?

Subject: Re: Awaiting response to July 23 email: HRM's plans for Brindi?
Ms. Salsman,

Thank you for your reply.

Would you kindly explain what is meant by “usual practice”? Other than the evaluations of stray dogs by and at the city pound, I am not aware of any practice or policy by which HRM regularly assesses seized dogs. If such a practice exists, surely HRM would have had Brindi evaluated some time ago, but I never received any such documentation as part of disclosure.

Clearly we are not dealing with anything of a usual nature in this instance, at the very least. So I would still like an answer as to why the assessment results will not be made known.

Also, when do you expect a decision will be made?

Thank you,
Francesca Rogier   

From: "Salsman, Katherine"

Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 17:59:55 +0000

To: Francesca Rogier

Cc: "MacDonald, Andrea" , "Scolaro, Lori"  

Subject: RE: Awaiting response to July 23 email: HRM's plans for Brindi?

---

Ms. Rogier,  

As previously stated, the assessment will not be released because it is an internal document. It is not our usual practice to release documents of that nature.

The assessment has not yet been completed and therefore no decisions have been made.

Katherine E. Salsman

Municipal Prosecutor  

HELP SAVE BRINDI - LIST OF CONTACTS

-->

LIST OF CONTACTS

TELL THEM: HALIFAX MUST NOT KILL BRINDI!

·      Please contact often and be sure to ask for a reply.

·      Send photos of Brindi with them if you can (download from the blog or Save Brindi).

·      Calling them, if you are able, and using regular mail or postcards is very powerful.

·      For emails, try to avoid using Brindi in the subject line because many of them just dump them!

·      ALSO IMPORTANT: To be more effective, please cc all messages to the media. See list below.

THANK YOU!! 

Halifax Regional Municipality (HRM)

Website: http://www.Halifax.ca

Address:          Halifax  City Hall

1841 Argyle Street, Main Floor

PO Box 1749

Halifax, NS B3J 3A5 Canada

Mayor Peter Kelly: kellyp@halifax.ca

phone: 001 902 490 4010

twitter: @mayorpeterkelly

Head of Halifax Legal Services: Marian Tyson tysonm@halifax.ca

Municipal Prosecutor: Katherine Salsman salsmak@halifax.ca

Manager of HRM Animal Services: Andrea Macdonald macdonaa@halifax.ca

Supervisor of Animal Services: Lori Scolaro scolarl@halifax.ca (she issued the original euthanasia order)

HRM Animal Services

P.O. Box 1749

Halifax, NS B3J 3A5

Phone: 001-902-490-7371 or 490 1791

Fax: 001 902 490-6142

Homeward Bound City Pound

Website: http://www.citypound.ca

Address:             201 Unit 9 Brownlow Avenue,

Dartmouth, NS B3B 1W2

Tel: (902)407-SAVE (7283) Fax: (902)406-8588

Homeward Bound Owner/Director: Hope Swinimer email: hopeswinimer@accesswave.ca

HRM MUNICIPAL COUNCILORS: see Halifax.ca for full information.

Brindi’s local councilor is David Hendsbee.

Website:http://www.hendsbee.ns.ca/contact.htm

Mobile:     1 902.483.0705

Home:      1 902.829.2465

Mailing Address: 1 Chamberlain Drive, Dartmouth, NS B2Z 1B1

Email addresses for all municipal councilors: harveyb@halifax.ca, adamss@halifax.ca, barry.dalrymple@halifax.ca, brad.johns@halifax.ca, darren.fisher@halifax.ca, David.Hendsbee@halifax.ca, sloaned@halifax.ca, humd@halifax.ca, jennifer.watts@halifax.ca, karsteb@halifax.ca, lorelei.nicoll@halifax.ca, mcclusg@halifax.ca, mosherl@halifax.ca, outhitt@halifax.ca, peter.lund@halifax.ca, rankinr@halifax.ca, streats@halifax.ca, smithj@halifax.ca, utecks@halifax.ca, walkerr@halifax.ca, wilema@halifax.ca

Twitter addresses for some councilors: @barkhouse @downtowndawn @councillorwatts @darrenfisherns

PROVINCIAL AND FEDERAL OFFICIALS

Attorney General and Minister of Justice: Hon. Ross Landry

Email: justmin@gov.ns.ca

website: http://www.gov.ns.ca/just/minister.asp

Minister of Municipal Affairs: Hon. John MacDonnell snsmrmin@gov.ns.ca

website: http://nslegislature.ca/index.php/people/members/John_MacDonell/

Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations

1505 Barrington Street

Halifax, Nova Scotia B3J 2M4

Phone: (902) 424-5550

Fax: (902) 424-0581

Member of Parliament for Halifax/Eastern Shore: Peter Stoffer stoffp1@parl.gc.ca

website: http://peterstoffer.ndp.ca/

Community Office:

2900 Hwy #2

Fall River, Nova Scotia, B2T 1W4

Tel: 902-861-2311 or toll-free (NS only) 1-888-701-5557

Fax: 902-861-4620

Ottawa Office:

Room 242 Confederation Bldg.

Ottawa, ON K1A 0A6

Tel: 613-995-5822Email: stoffp@parl.gc.ca

Member of the Provincial Assembly (MLA), Eastern Shore: Sid Prest sidprest.mla@ns.aliantzinc.ca

Website: http://nslegislature.ca/index.php/people/members/Sidney_Prest/

7907 Hwy #7, Unit 2

P.O. Box 6

Musquodoboit Harbour, Nova Scotia

B0J 2L0

Phone: (902) 889-2112

Fax: (902) 889-3190

E-mail: sidprest.mla@ns.aliantzinc.ca

For all MLAs: http://nslegislature.ca/index.php/people/addresses/

IMPORTANT: To be more effective, please cc all messages to the media.

Local media: news957@rogers.com, radionews@halifax.cbc.ca, Eileen.McInnis@CBC.CA atlanticnews@ctv.ca, news@ctv.ca, jackie.foster@ctv.ca, marnoon@cbc.ca, cbcns@cbc.ca news@globaltv.com, newsroom@herald.ca, letters@herald.ca, editor@herald.ca, Rick.Howe@rci.rogers.com, mileshowe@hotmail.com

Local media on Twitter: @cbcns @cbcmainstreet @maritimenoon @jordimorgan @theRickHoweShow @news957 @chronicleherald @twitcoast @tim_bousquet @openfileHFX @HalifaxMagazine @HalifaxNSNews @nealozano @CKDU881FM

National media: CBC radio and TV, CTV, Global TV, National Post, Globe and Mail

OTHER LOCAL TWITTER ACCOUNTS:  @hfxnovascotia @halifaxtweeters @occupyns

NOTE: Contacting individuals directly and often brings better results than online petitions. We have done petitions over and over, the last total was 10,000 signatures, but the judge and the city ignore them! Belfast ignored nearly 200,000 signatures on petitions for Lennox, sadly!

Alarm bells: Halifax signals all things Brindi are secret from now on

On June 26, the provincial judge turned over all control and rights to my dog Brindi to Halifax - the very city that has wanted to kill her since July 2008. That June, animal services officials had arbitrarily muzzled her, then told me about a law allowing them to seize and destroy her without any further ado if she was reported for anything, including not wearing her muzzle even accidentally. They seized her on July 24, 2008, after exactly that unfortunate thing happened four days earlier: she accidentally got loose for about 20 seconds, without causing injury to anybody.

There is no law in Halifax mandating seizure and destruction of a dog under a muzzle order merely for being off its property without the muzzle on. The supreme court later quashed that euthanasia order, but Halifax didn't return Brindi. And the city never held anybody accountable for those boldfaced lies, either.

It's no exaggeration to say that both of our lives were ruined that sad day. Many times over, in fact.

Last month, after prolonging Brindi's already lengthy stay in the pound by nearly four more months (on top of 18 months since the 2010 seizure), and after I put together a very strong case for Brindi's release, bolstered by the trainer's excellent testimony, Judge Buchan gave carte blanche to Halifax officials, saying they should do their own usual" assessment on her, and after August 1, they are free to decide for themselves what to do with her. (For some strange reason the prosecutor told the media the date was August 21 - not sure what that was about.)

During the trial, the prosecutor argued - as always - that there was only one option for Brindi: death. Somehow the judge ignored this consistent position, as well as the fact that Brindi has been assessed positively many times already. The most recent one was carried out on June 13 by behavioral consultant Susan Jordan; her report lay on the judge's desk.

Now the municipal prosecutor, 2009 law school grad Katherine Salsman, tells me that the results of Brindi's assessment will be in an "internal document". In other words, she will not share the results with me or the public. After two days puzzling over this, I came to the alarming realization that it must mean the city is planning to keep secret what they ultimately will do with/to Brindi a secret.  And that they must have decided to have her killed.

So the only reason for these officials to keep their decision a secret is if they plan to kill her. This would not be a surprise, as Halifax officials have wanted to do since 2008, and spent an inordinate amount of money trying. But it is extremely dismaying news, and everyone should take notice.

My statement to the Court regarding sentencing

VIA FAX AND EMAIL

The Honourable Judge Flora I. Buchan

Dartmouth Provincial Court

277 Pleasant St

Dartmouth, NS B2Y 3S2

Your Honour:

June 22, 2012

RE: R. v. Rogier

Sentencing Submissions

1.     Please accept this letter as my submissions with respect to sentence in the above trial.

Overview

2.     In response to a finding of guilt on the charges, the Crown is seeking an order to have my dog, “Brindi”, destroyed, and fines imposed on me.

Facts

3.    HRM has seized Brindi twice, citing the same claim that she must be destroyed. The original euthanasia order was quashed along with the law used to issue it.

4.     Four times since HRM first seized Brindi in July 2008 under the claim that she must be destroyed, at my request she has been assessed by qualified persons with experience evaluating dogs. In all instances, the results have been quite positive. The most recent assessment carried out one week ago resulted in a finding that she is fit to live in a family home. The extended period of detainment has brought about the need for a period of re-adjustment to relearn housetraining and recover other abilities that any dog would need under the circumstances.

5.     The Crown has submitted the full Decision by Justice Beveridge of the Supreme Court which found that after the first seizure, HRM was procedurally unfair and denied me due process.

Letter submitted to the Court by Brindi's veterinarian

Since October 2010, Dr. Larkin has been regularly monitoring Brindi's health at my request, as her health was already compromised from two-years of being held in isolation. For unstated reasons, HRM would not permit the vet to see Brindi at the kennel, however, so she was brought to the Complete Care Clinic. Dr. Larkin speaks about her expertise and her opinion of Brindi's behavior. Posted with permission. 

June 21, 2012

The Honourable Judge Flora I. Buchan
Dartmouth Provincial Court
277 Pleasant Street
Dartmouth, NS B2Y 3S2

Your Honour,

Re: R. v.  Rogier Sentencing Submissions

Please accept and consider this letter which is presented with respect to the trial of Francesca Rogier, owner of Brindi.
With full respect to your Honour, I am aware that Courts in Canada customarily give consideration to veterinary opinion in cases where the destruction of a family pet is contemplated.  In some cases, they seek out such professional input. I would hope that such consideration is given here.
Professional qualification:

It is my sincere hope that my statement will not be disregarded or dismissed based on what would be, in my view, a misunderstanding of the notion of “expert”. As a veterinarian, I spent 8 years in university training to become a doctor.
My training at the Atlantic Veterinary College at the University of Prince Edward Island qualifies me to diagnose conditions and prescribe medical treatments in the areas of dermatology, ophthalmology, cardiology, gastroenterology, neurology, oncology , immunology, orthopedics, as well as performing surgery, dentistry, radiology, and last but not least, behavior modification training. Veterinarians essentially are trained to provide complete medical care for our animal patients including behavioural advice. It is rare that we have the need to consult a specialist. My 18 years of clinical experience further demonstrates my knowledge and skills as a veterinarian.
In addition, as a veterinarian entrusted by both Ms. Rogier and Halifax Regional Municipality to monitor Brindi’s health since early 2010, I am able to provide reliable information about her status and her behavior.  In its capacity as a representative of the public, and having been in regular dialogue with Animal Services staff, I would hope that the Municipality will have no question as to the authenticity of my statement, as I am aware that it is customary for the legal profession to recognize the validity of a veterinarian’s statements on behalf of their patient.

With respect to Brindi, please allow me to place her in context with the greater dog population in HRM from my point of view as a practicing veterinarian. In my practice, and in others across the province where I have worked, it is common (a few times a month) to have an appointment with a patient who is aggressive towards other dogs who must be scheduled for the first or last appointment of the day to prevent them from running into another dog and risking a fight.  It is also common to be confronted with a dog that is aggressive towards people that proves to be a serious health risk to me and my staff.  I am well trained and experienced in handling these situations. Beyond this, I have worked with several pet owners to help them modify their pet’s aggressive behaviour.

In my 2 years of caring for Brindi, I have never felt concerned for the personal safety of me or my staff. When Francesca brought her to my clinic in the summer of 2010, we never found it necessary to clear the waiting room before her entry.  She is a sweet, intelligent dog. Although she does need behavior modification for her territorialism, speaking as a veterinarian with a grounding in behavioural science, I would not deem Brindi to be a candidate for euthanasia. I have seen many dogs in my practice that in my view would pose a serious risk to public safety. I am not aware that HRM considers any of these patients a “dangerous dog” or that their owners have received any warnings or citations.
Francesca Rogier has been a good client of mine since November 2009. Whenever she brought Brindi to my clinic, Brindi was properly muzzled and leashed. Ms. Rogier has kept all of her pets in good health by feeding good food and allowing me to perform good preventative health care. She has kept her dog’s license up to date, as she renewed it in my office this past spring. She even brought in her friend’s 2 dogs to my hospital and paid for their veterinary care and licensing herself.

Ms. Rogier’s persistence in defending Brindi clearly shows her devotion and care that she delivers to her pets. I truly believe Ms. Rogier has the intent and ability to provide Brindi with the behavior training she needs to modify her territorialism. In addition, I have met and spoken with Susan Jordan, her trainer, and am aware she is well-regarded in the community of trainers and is equipped to handle behavioural modification. I am confident in her abilities.

I hope you find this statement instructive. If you have any questions for me please feel free to contact me (number removed).

Respectfully,

Kyra Larkin BSc, DVM

Dr. Larkin first examined Brindi in June 2010 at Belle Kennel, using her mobile vet clinic. I am extremely indebted and grateful to her for her dedication and commitment.
For the trainer's findings, go here. 

Affidavit Submitted to Provincial Court for Sentencing

Affidavit of Elizabeth Lindsay

I hereby affirm and give evidence as follows:

1.     I am Elizabeth Lindsay, a friend of Francesca Rogier, the Defendant in this matter.

2.     I reside at address withheld , Dartmouth, Nova Scotia.

3.     I have personal knowledge of the evidence sworn in this affidavit except where explicitly stated as based on information and belief. I state my belief of the source of any information I state herein that is not based on my own personal knowledge.

4.     I have been a pet owner in HRM for 30 years and am active in the volunteer and rescue community.

5.     In mid-June 2010, on or around June 10, I observed two of Francesca’s training sessions with Brindi at Belle Kennel in Porter’s Lake, which was conducted according to Court order. These sessions lasted for about an hour.

6.     During these sessions with Brindi, who I had not seen prior to these sessions, the dog impressed me as a friendly, good-natured animal weighing about 60 pounds. She responded to commands obediently and intelligently.

7.     Throughout the sessions, which took place in the pen designated for them, I was able to observe that Francesca was diligent and sincerely focused on completing the training as prescribed by court-approved trainer Susan Jordan.

I want every person and every "sanctuary" to know....

that Brindi is not material for a sanctuary or rescue... she is a dog that has excellent obedient training, is smart, affectionate, gentle, and good. This has all been well documented and analyzed by trainers and vets and presented to the court in testimony and prepared reports.

All of the assessments found the same things, including the most recent assessment carried out on June 13 specifically for the purpose of this trial. Brindi is not "dog-aggressive". She is not food aggressive. She is territorial - to some dogs, not every dog. She ranks on the very lowest level of the scale of aggression, meaning Brindi seeks to communicate, not harm.

Typically, she reacts to a combination of the dog and the person with the dog.

Brindi needs work on one issue and one issue only.

That issue is very controllable now, and can be trained out of her.

She is not a dog that should be locked away for the rest of her life. So please do not imagine even for one second that this is an acceptable solution!

Brindi deserves a good home and all the love in the world!

STATEMENT ON THE DECISION OF THE PROVINCIAL COURT

Released to local media June 26, 2012  

By returning total and absolute control of Brindi’s fate to HRM, today’s court decision firmly establishes that HRM is not answerable to any authority.

How is HRM to feign a sincere decision between adopting Brindi out, or putting her down? Ever since HRM seized Brindi after an incident in which no one was harmed, HRM has insisted she must die. Yet it has not conducted a single behavioral evaluation on her, and showed no interest in the results of the ones I commissioned. In fact, HRM blocked and/or attempted to sabotage them. But it failed.

HRM’s record of denying due process and procedural fairness was made clear in the Supreme Court decision of 2009. Yet no individual was ever held accountable, nor did HRM change its ways by amending even a single law or policy. It simply dug in its heels, refused to return Brindi, and retaliated by laying charges against me for an event that took place six months earlier. The pattern continued unabated.

HRM failed again in Court some 16 months later. Then it declined to cooperate with an order to allow Brindi to be trained at the kennel. After they blocked it for a month, I had to appeal to the media before HRM would comply.

Legal Opinion on the Issues

http://freebrindi.blogspot.ca/p/legal-opinion-on-issues.html

"Good Bite Inhibition": If only some humans had it!

The more facts people get about this case, and the situation in Halifax, the more they will come to realize that what is happening to Brindi and me is not about a "dangerous dog" or an "irresponsible owner" or about protecting the public. Not at all. It is about bad legislation and arbitrary law enforcement. And, in the place of accountability for both, a coordinated attack to silence unlucky victims - not unlike the way the NSA treats whistleblowers.

It's a mistake for laws to apply a human yardstick to dogs. The latest consensus in canine science is that a dog that kills at the first opportunity is a far greater danger than a dog that has many opportunities but refrains from inflicting severe injuries. It's called "bite inhibition". As Dr. Ian Dunbar puts it, A dog that gets into lots of scuffles, and the other dog comes away without a mark or a wound, has good bite inhibition. That's Brindi.

There is only one photo of an injury from a scuffle with Brindi, and it isn't remotely like the photo of this poor dog. She has excellent bite inhibition, according to her trainer Susan Jordan. Her behavior is about sending a message in the way dogs communicate to other dogs. It's not about attacking to maim or kill.

Brindi waited two years in a no-kill shelter for my adoption. She knows how to cope in a kennel, but she is not her full self there, and knowing she's got a real home and a human who loves her has to make her depressed. I often hear from kind supporters - who have since become friends - who care so much, they shed tears nightly over Brindi. It's terrible, and though I am deeply touched and humbled by it, I so wish they didn't - I feel like I am suffering enough for everybody.

THIS YEAR: RIGHT NOW
The trial began in March with shock and disappointment, so then the verdicts on May 10 were not all that surprising, although the month delay in between was unexpected and personally devastating.
See the court docs here.
Right now, the sentencing scheme is underway. It's very unorthodox, to say the least: there will be no public sentencing hearing in court. Instead, per the judge's scheduling arrangement, the city had three weeks to file its "submissions" (also with court docs) to request killing Brindi. That left me two weeks to prepare my submission for the June 22 deadline. The judge will announce her decision June 26.

June 22 is a Friday. That means the judge gave herself just one day to read my submissions. One day. After nearly two years of waiting for a trial with my dog locked up in isolation, my dog, who never should have been seized, and was seized twice instead.

The materials submitted by the city include reports of incidents dating as far back as 2007 - minor incidents involving little or no injury, which were not charged. They make no mention of the subsequent hours of training we did. And as before, no behavioral assessment by a professional to back up their claim that Brindi is a public threat. The city is relying on a very twisted argument that blames me for being irresponsible and then concludes from that that Brindi is dangerous and must be put down.

The latest development:
The prosecutor spoke on radio for the first time last week on News 95.7 on the Rick Howe show. Rick, for reasons known only to him, chose not to offer me the chance to defend myself, let alone correct four key things she said that were untrue. After I contacted him to ask what the deal was, he gave me about 5 minutes on air today. Unfortunately he interrupted them with an comment from a caller (unannounced) who ignored everything that had just been said in order to trash me.

More important, the city is currently blocking me from getting an updated assessment of Brindi done by a trainer in time for my June 22 deadline. Normally a trainer would see a dog in its living environment; what else? But HRM is claiming the proprietors (contracted by the city) aren't comfortable with having the assessment there. It insists on wrenching Brindi out of the kennel and trucking her back to the pound, muzzled, in a locked box in a dogcatcher's truck and giving the trainer a small room indoors. That's the same place it kept her for two months in 2010, with an outdoor area consisting of two parking spaces, screened off. Brindi would doubtless freak out going back there, because she'll assume she's being taken there to stay. Great way to set up an assessment.

Clearly, the city has very little idea about behavioral assessments, or Brindi. Secrecy - paranoia, I'd say - is more important than fairness or a living being's right to life. Some say they do things to make her fierce, but frankly, nothing HRM has orchestrated to date served to change Brindi's temperament. But they have certainly hurt her emotional state and isolated her from a lot of love and companionship that she deserves - as well as constant care for her now chronic illnesses brought on by years of confinement and neglect (insufficient exercise, bad food, fatty treats) at the pound.

That's how it is.

Public safety or politics? How Halifax deals with dogs that actually cause severe harm

Was Halifax merely practicing strict animal control when it planned to seize Brindi, laying the ground by issuing her a muzzle order? 
You decide. Here is a sample of its approach to dogs that actually cause serious harm, from last April. 

Dog fights frustrate Lower Sackville residents

Residents of a Lower Sackville trailer park say they've had enough with a pair of dogs that continue to fight each other.

Tracey Crawley, a resident of the Sackville Manor trailer park, said her pet was attacked two months ago by one of the two dogs.

"My daughter was home with my dog and she called me on the phone to tell my the chow dog had been in the yard and attacked my dog," she said Monday. "My next door neighbour, what she did was she called the SPCA and we never heard anything else in regards to it."

At around 4 p.m. on Monday, there was another fight between the two dogs in question — a chow mix and a pit bull. The owner of the chow mix was bitten in the arm as she tried to break up the fight between the animals. Tanya Ross, the owner of the pit bull, said she wants the other dog to leave the neighbourhood.

"Her dog bit my daughter, attacked my dog four or five times on my property, has attacked numerous people in the neighbourhood, I think the dog should be taken right out of the neighbourhood," she told CBC News.

Animal services officers with the Halifax Regional Municipality spoke to Ross and the owner of the chow mix, but neither of the animals was seized.

-- Chronicle Herald, Halifax

So... not so strict after all. Even when people are bitten - or animals are killed: I personally witnessed a case of a dog that strayed far from its yard and killed a kitten belonging to a neighbor. The ten-year old dog had never been licensed either. Irresponsible owner? No. The city didn't seize that dog, or bring that neighbor to court; it didn't ask for the dog to be put down, or even muzzled. On hearing the prosecutor say "It was just a first offense, your honor," the judge granted his request for two fines, a long period to pay, and a long period for the owner - whose husband appeared in court in her place - to obtain a dog license.

Meanwhile, known violent psychos get "day passes" to roam the streets unescorted. Recently this sort of thing led to a man's murder.

Brindi's been locked up longer than many violent criminals.

Halifax seized her and kept her for six months without cause (or due process). I tried in vain to convince them it was a mistake, begged them to let her go, offered to pay fines if they would only charge me; build a fence; do private training, and obey the muzzle order (violated unintentionally for about 20 secs one fateful morning). But the city refused, and kept hold of her even after I had to go to court and a judge tossed out their unconstitutional "euthanasia" order. At that point it simply laid charges and kept her longer, even though the charge didn't entitle them to do that. Also the vet, and any number of members of the public. 
At the beginning Halifax lawyers admitted Brindi was not a danger to people. Which raises the question, why try to put her down? She's never bitten a person, not even close, and no dog ever needed medical treatment because of her. Last week, inexplicably reversing the previous position, the new prosecutor told a local radio host that Brindi's a threat to public safety And all the time, it keeps her isolated from other dogs, and from me, as her health declines. I don't know what their connection is, but the prosecutor spoke on the same show as a woman belonging to a small group of people who have been harassing me for years - people with connections to a branch of the SPCA that, as the poundkeeper, ducked loudly the first time around. The woman hasn't been directly involved in my case, yet keeps putting out false information.

I have blogged the details leading almost up to her release in 2010. It's been very difficult to continue after that, especially with the things I was hit after the city took her again. That was after a minor and rather freak incident. Again, it wouldn't let her go pending trial, though it leaves countless other dogs  at home while it pursues similar charges after similar incidents. It ignores the training that was done and what the trainer says about Brindi.

Under Construction! Thank you for your patience!

See Brindijustice.com for the following documents that were submitted to the court and are now part of the public record.

The list includes:

1. Transcripts of calls
2. Katie and Tyson Simms' written statements filed with HRM
3. Transcript of RCMP interviews of the Simms, Michele Steen, Lloyd Pettipas
4. Photographs of the Simms' dog Lucy
5. Vet report
6. HRM Oct. 8 2010 brief filed for an injunction (injunction hearing was denied; Supreme Court claimed it lacked jurisdiction)
7. Rogier preliminary brief filed 17 as Motion to Dismiss or Stay Proceedings based on Charter violations
8. HRM Reply Brief, Feb. 24
9. Rogier March 13 Rebuttal Brief, with list of authorities
10. HRM Second Reply Brief, April 5, with list of authorities
11. Rogier Motion to Strike Testimony and Exclude Evidence, March 15
12. Rogier Motion to Declare Mistrial, March 15, submitted at close of trial proceedings, March 16
13. Transcript of court proceedings from March 2 and March 16
14. HRM email about mistrial motion
15. Rogier April 26 letter to judge requesting clarification after HRM failed to respond to mistrial motion
16. Fax to HRM from court clerk April 27
17. Rogier Response to HRM’s Second Reply Brief, with attachments, May 8

ALSO 

Trainer statement to court on dog behavior, and vet reports on Brindi's health, pending permission
photos of site where my car spun off the road on March 2

And when it's ready, a transcript of the written ruling by Judge Buchan May 10 (she is not releasing it directly, but I will file a transcript of it to the court).

It will probably be a good idea to link to the relevant laws, or at least give a list. I'll do that as well, why not?

Links by others

More YouTube videos by others:

Queen's Brindi Message  April 2012
Francesca's Story  March 2012
Let's Bring Brindi Home!  March 2012
No photos allowed  December 2011
A Christmas Stocking  December 2011

Videos uploaded and/or shot by me: 

Brindi at Homeward Bound during behavioral assessment (footage taken by Bob Riley, April 2010: Brindi had not seen or been up close to dogs for 18 months)

Brindi goes to the beach Summer 2010 trip to a fairly deserted beach - just as deserted as everywhere else I walk(ed) her around here. We live 45 minutes from Halifax, in a very sparsely populated area.

Recently posted material: 

Online interview with me: Montreal Dog Blog  November/December 2011

Brindi Justice:  The truth behind the smears - what HRM doesn't want you to know: Among other things, that a switchboard operator with four years of experience in animal services dispatching, was opposed to the seizure, detention, and planned euthanization of Brindi from day one - so opposed, in fact, she made a fateful suggestion on the night of Sept. 14, 2010,

Open Letter to Derek Graham of Wyndenfog Kennel from me, March 2012

 

Trick or treat

HRM prosecutor Katherine Salsman was assigned to the case against me and Brindi back in 2010. Salsman posted this photo of herself (left) dressed for Halloween as Cruella DeVille (the dog-hating villainess from Disney's "1001 Dalmations") on her Facebook page last fall. The trial was supposed to begin Nov. 8, 2011. Apparently, this was her profile picture from October to sometime before the end of the year.  
The photo was brought to my attention by members of Save Brindi, who didn't find it very funny.
Neither do I.

September 2011: Another Year of Hell.

Only ten weeks after a provincial judge finally let Brindi come home - when I was just beginning to come up for air, when I actually thought things were getting better, when Brindi's health was finally stabilizing, and when I still had some savings left - another inconceivably freakish incident happened. No more harmful than the others, but enough for the city of Halifax to use as an excuse to seize Brindi and put her back on death row. Hell. Absolute hell.

Where did it happen? At the foot of my driveway. What happened? There was a mix-up with the car, and she grabbed, or tried to grab, a dog being walked past my house. The owners were a youngish married couple I never saw before. It was a relief when they said they thought their dog was okay in response to my apology and question. But they ignored my desperate pleas and assured me they were going to report it. They did better: they called the RCMP. I begged them for Brindi's life. The reply: "I don't give a f--- about anybody else's dog but mine!"

In the margins: AC officer who seized Brindi gives opinion of the situation

Not sure what this means exactly. 


Posted with permission of Bob Riley. 

Date: Fri, 28 May 2010 12:30:18 -0300
 hammt@halifax.ca
> To: Bob RileySubject: Re: Tim I thought I would give you a heads up to watch...

Hi Bob,

Sorry I just got the e-mail today, so I missed the news. I no longer support Ms Scolaro or MacDonald with their pursuit of this case, and I have not for quite some time. I feel I acted with good intentions and did not expect this case to be so drawn out or adversarial. I am not qualified to inspect a fence, nor am I qualified to accept/reject a trainer. I do not think this office is run professionally and wish you all the best.

Tim (Hamm)

It's not over 'til the fat lady gets her dog back

Photo: Glen Canning 

And it'd better be soon!!! Amelia and I are waiting! 

Humane Halifax: "Andrew Krystal should just go away"

Response from Humane Halifax for Better Animal Control:

Andrew Krystal should just go away

Discussions on the case regarding Francesca Rogier and her dog Brindi are not “inane.” It is the opposite. 

This is a highly significant matter legally and to our community. This is not a case simply focused on the behaviour of a dog - a dog that happens to have caused no significant harm to anyone or anything! - or an owner's behavior, but involves the illegality of several municipal and provincial laws, the negligence of city employees and subcontractors, the dubious and exorbitant costs and actions of our city animal control/police and legal departments and the way that neighbours treat neighbours, as well as animals. It is already a precedent-setting case in administrative and animal law, due to Francesca’s win against HRM in the Supreme Court of NS, unchallenged by HRM. 

Francesca did “abrogate” what had happened to her - she applied to a court of competent jurisdiction, and that court used its authority to find and rule that HRM had passed a law that was in fact illegal, under which its employees committed acts that were never legal. These employees testified that they followed the procedural rules of natural justice, but the judge found that they did not.
In fact, the judge found that following the "triggering" incident on July 20, HRM animal control "special constables" failed to carry out a full and proper investigation before deciding to seize and destroy Brindi. Got that? They never spoke to Francesca to get her side of the story, and they never spoke to a third-party witness who saw everything - from ground level.
An actual investigation would have found that Brindi never made contact with a dog in that incident. 


Consequently, along with overturning that decision, the judge declared that the section of the bylaw under which AC Officer Hamm seized Brindi was never valid - because it violates Charter rights. I.e., it is unconstitutional.

The facts strongly suggest that animal control staff had already planned to kill Brindi the minute she came to their attention in previous non-injury - and one with a very minor scratch - incidents. No one could explain why they had issued Brindi a muzzle order for those incidents (the law sets out no criteria or standard - yet another flaw), and few, if any, officials or media ever asked about that. Animal control used the muzzle order to create the falsehood that Brindi is "dangerous", and worse, that under the law, a dog under a muzzle order must be destroyed if any incident happens - even non-injury incidents! The law says no such thing, and in fact, it only calls for a fine if the dog is seen without the muzzle off the owner's property.

The city's lawyers, though well aware of the falsehoods and deliberate misleading, did nothing to correct them. In some respects, they encouraged the mistaken beliefs, both in and out of the courtroom. Thus, they are at fault for both enacting an unconstitutional law, and fostering mistaken beliefs about its content.

Like Andrew Krystal, the councilors, city staff and mayor not only lack knowledge of the facts of the case. They seem to have little to no understanding of the laws they help enact, or details of the cases that are prosecuted based on them. They accept whatever they are told by self-interested, highly biased staff. This is a sad and shameful state of affairs that also shows the relative incompetence of our city government. 

Are these matters “inane”? Only if your main interest in life is getting home from work in time to see “Dancing With The Stars.” As for this case taking attention away from matters dealing with racism or treatment of the elderly - hardly. That is simply a ridiculous comment. News stories on both of those topics get heavy media coverage, as you well know, and the ‘Brindi‘ case has gotten very little media coverage, and what coverage there has been is largely superficial and misconstrued.
If you are saying that you believe “dog lovers” are neglectful of needy humans, that is also ridiculous. In general most people who show love and affection to animals are also the same ones who show love and affection to humans. Many studies clearly show the opposite: humans who are indifferent or hateful towards animals tend to be the same ones who often cause the worst harm to humans. It is interesting that you say it is a “shame” we can’t euthanize bad pet owners - so you are saying humans should be put to death for some vague idea of what might constitute bad pet ownership? This is a good example of how those who are indifferent to animals (“there are many things to fuss over and Brindi isn‘t one of them” - “down with the dog I say”) also often advocate needless violence towards them and humans. 


People do not have a pre-set limit on the amount and ability to care for multiple things in their lives - family, friends, acquaintances, co-workers, personal interests, causes and yes, pets. We are all capable of loving things in different amounts, in different ways, at different times. Most people also care more about what is close to their hearts then things not directly affecting them. Of course one will be more affected by what happens to a family member than by something not happening to one personally!!
As for “guarantees” - they do not exist in life, as much as you might wish they did. This is as true of animal and human behaviours as it unfortunately is of “warranties” and “insurance” and other great concepts that fall very short in practice.

In a court, decisions are to rely on facts as much as possible, rather than suppositions. Those accused or convicted are then given opportunity and are expected to accept responsibility for their actions by remedying any wrongs and make positive contributions to society. 
Simply killing anything or anyone does not solve a problem - it is actually an avoidance of solving a problem. There are cases involving animals where “euthanasia” may be a more appropriate emergency measure, say for an untreatably ill and suffering animal. Destruction of an animal may be warranted in an exigent circumstance to defend another life in danger. There are often more viable options in these circumstances as well. Neither of these situations even remotely apply to Brindi, who is a normally well behaved, well loved pet who simply needs further training to keep her close to home and how to deal with other dogs near her space. That’s it. 

The “history” of this dog does not include any kind of vicious attack on any dog and none whatsoever on any human. It is inflammatory to imply otherwise. If she hasn’t done that to date, why would she begin now? This case is not an example of the premise of “the good of the many outweigh the good of the few.”
Brindi is not a threat to public safety - that is a statement promoted by HRM to defend its mistakes, not a fact. 
Yes, Francesca has been convicted under laws that are widely considered to be inadequate and wrongful, and yes, she did make some mistakes as a owner. These ‘mistakes’ are terribly minor and easily corrected - and must be seen against the tremendous amount of work she put in to achieve the success she had with Brindi on the whole. She has been willing to accept responsibility and remedy the situation since July 2008. Responsibility for accidental events being, of course, a sort of impossible task.

A recent case of a dog that attacked humans took only ten minutes to resolve in Kentville's provincial court. Why was this case not resolved long before now?

HRM is directly responsible for this case developing as slowly and as byzantinely it has, by not owning up to their responsibilities and governing in the way that most of us expect them to. All the while, they've been allowing the SPCA to keep Brindi locked up - unlawfully! - in sub-par conditions for an unacceptable amount of time. 

These things are what a responsible journalist should be reporting on. Not simply letting loose his own uniformed, knee-jerk opinion. It’s a shame the public - and an innocent dog and beloved owner - must pay the price for irresponsible government and media, a shame we can’t just “euthanize” their irresponsibility and indifference. 



-Betty Macdonald, Humane Halifax