Animals C.L.U.B.- FreedomNational Organization Inc. (Nonprofit) | ||
Dead Dog Blues![]() Dead Dog Blues Alan Weisenberg's old pet Chihuahua was confiscated by Animal Control, and later died. He is now being charged with cruelty to animals for letting it live so long. By Jennifer Abel www.hartfordadvocate.com Picture a female named Bambi, age 18 or 19 years old. But before investing too much energy in the wrong image, you should know that Bambi is a dog. A Chihuahua, in fact, equivalent to a centenarian in human terms. So the fact that she died last month really isn't any surprise, but the fact that her owner's facing jail time maybe is. It's an odd tale. On one side there's Alan Weisenberg, a 58-year-old West Hartford man who is by most accounts a responsible dog owner. Then there's Karen Jones, a town Animal Control officer who is by most accounts a responsible dog warden. Until Sept. 17, the day Weisenberg says she threatened to arrest him on animal cruelty charges if he didn't have Bambi euthanized. The dog died in her sleep on Oct. 5, and two weeks later Weisenberg went to the police to turn himself in after learning of an Oct. 16 arrest warrant in his name. Now he's waiting for his Dec. 11 court date, where he faces up to a year in jail. "[Jones] said, 'when dogs get old ... we should put them down.'" Weisenberg recalled in an interview with the Advocate. "I said, 'Who are you to tell me to put my dog down? If she's dying, she can die at home with her family." By all accounts the dog was in poor health. "[Bambi's] left leg had arthritis," Weisenberg said. "I used to carry her outside, she liked the warm weather ... I guess it made her arthritis feel better." Weisenberg knew his old dog didn't have long to live. "I've had her since she was a pup ... I didn't want to put her down. If she was showing she was in pain, crying or something, then I would've said 'All right.' But she didn't." The incident happened on a warm day on Sept. 17. Usually, when Weisenberg went to work he brought his two large mongrel dogs with him and left Bambi in the house. But that was a particularly nice day, and Bambi wanted to stay outside. And so: "Never done this before, but I had a cord about 15 feet long, and tied her to a tree outside while I went to work for five or six hours. Someone — they never said who — called [town officials] to say they thought the dog was dead." An elderly, arthritic dog sprawled on a sunny sidewalk might well be mistaken for a dead one. So far this sounds, at most, like a routine misunderstanding. Weisenberg didn't know Bambi had become a law-enforcement issue until he left work, "got home, and saw a cop and the dog warden." Bambi was already in the Animal Control truck when he got home, Weisenberg said, so he couldn't simply carry her back inside. Weisenberg says Jones wanted the dog euthanized almost from the start. "She said if you let me put the dog down, I won't charge you with anything." Weisenberg's roommate Rick Bouchard said he was there and confirms Weisenberg's account of the conversation between the dog owner and the animal control official. "She was threatening to arrest [Weisenberg] and fine him if he didn't release the dog to her," he said. Weisenberg refused. Animal Control took Bambi to Avon's Farmington Valley Veterinary Hospital, where she stayed for 10 days until Weisenberg's attorney Fred Boland sent police a letter demanding the dog's return. On Sept. 27 another animal control officer took Bambi to Newington's Fox Clinic, a low-cost facility run by the Humane Society. After being checked by a vet, the dog was released back into Weisenberg's custody. "She was always thin," Weisenberg said, "but they gave me back a skeleton ... they put her in a kennel somewhere where she was scared to death, probably a cubicle with a hard cement floor ... she was so happy to see me." Bambi died in her sleep Oct. 5. Weisenberg mourned his dog and figured the matter over. But police were preparing an arrest warrant, completed and dated Oct. 16. Bouchard was the first to learn of its existence. "I was emptying the garbage about nine, 9:30 at night, and then four cops with flashlights came up — I think it was three police and the animal investigator there — they asked me if I was Alan. I told them no ... I imagine they knew I wasn't Alan; they did not ask for ID." Weisenberg turned himself in the next day. This is the part of the story where police are supposed to give their version of events. But with Weisenberg's court appearance pending, neither Officer Jones nor Chief of Police James Strilacci can speak to the press. They did return our calls long enough to say they couldn't say anything, and Jones added "I'd be more than happy to help you out after the case is taken care of ... and help you write a good story." Their version of events can be found in the arrest warrant affidavit, which Boland gave us as soon as he got a copy (two days after we first spoke to Weisenberg). It describes a dog suffering not from old age, but neglectful ownership. Weisenberg and Boland both say events were twisted just out of focus of the truth. For one example, the warrant says that Jones felt the dog needed emergency care, but "Weisenberg insisted the dog was fine, just old and that he did not have the funding to pay for her care and might soon be losing his used car business." Boland and Weisenberg's version of the encounter is that Weisenberg wanted to take Bambi to his own vet rather than the one recommended by Jones because "business has been slow and the Fox Clinic is cheaper." Parts of the affidavit read a bit ambiguously: one section notes that Bambi was tied to the tree by a 20 foot rope, and later says ,"A bowl of water was visible but at least 15 feet away from where the dog lay collapsed," implying that it was out of Bambi's reach. The report also says the dog lacked shelter. It's true there's no doghouse in Weisenberg's front yard, but there is a crabapple tree whose sprawling branches provide shade (at least in September; by late November the tree's a largely leafless skeleton). A 15- or 20-foot rope tied to the trunk would be just long enough to let the dog escape the shade and sun herself at sidewalk's edge. The police report says the Farmington Valley Veterinary Hospital recommended euthanizing Bambi when she arrived on Sept. 17. But a "to whom it may concern" letter from the Fox Clinic, dated Oct. 31 and referencing the Sept. 27 visit, made no such suggestion; it says Bambi showed no signs of physical abuse or cruelty, but that Weisenberg was advised to "eliminate outside tethering for extended periods of time because of age and health issues." So keeping Bambi outside on Sept. 17 was probably a bad idea (though whether it rises to the level of criminal animal cruelty is another matter). The state Animal Control Division is a branch of the Department of Agriculture. We called to ask under what circumstances a dog owner could be legally compelled to put his pet down, and were surprised to learn the answer is "none." If a dog is violent the state can confiscate and destroy it, but the owner's not obliged to do so. Therefore, if Jones tried forcing Weisenberg to euthanize the dog, she far overstepped her authority as an Animal Control officer. But the man who answered the phone at Animal Control seemed very surprised to hear who we were talking about. "That sounds out of character for [Jones]," he said. Source link: http://www.hartfordadvocate.com/article.cfm?aid=4294 Fair Use Notice: Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C. 107, other copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, research, critical comment, or debate without profit or payment. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for your own purposes beyond the 'fair use' exception, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. ![]() Animals C.L.U.B.- Freedom Comments: A.- Introduction of legally defined 'Animal Control Authority' in Perversion: Many of our fellow citizens, no longer have the tolerant souls and morals of free men and women. They have the souls and morals of a now "perverted" mentality as busy-bodies and petty "tyrants" who want to ruin their neighbors' lives, and kill their pets and their pet ownership rights, all in the name of "WHAT?" That of the 'Gestapo' Animal Control 'perverted' Agendas. These types of legal allegations and proposals are being implemented with intent of "malice" to the pet owners, as well as the pet animals." These animal rights people have become "tyrants" thru the use of our various legal systems, destroying the very freedoms "We" as people have a right to possess in a free society. This is a documentary of the proposal of violations of "Pet Ownership" rights and freedoms. B.- The Dog Warden "Animal Rights" Activist Problem: There are people in authority, that are so addicted to exaggeration they can't tell the truth without lying. This article and the outcome of Justice (or not) in the alleged charges, are of National interest and concern to all people with pets. Let us all follow this "test case" of pet ownership freedom closely. UPDATE: Continue to schroll down this web page to the bottom article, titled 'Dog-ma Police' for the details of what is occurring with this true case of 'Gestapo Animal Control.' http://animalsclubfreedom.us/ |
Promote 'Citizen Dog Walkers' © as a community security resource![]() Promote 'Citizen Dog Walkers' as a community security resource GLENWOOD, Iowa, June 8 (NationalDogPress.com) -- - OFFICIAL NEWS RELEASE - 'Citizen Dog Walkers' and their dogs are the most reliable and inexpensive security resource in society. Promote 'Citizen Dog Walkers' © as your community security resource against violent crime against people you know, love, or care about in your own community. With their daily presence in our parks, dogs walking near our homes or in the vicinity of children playing on the streets, and even on our nature trails, 'Citizen Dog Walkers' and their dogs are the eyes and ears of the community, frequently the first to discover crimes, (even crimes in progress), against people, property, places, things, or even crimes involving other animals and are consistently a deterrent to any crime being committed. We the People who own dogs of all breeds and mix of breeds, should be encouraging the presence of 'Citizen Dog Walkers' and their dogs rather than implementing public policies that restrict and prohibit them or their ownership and responsible family use and participation of them with all dog breeds. A vulnerable human female being stalked as prey to a violent crime, or even a human male alone is more secure around a 'Citizen Dog Walker' with their dog, then with any other form of self protection device made. And it is a sure bet when a violent crime occurs against a person, without a dog being present, calling 911 is virtually, only a government sponsored 'dial-a-prayer" after the assault has occurred. Animals C.L.U.B.- Freedom National Organization is officially promoting our new National mission goal of the responsible use of "Citizen Dog Walkers" with their dogs to deter violent crime in your society and community nation-wide. "A dog walked by a 'Citizen Dog Walker' makes a more effective neighborhood watch program with 4 legs." ~ Quote by Dean A. Ayers Promote 'Citizen Dog Walkers' © as a community security resource against violent crime against people in your own community. The official web site link for posting any postings, questions, answers, needs, comments, or responses to this National community protection program called the 'Citizen Dog Walkers'© is as follows: http://pets.groups.yahoo.com/group/TheDogWhispererDotBiz/ This is an official Animals C.L.U.B.- Freedom National Organization community protection program and official news release. Cross posting and re-printing authorized as long as the total article with full links are intact. © NationalDogPress.com Headline News by Dean A. Ayers Dean A. Ayers is a prior United States Air Force Special Agent for the AFOSI. His duties included that of law enforcement specialist, criminal, fraud, and counter-intelligence. He was assigned to felony crimes in federal government, fraud, waste and abuse investigations of the military branches of service, and counter-intelligence in overseas locations. Dean was also a former Texas State Commissioned Alamo State Park Armed Ranger. Dean is currently Director, Animals C.L.U.B.- Freedom National Organization and Dean is also a Lead Investigative Reporter for the NationalDogPress.com Headline News ©, DogPress.org, and Animalid.biz news press services. - http://pets.groups.yahoo.com/group/TheDogWhispererDotBiz/ - http://TheDogWhisperer.biz/ - http://AnimalsClubFreedom.us/ "United States Officially Certified Site" |
Navigation Services |
Dog-ma Police in Alleged Animal Hoarding? Part 1 of 2![]() Dogma Police in Alleged Animal Hoarding? Part 1 of 2 This Matter Needs to be brought to the State of Conn. Public Fore Front Immediately, based upon a need for an official investigation into this matter as follows: Can you help? Indications of Animal Authority Corruption Abound in this Matter??? PET OWNER ALERT: State of CONN. - Letter from Dr. Edward A. Dimmick, DVM Letter from Dr. Edward A. Dimmick, DVM I am writing to request your assistance in addressing a case which I believe involves significant misconduct by public officials in violating the rights of a private citizen. Specifically, the matter involves Christine Koczur of Torrington and the conduct of the state Animal Control office, in particular the behavior of Officer Richard Gregan. Previous letters to Sen. Prague, Rep. Olson, and other officials have gone unanswered, and/or been handed to the Department of Agriculture to no constructive effect. The following is a summary of the significant events leading up to the raid on her home on February 15 of this year. I apologize for the length, but there are many points to cover. For several years Christine has been taking in, caring for, and where possible adopting out homeless and unwanted animals in the Torrington area. She founded an organization called Alliance for Animal Rescue Society (AARS) to extend and promote these activities in coordination with foster homes and volunteers. In October of 2005, AARS received permission to work with the newly finished West Hartford PETCO by showing cats for adoption at the store; this required regular veterinary checkups be performed. As a mobile service veterinarian I have been examining and treating these cats; from October 7, 2005 through February 10, 2006 I made 13 visits to examine incoming and resident pets, administer vaccinations, run blood tests, and where necessary administer or prescribe medical treatment. All cats shown at the store have been vaccinated, tested for feline leukemia and FIV, de-wormed and treated for fleas; all relevant medical issues have been addressed as needed. At no time did PETCO receive any complaints or reports of problems from adoptive owners. On February 9, 2006 Christine was visited at her home by Officer Richard Gregan and Officer Barbara Goodejohn from the Animal Control office of the Department of Agriculture. During this visit Officer Gregan demanded immediate entry to search her home, making threats when she failed to comply. Officer Gregan refused to state the nature of the problem despite numerous requests. Without going into too much detail here, suffice it to say that the behavior of Officer Gregan was sufficiently upsetting to make Christine physically ill. Based upon past experience with Officer Gregan and his behavior, it was immediately obvious to me that he was not interested in a peaceable solution, but was setting the stage for a raid and seizure. On the afternoon of Friday, February 10, 2006 at 3:09 PM a message was left on my cellular phone from Officer Richard Gregan; the caller ID had been blocked to conceal the origin point of the call. Officer Gregan requested information about Christine’s personal veterinary records, without stating any reason for wanting this information. No mention was made of AARS or any specific complaint. Based upon consultation with the Connecticut Veterinary Medical Association and AVMA Code of Ethics, I determined that this information was covered by confidentiality rules. A letter to this effect was hand-delivered to the Department of Agriculture on Monday, February 13; as this was a state holiday the letter was given to the custody of the security detail who took it to Gregan’s desk. At 9:34 AM on Tuesday, February 14, Officer Goodejohn left a message on my office line that she had an ‘urgent’ matter to discuss. At 9:41 AM I called the number given, at which point she handed the phone, without warning, to Officer Gregan. Officer Gregan demanded information and refused to discuss the letter he had been given, claiming he had the right to any information he wanted on demand. Officer Gregan was informed that I would be able to examine the cats and the premises with Christine’s consent, and that he could receive a written report of any deficiencies noted. He demanded to know when this would occur so that he could be present to ‘supervise’ my inspection; he was told that he would not be welcome due to his previous behavior and known history. He threatened to have me arrested and have my license revoked if I ‘interfered’ in state cases. He also expressed a specific intent to resolve the case by raid and seizure rather than by cooperation of any kind. I believe that Officer Gregan artificially accelerated the obtaining of the search warrant in an attempt to preclude actions which might serve in Ms. Koczur’s defense. Officer Gregan claimed that the case stemmed from a kitten which had been adopted from AARS at PETCO and later died of FIP. He refused to provide any details; and when engaged on specific facts, he claimed to understand the disease better than I do. It must be stressed that at this point in time no mention of such an event had been made to Christine or to the PETCO; that Animal Control had made no effort to contact PETCO or investigate the matter through AARS; and that Officer Gregan had repeatedly refused to reveal the nature of the complaint to anyone else. There was no attempt made, and no opportunity provided, for any party to address the incident and pursue a non-confrontational resolution. The fact that Animal Control has not made any inquiries into the cats at PETCO indicates that this action was targeted specifically at Christine, and had no relationship whatsoever to her adoption activities. On the afternoon of February 14, 2006 I made an extended visit (over 5½ hours) to Christine’s home, which included the examination and vaccination of numerous cats, a review of her veterinary records, and an inspection of the premises. At least 30 cats were given physical exams and all were visually inspected; all but one appeared to be well-fed, clean, and well cared for; all have been spayed or neutered and all have been vaccinated at some point. Only a single cat seemed to be in less than good health, an older cat who had been losing weight; this cat already had an appointment for further examination. It is true that some cats were overdue for vaccination and some showed mild but treatable conditions such as ear mites. Some older cats also had dental problems, a virtually universal condition among senior pets. While the house was very cluttered, I found no evidence of unsanitary conditions threatening human or animal health; all food and water dishes were clean and kept full, litter boxes were cleaned regularly and there was no offensive odor. The claims of odor, filth, and inadequate feeding, made under oath by Officer Gregan, were clearly not true. No fleas were seen during the entire visit; while the presence of a few could have gone unnoticed, claims of severe infestation are clearly false. If such conditions are going to be considered ‘neglect’ sufficient to justify raids and seizure, then roughly 500,000 pet owners in the state are at risk. To reiterate: As an animal care professional, I did not find evidence of neglect, and Ms. Koczur was able and willing to address all issues found. The standard for animal care is not perfection, nor excellence, but adequacy (CGS 53-247(a), and Ms. Koczur met that standard. On the morning of Wednesday, February 15, 2006 a notarized letter to Officer Gregan was prepared summarizing my findings. Before this could be delivered, Officer Gregan had already served a search and seizure warrant at Christine’s home and was in the progress of taking her cats and personal papers. Officer Gregan was handed the notarized letter; he refused copies of rabies certificates offered to him. See Continued Article Part 2 of 2 on this same web page to the right.... Dogma Police in Alleged Animal Hoarding? Part 2 of 2![]() Dogma Police in Alleged Animal Hoarding? Part 2 of 2 Some issues surrounding this event are detailed below, but in summary: Officer Gregan willfully failed to follow the law and due process, refused to recognize or respect Christine’s rights and personal dignity, took items not authorized in the warrant, intentionally caused cats to suffer needless stress and trauma, was seen handling cats roughly, may have concealed or destroyed evidence, and appears to have vandalized the house. He refused to permit any observation or recording of his actions, and threatened persons with arrest for attempting to assist or assert Christine’s rights under the law. The treatment of Ms. Koczur by the officers, specifically Officer Gregan and the Torrington ACO, was consistently rude, arrogant, abusive, condescending, and at times threatening. In addition to unprofessional behavior, there were specific and egregious violations of her civil rights, her personal dignity, and the lawful requirements of official procedure. Ms. Koczur was not given adequate time to read the warrant before her house was stormed. When I asked the Torrington ACO about this, his response was that I was not an attorney and therefore had no right to ask such questions. He also said to Ms. Koczur, “If you can’t understand it that’s not my problem.” There is no excuse for such condescension from a public official. Both the Torrington ACO and Officer Gregan repeatedly gave this kind of response any time Christine attempted to assert her rights, claiming that she had no legal knowledge of her rights and therefore they were not required to respond. Officer Gregan threatened to arrest her for claiming her legal rights under the law. The copy of the warrant given to Christine, and it does not state the “grounds or probable cause for its issuance” as required by CGS 54-33a(c). Either the warrant is incomplete to begin with, or she was intentionally given an incomplete copy. Christine asked repeatedly for a detailed receipt of all items taken, as specified in CGS 54-36f. She was told by Officer Gregan that she had no such right; the Torrington ACO said she would get a receipt ‘if and when we feel like it.’ Again, not only is this a direct violation of her rights, but an inexcusable display of unprofessional behavior by public officials. It is worth noting that some of the local Animal Control officers called in to assist were considerably more professional and – perhaps not coincidentally – showed far greater care and gentleness in the actual handling of the cats. Christine offered to help identify the cats and match their medical records, which was initially accepted by the assisting ACO; Officer Gregan ripped the records from Christine’s hand, threatened her with arrest and ordered her out of the house. Since the raid the state has conducted a smear campaign against Christine, relating false and defamatory statements about the case to the press for the sole purpose of causing her further humiliation. For example, Officer Gregan stated on the record that the house had an ‘overwhelming’ odor. I was there for over 5 hours, and found no such problem. It has been published in newspaper that Christine had ‘flea nests’ in her hair, a sensationalist claim which is not merely untrue but medically impossible. This constitutes outright slander. The state has willfully refused to follow the law or proper procedure in pursuing the case, including repeated failure to hand over documents required by law and essential to Christine’s defense in a timely manner. We have reason to believe Officer Gregan has been using illegally seized personal papers to damage Christine’s financial status and to cause the cancellation of her insurance; coaching witnesses; altering or fabricating documents; and has concealed or destroyed evidence. Information about the cats is leaked to the public but kept from Christine. There are discrepancies and falsehoods in documents produced by Officer Gregan and the state. There is reason to believe that Christine is being persecuted and prosecuted as a political favor to Joel Gordes, who sits on the state’s Energy Conservation Management Board. Mr. Gordes’ wife adopted the kitten who later died, and some evidence suggests that her note to Officer Gregan is what started this entire case. The fact remains that Mr. & Mrs. Gordes never made any attempt to resolve his complaint by the means that ordinary people would use. Officer Gregan made no attempt either to fully and properly investigate the case, or to reach a cooperative arrangement as is the published policy of the Department of Agriculture. Based upon this and past incidents of similar nature, I believe that there is a systematic pattern of abuse of power and willful failure to follow the law by Officer Gregan and other persons at the Animal Control Division. Based upon past encounters and communication with Officer Gregan, I find him to be one of the rudest, most arrogant, and quite frankly malicious people I have ever met. He demonstrates, in my considered opinion, the approximate reasoning ability and emotional maturity of a high school bully. On a previous occasion I called Animal Control to ask about standards of care in order to provide counsel to my clients. I specifically asked for Dr. Bruce Sherman; instead, Officer Gregan picked up the phone, identifying himself with, “This is Bruce;” he proceeded to maintain that pretense for the remainder of a 25-minute conversation, twice referring to himself as a ‘fellow veterinary professional.’ During the conversation in question and at other times he has made the following comments: that his ability to evaluate animal health exceeds that of a veterinarian; that he believes actions of his office are exempt from public scrutiny; that he is free to judge the condition of animal care on an entirely arbitrary basis following nothing but his personal whims of the moment; and that all private rescuers are actually ‘hoarders’ whom he appears to view as criminals on the level of drug dealers and child molesters. It is impossible to attempt any form of reason with Officer Gregan, as he seems incapable of any form of discussion beyond the endless repetition of previous statements, usually those centered around his assumption of absolute and infallible authority. An item posted at the Department of Agriculture website dated Jan 30 and inexplicably removed Feb 13 (copy attached), reads as a statement of policy that the Department plans to conduct a concerted effort to find and raid those they identify as ‘hoarders.’ I should point out that, having studied with the nation’s leading authority on the hoarding phenomenon, I believe the DoA and Officer Gregan have a false and simplistic view of the issue. Even where hoarding occurs, raid and seizure – absent ‘long-term and comprehensive’ action - is not appropriate. By contrast, the Department has shown little interest in pursuing more significant offenders such as dog fighters who might require such an aggressive approach. More chilling, at least twice in recent years Officer Gregan and others from the Animal Control Division have attempted to get legislation passed which would allow them to enter and ‘inspect’ private homes without a warrant, based solely on their own discretion. At a time when even the civil rights of terrorists are a public concern, this proposal is absolutely indefensible. It is my considered impression that Officer Gregan and the Animal Control office are not interested in any approach except raiding homes and seizing animals, inflicting emotional distress on their targets and terrorizing other rescuers. At this time several of my clients have stated that they are afraid to speak out on this matter for fear they will be targeted and raided next; given past events, their fears are justified. American citizens should not have to live in fear of having their house raided by an unchecked agency based upon anonymous denunciations. I believe the cause of the problem is that due to Connecticut’s system of political patronage, this department lacks necessary accountability to any authority for their actions. The Governor’s office - supposedly concerned with fighting corruption, and the only authority this department is accountable to – does nothing but forward complaints to the very department under scrutiny. Clearly, the Governor is not interested in doing anything except sweeping the problem under the rug. If ethics in government is to be a real issue in Connecticut, it has to include more than questions of where someone got an invitation to a fundraising dinner. http://www.geocities.com/stop_corruption_now/please_help_us.html Posted by CORRUPTiON ANNiHiLATOR at 5/31/2008 Link: http://ctcorruption.blogspot.com/2008/05/letter-from-dr-edward-dimmick-dvm.html |