Weight loss... good or bad ???

Francesca Rogier
BRINDI HEALTH NEWS: The vet called this morning with troubling news about Brindi's blood test result for the pancreatic enzyme level. It's back up again, to 30% above normal. She went over the situation with me in detail. Only two months ago the level was normal (Jan. 24). Yet a month before, it was elevated 30% above normal, for some time. HRM and the kennel are not reporting any pancreatitis symptoms (attacks of diarrhea, vomiting), nor did they report any back then. This makes no sense for a dog with a history of chronic pancreatitis. Almost always, the increased enzyme level is accompanied by symptoms. Our vets did the ultrasound to rule out the only other likely cause of the enzyme level increase, i.e., some kind of "mass" (a tumor or thickening). The level went down a month later, but now it's up again.
And again, the vets cannot figure out why the level shot up. It just doesn't make sense. Sure, there could be some cause they don't know about yet in veterinary medicine - but evidently there aren't any statistics or studies to compare it to, so it would be a pretty big anomaly. They do know that Brindi had symptoms of pancreatitis in September, because the HRM vet documented them in a letter. And the same letter referred to previous attacks she had over the summer, which HRM didn't report at the time. Put that all together with the lack of a readily available explanation for her weight loss of around two pounds since January, and you have to ask, what is going on here, if she didn't have diarrhea or vomiting (which would explain weight loss)???!
Are HRM and/or the kennel are being truthful? Are they overlooking something? The vet is really frustrated. She pointed out to me that of course, a dog owner would be able to notice subtle changes and report on a dog's health in a lot more detail than a kennel. That frustrates the heck out of me, as you can imagine.
At my request, she's looking into a new therapy for stem cell stimulation that Lana Horan recommended. I hope she can start on that soon. It's called StemEnhance. I bought several bottles in 2010 and had just started Brindi on it with the same idea, when HRM took her again. In the meantime, Brindi can't go back on normal (tastier) food or have treats until the enzyme level gets back to normal. That's also frustrating, because she's been on low fat, reduced calorie food for at least half a year now.
They forgot to take photos last week, with all this coming up. I know we'd all like to see some; thanks to those who asked. Hopefully next time...!

Meanwhile she said this just last Thursday... March 29th

I have said many things cause pancreatitis and here is proof....

http://www.whole-dog-journal.com/issues/11_11/features/Canine-Pancreatitis-Symptoms-and-Treatment_16081-1.html

Causes of pancreatitis
Pancreatitis is often blamed on high-fat diets, though there is little scientific evidence to support this. Active, working dogs, such as sled dogs, can eat as much as 60 percent fat in their diets without developing pancreatitis, but too much fat may cause trouble for middle-aged, overweight, relatively inactive dogs, who are the ones most commonly affected by pancreatitis. Too much fat can also cause problems for some dogs with chronic pancreatitis.

Dietary indiscretion, such as eating rancid fatty scraps from the garbage, can also lead to pancreatitis, particularly when a dog accustomed to a low- or normal-fat diet ingests high-fat foods. That’s why pancreatitis incidents are thought to increase after Thanksgiving, when people may feed their dogs a meal of turkey skin and drippings.

Low-protein diets have also been shown to predispose dogs to pancreatitis, especially when combined with high fat intake. Some prescription diets may be a concern, such as those prescribed to dissolve struvite bladder stones; to prevent calcium oxalate, urate, or cystine stones; and to treat kidney disease; especially for breeds prone to pancreatitis.

Several medications have been associated with pancreatitis, most recently the combination of potassium bromide and phenobarbital used to control epilepsy. This combination has a much higher risk of causing pancreatitis than phenobarbital alone (no studies have been done on the use of potassium bromide by itself).

Many other medications have been linked to pancreatitis, though the relationship is not always clear. These include certain antibiotics (sulfa drugs, tetracycline, metronidazole, nitrofurantoin); chemotherapy agents (azathioprine, L-asparaginase, vinca alkaloids); diuretics (thiazides, furosemide); other antiepileptic drugs (valproic acid, carbamazepine); hormones (estrogen); long-acting antacids (cimetidine, ranitidine); Tylenol (acetaminophen); and aspirin (salicylates).

Corticosteroids, such as prednisone, are especially controversial: while veterinarians have long considered them to be the most common drug to cause pancreatitis, recent human studies have discounted this link. Based on anecdotal evidence, however, I believe the association does exist in dogs. I personally know dogs who developed pancreatitis within days of being given corticosteroids.

Toxins, particularly organophosphates (insecticides used in some flea control products), as well as scorpion stings and toxic levels of zinc, may also lead to pancreatitis.

Pancreatitis can occur in dogs of any age, breed, or sex. That said, most dogs with pancreatitis are middle-aged or older, overweight, and relatively inactive.

Certain conditions may predispose a dog to pancreatitis. These includediabetes mellitus (though it is not clear whether pancreatitis precedes diabetes); acute hypercalcemia (high levels of calcium in the blood, usually from a calcium infusion or poisoning rather than diet or supplements);hyperlipidemia (high fat content in the blood, again usually due to metabolic disorder rather than diet);hypothyroidism; and Cushing’s disease (hyperadrenocorticism).

Both diabetes and hypothyroidism can affect fat metabolism and lead to hyperlipidemia, which may predispose a dog to pancreatitis. Miniature Schnauzers are prone to developing hyperlipidemia and thus may have an increased risk of pancreatitis. Obesity predisposes dogs to pancreatitis, and the disease is often more severe in dogs who are overweight.

Pancreatitis can occur in dogs of any age, breed, or sex. That said, most dogs with pancreatitis are middle-aged or older, overweight, and relatively inactive. Cavalier King Charles Spaniels, Collies, and Boxers have been shown to have an increased relative risk of chronic pancreatitis, and Cocker Spaniels an increased relative risk of acute and chronic pancreatitis combined. Dachshunds have been reported to be predisposed to acute pancreatitis.

Other breeds mentioned as having an increased risk for pancreatitis include the Briard, Shetland Sheepdog, Miniature Poodle, German Shepherd Dog, terriers (especially Yorkies and Silkies), and other non-sporting breeds.

People sometimes develop autoimmune chronic pancreatitis, and it is theorized that dogs may as well. German Shepherd Dogs have been shown to develop immune-mediated lymphocytic pancreatitis, which predisposes them to pancreatic atrophy.

Pancreatitis has been associated with immune-mediated diseases, which may include IBD, though the cause-and-effect relationship is not understood. While there is no scientific evidence to support this, some doctors have suggested that food allergies could be a rare cause of recurrent or chronic pancreatitis. I think IBD could possibly be both a cause and an effect of pancreatitis, or that both could be caused by an underlying autoimmune disease or food allergy.

Dogs with immune-mediated pancreatitis may respond well to corticosteroids such as prednisone, which suppress the immune system, even though this drug has also been thought to cause acute pancreatitis.

• • 
    

My take on the letter to Derek Graham

" This is not about politics. It is about right and wrong."

Yep that's true.... it's about how many times YOU have been wrong and the cause of where Brindi is and what will probably happen to her.

"Yes, Brindi is a sweet dog. She is beautiful and smart as well. And I am her guardian and lawful owner. Brindi is a rescue dog who has suffered a great deal. She has been in shelters and pounds for over half her life, for no good reason."

YOU ARE THE REASON BRINDI IS WHERE SHE IS.

" She belongs at home."

When Brindi is NOT with you, she is NEVER in trouble.

"Your wife Christine Graham of Wyndenfog Kennels in West Chezzetcook is getting paid by HRM to keep my dog Brindi under lock and key while it tries to get a court order allowing it to put her down."

You are LUCKY Christine agreed to take Brindi, otherwise she would be at Homeward Bound. Of course she is being paid... the dog eats don't she? Isn't she taking up a kennel space that would normally be used by another PAYING customer? You want everything for free.

"Brindi is essentially on death row. There is no good reason for this."

I agree with that but giving her back to you would mean death PERIOD.

"Therefore, it is morally repugnant for you or anyone to suggest that you and your wife are somehow "neutral". Christine is not neutral in any way in this matter and neither are you, Mr. Graham. She is freely cooperating in return for financial gain."

Lets not throw oranges fran.... YOU are doing all this for financial gain. YOU are the one maligning these people who are looking after Brindi. YOU brought them into it when YOU started on your campaign to make them out as the bad guy because you can't get sympathy or money if you are not lying and complaining.

"There is no obligation for any kennel owner in the area to cooperate with HRM’s actions. No self-respecting dog care professional would."

For a person of so much book knowledge, you are really STUPID. It's called a contract. Yanno, a legal and binding document that states the terms of tender? Oh wait, maybe you never signed one of those in your profession for any job you did.

"If your wife had any integrity a trainer, she would refuse on principle to cooperate with HRM. Yet she is actively taking part in keeping Brindi locked up. No decent kennel owner would do such a thing. No amount of assertions that she is neutral, or that Brindi gets “top quality” care, or any other excuse, alters the fact that it is wrong."

No DECENT owner would put their dog on the kill list over and over.

" Nothing can compensate for the cumulative harm to any dog, and especially Brindi, that such long-term kenneling does. Her behavior cannot be unaffected by this."

And that my dear is YOUR OWN DOING.... you and you alone caused this. NOBODY else.

" And it cannot be fairly argued that your wife's facility, Mr. Graham, is "top-quality". The barbed-wire fence, lack of trees, and barking dogs belies that idea."

And what do you have? Lets see, a house with no running water, no sewage, no heat, finally a foundation after many years, a dog run made out of chicken wire ... oh excuse me... galvanized chicken wire, no trees, Brindi attacking other dogs because you can't / won't contain her the way the LAW / court orders told you to.

"The fact is that by cooperating with HRM for financial gain renders you and your wife just as hypocritical and complicit as the SPCA was. "

The fact that you cry about Brindi , meanwhile you NEVER followed the rules in the first place right down to court orders to keep Brindi safe.

"To me, you are just as evil as HRM is by doing its bidding. (Do you honestly think the Nuremburg defense or anything remotely like it is acceptable? It certainly was not in Nuremburg.)"

You are the evil one. You wanted a dog that was already trained so you didn't have to do anything.... ANY person with even half a brain knows there is no such thing in a new adopted dog. YOU didn't do your work. YOU didn't follow through. YOU are the only one responsible. YOU

"Your wife is well aware that HRM very rarely locks up dogs for long periods while it prosecutes owners. She knows very well, despite whatever lies she tells herself, that HRM has singled me and Brindi out time and time again while leaving other dogs that cause serious harm at home - unmuzzled, and free. "

YOU proved YOU couldn't be trusted to follow the laws, YOU proved later that you won't even follow court orders.

She also knows Brindi's "history".

The two processes of dealing with dangerous dogs and prosecuting by-law violations were never meant to be linked. HRM has linked them as a lazy way out of the situation. It benefits only Lori Scolaro and Andrea Macdonald, who have sadistic compulsions to kill dogs at their whim.

"10. The solution is better by-laws that make long-term kenneling unnecessary, not what your wife is doing by kenneling Brindi and other dogs for indefinite periods. What is also gravely needed is timely and proper oversight and review of all decisions made by Animal Services to insure FAIR AND CONSISTENT TREATMENT of dogs and owners."

In your case, it would make NOT DIFFERENCE. Brindi would have been seized over and over again. The safest place for Brindi and other dogs is to be AWAY from you.

"11. You are not a vet and cannot credibly comment on Brindi’s health, any more than you can credibly comment on her behavior. It is absolutely true that Brindi contracted chronic pancreatitis while under HRM’s care. There is evidence that she has had at least one attack while in your wife’s care. However, it surfaces until sometime later, as your wife and HRM did not report it to Brindi’s vet at the time."

This woman can comment on Brindi just as much as Jordan can... she has her everyday 24/7 and is a trainer. Just because YOU don't have her on your pity me list don't mean she is any less credible. Many dogs no matter where they are or what they eat can get pancreatitis. You don't know Brindi's life before except where she came from and she had pups. You have not included being at Celtic Pets for 2 yrs either. So for YOU to blame any one person or shelter, you know nothing.

"12. It is also absolutely true that Brindi’s vet was very concerned about her heightened enzyme levels in the absence of symptoms. Cancer was a very real possibility. To suggest otherwise or allow others to suggest it in your presence puts you squarely in the libel category. Not against me, but against two qualified veterinarians."

Raised enzymes can be caused by many things. Did your vet tell you that? Probably but because it don't get you the money or sympathy you will not say that.

"13. Your wife is NOT getting paid to train my dog Brindi. Contrary to your assertions, she has no plan of any kind for review as none was submitted to me, her LAWFUL OWNER, to HRM, or to her trainer or her vet. The latter two upstanding individuals and I find it very problematic to consider anything of the kind, and it would be preferable if your wife did not attempt to train Brindi further."

His wife is being paid for the care and well being of Brindi which would include training. Are you that dense and uncaring for Brindi that you would rather nothing be done with her so she would be killed??

"14. As the SPCA volunteers found out very quickly, Brindi was already trained quite well, thanks to the hard work I put in with her for an entire year after we passed Bob Ottenbrite’s rigorous obedience class in good time."

BULLSHIT. Brindi ISN'T the problem... you are.

"15. With Susan Jordan's help and work, and the court’s approval, Brindi was making good progress after being isolated from dogs for two full years. She has been isolated for a further 18 months thanks to HRM, Hope Swinimer, and your wife. There is no way on earth that her problems with territorial behavior can or will improve while isolated from other dogs. So kindly tell your wife to STOP "TRAINING" Brindi!!"

More bullshit. Funny how when people who tried to help you but didn't agree with your every command, they are the bad guy. How do you know what goes on in that kennel with Brindi, seeing as you only went ONCE, at night, on Christmas eve. with nobody home, unannounced, with a Christmas stocking and someone taking a video ( which was not allowed )..... why haven't you gone to see your precious dog that you claim to love and miss? You did state in one of your groups / blogs it was because of the conditions. You wanted full control to come and go as you please and do whatever you wanted. Yeah right, like any sain person would allow that with a person like you.

"16. You seem to be willfully blind to the fact that HRM gave Brindi NO CHANCE back in 2008 before muzzling her arbitrarily – disguised as a favor to Bernie Jo Villeaux, it was really a way to fast-track her to oblivion."

YOU contacted Ms. Villeaux about not being able to pay for both the vet bill and fine. Ms. Villeaux was trying to be nice but yet you vilify her because you went crying about having to pay for something.

"17. Having failed twice before, HRM certainly gave Brindi no chance in 2010 to make a full recovery from all that isolation. It seized her again after a minor incident that the Pettipas family was - again - only too happy to take advantage of, as they were very publicly known to be eager to see Brindi die. Their charade in the courtroom was a disgrace. The animal control officer who seized Brindi could not answer why Brindi should be locked up – other than to talk about my supposed transgressions. That is no justification whatsoever, and flies in the face of the intent of the legislation."

How many chances should a person have? I don't think Brindi should be locked up because of you. I think you should be locked up because of you and what you are doing to Brindi. That is the reason Brindi is where she is.

"18. Thanks to your wife’s full and total cooperation with HRM and Hope Swinimer in locking Brindi up – which, regardless of your obvious discomfort with those words my dear Mr. Graham,is exactly what she is doing, and for money - Brindi has how been isolated from dogs for another 18 months."

Nobody else put Brindi in the situations that caused damage to someone else's property but YOU. YOU are to blame for every time Brindi has had to spend one moment in a cage / kennel. Stop blaming everyone else.

"19. Hope Swinimer is earning an enormous sum of $2.3 million for 3 years – 50% more than the SPCA contract, which was itself at least twice the sum it should have been. Hope - for whom I used to volunteer, and who knows full well that Brindi should not be put down OR locked up - got that contract by taking advantage of the issues with the SPCA. Thanks to that money, she can now afford a full-time vet for her Hope for Wildlife rescue. No full time vet is employed at the pound, to my knowledge."

This one is very laughable. You couldn't wait for the SPCA to lose the HRM contract because your good friend ( at the time ) would be housing Brindi and you thought she would break the contract rules for you. When she didn't, now she is the bad guy too. Another one who is being maligned by you because of you.

"20. It is public knowledge that under the management of your wife’s “business partner” Hope Swinimer, and doubtless in compliance with Ms. Scolaro’s wishes, the pound put down 51 stray dogs in a 12-month period by deeming them “dangerous”. This is pretty horrific, and something no decent dog trainer should be connected to in any way, shape, or form. In addition, it is contrary to law, as HRM by-laws do NOT require or even suggest that “dangerous” dogs should be put down."

Are you a trainer? Are you a vet? Do you have the medical reports of any of these dogs you speak of? Or are you just fishing as usual because you THINK you know why these dogs were euthanized. Believe it or not, some dogs have to be because of temperament and or medical. So unless you have those papers you can't say why.

"21. This means that your wife no longer has any credibility as a trainer, a breeder, and a dog owner, for that matter."

WOW!!! This coming from a dog owner who didn't have her dog licensed the first time AC came, used a haltie instead of a muzzle, who didn't follow warnings from AC, allowed the dog to run loose so that the dog could and did attack other dogs, ignored court orders.... yep and everyone is suppose to take what you say as gospel.

"22. Attending the court hearings was certainly a questionable action on your part, now that you have used them to make self-serving public remarks about me while claiming to be impartial, when that is certainly not the case. You concealed your identity intentionally, contrary to your claims that you used your name. Many people have your last name. It is disingenuous to imply that you were not aware that readers on OpenFile and Facebook had no idea that your wife is Christine Graham."

Court is a public venue to attend. Anyone is allowed ( unless they are a witness ) to attend. Why was Robert Riley there? His presence was self serving and really had no value. Oh unless you wanted to call him as a witness to the last attack. Oh wait, he wasn't there but made a call to the HRM call center and LIED. Oh wait... just like you did but tried to blame Michelle ( you are a grown woman and can say NO ).

"23. You are willfully blind and certainly uncaring about all that I have sacrificed - my savings, my dreams, my home, and, thanks to people like you, my reputation - in order to keep this beautiful sweet dog alive and give her a good home. Shame on you, Mr. Graham."

The only things you sacrificed is Brindi and people who you conned into giving money. You have not paid anyone for their services. Take take take... that's all you do. and now you are going to take Brindi's life.

"24. Now you have totally compromised your integrity by joining a Facebook group called “By Law Enforcement in HRM”. This group is the latest effort to defame me by a group people who have been stalking, bullying, harassing, and libeling me outright since early 2009. Since then, they have been banned from a number of FB groups; Facebook has removed at least two earlier groups they began, and the RCMP have issued warnings against Mr. Wayne Croft. He also maintains a fake profile under the name Jak Thomas. He and other members were recently banned from the HRM People’s Council. They continue to make daily tweets in the same vein. These are documented at http://waynecroftisabully.info/"

All I can say is POT / BLACK.

You have harassed, stalked, maligned, bullied, lied, stole, cheated, damaged other people's property and so many other things but yet EVERYONE else is at fault? Lady ( I use that term loosely ) you have a nerve.

"25. Any reasonable person would deem it a disgrace for a member of the Canadian armed forces to associate with such dubious individuals. Being directly connected to the person paid to lock up Brindi puts your association in a dismal light indeed."

Any reasonable person wouldn't be doing what you are doing. The judge gave you a way out the last trial to save Brindi but you and your selfish ego wouldn't take it.

"26. I stand by everything I say. It is simply not legitimate to lock up a dog like Brindi for years at a time, let alone to claim that she is well cared for. No amount of rationalizing or blaming me or claiming to be apolitical can mask this truth."

YOU ARE TO BLAME. If you followed the warnings in the first place NONE of this would be happening.... IF you took Judge Murphy up on the THIRD option, Brindi could be in another home living the way she should be. But your ego and self-serving attitude wouldn't do it.

"27. The absurd notion that you and your wife deserve thanks for your efforts is extremely offensive and shameful indeed."

They do deserve thanks.... where would Brindi be right now if they didn't take her in?

"28. As someone who claims to have an interest in law, I suggest you check the Criminal Code on the detention of seized property, and consider the implications for you and your wife of the fact that under current law, HRM has absolutely no legal authority to detain a dog beyond the instant of seizure. Whether at my request or someone else’s, is only a matter of time until a court verifies that it is in breach of s. 8 of the Charter, Mr. Graham."

As someone who thinks she knows the law, you didn't follow any of them. Your actions and lack thereof shows you have no ability or want to follow the simplest laws to keep Brindi safe.

"29. Further misleading, defamatory, or otherwise untrue public statements by you about me or my dog, our vet and trainer, or the court case may result in action by me and/or others against you, and/or including you and your wife in action already underway against HRM."

More threats?? Now, if you know the law you would know that you can't sue someone for telling the truth. You were told that in court already. BTW telling someone on more then one occasion you are going to sue them is threats and they are able to sue YOU.

BRAVO DEREK GRAHAM!!

The numbered rant at Derek is typical “Professor” Rogier. She’s scared when he speaks up—calmly sanely, rationally. He was there in Court. (Bad mistake Rogier thinking you could get it postponed again—even with your sense of entitlement you ought to have realized you were shit outta luck with the Prosecutor after asking your Groupies to fill her personnel file with negative letters.) The truth hurts if you are trying to raise money by portraying yourself as a victim. Let’s see, there’s HRM, your neighbors (the entire community with the possible exception of the hairdresser), the local church who doesn’t even want you present at a fund-raiser, Animal Control, the RCMP (unfair: won’t arrest Croft when you tell them to, but DO come by to see why you trespassed on private property), the Highway Dept. (must've been something wrong with the road that caused a single car on a clear day to veer off the road en route to Court--couldn't have been driver so must have been Someone Else's Fault), the parking fees at Scotia Square (ONS should have moved their General Assemblies somewhere else to suit you, NS attorneys none of whom will represent you in Court any more (and believe me, they wouldn’t if you paid double up front‼), Canadian laws (no awards for Pain & Suffering—YOU babe are the one who has gone way out of her way to vindictively cause harm to others—didn’t work; bit you in the butt, eh?), the Tooth Fairy (for when your implant falls out which is sure to be blamed on the incompetence of NS dentists), NS contractors (Miss Biggie Architect thought she knew more about picking a contractor than someone who’s spent the past 30 years learning who the best ones are & who sent them to you)--when Rogier’s brilliant choice scrams—it’s not HER fault for ignoring good advice. Oh no.. And the kennel where someone is taking excellent care of Brindi (more than you did—just roll up the window before you pull into the drive; even an idiot should be able to keep that in mind for two months!). Yes, they receive a fee from HRM. People performing services, be it legal or doing construction work on your foundation, expect to be paid. She is terrified that if any number of her Sheeple read the truth the PayPal spigot will dry up. It’s a very valid worry, Rogier—very valid indeed. You are coming to the end of your string. Take down this group & rest assured two more will be formed immediately and members of your group, especially those from out of province—hell, out of country—will be individually advised in detail about WHY you are in your current situation. Because of your own actions—especially your blatant, frankly incomprehensible to any dog-lover, negligence. Stop blaming others for what you have brought on yourself. And—alas-on Brindi. You SHOULD be thankful she is being so well cared for. But then you should have been grateful when two supporters took you in after HRM evicted you for living in unsafe premises. Were you??? Shall we ask them? Sued, harassed, their house belittled. Talk about sheer gall. You stand bawling at their door in the pouring rain begging them to PLEASE take you in. They do. And you write on a public forum complaining about your accommodations on a pull-out sofa bed they used for guests. What did the province of Nova Scotia and particularly the peaceful little rural hamlet of East Chezzetcook do to deserve YOU??

More harrassment by Fran!

OPEN LETTER TO THE HUSBAND OF BRINDI'S CAPTOR

By Francesca Rogier in SAVE BRINDI AND FRANCESCA FROM THE CITY OF HALIFAX!!!!

OPEN LETTER TO MR. DEREK GRAHAM OF WEST CHEZZETCOOK, NOVA SCOTIA



HUSBAND OF CHRISTINE GRAHAM, OWNER OF WYNDENFOG KENNEL, UNDER CONTRACT BY HRM TO DETAIN MY DOG BRINDI



In response to the items posted by Derek Graham in the last two weeks, including this:



“The sad part is that we didn't want to get all caught up in the BS. All we wanted was to provide the best possible home for Brindi until the drama plays out. Chris works obedience training with her, which is part of our long-term care plan and she (Brindi) is such a sweet dog. With responsible and proper control / instruction, she poses no threat to other dogs. We really have no political stand on this situation and we certainly hope that the May 10th ruling allows for her to be spared. Our mandate is take care of her the best we can and it would just have been nice to be thanked for our efforts rather than to have our position in this used to satisfy an agenda and then criticized at every opportunity.”



Mr. Graham, you are incredibly and horridly mistaken.



This is not about politics. It is about right and wrong.
Yes, Brindi is a sweet dog. She is beautiful and smart as well. And I am her guardian and lawful owner. Brindi is a rescue dog who has suffered a great deal. She has been in shelters and pounds for over half her life, for no good reason. She belongs at home.
Your wife Christine Graham of Wyndenfog Kennels in West Chezzetcook is getting paid by HRM to keep my dog Brindi under lock and key while it tries to get a court order allowing it to put her down.
Brindi is essentially on death row. There is no good reason for this.
Therefore, it is morally repugnant for you or anyone to suggest that you and your wife are somehow "neutral". Christine is not neutral in any way in this matter and neither are you, Mr. Graham. She is freely cooperating in return for financial gain. There is no obligation for any kennel owner in the area to cooperate with HRM’s actions. No self-respecting dog care professional would.
If your wife had any integrity a trainer, she would refuse on principle to cooperate with HRM. Yet she is actively taking part in keeping Brindi locked up. No decent kennel owner would do such a thing. No amount of assertions that she is neutral, or that Brindi gets “top quality” care, or any other excuse, alters the fact that it is wrong. Nothing can compensate for the cumulative harm to any dog, and especially Brindi, that such long-term kenneling does. Her behavior cannot be unaffected by this. And it cannot be fairly argued that your wife's facility, Mr. Graham, is "top-quality". The barbed-wire fence, lack of trees, and barking dogs belies that idea.
The fact is that by cooperating with HRM for financial gain renders you and your wife just as hypocritical and complicit as the SPCA was. To me, you are just as evil as HRM is by doing its bidding. (Do you honestly think the Nuremburg defense or anything remotely like it is acceptable? It certainly was not in Nuremburg.)
Your wife is well aware that HRM very rarely locks up dogs for long periods while it prosecutes owners. She knows very well, despite whatever lies she tells herself, that HRM has singled me and Brindi out time and time again while leaving other dogs that cause serious harm at home - unmuzzled, and free. She also knows Brindi's "history".
The two processes of dealing with dangerous dogs and prosecuting by-law violations were never meant to be linked. HRM has linked them as a lazy way out of the situation. It benefits only Lori Scolaro and Andrea Macdonald, who have sadistic compulsions to kill dogs at their whim.

10. The solution is better by-laws that make long-term kenneling unnecessary, not what your wife is doing by kenneling Brindi and other dogs for indefinite periods. What is also gravely needed is timely and proper oversight and review of all decisions made by Animal Services to insure FAIR AND CONSISTENT TREATMENT of dogs and owners.

11. You are not a vet and cannot credibly comment on Brindi’s health, any more than you can credibly comment on her behavior. It is absolutely true that Brindi contracted chronic pancreatitis while under HRM’s care. There is evidence that she has had at least one attack while in your wife’s care. However, it surfaces until sometime later, as your wife and HRM did not report it to Brindi’s vet at the time.

12. It is also absolutely true that Brindi’s vet was very concerned about her heightened enzyme levels in the absence of symptoms. Cancer was a very real possibility. To suggest otherwise or allow others to suggest it in your presence puts you squarely in the libel category. Not against me, but against two qualified veterinarians.

13. Your wife is NOT getting paid to train my dog Brindi. Contrary to your assertions, she has no plan of any kind for review as none was submitted to me, her LAWFUL OWNER, to HRM, or to her trainer or her vet. The latter two upstanding individuals and I find it very problematic to consider anything of the kind, and it would be preferable if your wife did not attempt to train Brindi further.

14. As the SPCA volunteers found out very quickly, Brindi was already trained quite well, thanks to the hard work I put in with her for an entire year after we passed Bob Ottenbrite’s rigorous obedience class in good time.

15. With Susan Jordan's help and work, and the court’s approval, Brindi was making good progress after being isolated from dogs for two full years. She has been isolated for a further 18 months thanks to HRM, Hope Swinimer, and your wife. There is no way on earth that her problems with territorial behavior can or will improve while isolated from other dogs. So kindly tell your wife to STOP "TRAINING" Brindi!!

16. You seem to be willfully blind to the fact that HRM gave Brindi NO CHANCE back in 2008 before muzzling her arbitrarily – disguised as a favor to Bernie Jo Villeaux, it was really a way to fast-track her to oblivion.

17. Having failed twice before, HRM certainly gave Brindi no chance in 2010 to make a full recovery from all that isolation. It seized her again after a minor incident that the Pettipas family was - again - only too happy to take advantage of, as they were very publicly known to be eager to see Brindi die. Their charade in the courtroom was a disgrace. The animal control officer who seized Brindi could not answer why Brindi should be locked up – other than to talk about my supposed transgressions. That is no justification whatsoever, and flies in the face of the intent of the legislation.

18. Thanks to your wife’s full and total cooperation with HRM and Hope Swinimer in locking Brindi up – which, regardless of your obvious discomfort with those words my dear Mr. Graham,is exactly what she is doing, and for money - Brindi has how been isolated from dogs for another 18 months.

19. Hope Swinimer is earning an enormous sum of $2.3 million for 3 years – 50% more than the SPCA contract, which was itself at least twice the sum it should have been. Hope - for whom I used to volunteer, and who knows full well that Brindi should not be put down OR locked up - got that contract by taking advantage of the issues with the SPCA. Thanks to that money, she can now afford a full-time vet for her Hope for Wildlife rescue. No full time vet is employed at the pound, to my knowledge.

20. It is public knowledge that under the management of your wife’s “business partner” Hope Swinimer, and doubtless in compliance with Ms. Scolaro’s wishes, the pound put down 51 stray dogs in a 12-month period by deeming them “dangerous”. This is pretty horrific, and something no decent dog trainer should be connected to in any way, shape, or form. In addition, it is contrary to law, as HRM by-laws do NOT require or even suggest that “dangerous” dogs should be put down.

21. This means that your wife no longer has any credibility as a trainer, a breeder, and a dog owner, for that matter.

22. Attending the court hearings was certainly a questionable action on your part, now that you have used them to make self-serving public remarks about me while claiming to be impartial, when that is certainly not the case. You concealed your identity intentionally, contrary to your claims that you used your name. Many people have your last name. It is disingenuous to imply that you were not aware that readers on OpenFile and Facebook had no idea that your wife is Christine Graham.

23. You are willfully blind and certainly uncaring about all that I have sacrificed - my savings, my dreams, my home, and, thanks to people like you, my reputation - in order to keep this beautiful sweet dog alive and give her a good home. Shame on you, Mr. Graham.

24. Now you have totally compromised your integrity by joining a Facebook group called “By Law Enforcement in HRM”. This group is the latest effort to defame me by a group people who have been stalking, bullying, harassing, and libeling me outright since early 2009. Since then, they have been banned from a number of FB groups; Facebook has removed at least two earlier groups they began, and the RCMP have issued warnings against Mr. Wayne Croft. He also maintains a fake profile under the name Jak Thomas. He and other members were recently banned from the HRM People’s Council. They continue to make daily tweets in the same vein. These are documented at http://waynecroftisabully.info/

25. Any reasonable person would deem it a disgrace for a member of the Canadian armed forces to associate with such dubious individuals. Being directly connected to the person paid to lock up Brindi puts your association in a dismal light indeed.

26. I stand by everything I say. It is simply not legitimate to lock up a dog like Brindi for years at a time, let alone to claim that she is well cared for. No amount of rationalizing or blaming me or claiming to be apolitical can mask this truth.

27. The absurd notion that you and your wife deserve thanks for your efforts is extremely offensive and shameful indeed.

28. As someone who claims to have an interest in law, I suggest you check the Criminal Code on the detention of seized property, and consider the implications for you and your wife of the fact that under current law, HRM has absolutely no legal authority to detain a dog beyond the instant of seizure. Whether at my request or someone else’s, is only a matter of time until a court verifies that it is in breach of s. 8 of the Charter, Mr. Graham.

29. Further misleading, defamatory, or otherwise untrue public statements by you about me or my dog, our vet and trainer, or the court case may result in action by me and/or others against you, and/or including you and your wife in action already underway against HRM.



Francesca Rogier, Brindi's lawful guardian



This is what preceded Mr. Graham's above comment:



My wife runs Wyndenfog Kennels. She does not ”lock up” anything. She doesn't jail anything. She doesn't incarcerate anything. She cares for animals for short-term and long-term care. A professional with over 25 years in dog obedience training, she has modified what would be considered a standard kennel care situation to accommodate animals that have to stay extended periods of time to ensure their physical and emotional well-being. She does not set policy for HRM or dictate when an animal can be photographed. That is the purview of HRM officials, however, she may have to direct their wishes when interacting with other agencies. She did not call the RCMP when Ms Rogier trespassed on my property. I did. I am responsible - nobody else - for details, read the Doglover blog - is all there - and the RCMP believed that there was enough evidence and cause to justify my response so they payed her a visit. Ms. Rogier has posted a link to my wife's personal FB page for her minions to follow, probably in the hope that they will do her dirty work. This is probably one of the most cowardly tactics that she deploys. There has been no harassment lately, however, the RCMP has asked us to maintain a file on these activities. I did sit through both court days of Ms Rogier’s trial. I was there initially to provide security for my life as Ms Rogier’s followers have a recorded history of harassment and are openly abusive, and I was not sure how many may show up. I offered my opinion what I witnessed and I used my real name as in the Openfile article. I stated pros and cons for both the defence and the crown as the trial progressed. I don't make a habit of announcing to the world who I am married to because, quite frankly, that's my business – but - come on- if you have half a brain, it was pretty easy to figure out my connection to the situation because .. duh !! .., I am using my real name. And finally, the great cancer scare. Brindi was showing signs of some form of possible pancreatic concerns based on raised levels of certain enzymes. It is well documented that these test results may be indicators of pancreatic distress but they are far from conclusive. The end results were as we suspected - no cancer whatsoever. Ms. Rogier summoned her followers for revenue to pay for these tests and her commentary on was doom and gloom and convincing - all the power to her and P.T. Barnum.https://www.facebook.com/groups/168758533204327/



- I have no minions, no followers, and no one that I wish to do “dirty work.” I did not "summon" anyone for revenue for my own gratification or benefit. Mr. Graham would be well-advised to cease making such defamatory allegations, as they are defamatory to me as well as all those who oppose HRM’s actions.

- It is not incorrect to say that Christine Graham is locking up Brindi. It is the truth. No one is allowed to visit Brindi at Wyndenfog – not her trainer or her vet. HRM waited five months after seizing her in 2010, before telling me that I could visit Brindi – and imposed the same Draconian constraints they had for the few months it permitted me to see her at the SPCA. 30 minutes a week, they pick the time; no photos, no treats, and no friends allowed, no speaking to staff, and no way to communicate about delays or changes.

- After a lot of pressure from me, HRM consented to allow the vet to see Brindi – rather than the agreed monthly visits, however, the vet has been able to see her only on an intermittent basis, and only at the clinic, even though the vet has a mobile unit and can go anywhere. Not allowing a vet to visit the facility is a further indication of HRM’s suppression of transparency, which Wyndenfog supports.

- It was the vet, not I, who called for an ultrasound out of concern for the existence of a tumor that could be cancerous, when blood tests showed a 30% spike in enzymes, in the absence of symptoms. As Brindi contracted chronic pancreatitis – indicated by numerous symptoms over a two-year period – the chances of developing pancreatic cancer are greater than in other dogs. Pancreatic cancer is uncurable in both dogs and humans. This was a serious scare.

- Dropping off a Christmas stocking for my dog on Christmas eve is not trespassing. Moreover, the Grahams operate a business from their home. Taxpayers like myself fund their business. I used the Graham's business driveway, walked to the door, no one answered my knocks, so I left the stocking, went back to my car and left. Photos? Yes, because I wanted documentation to guard against the very kind of accusations Mr. Graham has delivered. Evidently, according to him, I am guilty (of anything and everything!) until proven innocent, and of course this is the way HRM wants people to see me.

- I was fully expecting SOMEONE to be home. Instead, I found no one, and that meant that Brindi was unattended. Mr. Graham fails to note that.

- Mr. Graham does admit that he sent the RCMP to my home on Boxing Day. One of the constables started talking with the words, “Brindi’s owner says…” He was a bit confused when I told him that I am Brindi’s owner. Now that I know of Mr. Graham’s involvement, I can’t help but wonder if Mr. Graham misled the officers.

Oh Frannie Oh Frannie

Well it has been an interesting 10 days since Fran last was in court, She has managed to piss off most of the people in ONS,She got several warnings from other groups she yaps in.She has switched more times between Debbie Macdonald and Fran I have no idea how she keeps it straight. Now after Fran gets these warnings from some of these groups .....and lets face it people many of the members in these groups Fran likes to join are close to the bottom of the food chain.......Why you ask?.....Well the answer to that is SHE CAN BULLY THEM. However the odd time she can't she runs and hides by creating a new group yep Fran and Debbie are there chatting away to themselves,of course both are Admins.
There is much more I would like to add,but at this time I won't except to say I will give her enough rope to hang herself,and it appears that is the way she is headed.

I borrowed the following off a friend of a friends home page I think it suits Fran to a Tee

"Attention to all: BEWARE - EXTREME DANGER If you encounter a person who has narcissism, mixed with a persecution complex, combined with a formal university education -RUN FOR YOUR LIFE- because as soon as they speak, they are sucking the life-force from your body!! Apparently, a twisted personality - in concert with the combination of various educational degrees - the ability to communicate in other languages and - the experience of having taught at prestigious institutions ... develops a superpower that enables them to evade any direct question by grafting an indirect off topic issue (or issues) to it, and randomly articulating on those topics FOR HOURS. In theory – they could kill Superman by simply talking him to death. Us mere mortals … don’t stand a chance. The only way to neutralize the threat, is to contain the subject in a courtroom which, for some strange reason, acts as a dampening field.""

Taken from A FB Group

Debbie Macdonald
I don't know what happened to the poll about Brindi, but in the interest of fair disclosure, I think people here have a right to know who Derek Graham really is - the guy who was posting long-winded opinions here in the disguise of a "report" on the trial of Brindi's owner: he's the husband of Christine Reeve-Graham, who is also known as the owner and operator of Wyndenfog Kennel, where she has been locking up Brindi since September 27, 2010. Impartial my butt! LMAO!
7 hours ago

Derek Graham For the record, I have never hidden who I was, that's why I used my real name (unlike some from the other side of this situation). All I stated was information that I observed in court during the trial. I stated pro's and con's to the defence and offence and when I made an error in my observations as pointed out by the defence, I didn't debate it, I accepted it. You found my comments long winded - perhaps - others found them thourough, its a matter of perspective.
6 hours ago
Debbie Macdonald What's the difference between omitting and hiding, when it comes to a piece of information like that? Sorry, but I doubt you would you have spent all that time in the courtroom if you weren't connected directly to Brindi. Which you certainly are, as your wife is getting paid to lock up this poor dog. Was it your idea to send the RCMP to Francesca's home the day after Christmas??
6 hours ago
Debbie Macdonald That was a rhetorical question, by the way. I don't want this thread to get loaded down like the others. I'm done.
6 hours ago
Debbie Macdonald Except to say: shame, shame, shame!
6 hours ago
Derek Graham As for impartiality, it has been my observation that intelligent people respond and trust a person who is willing to make observations that both favour and show flaws in any given situation. Those were the people that I wanted to address for an audience. I understand your type of person Ms Macdonald all too well; narrow minded, emotional, and are of a singular opinion. Trust me – you - and people like you, are not my target audience. And, since you brought it up, lets clarify a situation that you clearly don't want anyone to know about - other than the deception you offer. My wife - has never "locked up" "incarcerated" or whatever other spin you want to put on it - ANY animal. My wife is a professional who is noted for being one of the top 5 dog obedience instructors in Nova Scotia, depending on who you talk to. She accepts animals from clients and ensures their safety and well being for short and long term care. She doesn't care how a dog gets to her - but she does dictate to the client how the animal will be cared for - and those standards are VERY high. That is why her client base is very extensive expanding, so much so that a new kennel building is required and will hopefully be complete by end July.

Shall we cut to the case Ms Macdonald - Brindi isn't going anywhere. Not until 10 May as per court order. As harsh as it may seem, that is the current situation -Now - do you want to see her put back in a pound environment - which is the only other alternative at present according to the law - or do you think she is better with the experienced kennel operator, dog obedience trainer with +25 years knowledge and experience (that’s X 2.5 more experience than Ms Rogier’s SME, by the way) and, who has also trained as a veterinary assistant.
5 hours ago
Debbie Macdonald You know nothing about me, Mr. Graham, so it would be better for you not to make such remarks, especially as your credibility is in question, having concealed who you are in this case. But one thing I do know: no responsible kennel operator keeps a dog kenneled for so long, for any amount of money. All dogs will suffer negative effects from that. A dog like Brindi, who was already locked up for two years, for no good reason, was already traumatized. She barely had a chance to recover before HRM seized her again! And don't forget she was isolated from dogs all that time. Apparently, she's been isolated again all the time she's at your wife's kennel. Any decent trainer would not agree to such terms. It's completely wrong. All the more repulsive to pretend it's okay just because - in your opinion - your wife's place is a step above the SPCA's pound environment!! Brindi's vet and trainer have pleaded with HRM more than once to let her go home pending trial. I trust their judgment. In fact I read that her vet has expressed serious concerns about her health. I also suspect that your wife and/or HRM have not always been truthful about it, since they don't even let the vet visit the kennel.
In your heart, you and your wife know very well Brindi should not be anywhere but home pending trial. And I don't even agree about the trial. Brindi hasn't done anything worse than any other dog - why is she locked up and they are not? In fact, what she did was very likely a lot less than what other dogs did - dogs HRM did not want to lock up, let alone put down. Frankly, I don't know where you get the nerve to show your face in public, let alone in a courtroom watching her owner fight for her life. I find it deeply upsetting, and I'm sure others do as well. Shame on you, and shame on your wife!!!!
5 hours ago
Derek Graham This is an exserpt of a letter I prepared for the RCMP (didn't send it -it wasn't necessary as they took our statement) There is an ongoing file on Ms Rogier due to her actions, and the actions of her followers. The Christmas Stocking/ RCMP Fiasco –
On Christmas eve, my family proceeded into Dartmouth to spend part of Christmas Eve with relatives. Family spending time with family is what normally happens at Christmas (and, yes, by the way Ms Rogier - the heat always is on in the kennel in the winter). Ms. Rogier has devoted much time and effort reporting her side of this event and interjecting her innuendo’s, so it is only fitting that that the other side of this story gets told.

First, we had no idea that any item or items of any type were going be dropped off at the house. Ms Rogier made no attempt to contact any official nor did she make any attempt to directly or indirectly contact us to explain that this was her intent. Had she contacted us, we would have had to clear it through the proper channels but we are not heartless (despite comments to the otherwise) we would have gladly done what we could to make that possible. However, her methodology was to arrive unannounced, drop off a stocking in a dark, lowlight area, take pictures, and leave. So – put yourself in my shoes for a second. You come home and an un-identified stocking (no pre warning – no note anywhere on the outside you can see) shows up at your door. The name on the stocking is for the dog that has a FBG following of 3000+ members, some who are openly hostile.( I have screenshots of the comments on her FBG to support this statement) You have no idea where it came from – because - the person who might have possibly dropped it off knows she is not suppose to be anywhere near the kennel unless she follows a prearranged agreement to contact us. It’s a Christmas stocking, so, due to its very nature you can’t see what’s in it. It’s probably safe. It’s probably nothing to worry about but you are responsible for the safety of your two children and a spouse. What would you do? Do you pick it up without a care in the world? Do you call the police requesting its removal? Fortunately or unfortunately, depending on if you consider me paranoid or exercising rational caution, option is irrelevant because in my case, instinctive military training kicked in. (a Tour in Afghanistan does this to you – by the way Ms Rogier - this is REAL PDSD) . I tell my family to get back to a safe distance while I inspect the parcel. Upon inspection I find a bunch of dog treats that apparently the dog shouldn’t be consuming do to purported medical condition and Ms Rogiers’ vets complaints about her weight + a bunch Brindi supporter literature and pictures. Well, at this point, my kids are freaked out. My nerves are shot and my wife is furious AND, it’s Christmas eve. THAT is why the RCMP got called – to ensure that Ms Rogier exercises better judgment. Once the RCMP was informed about the details they agreed that Ms. Rogier needed to be reminded that, although the sentiment AFTER the parcel was inspected, was understood - the method was unacceptable.

The fact that after the incident occurred with staged pictures in front of my house. The fact someone aiding her “act of compassion” took them. The fact that these images were almost instantaneously posted to her FBG and a Youtube video was produced. The fact that she started a series of negative commentary with no reflection on her actions or her role in these events despite the message the RCMP was attempting to relay - brings Ms. Rogiers intent of “good will” and integrity, SERIOUSLY into question.
5 hours ago
Debbie Macdonald HRM did not do anything about these dogs. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/story/2012/03/20/ns-sackville-dogs-fighting.html
And you and your wife take HRM's money. So I don't think you should be speaking about this at all, frankly.
5 hours ago
Debbie Macdonald And isn't your wife the one who forbade the vet clinic to take photos of Brindi?
Look Mr. Graham: If you are so worried, why doesn't your wife simply refuse to keep Brindi locked up?
5 hours ago
Debbie Macdonald Your insinuations are really cruel. Isn't this the SECOND Christmas without her dog? Well, I for one I am sure Ms. Rogier was fully expecting somebody to be on the premises looking after her dog. It is not just your house, but a kennel. How often is Brindi left unattended?
5 hours ago
Debbie Macdonald Imagine how she felt when nobody was home! I don't know what PDSD is, but you seem to think that you can treat somebody like a criminal just because you were in the armed forces. Men in my family served in the forces and they don't assume that bringing a dog a Christmas stocking is a crime. As far as posting online and making youtube vidoes? Ms. Rogier is entitled to free speech. If you have a problem with that, please go back to Afghanistan. "Intelligent people" don't lock up a dog for going on two years. Let HRM find some other stiffs to do their bidding.
5 hours ago
Derek Graham Free Speech - Yes - she does - no problem... AND SO DO I.
5 hours ago
Debbie Macdonald Not according to your insinuations, she doesn't. Sending the RCMP is not a civilized way to send a message, if you ask me. Especially at Christmas! Banning a woman from visiting her beloved dog in the first place is not civilized - what law says that, in Halifax? What requirements are set down in the law? Do you even know? The answer from what we in Save Brindi can tell: NONE. So as far as I am concerned, she has a right to go where she wants to. Nobody banned her from going to your wife's place of business, as far as we know. We all know that she was allowed to visit Brindi when she was at another kennel, before she was released in 2010.
Now I am going to sleep because I am going to church in the morning to pray for Brindi and Ms. Rogier. I wonder how well you and your wife sleep? What exactly are you so afraid of?? I don't think it's fear that troubles you, I think it's guilt.I would think that your time in Afghanistan ought to give you some perspective, so that you would see what a waste it is, and how mean and unreasonable HRM has been from the start! After all, nobody is holding a gun to your head. You and your wife have a choice when it comes to Brindi. Ms. Rogier must feel so terrible, having left her home to start a new life in Canada - and here you are, with HRM, treating her like a terrorist. She adopted Brindi as a good deed. She has sacrificed so much. Nobody is paying her. Nobody is protecting her. Now she has to wait even longer. But she will probably never get justice. A dog's life is very short as you well know. Poor Brindi.
Shame, shame, shame!!!
4 hours ago
Derek Graham I didn't determine if Ms Rogier's actions were criminal - the RCMP did !! and they acted !! Look - Ms Rogier has to accept the consequences of her actions rather than rambling on, re-directing blame, and switching topics when confronted with them. Based on your YOUR insight Ms Macdonald of this situation and court case - I highly doubt you are who you say you are. For what it is worth, despite the theatrics and deceptive misleadings of Ms. Rogier’s / your statements in her FB Group, her dog is receiving top quality care that is inclusive to addressing her concerns with respect to long-term care, at our facility.
4 hours ago
Debbie Macdonald The consequences?? Come on! It is you who have to accept the consequences of your actions, Mr. Graham. You deceived this group. Switching topics? You did that!
Ms. Rogier offered to pay fines before HRM ever charged her with anything. She has said time and time again she will do what the law requires.
Top quality care - and a cancer scare?! Ha! There is no such thing as top quality care - kenneling a dog indefinitely is UNHEALTHY, period. It stresses a dog and this dog is already stressed. It is not recommended, period. What trainer would do this?
If you haven't noticed, there are many many people here who will argue just as strongly as I will and we are not Ms. Rogier. As for theatrics, re-read your description about the Christmas stocking, Mr. Graham! It's hilarious! Good night!
4 hours ago
Derek Graham Brindi is safe, fed , walked, played with, diet monitored, exercised with long term considerations factored in -which means - we are - and have been - addressing the kennelling issues with respect to Ms. Jordan's concerns. Furthermore, a person with impeccable credentials is doing this, with over twice as much experience (no disrespect to Ms Jordan) and who sincerely cares for her. If that's not good enough for Ms. Rogier or you - I could care less – and you should be thankful that someone with that much background in animal care was contracted for her care. By the way, we had the opportunity to give Brindi up, but my wife refused because the pound was her only alternative and that is defiantly NOT in Brindi's best interest. Let me this perfectly clear - This kennel WILL NOT entertain any notion to break the law to satisfy the desires or wishes of any one individual or group. And don't try to BS on the cancer scare because we BOTH KNOW that there was NO TRACE of ANY CANCER with no health correlation to the kennel whatsoever - Hello !! We get the same medical reports.
Debbie, let me take the time to thank you for providing me with a forum to counter all the deception that has arose over this issue and to promote our kennel. I sleep very well at night because Brindi is well taken care of. Good Night

How stupid can editors be?

HALIFAX, NOVA SCOTIA—Why have officials in Halifax, Nova Scotia spent thousands of taxpayer money to carry forth the vendetta and personal animosity of a city employee against a dog that belongs their neighbor?

Halifax , the city employee nor the owners of the ATTACKED dog don't have a vendetta or personal animosity against Fran. The problem is, Fran don't think the law or court orders apply to her. She will not take the rightful blame for not following any laws period.

Why is the city of Halifax determined to kill a dog, taking action that they never have in the past?

Brindi, a highly intelligent and loving rescue dog, has been kept in captivity for essentially three years since being arbitrarily and capriciously seized from her guardian.Not only is using city resources, money and power to exercise a personal cause unethical, it’s an egregious abuse of power and waste of tax dollars by Halifax officials that cries out for an investigation.

Well no. Fran is the one who started this, kept it going. She didn't follow the rules the first, second, third, fourth time. Even after she was told " the next time, Brindi would be killed". She was asked in court by a judge if she understood the rules to have Brindi back and she said YES. She was also asked if she had any questions pertaining to the muzzle order... she said NO.

Next Tuesday and Wednesday, Nov. 8 and 9, Brindi’s guardian, Francesca Rogier, heads to the Dartmouth Provincial Court at 9:30 a.m. to try and save the life of her beloved friend.

That time has come and gone. Poor baby got a boo boo on her wittle finger and CANCELLED court. Saying she couldn't prepare her brief or use the computer ( she only had a year to do it ).

WORLD WATCHING HALIFAX OFFICIALS TOO

The entire world is currently in tune to these outrageous acts against dogs by governmental agencies. The world is waiting to see if the Belfast City Council in Belfast, Northern Ireland acts responsibly in the case of Lennox, seized under the Dangerous Dog Act, imprisoned in a secret location since May 2010 simply because he looks like a pit bull. His assessments by impartial qualified dog experts all show that he is non-aggressive.

This whole scenario is happening over and over and over. Will your dog become the next victim of arbitrary and retaliatory government using your own tax dollars to combat you and your family pet?

This article may not be reprinted or republished without the express written permission of The North Country Gazette.Two dogs seized under the Dangerous Dog Act in the United Kingdom have been returned to their owners this past week. Two other dogs, Simba and Venus, remain on death row but there are committed, ongoing efforts to free the dogs and release them to their owners.

DON'T YOU DARE compare an irresponsible selfish owner with Lennox.

Meanwhile, the House of Lords has agreed that the Dangerous Dog Act doesn’t work and needs an overhaul—-and they have voted unanimously to do so.

Now the eyes of the world are focused on Canada—Halifax, Nova Scotia to be exact where the atrocities against a seven-year-old shepherd mix are almost beyond imagination.

On Tuesday and Wednesday, Nov. 8 and 9, Brindi’s owner, Francesca Rogier, will be put on trial for bylaw infractions stemming from a minor scuffle with a dog in front of her house on Sept. 14, 2010. The dog was not seriously harmed. The owners were related to the people who first reported Brindi to the city, and one of them works for the city of Halifax.

So what if the owners of Lucy is related to one of the other dogs Brindi attacked. Does that make it not true? What does it matter where the owner work? That STILL don't mean it never happened. The " scuffle " didn't happen in front of Fran's house, it happen on a PUBLIC ROAD.

Experts have previously testified on behalf of Brindi, that her “issues” can be corrected with training and in no way constitutes a death warrant”.

That I agree with EXCEPT it won't happen with this owner.

If the court finds Francesca guilty on any charge, the prosecutor for Halifax says he will invoke a law allowing the court to order a dog put down as an “additional penalty”.

The prosecutor can ask for anything, just like Fran can ( and has )... the judge DOES NOT have to order it.

For more information, and the trainer’s assessment, seehttp://freebrindi.blogspot.com/

USE REASON IN ENFORCING DOG LAWS

Any dog law, no matter in what country or jurisdiction, must be enforced using reason and discretion

TRUE... their reason is because SHE WILL NOT ADHERE to any law or court order.

Municipalities have a role to insure public safety, but within reason: they must also treat dogs and owners fairly.Bylaw infractions are minor offenses that are meant to be fined.Killing a dog is not a fair or moral penalty for any by-law infraction.If a city seeks to kill a dog it says is dangerous, it must present proper grounds. It must have proof that it has attacked with the intent to kill or do serious harm. It cannot fairly ask for “pre-emptive” action.Dogs that fight dogs are not necessarily a threat to public safety (dogs are not part of the public – if they were, they would have rights!).Dogs typically fight dogs as a way to establish dominance. It is no indication they will attack humans. Dogs can be trained out of this behavior.Fatalities due to dog attacks rank very low on the list of causes of accidental death and injury. They are not even among the top 50.UNFAIR TREATMENT OF DOGS AND OWNERS IS NOT ACCEPTABLE

Municipalities should be held to a consistent standard that is in keeping with their usual enforcement of the law.Halifaxdecided in 2008 to muzzle, then seize and destroy Brindi, fully aware that she had never attacked a person and had not injured dogs at all, except for one minor injury that was treated with first aid.Halifax’s decision to kill Brindi was thus way out of line with its customary enforcement. Its decision to seize Brindi once again is not only cruel and unusual punishment itself, but also in stark contrast with its handling of a recent case of a pit bull that attacked a woman in the throat and face.The city has never had Brindi’s behavior evaluated professionally. It will not be bringing an expert witness to the stand next week. (An animal control officer will testify, but she is not qualified in dog training and behavior.)Clearly Halifax is not pursuing this case in the interest of public safetyBOTTOM LINE: BRINDI IS NOT A KILLER AND MUST NOT BE KILLED

Brindi was evaluated by several trainers and behaviorists at the request of her owner. None of these deemed Brindi dangerous. They regard her as territorial, and suggested more training.Brindi’s owner observed all court-imposed conditions for Brindi’s return.The conditions are following a muzzle order, building and maintaining a dog run, and doing further training.The conditions were identical to the conditions she originally offered to the city in 2008, but were met with no response from the city.The incident leading to Brindi’s second seizure and third year behind bars was an accidental event. Freak accidents do happen: people should not be punished for them by the destruction of a beloved family member.Moreover, the incident was no more serious than previous incidents. Like those, it occurred on or near her property (i.e. at most, a few feet from the boundary).Brindi simply needed more time to readjust to her surroundings after being locked up for two years without contact with other dogs.Francesca worked with trainer Susan Jordan. She did more training that was required and continued after Brindi was released – not because a court ordered it, but because she wanted Brindi to be as perfect as possible.This time, Ms. Rogier, Brindi’s guardian, has been charged with owning a dog that runs at large, owning a dog that attacked another animal and failure to comply with a notice to muzzle the dog.

The charges, even if true, certainly do not warrant destroying a dog and in fact, according to Ms. Rogier, there’s no precedent for ordering the dog destroyed. If the court should find Ms. Rogier guilty of the charges, then she’s the one that should be penalized, not the dog and certainly not by destroying the dog.

There is no precedent.. that's true... then again, there has not been another FRAN ROGIER.

But at the end of the day, NO, Brindi does not deserve to be their pawn. She does not deserve to die. She is just protective and territorial, like most dogs.

Rogier, 50, an American citizen, an architectural professor and a Fulbright Scholar, has exhausted $30,000 in savings on lawyers. She has put her architectural career on the back burner, trying to save the life of her precious Brindi.

No she didn't.... all the conning she has done for donations are paying for her legal bills.... the ones she asked for and the donations for Brindi's " illnesses" that was never confirmed or proven. Which BTW she has been representing herself for a few years now. Mainly because she won't pay them and now no lawyer will take her on. She is that hard to deal with.

BRINDI HELD IN POUND FOR 3 YEARS

Brindi has been in a pound for essentially the past three years except for a short reprieve from July 2010 until she was seized again in September 2010. The family has run out of money trying to save the dog and has been trying to raise funds to bring Brindi home.

NOT TRUE. Brindi hasn't been in the pound all that time. Brindi was HOUSED ( under contract ) at the NSSPCA until the new city pound opened. One of Fran's "friends " owned the new pound and Fran fought to have Brindi put there. I guess because she thought her friend would allow her to see Brindi and do whatever she wanted when she wanted. But she found out real fast that would not be the case. Then Brindi was taken to a training facility/ kennel. After that was when Brindi was given back to Fran ( see the judge does not have to do what anyone ( lawyer or defendant )wants them to do.

Individuals may donate to help pay for legal costs. Go tohttp://freebrindi.blogspot.com/ and click on the DONATE button. or click here: https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=9595134• Participate in an auction at: http://www.epier.com/auctions.asp?franya• Buy a FREE BRINDI t-shirt at http://www.cafepress.com/freebrindiClick here to sign the Free Brindi petition.

That says it all.... it is ALWAYS about her legal bills

Click here for the Free Brindi website.

Click here for Brindi’s Facebook page.

Brindi is not at the SPCA, she is at the city pound, this is all controlled by the Halifax Regional Municipality and therefore can be stopped by them only. Those who believe that Brindi can be re-homed, it is not an option so if Francesca gives up, the city kills Brindi.

NOT TRUE

Keeping a dog in a pound indefinitely is detrimental to its health. Killing a dog that is not dangerous goes against the principle of protection of animal welfare yet the SPCA is participating in this abuse, Rogier says.

NOT TRUE ALSO. The HRM / CITY POUND can ask for destruction but the judge DON'T have to agree. The SPCA NEVER participated in anything EXCEPT house Brindi and took care of her. Kept her safe.

It is willing to kill this dog, while earning money for it (no less than $414,000 a year, at present), according to Rogier. Having kept silent for six months, ignoring her owner’s pleas for help, last January the Nova Scotia SPCA began repeatedly asking the city to “re-home” Brindi. Not only is this something the city cannot legally do (without a judge’s order); it would be a wrong and cruel thing to do to an owner who has sacrificed so much for the sake of her beloved pet and it would be cruel to a dog that was neglected for years and has never known any other home.

Yes the SPCA put forth a request to re-home Brindi because unlike you ( the editor ) they and many other people who are not so gullible knew and know what is going to happen. Fran has proven on more then 3 occasions she is NOT a responsible owner and not a good owner for a dog with issues.

Brindi has already spent half her life behind bars. She may lose her life altogether unless somebody does something to let Brindi go home where she belongs!!!

Unless Fran ASKS the COURT to spare Brindi and release her to a reputable rescue with no interference from her.... this dog WILL DIE. Fran will be the only one with BLOOD ON HER HANDS.

Brindi had been incarcerated from July 24, 2008 to July 2010 in the SPCA kennels on death row in Halifax, Canada and has been held in the city pound since being seized again in September, 2010. Her fate still hangs by a thread. She is condemned to die for nothing other than just being a dog. Now, Canada is still intent on killing a defenseless dog and Brindi’s time may be up, Rogier says.

Brindi didn't just attack ONE dog..... this last one was the 4th ( FOURTH) reported one.

Brindi has never attacked or threatened a person. She never killed or caused serious injury to anyone or anything. Rogier describes her as “ just a good natured mutt, 6-years-old” rescued from a shelter in 2007 by Rogier.

It's true Brindi has never attacked a person. But she did knock a person down while she was trying to get that persons dog.

Sadly, she only knew freedom for a short amount of time before she was incarcerated by the City of Halifax.

BECAUSE OF HER OWNER.

In addition to seizing the dog, city actions are threatening Francesca’s home, she says. She owns it outright and always kept up with the property taxes. The city set up a situation where it can take her house next summer by charging her for a fence that was not required, with boarding that was not required, and putting the total of $10,000 onto her tax bill, plus 15% interest.

The fence was required. The property was all torn up ( for a few years ) and was dangerous. Children could have easily been hurt ( you know kids and construction sites ). She was told to erect one but didn't so the city HAD to do it. Why should taxpayers have to pay for her AGAIN?

She says this action is highly unusual and conveniently allows the city to seize and auction off her property within a year – next June – if the bill is not paid in full by then. This is the last part of the city’s overt effort to block her from asking a judge to release Brindi.

It's NOT highly unusual.... her house was dangerous and just like other dangerous properties, you have a certain time limit to do the work or you lose it.

She says it began with a baseless eviction order followed by a demolition order. She was not permitted to appeal either. She was evicted, but she narrowly evaded demolition by restarting construction.

RETALIATORY ACTION

Why did Halifax do all this? Rogier says the fact is that the city has always lacked the legal authority to detain a dog indefinitely. It had no proper defense, so it took drastic and brazen action to prevent her from going to court to get Brindi out pending trial (or permanently). The actions began with the day before Francesca first tried to get an injunction; the eviction a few weeks later prevented her seeing that through.

BULLSHIT. If anyone believes this crap, I own the USA and I can sell it to you for a good deal.

The city manipulated facts and did several end-runs around the laws to do all these things, she says. After taking Brindi without just cause in 2008 and refusing to return her, it dragged out the battle for two years.

It is " she says "... and she is one of the biggest liars around. She loves to twist facts so she sounds like the victim when actually ALL DOG OWNER and the HRM citizens are the victims.

Francesca is an architect and was supervising construction on her house – a foundation and a new garage – with a valid permit, etc.: but she was forced to suspend the work to fight for Brindi. Essentially, the city exploited a situation that it created. And yet, she had a valid permit throughout, and her house is a heritage property.

It’s been war against a lone woman and her dog from day one. She says it’s never been a fair fight.

LMAO... SHE SAYS... says it all.

Halifax has a very bad reputation in general when it comes to treatment of property owners and individuals, according to Rogier.

Again.. SHE SAYS

“It’s record of dog cases is very uneven and dubious as well, but with Brindi it reached a new low. Whether your dog is seized and destroyed depends on who you are”, she says. She is a newcomer in her area, without connections or great wealth.

“Even the courts are biased”, she says and says she couldn’t even get a court to hear her application to release Brindi, or order that she be allowed to visit her regularly.

HALIFAX IN CONTEMPT OF SUPREME COURT’S RULING

On July 24, 2008, a few days after a minor encounter with another dog, animal control officers armed with a warrant and euthanization order, seized Brindi from her home without notice. She then languished on death row, even after winning a landmark Supreme Court battle in 2009 ordering the original euthanasia order null and void.

To date, Rogier says the City of Halifax has spent over $417,000 on Brindi’s detainment in refusing to release her. Unbelievably, Nova Scotia, Canada seems to be the first country ignoring its own Supreme Court Justice’s ruling, Rogier says.http://www.courts.ns.ca/decisions_recent/documents/2009nssc14.pdf

Brindi was confined indefinitely in a short term facility. Recently, Brindi needed biopsy surgery of a suspected cancer growth found near her spine. Her teeth have deteriorated because she was denied her favorite “chew” toys and raw beef bones that her owner and friends brought to her on a regular basis.

She now suffers from painful and chronic pancreatitis due to the stressful conditions of her confinement. According to many, “It is concerning and distressing to think that this innocent and once healthy pet, has been detained and made to languish in isolation as pawns in political bureaucracy. She has been reduced to such poor physical state that it actually constitutes animal cruelty and neglect at its finest, and all at the hands of a governing agency.”

Experts have testified and reported that, “Regardless of the tremendous pain and isolation of her confinement, Brindi is still a friendly, well adjusted dog that poses no danger to the public in any way.” For more information, and the trainer’s assessment, seehttp://freebrindi.blogspot.com/

Brindi has been evaluated as “not dangerous” and highly trainable. During eight weeks of obedience class, which she passed with ease, she had no issues with other dogs. Experts have testified her issues can be corrected with training and in no way constitutes a death warrant. Even after desperate attempts in creating public awareness and gaining public support and sympathy, creating petitions, informational videos, protests and massive email campaigns to government officials, candlelight vigils in worldwide support for Brindi’s case, Canada has failed to compromise in a humane resolution of this precious dog.

According to some individuals close to the case, “Speculation into corruption of government officials and growing questions as to what the true motivations are behind such a case. Brindi is just a dog, defenseless to man, that has done nothing wrong other than be born. Brindi may be condemned to die after a few harmless dog squabbles. She is needlessly languishing and slowly deteriorating on a government’s whim.”

As in courts in the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland, the case of Brindi brings to light some disturbing observations of some archaic and dangerous laws being practiced in the courts of Canada, where Brindi’s case seems to lack in common sense, decency and most importantly, in humanity.

One can not help but wonder how such stories reach far and wide, no matter the nation, no matter where in the world and that it is only a matter of time before another “Brindi” reaches our own front doors, and it could be one of our dogs. Would we care then?

USE COMMON SENSE, NOT ABUSE OF POWER

Found abandoned with five puppies, Brindi waited two years in a shelter before Fracesca Rogier adopted her in 2007. Ms. Rogier had her microchipped, spayed and vaccinated. Brindi did very well in obedience class and obeys many commands. She loves her owner and is gentle and safe around infants, children and adults. She even lived peacefully with two cats.

Brindi, or rather Rogier, was charged in September 2010 with a total of three offenses that were minor by any comparison. They happened when Brindi accidentally got loose and ran up to dogs being walked along the road at her property line. Only the second offense resulted in an injury, a small tooth puncture requiring minimal vet care, for which Ms. Rogier voluntarily paid. As most dogs, Brindi is territorial, protective of her property and her owner.

After this, the city issued a muzzle order. In Halifax By-Law A300, a muzzle order is one of six ways to deem a dog dangerous. The authorities construe this as a sanction for seizure and euthanization for any further violations. So, because she was not wearing her muzzle on the third offense, they seized her without warning four days later, even though the other dog was not grabbed or injured.

This blanket imposition of the maximum penalty for minor offenses is unjust. Halifax has already recognized that Brindi is not a threat to humans. It was informed by two respected trainers that her wayward behavior does not signify aggression and definitely can be corrected yet the city apparently prefers to have her pay the ultimate price for human error, rather than accept reasonable alternatives that would both maintain safety and keep her alive.

Clearly, Brindi does not deserve to die. Ms. Rogier is desperate to have her precious dog back. She has already built fenced enclosures attached to her home entrances, engaged a private trainer and offered to pay all fines and costs.

STRONG PUBLIC OPPOSITION

There is strong public opposition to the euthanization of Brindi and many have appealed to HRM Animal Services and the City Council to accept Ms. Rogier’s reasonable and responsible offer so that Brindi can go home immediately.

On Sept. 14, 2010, Brindi and Francesca were returning home from a long day of errands. Brindi was unmuzzled as she had been confined, riding in the car. As they were emerging from the car, Brindi bolted when seeing another dog being walked past the driveway by neighbors related to those who first reported her and also happen to work for the city. A scuffle between the dogs ensued.

“They were determined to see Brindi killed”, Rogier says. “They both admit to kicking her repeatedly (both at once!) and Brindi did not try to retaliate in any way”. They were not criminally charged.

Though this was a minor incident, a freak accident as Brindi was not running at large, the city dog catchers seized Brindi within days. She’s been locked up ever since, and Francesca is not allowed to visit her.

Rogier says this happened 10 weeks after Brindi was released from two years in the pound.

“Halifax had seized her without warning or laying charges, issued a euthanasia order, and offered no right of appeal — they would not even read letters or meet with me and her lawyer about it”.

Though she won a case in January 2009, Halifax had refused to return Brindi, and instead laid charges — the first ever in the city of Halifax. It took another 18 months before a judge finally released Brindi in July 2010 with conditions identical to those that Francesca had volunteered to set into place at the start. Brindi came home with two chronic health conditions — but she was alive.

“Sadly, Halifax was just waiting for an excuse to get her again”, Rogier says, “for the kind of scuffle that happens daily in the dog parks and on the streets, which many would not bother to even report”.

The incident from last September was no different than the others, Rogier says and resulted in only superficial wounds to the dog which was essentially trespassing on Rogier’s property.. However, they were not arrested.

BRINDI KICKED REPEATEDLY, ABUSERS NOT CHARGED

“In fact, the people with the other dog kicked Brindi in the head and stomach repeatedly”, Rogier says. “She did not turn on them. She let me take her into the house. Because the courts were booked up, the trial was postponed for over a year.

It will be held Nov. 8-9 in Dartmouth, Nova Scotia.

“These “trials” typically last less than a half hour, but two days are scheduled because it is being treated like a criminal case” she said. “Even though Halifax does not have very much to show why Brindi should be killed, it is using every technicality possible”.

While dog by-law infractions are simply fined, Halifax will try to use one to three guilty verdicts to get the judge to then impose an “additional penalty” on Francesca: namely, to order that they kill Brindi”.

The current situation makes it clear that the reason Brindi was seized is not because she is particularly dangerous. Halifax arbitrarily decided to target her back in 2008: it will not be deterred by logic, law, or compassion. Last December, Francesca tried to get Halifax to let Brindi go pending trial, or even adopt her permanently, or let the two of them leave Halifax and return to the U.S. — but Halifax said no. She has no lawyer, as she cannot afford one after the previous ordeal which cost her $30,000. Even if she had the money, there are no animal law practitioners in Nova Scotia, and most lawyers do not want to take a case like this.

Excerpts in a video about Brindi include Francesca, Eileen McInnis, CBC Reporter and Sandra Flemming, SPCA Director — all attesting to the goodness of Brindi. This is a direct opposite of the behaviorHalifax officials and Rogier’s critics would have you believe is Brindi.

Despite all the attacks and egregious behavior directed towards Brindi byHalifaxofficials, she has never escalated in her behavior, which experts say is primarily territorial, not “dog-aggressive”

She has never shown any aggression towards people, even when they kick her in the head and stomach

The city’s request that Brindi be killed is an “additional penalty” beyond what the by-laws require for a violation. There are fines and there are “additional penalties” that the city can seek. In this case, the additional penalties are death.

The city of Halifax has taken extreme retaliative action against Francesca for her success in saving her dog.

“How can you kill a dog who will not attack when it is being harmed by strangers??”, Rogier asks. “The incident was clearly an accident, but the city has a vendetta”.

Having lost twice to Francesca, city officials—unethically promulgating the case of a city employee—is now apparently hoping to convince a court that she did not obey court conditions. They even used illegally obtained recordings to obtain the seizure warrant, she says. And when she tried to get an injunction for Brindi’s release, she says they did all they could to obstruct it.

Halifax officials used their power and position to have her immigration status investigated and sent building officials after her, who issued contradictory orders to secure her home – a home renovation postponed because of Brindi’s prior ordeal. Then, they evicted her anyway, falsely claiming it was unsafe, and denying her the right to appeal the eviction.

Rogier emigrated toNova Scotia in 2006 with a simple dream of fixing up an old house and keeping a dog and two cats as family. She says she was ripped off by a fraudulent contractor who went bankrupt and left her home high and dry. She battled for two years to save her dog, costing her over $30,000 and bleeding dry her savings.

UNKIND NEIGHBORS WANTS DOG DEAD

Her success was short-lived, tragically, as unkind neighbors directly related to the same family who first reported Brindi for a harmless scuffle. They eagerly cooperated with the animal control manager who signed the death order in 2008 after setting her up with an unfairly imposed muzzle order.

Francesca is in dire straits now, because after she met the demands of building officials, doing exactly as an engineer required, they evicted her anyway. She was given minutes to pack some belongings and forced to leave her cat behind. She returned the next night to find that Amelia the cat was trapped in the house and the water heater was broken. It was fully functioning the day before and HRM employees admit suspiciously that they “saw” it was detached from the pipe. As she used the hot water minutes before leaving, this can only mean they did the deed, she says. Hurricanes and winds did not do this in two years!!

She says HRM has lied in public about her heat and water lacking, and about her house being unsafe. Yet they are unable to lie to her about it as a reason for eviction. Instead, they are autocratically demanding she complete all construction before she can move back in. This is unheard of anywhere inNorth America! As is the attempt to kill a dog that has never killed or seriously harmed an animal, let alone ONCE bit or threatened a human”, she says emphatically.

HRM (Halifax) have tied her hands so she cannot save herself or her dog: having forced her to spend thousands on the added work in October, they evicted her without notice last November. They also chased off reputable contractors by lying to the press, and are now demanding she submit to their control. She must submit a work schedule that she cannot possibly guarantee with winter weather setting in. Their plan is to move to the next step of claiming she is not serious about finishing and will likely revoke her construction permit very soon. This is a house she loves dearly and planned her new life there with Brindi. She designed a beautiful new garage and basement as a foundation. She lost half of her budget to legal costs yet still wants to make it happen.

Francesca has a right to her dream just as she has a right to be with her dog. Brindi has a right to live in a loving home.

There is no reason on earth for such unacceptable and brutal treatment of a lone female immigrant who worked hard to become a professional and a teacher, and worked hard to train her dog well – Brindi did not bite these peop[le even when they kicked her in the head!!! The only “reason” is that these local civil servants have a chip on their shoulder and want to punish Francesca for standing up for her rights so that she could protect her dog.

They are accustomed to misusing the law to get what they want. That is how they took Brindi for two years and did it again, and that is how they evicted Francesca and are now making it impossible to finish the house, and that will be how they take the house away from her entirely, her supporters say.

IMPASSIONED PLEA IN DEFENSE OF A DOG

In 1870, U.S. Sen. Vest was addressing the jury in a court case in defense of a dog. This is part of his impassioned plea:

”The one absolutely unselfish friend a man can have in this selfish world, the one that never deserts him, the one that never proves ungrateful or treacherous is his dog. A man’s dog stands by him in prosperity and in poverty, in health and in sickness. He will sleep on the ground, where the wintry winds blow and the snow drives fiercely, if only he may be at his master’s side.

He will kiss the hand that has no food to offer. He will lick the wounds and sores that come from the encounter with the roughness of the world.

He guards the sleep of his pauper master as if he were a prince. When all other friends desert, he remains. When riches take wings and

reputation falls to pieces, he is a constant in his love as the sun in its journey through the heavens”.

Brindi deserves to come home.

• See letters of support at: http://supportbrindi.blogspot.com/• Sign the Free Brindi ipetition:http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/FREEBRINDI/• Care2 Alert: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/free-brindi-this-dog-must-not-be-euthanized• Write to public officials – see the discussion topics

http://supportbrindi.blogspot.com/On Facebook, see the group Save Brindi and Francesca from City of Halifax https://www.facebook.com/groups/35473542760/

On Twitter, follow @BrindisMom (Free my dog Brindi!!) @franyafranya (freedom and justice for all!)

There’s also an events page, Raise Awareness for Brindi

http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=221705961228541

Please email the following people and let them know that you feel the city’s goal to exact an additional penalty — the killing of Brindi — is unjust and cruel on many grounds.

Please voice your disagreement over the city’s goal to kill Brindi. It is unreasonable and unjust. Minister of Justice Ross Landry: justmin@gov.ns.ca . He has the power to stop the case from going ahead.

He has the power and should order an investigation of the city’s handling of the matter and its use of taxpayer funds to prosecute the case brought on complaint of a city employee. That’s a prohibited conflict of interest as well as using the city building officials against Rogier.

Others to contact:

Mayor Peter Kelly: kellyp@halifax.ca

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

local media:ehowe@ns.sympatico.ca, news@globaltv.com, cbcns@cbc.ca, news@cbc.ca, atlanticnews@ctv.ca, jackie.foster@ctv.ca, radionews@halifax.cbc.ca,

news957@rogers.com, newsroom@herald.ca, halifax@broadcastnews.ca, news@ckdu.ca, metronews.ca, coast@thecoast.ca, editor@tridentnews.ca, newspaper@msvu.ca, info@dalgazette.ca, the journal@gmail.com, mackins@halifax.ca 11-5-11

For the past several months, The North Country Gazette has donated much time, expertise and website resources to raise public awareness for the Lennox and other dog cases and the repugnant Breed Specific Legislation in effect in the United Kingdom. Any donations made through PayPal to NCG to help defray expenses would be sincerely appreciated.

We allow a visitor one free read of one article. If you wish to read additional articles or return at a later time, a subscription is required. To signup, see the subscription ads to the right. For questions, contact news@northcountrygazette.org One month, $4.95; six months, $24.95; one year, $39.95

This " newspaper " or whatever it's suppose to be is no different then FRAN... greedy, liars, fact twisters and non fact seekers. As the saying goes... birds of a feather flock together.