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.