Please tell fran we are in Nova Scotia not some back water state!

Apparently a nerve was touched.
Our group is new but it strives to draw attention to what is hidden, forgotten, misleading because we consider dogs and cats family members, and because fixing HRM animal control must be done, and it must start with Brindi.
Where do you stand?
There is not only no imperative to continue locking Brindi up regardless of her "crimes" (and the case does fall into that category): there is every reason not to.
And yes, locking her up is what you are doing; one could render a worse image. The punitive aspect certainly resounds in the latter rather militant part of your post.

Look around. Cities are beginning to realize how wrong it is to lock away a dog for months at a time. Years are unheard of. You are not doing your job, you are doing something that is widely regarded as wrong and harmful.

It is what it is.

A few corrections and some information:

-The motion hearing began after 2:15 pm and ended just before 3:30 pm. If you were there for two hours, perhaps you were at the wrong hearing? As far as the rest of your analysis, why should anybody accept it as accurate and objective?

-Brindi's vet questioned the kennel's size and door, as well as other things. If the court had allowed it, this information would have been presented. As a full response to the kennel affidavit could never be made, so assuming what the judge would have said is pure speculation.

-Nobody said a word about how good a trainer Ms. Graham is or isn't, but now that you did, the subject does raise some questions, as many other trainers totally disagree with what she is doing here. Trainers from Halifax to Australia, in fact.

-Similarly, if we were so off the mark, how is it that from here to places far and wide so many dog lovers, owners, rescuers, have questioned the affidavit, as well as the whole case, on ethical grounds?

-Nobody is holding a gun to your head, or to your wife's head, Mr. Graham. You have a job. Your wife can train, breed, or kennel. She has other customers, doesn't she? If this bothers you so much then perhaps you should rethink your involvement. That's your decision. But attacking Brindi's owner is not a wise way to go.

-To characterize urgent fundraising efforts to save a dog - without succumbing to destitution - as "luxury" is shockingly offensive. Are you that cold? And do you honestly imagine you are in a worse financial situation? Wow.

-It's the truth that Wyndenfog was not licensed, and making that fact known is not illegal. You probably should be glad about that as you were already running up a fine of over $36,000.

You doth protest too much.Since when is it trespassing to use the driveway of a place of business to drop off a doggy Xmas stocking - on Xmas eve, when most folks are at home, no less - trespassing? Please. Never mind photographs; worry about negligence.

And with you there to protect the premises with all your training and experience, it seems odd that you feel so threatened, even if one were to believe people are "threatening to illegally confiscate her and/ or forcibly break into this kennel or (y)our personal residence". Honestly.

Here are a few counter-examples for you to think about with regard to the abnormal situation you are cooperating with. Just a suggestion.

*In Broward, Florida, a leashed husky that killed a poodle was seized and sentenced to death. Six months later the dog went home. No muzzle order. The town kicked out the mayor, changed the law, and got 6 other dogs off death row as well.
Out of concern for the other dog owners, the county lawyers went to them and offered financial compensation. We are talking only months, not years, remember. Brindi is in her fifth year of confinement!

*In Okanagan, a dog named Shadow was accused of biting a woman who allegedly kicked him. The trial was mid-way through, the owners had a sharp lawyer destroy a number of witnesses, but the sudden adjournment of another six months was too much for the owners, the Madsens. They called a public gathering and it resulted in immediate negotiations, with the district stating it acted out of concern for the long-term period of kenneling Shadow had endured.
(Remember, Brindi did not attack people who kicked her on two occasions.)

The district also reimbursed the Madsens 60% of their legal costs. Imagine, Mr. Graham.

Here are a couple of things - the district's statement, then the report on the release of Shadow.

Regional District releases statement regarding Shadow
CHBC News, Kelowna : Monday, July 23, 2012 5:04 PM
http://www.castanet.net/news/Kelowna/78303…

On Monday afternoon, the Regional District of the Central Okanagan released a statement regarding Shadow, an Alaskan Malamute accused of biting a woman in the leg. Shadow has been kept at a dog pound in Kelowna for the past 15 months, which is half of its life. People around the Okanagan as well as across B.C. have become attached to the story and many are calling for the animal's release.

Here is the release verbatim:

RDCO Statement – Custody of Shadow

The Regional District of Central Okanagan presents the following facts:
• On April 27th, 2011 Regional District Dog Control received a report of a dog attack-person bitten on Middle Bench Road in Lake Country on March 26th, 2011.
• The injuries suffered were severe and required a lengthy treatment and rehabilitation.
• The victim identified an Alaskan Malamute dog named Shadow as the aggressor and RDCO Dog Control began an immediate investigation.
• On May 1st, 2011 RDCO dog control seized the dog under Section 49 of the Community Charter.
• In July 2011, a trial date was set for July 2012 to hear arguments on a Destruction Order.
• On April 20th, 2012 a Provincial Court judge ruled the seizure was improper since no warrant was obtained and the judge gave the Regional District five days to get an approved warrant.
• On April 24th, 2012 the Regional District obtained a warrant to seize the dog alleged to have bitten a person on March 26th, 2011.
• On January 3, 2012 the hearing for the dog owners’ application for interim release of their dog was dismissed by a Provincial Court judge.
• In February 2012 a consent order offer was made by the Regional District to the dog owners to release the dog including a number of conditions provided to protect public safety.
• If accepted, this consent order, would have returned the dog to its owners and finally conclude this matter. The offer was refused by the dog owners.
• On Monday and Tuesday last week, July 16th and 17th, the Provincial Court trial began hearing evidence and the case has been adjourned, likely to continue in January 2013.
• While there are witness statements that conflict with the victim's statement, the Regional District is not in a position to make a judgment.
• The judge will determine the outcome of the case, based on all the evidence that is presented.

The Regional District would like to address a number of issues of concern raised by the public.
• The Regional District does not believe it is appropriate for any dog to be held for extended periods of time in its dog pound facility, but it is bound to protect the safety and interests of the public and all ratepayers in the Central Okanagan. Consent orders are a tool to avoid keeping dogs for long periods of time.
• Criminal, family and civil court matters are the priority for the courts and it makes it difficult to get dog bylaw cases before the courts in a timely manner. Counsel for the Regional District has been told on several occasions by judges that dog bylaw cases are not more important than civil, family or criminal cases.
• Last Friday, July 20th, the Regional District offered a revised consent order to the dog owners. Among the conditions are secure fencing, behaviour training and control when outside the fenced area. The Regional District is awaiting a response.

The Regional District regrets this situation and is concerned about the welfare of the dog, but will consider only one option other than continuing to house the dog at the RDCO pound and that is for the owners to take their dog back under the conditions of the revised consent order.
(END)

That was the statement of the district. This is what happened a week later:

http://www.castanet.net/news/Central-Okana…

Charges dropped, Shadow goes home
by Wayne Moore - Story: 78490
Jul 27, 2012 / 6:00 pm

Shadow is going home.
An agreement between her owner, Peter Madsen, and the Regional District of Central Okanagan (RDCO) was finalized Friday, paving the way for Shadow's return to her family later that afternoon.
In announcing the agreement, the RDCO says the two sides reached agreement on a Consent Order which outlines what they describe as a number of mutually acceptable conditions.

As part of that order, the dog owners have agreed to a program of rehabilitation and reintegration training for the two year old dog to help her in transitioning back to her owners’ home.

“The agreement marks a positive step for both parties in resolving what has been a very difficult case. It’s been an extremely emotional experience for everyone involved: the victim, the dog owners, Regional District Dog Control staff and other professionals in the community,” says Regional Board Chair Robert Hobson.

The Lake Country Alaskan Malamute had been on 'death row' in the RDCO's dog pound for the past 15 months awaiting a court date on allegations she attacked and bit a Lake Country woman March 26, 2011.

As part of the agreement reached between the parties, Madsen says the RDCO agreed to drop all charges against Shadow while Madsen says he has agreed not to pursue civil charges against the district.

"It's been hell for our family. We just wanted it to end," says Madsen, whose attempts to get Shadow released from the pound cost him and his family ten's of thousands of dollars.

“We are grateful for the cooperation of the Regional District in working to resolve this matter and getting Shadow back with us. We’re very happy that she is home and will begin professional training to help with her adjustment.”

Madsen adds the Regional District has agreed to help with his legal costs as well as the cost of rehabilitation in case the experience at the pound has caused lasting affects on the dog.
For their part, the family agreed to build adequate fencing around the family home. Madsen says those renovations passed RDCO inspection Friday, paving the way for completion of the deal.
Madsen also offered his thanks Paul Macklim at the Regional District and to members of the media who helped champion Shadow's cause.
He adds he will continue to fight for the need for better conditions and better facilities at the RDCO's dog pound.
He also hopes the district will change its policy and allow dogs such as Shadow to go home under strict conditions while awaiting court disposition of cases like this.
Madsen says it's done that way in other jurisdictions and should be done here as well.
It’s anticipated the final consent order between the parties will be presented for Provincial Court approval early next week.

earlier piece:
http://www.castanet.net/news/Central-Okana…
Praiseworthy caliber of reporting.

Finally -
*Cities and by-laws differ, and some are ahead of others. Most know about Calgary's method of handling dog cases by dealing with dangerous dogs and violations separately; using a separate tribune and limiting the time to 30 days and 30 for appeals.

* In Boston, Mass., a city many times bigger than Halifax, the fines start at less than $50. The city never orders a dog to be destroyed. By law the most it can do is ask to get a dog sent out of town, unless the owner agrees on euthanasia. But to get to this point takes a number of incidents, and they must be severe in nature.
Also relevant here is that Boston also clears the record of a dog yearly, so that an incident that happened 4 or 5 years earlier can't be held against the dog - or the owner, in fact, cumulatively and for the rest of its life, as if it is a human being. Makes sense.

You are a person with free-will. Brindi is a helpless animal. Any owner would grieve for her every day. Be a soldier, but be a soldier of compassion first, Mr. Graham.

report 1 like, 1 dislike   like  dislike

Posted by humane halifax on 10/07/2012 at 3:28 AM

OK “Humane Halifax” -

If ya wanna go – then lets go then, the gloves are coming off …

“Humane Halifax” / “Robert Riley ?” / “Francesca Rogier?” /”Brindi’s Mom?” whoever … – because you are too cowardly to use your own name, you predicably post a scatered pile of banner designed to distract from the main issues by using worthless references to studies that don’t apply and character assisnations - in an attemp to draw the reader away from the real topic – accountablity and responciblity. I, Derek Graham stand in the open. I don’t throw inuendow and sling crap and then scury under a rock or in this case - hide behind a cloak of self -righteousness with a trendy slick Twitter name. Therefore, I speak to what I know, what I have experienced, or what I have seen.

This kennel business operates in the real world. We don’t have the luxery of putting up donation sites all over the web if things don’t go our way. That means hard work. That means providing a safe enviroment. That means if you want a service, you have to pay for it. Brindi represnts a small percentage of the finaical gain to this business and to be quite honest, there is no amount of money that truly compensates for the amount of grief that Humane Halifax and Francesca Rogier have caused in terms of ridicule and childlike harassment. For the record - We are not holding Brini to personally aggravate Francesca Rogier, although it would appear that is what she's trying to sell. We've been hired to do a job and provide the best possible service that goes with this line of work. Frankly, we would just like to be left alone to do our job, however, is obvious that your organization or group and Ms. Rogier believe that attacking this business and the people in it will win you public sympathy and support. I advise you to rethink your strategy because quite frankly, other than being an annoyance and sometimes just a plain nuisance, your tactics are failing miserably. I seriously don't expect any of you to actually follow through on that, as that would be an indication of perceived defeat. However, if common sense miraculously makes its way between the ears of any of your members, I will consider that a miracle and be thankful.

I was present during the Supreme Court hearing as to whether Ms. Rogier was going to be successful in convincing the courts to have Brindi moved from our Kennel to a foster home environment. She first had to convince the court that they had jurisdictional authority to act. If the matter of jurisdiction could be resolved, only then would she be permitted to challenge the “living conditions” of the kennel to support fostering to a home. For the record I would like to state that a home environment with a properly trained owner who has taken the necessary precautions to provide a safe environment for the intended pet is always preferred to any kennel environment. That was never the question. The question here, posed before the courts, was this ideal environment necessary and obtainable under the current circumstances and what criteria would be required for the Supreme Court to have permission for jurisdictional interference. Ms. Rogiers argument was approximately 2 hours long. Several times she was warned to stop referring to elements of the original trial as an excuse to support her jurisdictional argument. When it became apparent that she had no real basis for the Supreme Court to interfere with the decision of the lower court, her final tactic was to attempt to discredit the affidavit submitted by the kennel and to refer to late the payment of a business licensing with the hopes that she could infer that the kennels administrative abilities were a reflection of their professional abilities. The HRM lawyer only required 10 min. to present an argument that although the kennel is not ideal - as NO kennel is - it was certainly adequate under the circumstances. The judge quickly dismissed Rogier’s argument, and stated that she was quite confident with the kennels abilities to take care of the dog in question and noted that under the kennel’s care, the dogs general health had might have even improved.

It is very sad and unfortunate that this animal had to be confiscated due to the negligence of the owner for a second time. This is what happens to a dog that has attacked other dogs or is left vulnerable to attack, on multiple occasions. Generally, the accused is not afforded the luxury of choosing who or what organization the confiscated animal will be assigned to. As Ms. Rogier stated on her blog and during the court proceeding, NO kennel environment is suitable for long-term stay -be it Wyndenfog or Belle Kennels. Apparently, your “legal advisors” have, come up somewhat lacking in convincing the entire legal system that they are operating completely outside of the law. The term “locked up” is flippantly used by your group is a reference to a penal system and its inmates. I find it particularly vile and disgusting that you would refer to the housing, caring, exercising, and attention given to an animal in kennel care, in this manner. It is abstract, irresponsible and absurd and nobody in their right mind would be bringing their dog to this facility if that were the case. The original owner of this animal insists on prolonging the animal to stay in the state of legal limbo indefinitely by her attempts at appeal. She has no one else to blame but herself for the prolonged situation of this form of care. However, this business anticipated this action, consequently we have modified the standard kennel environment to better suit the situation. It is unprecedented, therefore NO current study can't accurately account for the variables for which this situation applies. The affidavit submitted to the Supreme Court listed the MINIMAL and most stringent situation that this animal would endure. This was presented in this manner so that the court would understand the worst possible scenario at any given time that this animal would experience. The presumed lack of a door system to the outer runs clearly shows how much this group does not understand the structural requirements for kennel doors. In this case, on our kennel system, there is a drop slide down door on the interior. This closes off the all the elements to the animal, less the occational draft. For extreme weather conditions, a hinged outer door drops into place on the outer frame of the building creating a double door. Insulated inserts are put in place to deal with substantial temperature drops. In effect, this system represents a higher R-value than the doors on any home.
The maximums in this situation were not listed as it would have been considered exaggeration and inaccurate. That being said, some of the maximums that Brindi is afforded are, four 3 X 15 runs as they are all interlinked. In addition to added run space when available, an entire 8 x 8 room, heated floor, with the standard bedding and pillows is available upon occation. Finally, extra walks up to approximately 1.5 hours or the same amount of time of free play in a controlled grassed area. It should be noted that we would have loved to be able to take her out for walks to other environments that offered different scenic venues, but, due to the security risks posed by many of her online supporters threatening to illegally confiscate her and/ or forcibly break into this kennel or our personal residence, this made this option quite impossible. Brindi’s restrictions are directly related to Ms. Rogeir’s social media followers and her unwillingness to curb or eliminate such comments. These comments are a matter of record and she has no one to blame for this, except herself.

I don't know what legs I am supposed to stand on - or whatever that statement is supposed to mean. I'm well aware of what Ms. Jordan's qualifications were as the courts determined - she was considered an expert in reference to training, not behaviour. What I do know is that the operator of this kennel has twice as much experience as Mrs. Jordan in this field as well as operating kennel for 12 years and being a registered breeder for twice that as well. It is safe to assume that if she was doing anything unethical, it would have been noticed long ago. Humane Halifax has an infatuation with quoting credentials. It is been said, because I've heard personally, that the owner of this kennel is rated one of the top five instructors in this province. This is hearsay - I freely admit that - and I admit that could be considered a biased opinion, however, I encourage anyone with an open and objective viewpoint to research that. For an animal that would appear to have aggressive tendencies, it would appear that she is more than qualified to cope with any aggression issues that Brindi may show signs of and professionally deal with them.

The question of the business license. This kennel had not renewed his license due to an administrative error, period. Once discovered, this was immediately corrected. If you think this has anything to do with the professional capabilities of a person's training in a specific field I would submit to you that your focus is guided to suit a specific agenda. I am serving member of the Canadian Armed Forces and my wife has choosen a career in kennel management and dog training. These jobs with their respective duties and responsibilities were our primary efforts. We freely admit that we will have to apply more personal time and resources to ensure that our administration of the business is raised to a higher standard. Despite innuendo inferred by this group, there are no payment anomalies or taxation anomalies.

I find it particularly amusing that a supposedly credible group that is dedicated to the care of animals would waste time and resources researching personal communications on various social media for the sole purpose to put somebody in a bad light - and that the best that they could come up with, was a singular joke selected for specific people that was never intended for public viewing. It speaks volumes to the desperation of how low and underhanded this group will go to get public support and speaks to their character. It is literally the kettle calling the pot black. It was never my intent for this comment that was intended as joking banter, to have been put in a public forum like that, had it not been for the actions of some twisted and small minds. Never the less, if some people were offended, I apologize, and I don't deny saying it, however, I would like to personally thank the conniving individual for educating me on the vulnerabilities of the Internet and the methods that some people will stoop to.

Humane Halifax loves to talk about complicity. So let's go there. Ms. Rogier is complicit in allowing illegally obtained photographs of my residence on her social media and taking advantage of them. Ms. Rogier is complicit in allowing incorrect information based on these photographs to be spread on the Internet. Ms. Rogier is complicit in not discouraging potential violence against this kennel or the people that reside in this residence. Ms. Rogier is complicit in trespassing on this residence on Christmas Eve. There is a standing police file on record. There are statements recorded off the Internet that support EVERYTHING printed. Ms. Rogier had to be personally and formally warned by the RCMP to cease any other possible invasive intrusions on this property. THAT…is matter of record. Ms. Rogier presents herself as a victim; however, this “victim”is a bully and many people who once supported her, now see her in a much different light.

As I mentioned before, I am serving member of the Canadian Armed Forces CD with over 25 years experience. I've have served my country on various deployments including Afghanistan. I am a husband and a father. I also hold a martial arts degree and have instructed sexual assault management and countermeasures to female members of the military and civilian population. I volenteer as a football trainer for a local Hight school.

As I mentioned before, I stand in the open and do not hide or back down from any fight. As also mentioned before, I'm not one to grab a soapbox and preach down to others, however, I would put my character up against the likes of the ones at Humane Halifax any time, and I do not think they would present much of a challenge.

fRan take a hike a long one!

So once again, Mr. Derek Graham, whose wife owns Wyndenfog kennel, posts a poorly informed and illogical diatribe, barely concealing his identity. Not a very seemly thing to do for somebody with a financial interest in keeping Brindi locked up.

Mr. Graham, nobody in their right mind thinks it's okay to keep a dog in a kennel for years at a time, so you'd be well advised to remain silent rather than post such claptrap. Being an anti-intellectual is the least of it.

First of all, you've not only twisted the truth; you've got key facts completely wrong: Francesca did not ask the judge that "Brindi should either go back to her house, which appears to be borderline habitable and a property that offers no basic, let alone, advanced containment planning for a dog with Brindi’s considerations - or – she should go an adoptive home Mr Rogier’s choosing"! Instead she asked for Brindi to be temporarily fostered pending the outcome of the appeal, to a foster home that is mutually acceptable to HRM, the court, and herself. A very reasonable proposal for a dog that is highly deserving. And you can read her brief here: http://www.brindijustice.com/brindi/Motion…
And she didn't propose these things because her home is not suitable, or because she doesn't have a right to have her dog at home pending trial /appeal - as virtually every other dog owner prosecuted in HRM - but because she didn't want to ask for too much and she was putting her dog's interests first, unlike you.

Secondly, you are very well aware that Brindi's vet and trainer have been saying since 2010 that it's bad for Brindi to be kenneled again after her ordeal at the Metro Shelter from 2008 to 2010. In October 2010, they both asked HRM to send her to Belle Kennel if not to a foster home. That was the least HRM should have done, as according to our legal advisors it was completely outside of the law to lock Brindi up month after month. And you, sir, and your wife, are complicit in that action.

And overall, neither you nor HRM has a leg to stand on. Five positive assessments say Brindi should be either at home with Francesca or in an otherwise suitable home. Ms. Jordan testified that she finds Francesca a very responsible owner. Back in 2008 Francesca proposed the very conditions that a judge put in place two years later. Too bad HRM didn't accept them in the first place, so that Brindi didn't have to suffer.

Why would Dr. Larkin and Susan Jordan go out on a limb unless they were sure? Both Larkin and Jordan say that long-term kenneling puts her health AND her temperament at risk. The latter is backed up by a recent study: http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/berg…

For the record, a government contractor operating without a business license for two years at a stretch doesn't exactly add to your wife's credibility. More importantly, the veterinary regulations of Canada designate a 3x4 space as the MINIMUM for a medium-sized dog - for SHORT-TERM housing. Not long term!! There's no door to ward off the elements, and the concrete is dingy and cracked. What a sad prospect for a sweet dog to be in such a place, and viewing your family through the window is not positive visual stimulation - if anything it would taunt a companion animal. Letting her out twice a day for 20 minutes - big deal!!

You and your wife are co-responsible for this tragedy, sir. Under the law Wyndenfog is just as liable as HRM. But you are evidently as calloused as the knees of your "ideal woman".

For a member of the Canadian Armed Forces, your character sure leaves a lot to be desired.

report 8 likes, 7 dislikes   like  dislike

Posted by humane halifax on 10/06/2012 at 4:36 PM

I see Ms Rogier had a chance to express her views on this subject. I thought that a perspective from the "side of the fence" that Brindi is living on now, might give some insight on what it like to be bullied by a "True Believer"

My, oh my .. what gives .. no slick-spin, negative, American style attack adds/comments against me or the kennel in "Humane Halifax" tweets since 3 Oct .... maybe they have decided to be useful and pick up some doggy do - rather than fling it .... of course FR is still at it...
BTW , I hope she keeps linking the affidavit photos all over the net to her blog. Despite her diatribes, I love the fact that rational people will see that Brindi’s “cage” consists of getting one –if not more, clean 14 ft run always at her disposal - and a MINIMUM 3 ft by 4 ft sleeping area with a heated floor, fresh dog pillow daily, and a ½ acre outdoor play area that is professionally supervised when she is out playing. I find it difficult to fathom how a person with such an extensive education, has a quantum lack of basic observation skills - that also appears to be at par with her inabilities to operate a common car door power widow. Perhaps these are gifts granted by God to only the lowly common and simple folk … like myself, to compensate for our inability to operate on the intellectual plain she does. Apparently, on her “analysis” of my property – which is not “that nice” a property according to her standards (please feel free to compare our respective dwellings on her sites – there are lots of legal and illegal examples – mine is the one NOT falling apart) …, she has failed to notice in the pictures there are bushes for a dog to run around and grass to play on .. oh … and that big wood thing in the background ..its called a tree.. she said there were none – but I am sure I remember in my grade 1 reading books, that thing sticking out of the ground was called a tree … they tend to provide a great wind break and sunshade - along with the newly landscaped embankments that also provide shade and are fun for canines to run up and down. I am making an un-educated guess, but the Supreme Court Judge agreed that this stuff is pretty good and therefore, Brindi’s “sub-standard “ environment doesn’t throw up any red flags for her to intercede, but , what do I know, I just have a basic education and some post secondary. Maybe at MIT, an embankment is also referred to as “rubble” – which is also on the property that she says the dogs must navigate over. She has claimed that the kennel uses barbed wire to restrict the animals. Perhaps the illegally obtained photos she uses from someone trespassing on my neighbours property on her FB pages, have her confused. Now, I must admit, I don’t believe that they teach much about fencing material at U-M, Columbia, Harvard and MIT –and, in all fairness - perhaps she has confused that with the chicken wire she has used on her property. In any event, the simple masses can plainly see that no such containment exists.
It is un-ethical for providing this environment for Brindi , according to Ms. Rogier and Humane Halifax. Brindi should either go back to her house, which appears to be borderline habitable and a property that offers no basic, let alone, advanced containment planning for a dog with Brindi’s considerations - or – she should go an adoptive home Mr Rogier’s choosing … yet the Judge, for some strange, cruel reason - said “no”
My father always used to say it is impossible to rationalize with people that are educated beyond their intelligence…. maybe he had point …perhaps the combined, compressive nature of that much data from so many lofty institutions has lead to some sort of cascading cerebral trauma that interferes with the ability perceive the world properly …


Sweet Jesus WTF does this Whore want,we all back water people in her mind ,,,well I never went to harvard,nore any of my family did.,However we do know right from wrong and when to give up, The damn mutt is given the best possible care ....no tks to you...your shack is a disgrace,you can't control any thing ,even power windows; so go figure.I suggest you get more education just so you can get more stupid....LOL Forget it let it go you will never see mutt again,nor should you you careless BITCH!

More to follow

.......................

OMG.....More crap!

WELL Frannie I just sat through your most recent u tubes crap,where you claim everyone is wrong ,including the Judge,of course you are always right.Accidents my arse you can't control your ex mutt or follow the rules; like laws,have you a clue......I doubt it!

How about showing some respect to the laws of CANADA,and stop making up your own excuses, you are doing nothing to save Brindi,in fact you are pissing people off and at this point many people that cared could care less..........sad part people that tried to save Brindi.....now could care less if the mutt was put down tomorrow.......WHY...because of you....

I haven't reached that point yet bet pretty close......Now go back and try to get some more money out of your suckers,as its all about you,you couldn't care less about your ex mutt.

Go see some shrink you have serious issues,,than call your mommy and get some money to haul your sick sorry arse back to the USA....WE don't need trash like you here.

Cheers.

Humane Halifax......!!!!

Yep frannie , I see how much you love me, I could care less to who you report me....Since you in Canada  we do have freedom of speech. Like it or lump it, yep if I feel your house (SHACK) is un sightly of course I will report it,and if need be report it again, If i think your shack is unsafe,yep I will report, If I see you sneak through a stop sign I will report.
Bottom line is Frannie you not welcome in CANADA, you proved your point,and I as a tax payer am sick and tired of you.
You have fun!
What brought this on do do you ask??

HERE YOU GO!!


Wayne Croft & Co. continue to harass @BrindisMom incl. false reports to HRM about house. Awaiting @hfgpolice/RCMP response.




Bring it on...I am about to reverse it and take legal action against you, I speak the truth I guess you don't like it.       PLAY ON FRANNIE!!!!!


WAYNE.

OK ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!!!!!!!!!!

OK I think I heard enough!

Fran are you not a resident of Canada? I think not,if you were you may have a clue,I see you went to court today,sooooooooo...what did you gain? NOTHING,,,To bad so sad.

Now if you were so concerned which i doubt,your ex Mutts health,welfare..you would of STFU after you lost in Provincial court,but NO you insist on dragging it on,and of course you are entitled to.

But would you not want to see the Mutt RE HOMED?  You claim to be an animal lover...I doubt that!!  Its all about you and your ego; to say nothing of sucking people in to pay your bills,otherwisw why would you have several FB groups begging for money..and a pay pal account to donate to?

My thoughts are that you could care less about Brindi,as you now should realize ...You lost her because you are ...careless,lazy,stupid,a leach,a beggar,and a worthless POS. The First time you lost in court the Judge took pity on you and gave the Mutt back with conditions...Well you blew that in 2 months....So give your head a shake. Its not the Canadian Law that Fucked Up its you sweetie......Ok I now let you go back to begging for $....Good luck....I will contact all people that donate and tell them the full story. But I think most nor realize you are a POS.

Want to sell your shack? ...I will buy it at fair market value,provided you head south of the border.

Cheers

WHO T F>>>>>?? ARE YOU FRAN!!

Why keeping Brindi isolated from contact with dogs is bad for her & her chances of recovery Keeping Brindi isolated from other dogs means not only is her need for social interaction with her own species unmet; it also risks harmful effects on her behavior, jeopardizing her chances in the future. Effects of Group and Individual Housing on the Behavior of Kennelled Dogs in Animal Shelters Abstract: To emphasize the effects of group- and single housing of kennelled dogs, the behavior of 211 dogs in two German animal shelters was tested and observed. After being placed, 197 of the dogs' new owners were interviewed. Although 51% of the German animal shelters already keep dogs in groups, there is strong prejudice against group housing because of the fear of fights. This study demonstrates that this apprehension is unfounded. Ninety-one percent of the social confrontations between dogs housed together were settled by the use of behavioral rituals. Keeping dogs in groups, furthermore, leads to a significant reduction in noise emission (p<.001). Group housing fulfills the dog's need for social interaction and the need to move. Dogs that were housed in groups displayed a closer human-animal relationship (80%) than those that had been kept individually (43%). A high percentage of individually housed dogs suffered from behavioral problems (31%) and 10% developed stereotypes. The percentage of behaviorally disturbed dogs observed in group housing was 11%, and stereotyped forms of behavior did not occur. Dogs who had been kept in groups were, on average, placed within 10 days, and were returned to the animal shelter less often (9%) compared to those housed individually (25%). Dogs that were housed separately needed an average of 17 days to be placed. Even after being placed, there is a correlation between the animal shelter's type of housing and the dog's behavior. Within four weeks after picking up their pet, 88% of the owners of dogs that had been housed individually complained of problems compared to the owners of the dogs that had been kept in groups, 53% of whom were completely satisfied with the adoption. Despite the fact that these results might be influenced by the small number of shelters examined, the study leads to the conclusion that keeping dogs in groups is a suitable alternative for dog housing in animal shelters and, for the animals' welfare, is preferable to individual housing. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Our trainer, Susan Jordan, tried to explain to the judge during the trial last March that it is normal for a dog to back-slide in its training under any circumstances. What's really important is whether the aggressive behavior escalates - which it did not. Also, during those precious ten weeks when she was back home, Brindi was in many situations around strange dogs where she did not react aggressively. And now, based on the findings of this study regarding the increased risk of behavioral problems due to the isolation from other dogs, after years of isolation, seems to me that having an incident ten weeks after she was released from two years of isolation from other dogs is understandable. Even for dogs that aren't known to have any aggressive tendencies, "Within four weeks after picking up their pet, 88% of the owners of dogs that had been housed individually complained of problems". Unfortunately, judges don't apply studies in their decisions, or listen very closely to canine behavior consultants. But essentially, this is further evidence to show that Halifax has been harming my dog's health, well-being, and her chances of successfully recovering and readjusting from all these years of confinement and isolation. Ever since 2008 the city has argued against every option other than death. Judging from her previous arguments, the current municipal prosecutor, Katherine Salsman, would likely exploit the fact that all these years have jeopardized her future to argue that she should be locked up forever or put down. Even sicker, if Halifax had never seized Brindi, it's extremely likely her territorial aggression would be way behind her. I was in the process of training her the first time they took her - which was after an incident in which she didn't even make contact with another dog. I was in the process of training her with an even better trainer and even better methods when they took her the second time, after a minor incident that caused a few scratches to a dog, whose owners kicked Brindi repeatedly without her trying to retaliate. But apparently it is more important to Halifax to cling to the bad laws and bad practices that led to their decision to seize and destroy Brindi. And being alone in the courtroom, representing myself, a person convicted of by-law violations (that the city used as an excuse to seize Brindi), the judge is apt to confuse the message with the messenger. Do I think it would be better to have a lawyer? Of course! Can I pay for one? Heck no. More importantly perhaps, is one available who'd be willing and able to do the job? Not that I could find, and I sure looked, and so did many friends, for a long, long time. at 9/21/2012 07:00:00 PM Links to this post No comments: Here is where Brindi has been kept for the last two years Halifax has never allowed our vet or trainer to visit Brindi at this kennel. Why not? It's a place of business, it boards people's pets. Friends ask, "What are they hiding?" Well, now there's a glimpse of it. Halifax submitted these photos of the Wyndenfog Kennel, where Brindi has been kept for two years now, to a judge who I hope will hear my motion to order that she be sent to a foster home - a real home - pending the outcome of my appeal. This is the outdoor space. It's fenced in, it has no trees for shade or windbreak. They use it for walking her a few times a day - it doesn't appear that they allow her to run around in it by herself. This is Brindi's cell. I don't know what that material is - it looks pretty dreary though. I don't know about the door either - it seems to go right to the outside. What happens when it rains or snows or a cold wild blows and she wants to stay in? Also, the area is 3x4 feet - below the veterinary society minimum standard of 3x5 for indoor runs, even for stays of just one day. For two years, the minimum standard is not very comforting. I can't look at these images for very long, I am fighting back the tears and shrieks already. I can't believe that a civilized city would argue that it's okay and even healthy for my dog to be kept in a kennel for years at a time. Any dog. It's no wonder that when they took Brindi to the vet clinic (instead of allowing the vet to go to the kennel in her mobile unit), Brindi seemed to be in a good mood. She was getting out of the kennel for a few hours a month. September 27 will mark the beginning of her FIFTH year at the hands of Halifax Regional Municipality. The first two were spent in a pound that was even worse than this - but this is not much better, frankly. Even if it were the Plaza Hotel of dog kennels, I just cannot and will not ever understand why any decent person armed with only two facts - that Brindi never bit a person and that she never caused a severe injury to a dog - would agree that keeping her for years in any kennel is an acceptable action!! And yet that is what Halifax is arguing and it has the kennel owner arguing this as well, in court, on Tuesday, Sept. 25, at 2 pm, in the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia. How could any decent person, armed with two key facts - the facts that matter the most, that Brindi never bit a human & never inflicted severe injury to a dog - lock her up for years and years? Even Halifax's attempt to get Brindi killed by smearing me as much as possible, conflating a human's alleged by-law violations with a dog's alleged "dangerousness" - failed. The judge could have ordered her put down, but instead passed the buck to Halifax. Who is going to put a stop to this insanity? Fran do you even have a clue?? you a wack job!

Fran are you fracking NUTS:????

Hey fran do you really think anyone believes this crap..Please go get a friggen job!

""Hayley Clarke, Registrar, Registry of Joint Stock Companies
P.O. Box 1529, Halifax, N.S. B3J 2Y4
Fax: (902) 424-4633
joint&stocks@gov.ns.ca
Re: Wyndenfog Instructional and Kennel Services, ID no. 3103426
Sept. 9, 2012
Dear Ms. Clarke,
Our group, Humane Halifax, is concerned among other things with the welfare of animals in
the care of Halifax Regional Municipality. It’s come to our attention that the Wyndenfog
Instructional and Kennel Services has been operating without a business license for two years.
According to the Registry, the province revoked Wyndenfog’s license for non-payment on Sept.
7, 2010. On reporting this to Service Nova Scotia, we learned that under provincial law,
businesses are subject to a fine of $50 a day for every day they operate without a license, and
we were instructed to provide you with this letter.
Wyndenfog is a government contractor to the Halifax Regional Municipality, which places
animals in its care for long periods of time. As it is not very reassuring to learn that it operates
unlawfully, we are very concerned.
We hope you will take the appropriate action in a timely manner. We’d be very grateful if you
would inform us of same.
Thank you very much.
Sincerely,
Robert Riley, member, Humane Halifax
Halifaxhumane.org
email: humanehalifax@yahoo.ca


Yep Robert Riley can't even spell ...so fran play on...we will to.

A lot of sick people that need serious help.

Francesca Rogier
I hope people are still writing to the contacts! I suggest you put this question to whomever you write:

Why didn't Halifax have Brindi assessed right after the court ruling ordered it to, & then (as we know it would be a positive assessment), adopt her out before the appeal deadline of August 1 (a five-week period)?

A. Because doing so would've been a tacit admission of the city's wrongdoing since 2008, as Halifax continually insisted Brindi must die, without ever having her assessed, and ignoring the positive assessments I had done. (Halifax also ignored the opinion of some of its own employees in Animal Services and the pound contractors, as well as some politicians, not to mention the public.)

On the other hand, NOT doing an assessment and adopting her out in that ample amount of time is even more an admission of wrongdoing since '08, PLUS, the city ignored a direct court order, which is also wrong!

What else is there to say? The city should return her, period, because they have never stopped being in the wrong.
September 10 at 9:14pm

6 people like this.
Dee Turner I think ALL our letters need to be copied to the editors of ALL MEDIA in Halifax to expose this corrupt council and incompetent judge. If we sent them all to you as well Francesca, would that help with your appeal, as well as allow you to send them en masse to the appropriate media? I think it will give your case some much needed leverage to get Brindi released, or at least make these abuses PUBLIC prior to the upcoming re-election of this HRM council.
September 11 at 6:06am · 1
Francesca Rogier I don't know, the judges seem to love to ignore them!
September 11 at 5:55pm
Leanne Pentney Francesca.. you need to get this story out to the big media.. have you contacted Global? The citizens of Canada need to know this plight dog owners are facing across this country. I am from BC and it is happening here. Too many fur babies being taken away from their loving homes. I will share your story with my friends. Prayers xoxoox
8 hours ago · 2
Leanne Pentney Oh and I have added a few peeps who fight for those with no voice. Just waiting on admins approval.
8 hours ago · 1
Dee Turner @Leanne... if you know a politician or media person in BC could you give us the contact info and speak to them about Brindi's case?
8 hours ago
Leanne Pentney I will do what I can.
8 hours ago · 1
Leanne Pentney Just looking into it now for you....CHBC was the media outlet that was contacted about a case here.
8 hours ago
Dee Turner I think if we could involve Elizabeth May, MP from BC (Green Party leader who hails from Halifax) she would be appalled at the injustice and incompetence & recognize the outright corruption going on here. She might be most effective one who could pull rank on these power tripping lugans!
8 hours ago · 1
Leanne Pentney The more people hear about it the better. We elected those officials and now its time for them to do what we ask.
7 hours ago
Leanne Pentney The name I was given was Blaine Gaffney... he sent someone out to do the story. I believe it was with the news media CHBC.
7 hours ago

Dee Turner
If anyone doubts that the HRM is really as EVIL as they appear to be, please be sure to read this editorial by Tim Bousquet, a reporter from The Coast, which clearly exposes the whole truth about the sick politics in Halifax, Nova Scotia.

Feel free to make comments about Brindi's case on this and ANY of his other revealing editorials whose links follow this one below. Tim seems to be the only reporter with ethics, political knowledge & the courage to go after this corrupt council & the Mayor. The general public needs to be educated about these people, for some tangible leverage against them since they are ALL UP FOR RE-ELECTION and won't want this DAMMING INFORMATION KNOWN ABOUT WHAT THEY HAVE BEEN DOING TO FRANCESCA & BRINDI FOR THE PAST 4 YEARS!!

http://www.thecoast.ca/halifax/morally-bankrupt/Content?oid=3226710
Morally bankrupt
www.thecoast.ca
Last Thursday morning was a crystalizing moment for my understanding of Halifax. A crowd of more than 300 people, overwhelmingly male and exclusively white, besuited in the attire of folks who consider themselves movers and shakers, had gathered at the Neptune Theatre on Argyle Street for a masturba...
Share · 8 hours ago

2 people like this.
Dee Turner The HRM Election Date is SATURDAY, OCT 20, 2012 which is quite timely for our BIGGEST ONE MONTH PUSH EVER!!! Collectively, we can use this campaign to get BRINDI'S CASE of gross i...See More
7 hours ago

Jana Budoff Maynard
I know you have contacted everyone.. but do you think contacting Ceasar Milan or Victoria Stillwell again might be worth a try? Sounds like the "creatures" in charge are heartless and don't care....I am sorry for you and for Brindi.
September 13 at 7:50pm

3 people like this.
Francesca Rogier Thanks, I have contacted them and encourage others to contact them on our behalf as well!
Sunday at 7:17pm · 1


Now you be the judge!

A comment which deserves its own topic.

The following comment was received yesterday,it was in response to a topic that is appox a year old and well back in this blog, and unlikely to be seen by many;so I decided to re-post here.
I have no idea who the author of the comment is,however I think it just proves that many more people than fran wishes to acknowledge; have little or NO love or respect for the witch. I think if a poll of public opinion were taken on who was the most hated person in Nova Scotia, fran would top the list.
Here is the comment...hope to see more by this unknown author.

""This is what it's all about for her. The PERSONAL affront that she perceives as having been committed against her highly-esteemed-SELF. That has always been the brunt of it. Brindi's personal situation on the other hand is on the bottom of the list, not as pressing as dealing with the blows to her ego. She has said, often, that Brindi is fine in a shelter. She came from one and is used to it. Not to worry for Brindi, because Brindi, after all, is unaware of all that's going on around her, she adapts well to kennels, bla bla. When people start showing too much concern for "poor Brindi", FR seems almost jealous or annoyed, and says "what about poor me?" and will go on an on about herself and what SHE is going through. ''' if you guys don't get those uglies off my back, and all the Hellifax officials, prosecuters and judges that have insulted ME, NO ONE is going to get Brindi because I can't work like this!'''I can't concentrate on court cases to free Brindi, like YOU all WANT ME to do, I can't focus on BRINDI if YOU ALL don't help MEEEEE out!!! FIX MY HOUSE if you want Brindi to have a home. She needs a house to come home to! You all want ME to do all the work to free poor Brindi? Well fix my damn house! It's my damn HOUSE that's in LIMBO! all because of my dog!!! all because I had to put everything on hold for Brindi.""""" Are there others out there that wonder if deep down inside she holds a lot of resentment towards Brindi? Hmm. With the temper tantrums fits she has, does anyone else wonder what it was like in that house back in September 2010 after Brindi had the nerve to jump out of her car window to go after yet another dog being walked. would not surprise me one bit that she would have had a lot of anger towards Brindi. How could you do that to me Brindi???!!!! How could you! Poor Brindi, after being kicked by the people, then yelled at by her MASTER, then being hidden and shuffled everywhere while FR is yelling and screaming and losing it, only to get back home to be taken by strangers and put in a cage again, never knowing the heck she did wrong. POOR BRINDI IS RIGHT! Can you imagine if Brindi had to go back to that house or with that owner? She'd be freaked out wondering when she's gonna get yelled at again or get snatched up by strangers again. She'd still have to put up with FR's rage. That rage will never end. because FR will never get over all the injustices and EVIL deeds that were done to HER. She'd always have her back to Brindi, busy ranting and raving online. Like what I'm doing now LMAO ! But really she is in no mental condition to properly take care of a pet.""

Says it all don't ya think??

BY LAW

Since this is about By Law Enforcement in NS,I thought I might bring up an issue that is I am a bit familiar with about our BY Law officer in our neck of the woods:

A friend of mine,has been tormented by a German Shepard mix owned by a neighbour for about the past 4 years,ie whenever a vehicle drives in to visit my friend the Mutt will come out and attack the tires of the vehicle, this I have seen myself as the damn dog wants a piece of my vehicle everytime I go to visit this friend. This has been reported to By Law many times,and to my knowledge other than BY Law paying the owners of the Mutt a visit nothing has been done.

Now about 3 days ago my friends son and wife along with their children drove down my friends driveway the grand kids on bikes as were the parents the grands are 4 and 8 years old, the damn dog came out and wanted a piece of the wheels,or maybe the kids not sure what would of happened if the parents wern't there and the kids were alone. 3 reports went to by law the next day,to my knowledge nothing has been done,still again.

Now let me tell you this,which I find real shocking,about a year ago my friend ran into this BY Law officer,and asked, "how are you making out with neighbours dog?" reply," its still going on nothing has changed"..than the idiot BY Law officer says.....Hang on this is real good......"a bowl of anti freeze works well"....Now what do you all think of that? I know what I do but it would mean another rant from me.

Now I have several dealings with this By Law officer or POS as I like to call her, here is just one of my dealings with the POS. Most of you know that I am in the landscaping,property maintaince business well about this time I got a call from an 80+ lady who was crying she got a super heated letter from by law demanding that the lawn on her property cabin be mowed in 7 days or else. Well The next day I called By Law,told officer that I would mow the damn lawn but due to weather it could be well over 7 days. which seemed to satisfy the POS. Than the next day I get another call from a non Resident that got a similar letter,called POS and said meet me at Non Residents property and tell me what you want. POS agreeded, bet she wishes she didn't,lol....She gave me a list of demands I told her it wasn't going to happen,as over half of what she wanted was always natural bushes,and was that way for over a 100 yrs,what I told her was I would clean up around the house on property and that would be it. I did;that was the end of it.

Than I asked POS if she got a kick out of sending super heated letters to old ladies,her excuse was that, POS didn't know where they lived,guess POS couldn't take the time to look up where tax bills were sent.......LOL

Now back to my friend and dog issue, which is a simple fix its called a fence,a secure fence....which would solve the problem, now if that is not done,what I will do is take my bike and drive in driveway of my friends,problem will be solved right than and there if mutt tries to attack my bike or me,it will be called self defense,as I will fear for my life; can't say that when sitting in a 5000 lb truck.

Bottom line someone is going to be bitten and it will end up with a long civil suit which there is no need of if the BY Law officer would of done her job.

Sorry for the rant and if anyone finds it offensive the admins can remove.

Fran are you fracking NUTS:????

Humane Halifax ‏@HumaneHalifax

@cbcmainstreet We'll even campaign for him. provided #MayorKelly lets #Brindi go home NOW. #Halifax #readthisteweet #dogsmatter

Fran your case is before the courts.....do you think for a minute that anyone will take your crap up to the local gov.....ain't going to happen...Honey you made your bed so lay in it....Brindi is no longer your dog...you screwed up at least 8 times,so honey let it go Brindi will be re homed now how about dropping the appeal.it appears that you won't have the funds,(UNLESS YOU GET A JOB)


Personally I think you ran out of suckers,so please STFU...or get a lawyer as to watch you in court is a friggen joke....yep I seen you in action....I am surprised that the Judge didn't ask you to remove yourself: because you made a total ass of yourself.,So hire a lawyer.....OH but wait didn't you stiff a lawyer? hmmmm.....Did that lawyer not sue you for non payment,something like 20,000 bucks, well now HRM has at least another 10,000 on top of that..your history is out there as public knowledge...check it out....YOU DO NOT PAY YOUR BILLS..now me dare you all over the internet looking for money,,,,WTF for a bottle of wine?? Get Robert Riley to buy it for you,as he told me how rich he is...got screen shots.....LOL

Now sweetie.....You are going to help Peter Kelly...Pure BS....lets go back in time and see some of your comments about him and all your crap to get people to write him.....Yep Peter will welcome you with open arms.......LOL

Now here is my advice,get on the next train,plane or bus and haul your fat ass out of hrm and Canada,we will look after your x mutt.

Looks as someone is driving Fran over the Bend.....Note NO NAMES..could be libel.

Wednesday, August 22, 2012
0


0
The amazing stubbornness of stalkers and haters: a rant for once
At every stage of the way, regardless of the mounting unfair and cruel actions of various authorities or agents, a stubborn core of best unnamed somehow manages to fit them into a strange, ill-minded spin aimed at making me the sole villain. Safe in their internet hideouts, these bizarrely obsessive people currently insist - to anyone willing to listen - that I am now blocking the city from adopting out Brindi.

The emails from prosecutor Katherine Salsman I posted weeks ago happen to make it very clear that by the appeal deadline, HRM had not done the court-ordered assessment, nor made any decision about Brindi, other than to keep the results of said assessment private. Nor had the city scheduled a date for reaching a decision.

So while the idea that I am blocking is hardly credible, it's all the more astounding, not to say mind-blowing, to discover again and again just how persistent these people are. No matter what turn things take, no matter how absurd the spin. I guess they rely on the fact that a certain percentage of people won't think for themselves, let alone discern fact from opinion. It's a low percentage, but the litany of untruths, some hatched as far back as 2009, are not unthreatening in this age of Google.

Among the most brazen, and potentially damaging, are faked quotes: for instance, a declaration I supposedly made in a courtroom to the effect that I would rather see Brindi die than go to somebody else. I never said anything of the kind, in writing or out loud. I couldn't even form the thought, and I'm sure no one else in this situation could either. How anybody claiming to love dogs could spread such a falsification about a dog owner in the tragic situation of fighting for their companion's life is beyond me.

These utterances do not originate in misunderstanding, and they are not merely opinion; they come from a conscious choice to cause harm, as much and as often as possible. Equally hateful and absurd are accusations that I want Brindi to be impounded longer because I am using her to make money from donations so I can live off of them. Or that I am mooching off the people of Nova Scotia - a nice trick, as visitors are not entitled to public assistance. Or, that I am tying up the courts and costing the taxpayers lots of money.

That one is really something, as I did everything possible to avoid going to court - like any sane person would. The truth of the matter is that by declining to provide a way to appeal a euthanasia order in 2008, refusing to accept reasonable offers, HRM forced matters into court, and kept them there, even when the outcome was pretty certain. The letter accompanying the euthanasia order even suggested I hire a lawyer. Because there was no appeal process, and the city said it wouldn't suspend the order otherwise, I had to file a lawsuit right, just to buy time to try to persuade it not to kill my dog. I had no idea at the time how impossible the latter would turn out to be, or how much it would cost along the way.

Similarly outlandish: the claim that I turned down a rescue (or rescues) willing to take Brindi, and that I steadfastly refused to follow the court conditions - conditions I not only volunteered two years earlier, but which I actually exceeded, by doing more training than required. Then there's more sinister tales designed to ruin my reputation altogether: that I was denied tenure in my university post (um, no, tenure review was still two years off when I decided to take a break), or that I drink heavily. A few Berlin friends and ex boyfriends would find that one particularly amusing, no doubt. It gets even worse.

Along the way, these cyberstalkers, haters, whatever you want to call them, have interlaced their savagery with demonstrably false claims that they are "working behind the scenes" with HRM, under the implausible pretext that they alone care about my dog - a dog they also contradictorily claim is a danger to the neighborhood and would be shot. Some of these people don't even live within ten miles of Halifax. They also obscure the fact that HRM has repeatedly ignored all alternatives and excluded even the SPCA, its own pound contractor at the time, from the court proceedings. So much for putative local loyalty.

Though it makes me pretty ill to even recite these lies and smears, I am all too aware of the saying that, repeated often enough, a lie becomes the truth - Lord knows this city has employed it to great effect. As a friend said, "They don't even know what they are talking about, yet the (expletives deleted) never shut up." Who needs this? I ignore it the best I can, but I'm not unaware of the lingering negative effects on me, and sometimes it just becomes too much. There's more than enough cognitive dissonance in my life already, from the contrast between my sweet dog, the number of people who adore her, and the facts on the ground on one side, including a few regrettable moments of error, but no more than that, and the conduct/decisions of the city. Bad enough HRM orchestrated an eviction and a demolition order - rescinded a year later - based on demonstrably false claims that my house was structurally unsafe. (That one remains to be dealt with in yet another judicial review...!)

Sadly, this muck, with all the pain it causes - not only me but a number of very caring people - goes largely unchallenged by otherwise respectable individuals who ought to know better. A lot better. After all, it's not as though HRM (or the SPCA, for that matter) have a spotless record of consistently and fairly enforcing the law. Nor am I the only one to raise issues about the inadequacy and constitutionality of said law and its enforcement. The difference is, unlike others, I was forced into this when my dog was seized to be killed (largely on the strength of a fictitious law regarding muzzle order violations), and the city refused to let her go, no matter what. And by "what", I mean, everything from lack of sufficient reason, to petitions, letters, behavioral assessments, and a supreme court order quashing the euthanasia order.

Making me the scapegoat when the harm and injury are there for anybody to see is very sad, very shameful, and nothing to be proud of. The main reason they seized her again, according to court statements from animal services and the prosecutor, is that I had the audacity to temporarily leave town with her, simply because like everybody else, I knew they would seize her again, to kill her. (A dispatcher for HRM also told me to take her out of town, but that fact was overlooked in court.) Never mind that this was not called for either time. Never mind that they already lost twice in court. And this time, they didn't exactly "win" either, because for reasons best known to her, instead of ordering them to put Brindi down, the judge dumped everything back in HRM's lap, bringing it all back to July 2008, essentially, when the city made a decision without providing due process or even an investigation.

That court decision is another thing this crew of haters keeps lying about. Unfortunately, they're profiting from some rather unclear reporting. So unclear, in fact, an argument broke out during a recent barbecue where a few guys insisted Brindi is already dead, I'm told. One self-styled animal advocate even told the media that Brindi is kept with other dogs now and is doing just fine, so it must be all my fault that she had any problems in the past. Um, no, sadly, she is strictly isolated from other dogs, and that fact has been known for years.

How I wish a good journalist would finally take it upon themselves to look into the situation in depth and present a coherent, complete picture, preferably without sensationalizing, as the facts are plenty sensational enough.

Meanwhile, Brindi's alive, as far as I know, anyhow. I am missing her more than ever, mourning the loss of another summer, another year, another seven for her. I'm living still with the distant view of the kennel they're keeping her in, located right across the inlet from my window. But I don't dare bring up that torturous aspect in a courtroom. The Kafkaesque task of having to prove the obvious, without benefit of a lawyer, citizenship, or a certain appendage, is challenging enough.

So sorry, no, I am not blocking HRM from doing something, anything, good for Brindi. "Not even remotely." Nobody on earth would be more delighted than I if HRM would give some kind of sign that it is willing to let some intrepid person adopt Brindi, or barring that, that it would consent for Brindi to be fostered, starting right now, to the end of the appeal process. Enough is enough.

(And PS, I dearly hope the city's vet checks her blood levels soon, as a matter of fact.)
at 8/22/2012 07:11:00 PM

fran wants suggestions!!

""Francesca Rogier
I am watching the days of yet another summer tick by, another lost year for Brindi, and I can't help remembering that the HRM prosecutor actually complained last November about the cost of keeping her locked up - something they were doing illegally and without any reason, something they kept doing despite health concerns, something they kept doing while ignoring my pleas to let her come home pending trial, foster her pending trial, or just adopt her out permanently.

Of course, the idea that the city was concerned about the cost was a sick joke. That the lawyer even had the audacity to say it shocked me, and that the judge took it seriously totally floors me. I bet she didn't complain about it when the killer dogs case was adjourned. And, as I find to my chagrin over and over, plenty of adjournments are granted that don't result in a five-month delay. The length of a delay is not my fault as a defendant. For "the Crown" to complain AT ALL about the length of adjournments is totally wrong; the "burden" for delays due to crowded court schedules always falls on the Crown, or is supposed to according to common law.

Isn't it interesting, then, that HRM isn't worried about the cost now? They seems perfectly content to let her languish even longer - all the way up to August 1, and to this day, they were in no hurry to get an assessment as the Judge told them to on June 26; no hurry to make any decision, or even set a date for deciding. It's just unbelievable. And the lack of interest in this in the local media is phenomenal.

The anniversary of the 2008 seizure came and went on July 24. The two-year anniversary of the 2010 seizure is coming fast: Sept. 27. What can be done about that? Does anybody have any suggestions?"""


Well its a bit late now frannie,however my advice or suggestions would of been....Live by the laws of the land and stop making up sick excuses.

My suggestion now would be stop delaying,stop begging for money,get a friggen job,move out of Canada since you hate it so much,go buy a pet rock as you are not a fit person to own any animal.Further no need to fret,spread lies,as Brindi will be re homed regardless of your lies and delaying.

From Fran's Blog:

Here is how fran pulls her scams...don't believe a word of it!!
""Friday, August 10, 2012
0


0
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. For whatever reason, I really felt the case had been mishandled almost from the start. After waiting until well after the trial was finished, the judge denied the motions I filed - including a motion to dismiss the charges, based on several grounds related to constitutional rights. Right or wrong, that motion was to be heard on the first day of court, March 2, and would have been presented orally, and presumably, decided on the same day. Instead, I ended up filing it in writing, to my great dismay.

Though I had prepared to present this motion with a lot of effort, a lot of notes, and a lot of brain cells, March 2 was a very wintery day that kept the tow trucks very busy, and my car went out of control not far from my house, skidding and swerving around a curve on solid ice. Thankfully, a street sign stopped it from flipping into a 12 foot drop at the side of the road, the opposite side, where there was no ditch to speak of, just the drop, and a few trees. I knew I'd be late, but not how late: it took an hour and 15 minutes for CAA to arrive, then another 45 minutes to free my car, which had lodged against the sign with the front tires pitched up in the air. It was not easy getting out of the car and I wrenched my lower back in the process, possibly also in the swerve (I don't know, but it hurt badly enough to force me to a clinic by the end of the day, where a doctor gave me some serious muscle relaxants).
I phoned the court right away, and again 45 minutes later; just to be sure the message got through, I enlisted the aid of a neighbor to call as well. The first time, a clerk answered; the next few times, I got voicemail. I left more messages for the judge and the prosecutor that it would be some time and I would keep them posted, also gave my cell number for a reply if they wished. By the time the tow operator arrived, I was frozen solid, and went home to warm up brielfy and call the court and HRM once more to let them know I was on my way. I called the HRM legal office as well, getting voicemail again. Unfortunately, once on the road, a red light told me I had to stop for gas. The tow operator had run my engine for a half hour or more in the process of extricating the car and used it all up! So it was around midday when I got to Dartmouth Provincial Court. Having received no calls, and being greeted without a word by a few friends, I was totally unprepared to hear them say they had heard testimony and were "on a break" - a break from what?? What testimony? I had no idea that the judge had decided to go ahead with the trial itself, dispensing with my oral motion to dismiss the charges, which, if successful, would have ended the trial before it began.

I was already shaken from the near-miss and the cold; now I was in utter shock. Learning that I could submit the motion in written form was a bit of a relief, but it changed everything. Now I was in a very scary situation. Witnesses had already testified, and evidence had been admitted to which I had intended to object (as I indicated in my preliminary brief). And also, the judge, who held a vior dire in my absence but neglected to mention that, was now requiring me to cross-examine two witnesses whose original testimony I hadn't heard. She simply said, "Well, you have their statements, I presume?" - meaning their 2010 statements to the HRM animal control officer and the RCMP (which are on BrindiJustice.com). Yes, I had them, I had read them as well, but of course, my memory of them was hardly fresh. Back in 2010, two days were set aside for this trial, and my understanding was that the first one was one for my "charter" motion, the second, on March 16, for the trial itself, if the motion failed.
So of course, I had focused on the motion presentation. But now the judge and prosecutor shrugged off the whole idea behind the schedule; in fact, the prosecutor had called five witnesses to appear at 9:30 - the time I was to present my motion. I had warned her in advance that they would not be needed, because my presentation would take time, plus with replies and rebuttals, it was unlikely they could be called. But she called them in anyway. The judge told me that she was told I had said I'd arrive at 10:45 am, and so she offered to start the trial. I had never said anything of the kind, in fact, simply because I had no idea when the tow truck would arrive, but I had the feeling the judge doubted my word, preferring to believe whatever person had given her that information. She scolded me, in fact, and gave me the impression she was more concerned about the witnesses than the proceedings, or, I have to say, my condition. (By this time my back was starting to hurt a lot, and I had to ask for permission to sit.)

So one thing let to another, far too many things to recount here. Suffice it to say, things went wildly, more twists happened, and nothing flowed in the usual manner, even taking into consideration that these charges normally took up a half-hour in court, not two days. These cases are usually heard within a month or so of the incident, not 16 months. In fact, one experienced court observer was stunned enough to say, "They did everything backwards!"

By the next court appearance on March 16, I had submitted the written motion to dismiss and prepared a few more. My trainer, Susan Jordan, testified, and I cross-examined two more Crown witnesses. Then, though I didn't even get the chance to change my not guilty plea - or even know by then whether there would be another court day (the judge had said on March 2 that it must end March 16), let alone what her decision would be on the motion to dismiss, I decided to testify, hoping to straighten out a lot of exaggeration and distortion created by the prosecutor. Probably a bad idea, but I don't know what else I could have done under the circumstances. Two lawyers I consulted between the court dates were astonished and supportive of filing a motion to declare a mistrial, which had no chance of succeeding either, but was advisable, they said, as a prelude to an appeal.

An appeal - the very last thing on earth I want, after a trial date set 13 months after an incident, and taking place another five months later due to an adjournment I had to ask for at the last minute because I injured myself two days before the original November date. (A heavy concrete block slipped out of my grip, falling on my own fingers; I moved my hand as fast as I could, but one finger got caught, and a knuckle was split open - hurt like mad, could not think straight for days. As with the ice and the road sign, I had narrowly escaped permanent harm - not enough to satisfy the court that it was a legitimate reason for an adjournment, evidently, as would become clear later, in the judge's oral verdict.)

All this time Brindi was still locked up, unlawfully, as far as I could tell. I was desperate to get her out, haven't even seen her. And though the judge seemed to share that concern, and said the trial must conclude March 16, at the end of that day she announced that it would "continue" May 10. She would review my written motion- which, it has to be said, entailed so much more work than making an oral motion - and, rather than setting another court day for oral arguments/rebuttals from both sides, the prosecutor would have to reply in writing. If I wished, I could rebut that as well. She refused both my request to withdraw the motions altogether, to simply speed things up (this is all in the transcripts, incidentally, and audio recordings), and my plea for her to consider releasing Brindi pending the outcome - in fact, she claimed she did not read the letters the vet had submitted, calling them "hearsay". I believe this was because I had not subpoena'd the vet to come to court, where HRM would have the right to question her - but the fact is, a. it would have caused her a great deal of trouble to leave her practice, and b. she was not testifying to anything related to the charges, but appealing for Brindi to be released pending the outcome, based on health concerns. Also, in terms of a "reliable source" and the definition of hearsay, the vet was no stranger to HRM; the city had been allowing Brindi to visit her clinic on a nearly monthly basis since 2010, and had received numerous reports throughout - even followed her direction.

Even more disconcerting, it was never clear what was going to take place on May 10 - would there be a continued hearing? My attempts to find out, via faxes to the court, led nowhere. I had to prepare for anything and everything, which is of course impossible. In the event, on May 10, there was no more actual "court time". After dismissing my motions (overlooking one as well), the judge simply announced her decisions on the verdicts. Then, rather than set a date for a sentencing hearing, she suddenly decided on a "process" of accepting written submissions only: no more court time, no more opportunity to bring in further witnesses, experts, etc., to be questioned: they would only be able to submit a written statement. It was another mountain of work, and very confusing. And, needless to say, she again set a deadline far into the future, so that Brindi would languish even longer: June 26. I posted about that statement already. Now, on May 10, her reasons for not having a sentencing hearing (which is what was done in the past, and is the norm) seemed rather vague; she made some mention of it all making things easier for me, as opposed to "viva voce" testimony. I don't claim to be good at this stuff, but I had been through an entire trial before, plus the current one, representing myself; I was already accustomed to thinking and speaking on my feet. She even complimented my efforts on March 2, in fact. Then, on June 26, she spoke in a different way about her decision not to hold a sentencing hearing, saying that it was done that way because the trial had already taken up so much time. Two days in court is not exactly a long time, though. And, the 2010 trial (heard by Judge Murphy) took up two court days plus a full day for the sentencing hearing. So this leaves me even more puzzled, to say the least.

And in the end, after all that, the judge didn't really finish her job of deciding. She left half the decision up to HRM.

So I have filed an appeal of both the verdict and the sentence - the verdicts of guilty on charges of owning a dog that attacks, owning a dog that runs at large, and violating a muzzle order; the sentence of fines for me, and turning Brindi over to HRM to presumably "assess" in the "usual" way - expressly avoiding an actual qualified trainer in favor of pound personnel (although this would not alter the results, in Brindi's case, since they all like her).

The hitch is, the judge neglected to set a deadline for HRM to do an assessment and make a decision - a decision that it's already made many times over, of course, choosing not to have Brindi assessed at any juncture.

So - no deadline for HRM, no decision made, at least, not in the five weeks or so between June 26 and August 1, other than the decision to not make the assessment results - yet pending - known to me and/or the publi (note - the Aug. 1 deadline set by the appeal period restricted HRM from either giving Brindi to somebody else or putting her down; it did not prevent the city from having her assessed during that time.)

Are you tired yet? I sure am. Pretty despondent, too. I have read enough to know that appeals are very complicated: the majority of them, - maybe 70%? - fail, and worst of all, they typically take a long time. So now the question is, will a Supreme Court justice be kind enough to allow Brindi to be fostered while the appeal unfolds over the coming months?? I don't know, but I plan to find out, hopefully by the end of this month. In the meantime, HRM has said it would hold off on taking any action (yet undetermined anyhow) on Brindi.

September 27 will mark the second year of her second detention. She was four when they first took her; now she is nine. I watch other dog cases unfold with astonishment, such as the two pit bulls released last February after a judge decided that three witnesses were not enough to identify them as the killers of a shih tzu "without a reasonable doubt" (not a usual test for such things, by the way). I just don't know what to think anymore.

at 8/10/2012 09:37:00 PM """"""

This was sent to me by a reader of this blog

I will leave it up to my readers to comment on this taken off Free Brindi Blog:


""Temperament Test Results
“Brindi”

Wednesday, June 13, 2012
Homeward Bound City Pound


The purpose of a temperament test is to establish the predisposition of a dog’s behaviour’s under stress when behavioural concerns are most likely to present and ascertain the dog’s strengths and weaknesses. As it is the job of a shelter to minimize the stress factors on a dog in confinement and rarely make a dog do something she doesn’t want to do. The tests are designed to measure what happens when the dog is required to deal with a variety of situations similar to the ‘real world’ environment under the owner’s leadership.

The dog, Brindi, was transported from her long-term care shelter by the Owner of the shelter. She has travelled with her in the car to the vets and to the Homeward Bound Shelter on previous occasions. For a perfectly set test, it would have been more accurate to not have moved the dog as she was ‘energized’ slightly by the unusual activity. To counter this concern and in order to carry out the test, Brindi was taken into the evaluation room at 11:00 a.m. and placed in a kennel. The muzzle and leash were removed. The door was closed and she was left to settle in.

Tester (Susan Jordan) and Observer entered the room at 11:38 a.m. The necessary tools for testing were gathered and testing commenced at 11:45 am.

General observations: Upon entry the dog wagged her tail and whimpered in response to our presence. She settled quickly when no attention was directed to her. She was taken by the Tester from the crate with the use of the cotton slip leash.

1. Sociability:
Phase 1: Taking the dog out of the kennel to the testing area and ignoring the dog. Response was “high” – took less than one minute to respond and seek the Human attention.
Phase 2*: Sitting down, ignoring the dog. Response was “high” – the dog checked in and out several times, and then put her paws on the lap within 40 seconds seeking attention.
Phase 3: Backstroking x 3 repetitions (no verbal interaction). Both during and after the strokes, the dog responded at a “high” level, orienting and seeking the attention.
Phase 4: An affectionate interaction (20 seconds of direct attention). Initially, Brindi responded quickly and with interest. She did disengage and move away before the 20 seconds had elapsed. This is a “medium” level response.

* During Phase 2, the dog urinated on the test room floor without offering any signals. This shows, due to long-term confinement in a kennel, that the housetraining skills have become weak.
Conclusion: (Sociability): Brindi exhibits normal to high need for human interactions and desires the bond/connection in the Human/dog relationship. She does not show any measureable signs that indicate concern or aggression towards Humans.

2. Dominance:
Phase 1: Teeth exam level one (amateurish handling). Response was medium to submissive as the Tester was able to complete five repetitions, but the dog struggled mildly each time.
Phase 2: Teeth exam level two (stronger handler skills revealed). Response was medium to submissive as the tester was able to complete five repetitions, but the dog struggled mildly each time. Remained social.
Phase 3: Safe Hug (reaction to hugs/close contact): First attempt to execute “vet safe” hug was unsuccessful – the dog backed away. On the second attempt, she struggled slightly, and then settled. Body was a little stiff, but tolerant. This is a medium level reaction. She was still comfortable with close contact after the hug and did not move away.

Conclusion: (Dominance): Brindi is well within the acceptable norms of canine response to these tests. She does not exhibit any reason for concerns in this area.

3. Play and Prey Response:
Phase 1: Tug and competitiveness. Brindi was happy to chase the squeaky toy, but did not engage actively in the tug component. Fleeting eye contact, calm grip. When reaching or the toy, she showed submission by rolling and exposing her belly and portraying an eye roll/fearful expression.
Phase 2: Retrieve. Brindi was only mildly interested in fetching the toy. She was only mildly competitive in toy possession.
Phase 3: Calming down after play. The dog disengaged quickly, ready to move onto another activity.

Conclusion: (Play and Prey Drive): Brindi measures on the low end of this canine scale.

4. Food and Aggression:
Phase 1: Give the dog a chew toy. Brindi was given a piece of a “pig’s ear” (a highly valued dog treat). She was permitted to engage with it before the tester attempted to remove it from her possession. She responded at mid-level with turning/chewing but there was no growling.
Phase 2: The food bowl. The bowl was filled with a half can of wet (high value) food. Brindi was permitted to become fully engaged in the consumption. Tester tries to touch dog, move bowl, gently “interfere’ with eating. Brindi’s tail was wagging, but she was freezing over the bowl, breathing faster and pushing it away from the Tester. The moment she was finished, she relaxed. This is a medium level response.

Conclusion: (Food and aggression): Brindi has developed some mild resourcing behaviour due to extended confinement.

Mental Sensitivity:
A loud clap is delivered behind the dog when she was distracted. This was complicated by the fact that Brindi stopped and had a bowel movement (no signals given) in the room. She did startle and move away from the stool.

Conclusion: (Mental sensitivity): This result is not conclusive, but the response is mild lack of sensitivity to surroundings.

Reactions to Strangers:
The Tester and dog were positioned facing the door. The Tester is to ‘act anxious” when the stranger knocks/enters/exits. Brindi had a medium to low response (good). She stared, stiffened and held a slightly conflicted position. As soon as the woman exited the room, the dog returned complete focus to the Tester.

Conclusion: (Reactions to strangers): Brindi’s results are indicative that she is comfortable with strangers.

Reactions to Strangers with Dogs:
Once again, Tester and dog are positioned facing the door. Tester gives stranger/dog permission to enter but continues to act anxious. Brindi began to escalate upon hearing the dog outside. Upon entry, she shows signs of anticipation (whining, pulling, lip licking, whiskers forward, body animation.) She was not able to stay contained beside the Tester without leash control. When stranger/dog exited, Brindi’s posture did change and she displayed a “prey bow”. There were no “dog friendly calming” signals displayed and she needed a minute to calm herself. After about 50 – 60 seconds, the dog was able to reorient back from her alert state to both Tester and Observer.

Conclusion: (Reactions to strangers with dogs): Extended isolation has been detrimental to the social skills, play and calming signals and acceptance of a dog moving away.

The test was concluded at 12:20 p.m.

Overall Conclusions:

1. Sociability: Brindi exhibits normal to high need for human interactions and desires the bond/connection in the Human/dog relationship. She does not show any measureable signs that indicate concern or aggression towards Humans.
2. Dominance: Brindi is well within the acceptable norms of canine response to these tests. She does not exhibit any reason for concerns in this area.
3. Play and Prey Response:
4. Food and Aggression: Brindi has developed some mild resourcing behaviour due to extended confinement.
5. Mental Sensitivity: This result is not conclusive, but the response is mild lack of sensitivity to surroundings.
6. Reactions to Strangers: Brindi’s results are indicative that she is comfortable with strangers.
7. Reactions to Strangers with Dogs: Extended isolation has been detrimental to the social skills, play and calming signals and acceptance of a dog moving away.*

If this was a dog from the general dog shelter population, these test results would indicate that the dog could be placed on the adoption floor with a few provisions for specific training. These would include housetraining, food guarding exercises, handling exercises and heavy dog-dog socialization training.
There were no significant “flags” that would preclude this dog from being adopted in to a home.

Knowing the background for this dog in more detail, these tests merely substantiate that the dog is not dog-human aggressive, she seeks human social bonding, is not dominant in nature and has only mild play/prey drive. The issue of territorial guarding is isolated and can be modified.

It is the Humans who have helped shape Brindi into the dog she is today, especially considering the length of confinement over the past four years (in addition to the original two years prior to her adoption to Ms. Rogier). It is the Humans who can also help her to overcome and modify her current behavioural issues.


Susan Jordan
Paws for Family and Friends
Canine Behavioural Consultant / Professional Pet Dog Trainer

http://freebrindi.blogspot.ca/p/temperament-test-results-and-statement.html""