Taken from another group

Jenn Richardson Gail was this third option read in court?
18 hours ago
Gail Gallant nope.... she can put it in her submission
17 hours ago
Gail Gallant Judge Murphy gave her a chance at the last trial but she refused it....
17 hours ago · 2
Jenn Richardson hmm I was there and don't remember that at the last trial?
17 hours ago
Gail Gallant you were NOT there when the judge said that... I was. It was the day the trainer was agreed upon pending his credentials
17 hours ago · 1
Gail Gallant That was the last day for court.... it was expected for one more day but the judge ruled outside of court.
17 hours ago
Jenn Richardson Unfortunately, the Court's documents are not yet available in electronic form. All searches are manual, requiring a review of any files the title of which contains the name in question. There are 10 judicial districts in the province. If a province wide search is required, it must be a manual search in each of the 10 offices. We do not have sufficient court staff to perform this type of search. Additionally, any such search would reveal the name sought only if it appears in the file name, i.e.: if the person was a party to a legal action at the time it was commenced. It would not produce all files in which the person sought to be identified was involved in the action but not a party - for example, as a witness, or a file where the person was added as a party after the file was named. For these reasons the person requiring the search normally retains an agent law firm in Nova Scotia to conduct the search. It can be done by individuals who are prepared to attend at the various judicial sites and go through the manual index. On the other hand if a request comes for copies of materials on a certain file and the requestor can provide the file number from which they require documents, the court staff will provide, at a cost, the specific copies.
17 hours ago
Jenn Richardson I would love to see this any one got it?
17 hours ago
Gail Gallant I don't have it... I just know from first hand what was said... the judge said she wanted a third option as opposed to killing Brindi or giving her back to fran... the judge said she hoped one would come. fran stood up in court and said it was not an option. If she couldn't have her.....
17 hours ago · 1
Gail Gallant frankly I was praying she would take the judge up on the offer seeing as she didn't have to pose it.
17 hours ago · 1
Jenn Richardson really she actually said it is not an option if I can't have her?
17 hours ago
Gail Gallant yes... honestly it floored me and most people who were there ( court was almost full )
17 hours ago · 1
Gail Gallant court was almost full because there were other cases before her's
17 hours ago
Gail Gallant and other cases after
17 hours ago
Gail Gallant I couldn't believe she said that.... she was given a chance and would not take it.
17 hours ago · 1
Jenn Richardson No offense, but I am waiting to see the transcript someone is emailing me. I thought I saw it posted somewhere, can't remember where...
16 hours ago
Gail Gallant none taken.... hope you do the same with everything ANYONE tells you
16 hours ago · 1
Robert Riley Just a small correction=it was court room #2 and there was 6 people in the room that included me and I heard everthing that went on and was said.
16 hours ago · 1
Robert Riley That info stays with me until I converse with Ms,Rogier.
16 hours ago
Jak Thomas Better check with Milo to Bob!
16 hours ago · 1
Gail Gallant talking about 2 different court cases
16 hours ago
Joy McDonald LOL, poor guy.
16 hours ago · 1
Gail Gallant also correction for you bob... there WERE 6 people before the lunch break... then there were 5. 4 on your side of the room and me on the other.
16 hours ago · 1
Peggy A. MacIntyre I think Gail is right,Jenn,I do remember her saying, that, but I think, put in her case I would be irrational too.I also remember her asking to re home Brindi as a last resort.Knowing Fran, she will fight to the end, but also knowing Fran, she will not let Brindi die.
15 hours ago
Emma Richards HER MOUTH WILL LIKELY GET THE BEST OF HER AND POOR BRINDI WILL END UP DEAD...
15 hours ago · 1
Emma Richards sorry capps
15 hours ago
Jenn Richardson OK so far I found this:
15 hours ago
Jenn Richardson ‎1 THE COURT: Now I want to be very clear in relation to a
2 sentencing hearing. I’m cognizant from remarks that have been
3 made by both parties during the trial and before that there is a
4 marked divergence as to what each party thinks should happen in
5 relation to sentencing. And without speaking for either party,
6 the Municipality has made it quite clear, as I think I made quite
7 clear in my decision, that they wish to have the dog euthanized.
8 Ms. Rogier is clearly extremely opposed to that and would like to
9 the dog returned to her. I am expecting that this matter will be
10 set down for a sentencing hearing and I want to put both parties
11 on notice that I want both parties to bring all the authority and
12 justification before me for the respected positions. There is
13 obviously significant repercussions potentially and I will not
14 make any decisions lightly and without significant deliberation.
15 hours ago
Jenn Richardson this is from page 38 of this:
15 hours ago
Jenn Richardson hmmm can't copy to here, will try to figure it out later on my way out for a bit..
15 hours ago
Gail Gallant Peggy... I really do hope you are right. I hope she don't wait til it's to late.
14 hours ago
Gail Gallant Jenn... send it to me please
14 hours ago
Peggy A. MacIntyre Gail, by the way... How are you doing? I do realize Fran made mistakes & that doesn't matter to me, but not wanting a beautiful dog killed by the city ,does matter a great deal to me. I know and you know what it feels like to loose one of our baby's. I know that's how Fran feels & I have so much pity for anyone who looses their pet,no matter what the reason. Fran will always want Brindi home ( as any one of us would) but giving no options, she will let them re home her.
13 hours ago
Gail Gallant Go to chat Peggy?
13 hours ago
Peggy A. MacIntyre My chat is on,but I think we need to be friends.lol
13 hours ago
Francesca Rogier One of the 924 signatures on the Care2 petition:

# 908: 6:51 pm PDT, Sep 9, Patricia Howarth, Rhode Island
I am the Animal Control Officer in Scituate, Rhode Island and am appalled that you would give the death sentence for such minor infractions. We have vicious dog laws in our state also but let the punishment fit the crime. I don't know what government agency or group came up with your rules, but, Shame shame shame. I'm sure glad I live here.
11 hours ago
Jak Thomas ‎231 comments in 3 days,could hit 5000 by May 10....Love it.
11 hours ago · 1
Francesca Rogier The officer who seized Brindi in 2008:
> Date: Fri, 28 May 2010 12:30:18 -0300
> From: hammt@halifax.ca
> To: Bob Riley
> Subject: Re: Tim I thought I would give you a heads up to watch...
>
> Hi Bob,
>
> Sorry I just got the e-mail today, so I missed the news. I no longer support Ms Scolaro or MacDonald with their pursuit of this case, and I have not for quite some time. I feel I acted with good intentions and did not expect this case to be so drawn out or adversarial. I am not qualified to inspect a fence, nor am I qualified to accept/reject a trainer. I do not think this office is run professionally and wish you all the best.
>
> Tim
>
11 hours ago
Joy McDonald I see Fran put her rose colored glasses on for all her foreign supporters. I hate to see people duped.
11 hours ago · 2
Dwaine Dixon ‎231 comments in 3 days.

Our priorities are clear.
11 hours ago
Francesca Rogier From: Olive Pastor, Pictou Sat. March 17
Hi Francesca:
I am so sorry for how your day went yesterday. I feel so inadequate to be able to help you and Brindi. This is so unfair. I don't know what is wrong with these people. They have their little positions at HRM and in the Court System and they are playing God with your life. I think they have forgotten who they serve, the people. How are they serving anything but their own self-interest and that of those who are tormenting you. And everyone who could have helped to get a fair and peaceful solution had no guts to stand up for you. What a waste of the talent you could have brought to this province. What a waste of the tax-payers money. What a disgrace they at HRM have brought onto the name of this province. What a waste of your time defending yourself. What a waste of good relations with a new immigrant. What a waste to the Heritage Building Program.
And what a waste of Brindi's life. What an act of cruelty on the part of HRM staff and council to have Brindi locked up all this time just to prove they have the power to do it. Very small and vindictive minds by those in your community who have put you and your dog in this position, and those who work at Animal Control and the planning division of HRM.
What does anyone gain in the Municipal Government and in the court system? It is all beyond me, I just hope you can rise above this mean -spiritedness. So very very sorry and ashamed of my fellow Nova Scotians.
Olive
11 hours ago
Gail Gallant got nothing to do with priorities... no different then if you support one charity and I another.... doesn't mean we don't care about the other.
11 hours ago · 2
Francesca Rogier From: Dora Hoffer Date: 1/8/2012 9:41:56 PM
Subject: RE: LOCKED UP PET DOG BRINDI - YOUR BAN TO ALLOW PICTURES OF HER IS UNACCEPTABLE, LEGALLY UNJUSTIFIED
TO. Mary Ellen Donovan, Director of Legal Services HRM
Ms Donovan,

I've known Francesca Rogier for many years now and followed her through her continuing ordeal that was caused by HRM staff like yourself, with unbearable emotional and financial harm to her. After nearly four years, I am convinced that you and your city simply have some kind of grudge against this intelligent and educated person and her amazing dog Brindi.
I advised her in 2010 to report HRM's actions to the UN’s Canadian office, but she's been too stressed to do so and others cannot file complaint for a person.
We all know about the ongoing harm the different officers on different political levels caused to this single female tax payer, but the latest order from you, to BAN pictures of her beloved dog for the holiday is simply one of the most evil, petty and vicious action that anyone has heard of here in Canada.
HRM already has an extremely negative reputation internationally. It overshadows Canada's reputation when it comes to animal welfare laws. I don't know how you can have a clear conscience after the vicious treatment of this unfortunate, lonely dog and her owner who loves her more than anything and cares deeply about her well-being. Brindi has never done anything do deserve being put down. Thanks to the years of confinement, she is very ill and latest tests show she may now have pancreatic cancer - yet you will not even allow the VET to take a picture of this dog??!
If you had any integrity as a lawyer and a public servant you would have made sure this dog was returned to her owner way back in early 2009, when the court confirmed that your by-law was unconstitutional. Under your advice, the city kept her for nearly two more years, and took her again after a small mishap. It’s well known that you are not within the law to detain her indefinitely without a court order, as your municipal law, which may not even apply, certainly does not override federal law. Perhaps for you, the dog doesn't matter anymore. You already treat her as is she is something to be disposed of. But you are still accountable to the ethical guidelines of the Nova Scotia Barristers Society and the people of Halifax.
As a woman and a fellow Canadian citizen. I am deeply ashamed of you and the women who run Animal Services, Andrea Macdonald and Lori Scolaro. It would do you well to return Brindi right away and leave her and her owner in peace.

But I can assure you that whatever happens to them, this atrocity will not be forgotten.

Dora Hoffer
Vancouver BC
Canadian citizen and tax payer
11 hours ago
Jak Thomas Well I see that fran showed up using fake names to try to sway the public to support her ....to bad so sad its to late!
11 hours ago · 1
Meg Charnley Peoples priorities are with what they care about. Who is anyone to say what should be important to other people?
11 hours ago via mobile · 4
Debbie Macdonald Dorothy Guild you say "she would have been fined except she emailed Flowers owner she wouldn’t pay vet bill if she was"

Um, I saw the email exchanges in it, Dorothy. Nowhere do they say Francesca refused to pay the vet bill. It seems to me the woman didn't expect a fine to be laid, she didn't give it any thought at all. But it is clear Francesca is the one who suggested the owner take the dog to a vet, and voluntarily offered to pay. The owner waited a day to go to a vet but didn’t want to go to her own vet so she went to a new one, who charged an extra $70 for all new patients. So the bill was doubled. By the way the court files are wrong, the bill was $143 not $360 or whatever you say. Francesca DID pay the bill. She was never fined because Lori Scolaro made Tim Hamm offered the other owner a muzzle instead of a fine. He could have reduced the fine, for goodness's sake, they do that all the time! The muzzle skipped a whole lot of steps, so I don't believe it when they say they have to seize a dog and put it down because "all other measures have been exhausted". That kind of skipped a few steps. They went straight to seizing Brindi the next time, and that was even more bogus, because from what I can tell, Brindi never made contact with the other dog. It looks like that guy, Mr. Shea, just started kicking Brindi and kept kicking her till somebody driving by blew a car horn, probably trying to stop him!
In BOTH of those cases the owners told HRM they were reporting because they had heard rumors about the dog, and they just wanted somebody to talk to the owner. They didn't expect the dog to be muzzled or put down.

AND there are no criteria at all for ordering muzzle, people, so it’s totally meaningless to have a muzzle order. At least, you cannot draw any conclusions about a muzzle order because the animal control officers can just randomly order them anytime they feel like it, and there’s no appeal or court involved. So it tells us nothing that Brindi was under a muzzle order. That means it's not possible to know anything about how serious it is to violate a muzzle order, either!

And in this case, since the first muzzle order was pretty bogus, and since no harm was done in the reported incident that they seized Brindi for, the judge really didn't have a good reason to reinstate the muzzle order! Get a grip, people!

“She also ordered Brindi be leashed and muzzled at all times when outside her home or fenced area--even going so far as to add the person who must always be in control of her must be over the age of 18.”

“Even going so far as” ??
As Peggy said, his is the normal law on muzzles, not anything extra! Go read By-law A-300, it’s online. The judge was just restating the original order.

Again this is the normal rule, Dorothy, and you know it. And all dogs in HRM must be on a leash when not on the owner’s property.

Stop distorting the truth, maybe you’ll be a happier person!
10 hours ago
Debbie Macdonald PS I can't wait to see comments from Jak (aka Wayne Croft, hi Wayne) and good ole' Gail "Fran is a lyer" Gallant, saying I am a fake person... tell that to my arthritis and the bills I have to pay, ugh!
10 hours ago
Debbie Macdonald The only batshit folks around here, Dwaine Dixon, are the ones who delight in other people's misfortunes.
10 hours ago · 1
Robert Riley I see the members of the R&R club are back on line as well as Jak/Ass Thomas alias Wayne Croft.
9 hours ago
Michael McCluskey Hey Admins, I'd lock this thread it has run its course.
9 hours ago · 2
Meg Charnley I dont think anyone is delighting in her misfortune...
9 hours ago via mobile · 4
Phil Walling Please everyone, remain calm and civil to each other.

If you want to discuss other topic related to HRM, there's other threads to explore and express civil opinions. If you don't like this thread, stay out of it.

If this thread is always bumped to #1, then we'll consider hiding it, but administration here is done by consensus for the most part, and I would rather not take it upon myself to delete it without advice from the others.
9 hours ago · 1
Gail Gallant if the thread is bumped to #1 then that probably means people want to talk about it. The other threads are free to post in just as much if there is interest. Personally to hide it because people are posting it to the top more makes no sense to me.... that's my opinion :)
9 hours ago · 4
Phil Walling It's a good one, I'm just concerned that it'll monopolize everything else, that's all. Your opinion is duly noted.
9 hours ago
Derek Graham If anyone is interested in an unbiased account of the "Brindi Rogier" trial without the ranting and innuendo, I’m willing to comment. I witnessed ALL of the trial - and -- anyone who knows anything about the details of the “Brindi” situation, also knows I have a unique perspective..
Pose your questions....
9 hours ago · 1
Gail Gallant I want to hear what you heard in court both days. ( not word for word mind you of the whole thing :) )
9 hours ago · 2
Derek Graham Ok - one at time !! LOL 1st - Emma - repeat your question please - I lost it in the thread switch. 2 nd - (to someone who thinks I am here to dis Ms Rogier - I forget your name - I can only offer this - the truth never hides in the shadows - if you ask for an opinion - you will get one BASED on the observations of the trial - that’s all. 3 Gail - LOL - for the love of God - you and I both know that this web server probably doesn't have enough memory to list EVERYTHING - LOL - cut me some slack and chuck me a question that is more specific - thanks.
9 hours ago · 2
Gail Gallant lmao
9 hours ago
Gail Gallant Ok... how about a recap of day one....
9 hours ago · 2
Emma Richards here ya are,,,,tell us how you feel about her {Fran Rogier}s actions and her defense in THE COURT OF LAW..
9 hours ago
Gail Gallant did he fall asleep???
8 hours ago · 2
Licia Hutt In your opinion do you feel there maybe a mistrial? Do you think it was a fair trial? Gail I would appreciate your opinion as well since you were there.
8 hours ago · 1
Phil Walling He's just being thoughtful, I betchas.
8 hours ago · 2
Gail Gallant lol
8 hours ago
Gail Gallant I have read some other posts by Derek... he is very thorough.... I will give him another 3 mins lol
8 hours ago · 1
Derek Graham Gail - The trial started without Ms Rogier. She was late due to a perported vehical accident. I know for a fact that there was mis-communication between Ms. Rogier and the court and that reasons presented in court was not consistant with information provided to the court (Judge). In any event, the trail proceeded as planed based on the information that the Judge recieved. The crown presented its case against Ms Rogier based on three charges. Witnesses gave accounts of the incident involving Ms. Rogiers dog attacking another dog. The crowns witnesses inclued the husband and wife of the dog that got attacked, the HRM Aninmal control officer, the HRM after hours dispatcher. Tape recordings of Ms Rogier was also submitted that involved conversations between the HRM dispatcher and Ms. Rogier. Honestly, I could not hear the recordings well, due to the air ventalation system in court room 2. However, it is my understanding that there is two points of interest that are prudent to these recordings : 1 Ms. Rogier was told that they were not being recorded - when - in fact, they were 2. Ms Rogier submitted a false report on the recordings.
8 hours ago · 3
Debbie Macdonald ‎Derek Graham, what is a vehical? I saw your comments about Francesca on OpenFile and you are definitely NOT unbiased, so forget this!
8 hours ago
Meg Charnley A vehical is a simple typo. Why raz him? Really?
8 hours ago · 1
Gail Gallant hey from what I just read it was unbiased
8 hours ago · 1
Debbie Macdonald Don't leave out whose idea it was to file a "false report": the HRM dispatcher, right? Why did she do that?
8 hours ago
Debbie Macdonald Like you are a judge of that! LMAO
8 hours ago
Gail Gallant debbie.... pls post as fran which is really who you are
8 hours ago · 2
Debbie Macdonald Who are you, really? That's the question. Have a fun night, people, I have other plans that are more fun than this!!
8 hours ago
Meg Charnley Seems like it.
8 hours ago
Emma Richards must have her dil buddy ,,
8 hours ago
Gail Gallant anyway.... what else can you tell us about the first day Derek Graham
8 hours ago · 1
Derek Graham Gail - cont - At 130 ish - Ms Rogier, arrived at court. She was under the impression that she was going to submit a Charter challenge and then, proceed with the trial. The Judge stated that the trial had begun in her absence and she would address the charter issues after the trial proceeded. Ms Rogier contested that she was not prepared to proceed as most of her preparations were based on proceeding with the charter issued first. The Judge stated that the amount of time allotted for her to prepare for trial was more than adequate to have prepared for both and that the trial would proceed anyway. Ms. Rogier was granted a chance to cross- examine the witnesses that were available and was told that the others would be recalled for the 16th.
8 hours ago · 3
Meg Charnley I have a question for Debbie Macdonald... If you're not in fact Fran, why are you being so hostile and rude?
8 hours ago · 2
Emma Richards MUST have thought she running things and judge would do her bidding...doesn't work that way.......this is CANADA.
8 hours ago
Phil Walling Meg, Debbie is taking a break.
8 hours ago · 1
Gail Gallant What was your take on the cross of the witnesses the first day.... was there anything new or not known etc. ?
8 hours ago · 1
Derek Graham Emma, in response your question, I would rather not delve into personal feelings towards Ms. Rogier as that is not my intent. I can offer you an opinion of how I felt she presented herself in court and how she structured her defence if you find it helpful. Ms Rogier is formally educated with university degrees and that was evident as her case was put forth with great detail. However, as she's formally trained in architecture, this did not serve her well in a Canadian court of law. That being said, I don't think anyone who does not have formal legal training can be well prepared however, she did present her case with passion albeit very unstructured and at times somewhat scattered. She had great difficulty differentiating between her charter challenges and the three charges that were brought against her in this trial. Many times she had to be reminded by the Judge to stick to information and material that was relevant to the trial only. Personally, I feel she has missed her calling, as she should have pursued law because her abilities to put forth an argument can be almost as persuasive as it is theatrical and entertaining. It is my opinion upon viewing the entire trial that this theme was evident throughout the entire course of the trial as she had great difficulty separating charter challenges, relevant evidence and testimony, and inadmissible hearsay. Conclusively, it is my opinion (and bear in mind that this is only an opinion) that she did not successfully present either evidence or adequate argument to raise reasonable doubt against the charges put forth to her. She did present massive amounts of material for the judge to review before rendering a verdict. She was given, in my opinion, a HUGE degree of latitude from the judge when presenting her case. I have had personal dealings with the legal system, and I can attest to the fact that the amount of latitude that she was given, was extraordinary and very gracious.
8 hours ago · 3
Gail Gallant That was my take on the last day when I was there too..... I agree, with proper training she would be a good lawyer :)
8 hours ago
Emma Richards thats fine,i realy wasn't expecting your own opinion,,but i feel you covered my question just fine,,thank you..
8 hours ago
Emma Richards to be a good lawyer,,you would need to be some what structured,,,,and timely,,come dragging your butt into court when you are representing a murder case and you might get a contempt charge...
7 hours ago
Gail Gallant what do you think of the trainers testimony... did it shed light or not really relevant as what I heard was not what happened that night in Sept.... she testified to the other dog being loose and in fran's yard, both dogs were in a scuffle... when even according to the first part of the recording from fran wasn't the same.
7 hours ago · 1
Gail Gallant also that they were about the same size... which wasn't true
7 hours ago
Derek Graham Licia Hutt – Hi, I would ask everyone be patient, as some of these questions involve great detail and it takes some time to respond. A mistrial …. Perhaps. Procedurally, the trial was all over the place. This was mainly for the benefit of Ms. Rogier, so that she could structure herself in presenting a defence. The problem with that is if it went too far out of normal context that may be an argument for a mistrial. Other than that, I don't see any relevant occurrence that would substantiate the grounds for mistrial - keep in mind -I am not a lawyer. Personally, I felt the trial as far as allowances for Ms. Rogier’s defense, was more than fair. However, that is something I'm sure that Ms. Rogier will pursue, because it is of her opinion that the trial was conducted very unfairly.
7 hours ago · 2
Emma Richards sounds like her..
7 hours ago
Joy McDonald Funny thing, I can't see a darn thing posted by Debbie Macdonald....now why would she have me blocked? Fran come on we know it is you.
7 hours ago · 1
Meg Charnley Derek, in your opinion at this point, what do you think will happen to Brindi?
7 hours ago · 2
Phil Walling Joy, Debbie has taken a break from here. Please refrain from personal issues. Thanks
7 hours ago
Joy McDonald NP. Hard reading when posts are missing. I am enjoying Derek's perspective. Thanks
7 hours ago · 2
Emma Richards yes derek is doin fine,,,
7 hours ago
Licia Hutt Thank you Derek. I assumed they would go out-of-the-way to make sure it was fair to Fran and I'm glad to hear you think so.
7 hours ago · 1
Joy McDonald I must say I have not seen anyone run a page quite as successfully as this one is running. Nice job.
7 hours ago · 3
Gail Gallant I agree Joy.... whether for / against / impartial we all have opinions and we all should keep it civil as much as possible.
7 hours ago · 1
Licia Hutt I agree Joy it is nice to be able to have a rational discussion without being deleted because you want to see Brindi re-homed or have a question. Thank you to the admins.
7 hours ago · 1
Meg Charnley I agree as well. Being a bit new to Halifax, I love knowing about some of the issues that interest Haligonians.
7 hours ago · 1
Derek Graham ‎Debbie MacDonald – LOL - you know, I hate the word “vehicle”. I always screw that up - and you have and uncanny grasp of the obvious. Debbie, Canada and the United States are free speech democracies. That's why for over 25 years, I have put my life on the line to defend that. If it is of your opinion that I am biased – great -you're entitled to your opinion. I encourage EVERYONE to read my contributions to the OpenFile article. That is the difference between you and I, where you discourage people to be objective, I encourage them. I have made statements that support aspects of Ms. Rogier and I have made statements that have been critical of her position. One thing that I've always stated, that if Ms. Rogier is found innocent of all charges, then I will be the first one to applaud her cunning, ingenuity and determination. Also, I will be happy to see dog owner and dog reunited. If there is any substance to her charter challenges, I would greatly like to see them reviewed and given credence and credit. Ironically, Ms. Rogier attempted to withdraw those challenges, in order to hopefully expedite the return of her dog to her as she felt that the time, she could manipulate the system to her advantage. And one thing I can say with absolute certainty and unbiased from direct observation is that Ms. Rogier, when confronted with authority and the requirement to obey that authority, reacts VERY poorly. As for the dispatcher conversations between Ms. Rogier and the dispatcher, as I stated before, I could not hear the conversations on tape due to the ventilation system in courtroom two. All I can attest to hearing with certainty was the judge and the Crown prosecutor agreeing that they found the tapes “self serving”. As to what that directly means, or its relevance to the trial, I would have to speculate - and I prefer not to do that.
Enjoy your night Debbie, and I'm not sure who your question was addressed to, myself or Gail, in any event I am who I say I am.
7 hours ago · 3
Phil Walling Derek, Debbie has taken a break and is no longer here.
7 hours ago
Gail Gallant I could be wrong but I think it was meant for me Derek :)
7 hours ago · 1
Phil Walling I did remove Debbie because her posts came out attacking and personal and Derek hadn't really said anything, yet. I feel bad about it in some ways. I've never felt I had to do that before.

I'm talking this over with the other admins as soon as I can. If you want to talk Debbie in this thread, I'll message her, unremove her and invite her back to defend herself.
7 hours ago
Gail Gallant the choice should be yours ( admin )
7 hours ago · 3
Gail Gallant psst Derek ... you know the link to debbie in your response is of someone else???
7 hours ago · 1
Derek Graham Gail – The cross examination – Day one – As I stated before, Ms Rogier arrived at the courtroom at approximately 1:30 PM. After a lengthy discussion/ debate with the judge, she was afforded the opportunity to cross examine the remaining witnesses that were still available that day. They were the husband and wife that owned the dog that was allegedly attacked by Ms. Rogier’s dog. I found that Ms. Rogier, had many strong attributes towards her ability to examine a witness. She was very detailed on her points and she like to employ a common method that a lot of lawyers use which is to repeat a question in such a manner that correlates to other areas of opportunity. She also has a very good ability to lead a witness into a specific line of questioning. Some of these aspects are why I believe she missed her calling, and should of went into law. However at the end of the court day, the testimony that these witnesses gave to the crown were unsuccessfully challenged by Ms Rogier, as she failed to discredit the accounts and happenings of that evening. Also, a lot of her argument in the cross-examination correlated to charter issues and she was reminded by the judge on numerous occasions to avoid, at least try to avoid, mixing the two together. She attempted to prove that the witnesses were biased based on an association with a family in the community that was part of another altercation with her. She also attempted to discredit the testimony as to the location of the attack with respect to her property line. And, she attempted to downplay the nature of the injuries sustained by the other dog. All this being said,it is in my opinion that - although her arguments were craftily worded and eloquently presented, they lacked the substance to create reasonable doubt.
6 hours ago · 3
Gail Gallant ok... thanks. I wasn't there the first day so I don't know what happened. I thank you for your answers. Did she examine the ACO the first day? I know she did the second day. If she didn't, did the crown?
6 hours ago · 1
Derek Graham Gail – Ms Jordan – Witness for the defence. Ms. Jordan was presented by Ms Rogier as her dog trainer that was working exclusively with Brindi and herself. Earlier I stated that I had a unique perspective with certain aspects of this trial. The dog training aspect of it is one of them. It is suffice to say that I have a relationship with the person that is considered a SME (subject matter expert) in this field. One of the commonly accepted realities of this profession to the point where the trainers themselves admit, is this - The only thing that two dog trainers will agree on, is that the third trainer that they are watching is instructing incorrectly. This is why there really is no collective association, federation, institution etc. in this field of endeavours. The person that I talked to in reference to Ms. Jordan's credibility has 2 1/2 times more experience than she does. I know for a fact that Ms. Jordan's testimony would've been directly challenge by the SME that I know, had they been given the opportunity. For example, on the issue of territorial aggression, this was one aspect that was in total disagreement. All this being said, Ms. Jordan was accepted as a subject matter expert with respect to dog training only, as the issue of behaviour was not allowed to be admitted under her field of expertise. She testified to the effect that she had been working extensively with Brindi and Ms. Rogier and large strides were being made towards effectively retraining Brindi. The biggest statement I think that she made in support of Ms. Rogier's argument was that Brindi had made substantial progress to a point, however, the issue of territorial aggression was basically next on the list to be resolved - but not yet covered. Because Brindi did not get a chance to be retrained in this subject, she could not be expected to reasonably respond to any form of recall. It was also in her opinion that the destruction of Brindi will constitute an unfair practice and waste. Personally, for what it's worth, I agree with this assessment and so does my SME, however, we reserve judgment on who should be in possession of Brindi, until the verdict is read.
6 hours ago · 2
Gail Gallant yeah... I got much of the same opinion. As for where Brindi is now, I think she should stay there ( at least for now ). From knowing what is fact in evidence for what happened in the " attack" compared to what Jordan testified to ( totally different story she was told )... should her opinion on that be taken in account of her assessment?
6 hours ago
Derek Graham Gail - Whether Debbie is who she is, or if she isn't, isn't really my concern - I prefer to respond everybody fairly and equally - I'm sure you can understand that. Like you, I have suspicions but I prefer to keep that to myself. ACO - help me out here -I'm not sure what that means ??
6 hours ago
Gail Gallant as for debbie... I mean when you highlighted for a link... it is a different debbie... ACO is animal control officer
6 hours ago
Gail Gallant not the debbie who was posting here.
6 hours ago
Derek Graham I think the court will recognize the difference between the testimony given by Mrs. Jordan with respect to the conflicting account given by Ms. Rogier. I think the assessment is valid, however, my SME has found “holes” in her testimony. The problem is, those will never be challenged because the crown never thought it necessary to bring forth their own SME to testify on their behalf with regards to these issues. That being said, is Ms. Jordan's testimony even relevant, as it really has nothing to do with the charges brought forth to Ms. Rogier ? I believe the crown wasn't even concerned with it as a Crown prosecutor didn't even bother to cross examine her testimony, again, another indication of relevance - or more precisely, lack thereof.
6 hours ago · 1
Gail Gallant good point
6 hours ago
Gail Gallant I think it was testimony for the progress.... I don't know
6 hours ago
Joy McDonald If Ms. Jordan couldn't testify to the property aggression, I can't see what good she did. That is the main issue that caused all the problems. Smoke and mirrors.
6 hours ago · 1
Derek Graham ACO - animal control officer - thank you. Ms. Rogier was in the process of cross examining the ACO at the end of the first day. I don't believe I mentioned that earlier in my previous posts so I apologize now for forgetting that. She then had the opportunity on the March 16th to carry on with the cross-examination. Again, Ms. Rogier employed her usual finesse and skills and was very effective. In my opinion, this is one of the stronger aspects to her case, as she did expose that this aspect of HRM - more specifically perhaps this office of HRM, probably should have a specific and structured sets of operating procedures so that their officers are not left in the lurch, so to speak, when trying to address the qualifications and requirements for seizing an animal. To me this was the weakest aspect of the crown's case, not to say that the ACO in this case was at fault by any means. However, Ms. Regier quite successfully pointed out that there was deficiencies or ambiguities in their processes. Once again though, she incorrectly blended this information with respect to her charter challenges, therefore I'm not sure how much latitude the judge will give her in terms of supporting her case. Nevertheless, it did appear to be a bit of|” egg on the face” of HRM. I personally talked to the ACO afterwards and reassured her that the attack by Ms. Rogier was not at the ability or the inability for her to do her job, insomuch it was an attack on the infrastructure of power job is laid out.
5 hours ago · 2
Derek Graham Yes I'm aware that there are games going on when it comes to people identifying themselves. In this media format, there is a lot people can do to get away with posing as other people. I believe that ultimately, these people trip themselves up, and most reasonably intelligent people recognize that and then disregard them.
5 hours ago · 3
Licia Hutt What challenges did Fran give the animal control officer?
5 hours ago
Gail Gallant ‎Derek ... I sent you a private msg to explain what I am talking about
5 hours ago
Derek Graham Meg - Wow that's a lot of speculation at this point -and you know how I feel about speculation - but I will speak to what I do know. I know that the legal predicament that Brindi is in, is not good. I believe that Ms. Rogier stated that her direction was to the court (not at this trial by the way) was that Brindi would be destroyed before she would allow her to be re-homed, in other words, she would not accept Brindi being adopted by somebody else. From what I understand, that ties the hands of the judge in so far that because Brindi is deemed property and the owner of that property will not allow it to be forfeited to somebody else, the only other option that the court is left is to have the animal destroyed. To me this is very distressing, insofar that if were talking in terms of property, if a person loses to the court for example a car, the car is simply resold once it becomes possession of HRM, or the bank, or whatever. You would think, that the same logic could apply, to an animal – however - I am not a legal expert by any means in this field, so I can honestly say I'm not sure what will happen other than at this present time – legally - if Ms Rogier loses her case, her dog will potentially suffer four it. This is one of those times where I really hope I'm wrong …
5 hours ago · 1
Joy McDonald Was it made clear in court, from the Simms, where the 'attack' took place? I understand it was on public property and not on Fran's property.
5 hours ago · 1
Meg Charnley I think for Ms. Rogier to say she would rather see Brindi destroyed than rehomed is EXTREMELY selfish of her! Thank you, Derek, for letting me know what you think about that.
5 hours ago · 3
Joy McDonald Meg, any dog lover would feel the same.
6 hours ago · 2
Licia Hutt Ditto Meg & I wonder if her supporters may not be aware or perhaps don't understand her stance on that?
6 hours ago · 1
Meg Charnley They need to.
6 hours ago · 2
Joy McDonald That 'fact' has been posted many times by me as well as others. It has been denied and attacked as untrue. Apparently it isn't untrue, is it?
6 hours ago · 1
Licia Hutt Well, she well aware she has to ask a Judge as he makes the decision of re-homing & we haven't heard that she has't asked the Judge this time, nor the last time. Will it be in the summation? If I were a Fran supporter I would be asking her.
5 hours ago
Joy McDonald She needs to ask the Judge BEFORE she gives the Judgement, not after. I would be shedding real tears and begging the Judge to rehome.
5 hours ago · 2
Derek Graham Licia - Ms Rogier is a skilled debater. That is very obvious. I don't think that the ACO had difficulty with Ms. Rogier per se, as she might have had with her ability to challenge aspects of how she conducts her job and the criteria by which she is required to work by. Ultimately, despite the apparent infrastructure issues that that office may have, Ms. Rogier was hard-pressed to challenge the ACO's decision for seizure in this particular case simply because the facts spoke for themselves. This was the only time that this ACO had to seize any dog because the owner was either negligent or unable to control and contain her animal which had been in violation after a muzzle order was put in place. I must admit that the ACO appeared to be getting frustrated with the line of questioning and I think it some points that affected her ability to respond confidently, however, in my opinion she never responded in a manner that would discredit her position. I suppose if somebody was looking for poetic justice, when Ms. Rogier was required to take the stand because she had offered testimony and she found herself being cross examined by the Crown prosecutor, her levels of frustration and discomfort were very evident. I'm not sure if that was a plan that went awry, or if she simply made a tactical error and inadvertently put herself in a position where she could be cross examined.
5 hours ago
Francesca Rogier I never said anything of the kind, Meg. Derek, I am fascinated by your account. Unfortunately you made a few errors. The Crown lawyer did cross-examine Susan Jordan. It was interesting to me that after several tough questions, the lawyer slowed to a total halt, not knowing where to go next. I think Susan was incredible.
5 hours ago
Francesca Rogier Where did you get your legal training, Derek?
5 hours ago
Joy McDonald Fran is not one to be questioned. Many of us have learned that the hard way and got kicked to the curb. (former supporter)
5 hours ago
Derek Graham The Simms testimony was pretty conclusive, the attack took place on the roadway in front of Ms. Rogier's house. Ms. Rogier in my opinion did not offer any testimony or evidence that could successfully challenge that.
5 hours ago
Francesca Rogier The facts do speak for themselves. The fact is, HRM never had a good reason to seize Brindi in the first place, because they never had a reason to muzzle her. It was totally arbitrary. Once in place they used the muzzle as grounds to seize her. They have never followed the law. They have never used rational reasoning, only selectively applied the law's - taking its most circular logic that is embedded in the law. Rodger never bothered checking into the reason for the muzzle order. She never answered my question about why she seized Brindi in terms of Brindi. Every time, she reverted to talking about the muzzle order.
5 hours ago
Joy McDonald Thank you Derek.
5 hours ago
Licia Hutt Again thank you Derek.
5 hours ago
Francesca Rogier The Simms changed their testimony on the stand a few times. They admitted they could not say for sure where things happened. They estimated locations wrongly; got the location of the streetlamp wrong. They didn't even examine their dog closely for some time after the incident, because they were so absorbed in trying to report it. But frankly, none of their testimony makes much difference, because the judge was already handling things unfairly by beginning the trial without proper confirmation of the information she was given, and by relegating my Charter arguments to a mail-in process, and it's pretty hard to reverse things. I was not "manipulating the system" to try to withdraw my Charter claim: that is your opinion, as so many other things you are saying, which make your account so subjective. Withdrawing a motion is my right by law, and it is perfectly reasonable to do so, since its purpose has long since been defeated. When you talk about manipulating the system, I suggest you turn your attention to the Animal Services department, where you will learn much more about that.
5 hours ago
Francesca Rogier Also the SImms were very obviously coached; I'm amazed you didn't notice that.
5 hours ago
Francesca Rogier Also you are totally wrong about the issue of property. As I said, I never said "Brindi would be destroyed before she would allow her to be re-homed, in other words, she would not accept Brindi being adopted by somebody else." The fact is, I proposed this to HRM in December 2010, and HRM refused all options in that direction - flatly refused. They refused the SPCA's opinion before that. HRM has done so much harm to Brindi and to me, continues to do so, with deliberation. They have no authority to detain Brindi, so they transgress the Charter every single day. My transgressions were unintentional and while I regret them even though I did not intend them to happen, they did not cause serious harm. Certainly not the kind of harm that Brindi has been enduring, like chronic pancreatitis and tooth damage due to neglectful care. I do not feel that I am obligated to submit to pressure from the likes of Gail Gallant, who I happen to know is not able to control the pit bulls she says she rescues, who have been known to terrorize children on her street. Believe that if you like; the fact remains that what a judge decides is what a judge decides: the "additional penalty" clause places no limits on the court. In that instance, I certainly cannot influence or limit what is done with my property! That law relieves the court of having to hear any evidence at all, and allows the court to have a dog destroyed or "otherwise dealt with". This is the most unconstitutional part of the entire law. But it was not part of the original by-law; it was imported from the provincial law after the Supreme Court quashed the original part of the by-law that was also unconstitutional. So thanks a lot for that! But PLEASE; stop blaming ME for things that I have not done and things that you think I might do - which I cannot!
5 hours ago
Marrilee Wilson I've been reading all the comments. I'm new to this story of Brindi. The only comment I have is that I feel so sorry for this poor dog. I pray that besides training that reinforces good behavior, she reciieves the emotional and financial support that all animals deserve. Dispite good intentions, it appears that both the city and the owner have failed to serve Brindi in a humane, dignified way.
5 hours ago · 1
Francesca Rogier Thanks so much for your support.
5 hours ago · 1
Derek Graham Ms. Rogier, I stand corrected. Ms. Jordan is very well spoken indeed. I too feel the crown had not performed at 100%. On occasion the Crown prosecutor attempted to ask questions that she did not know the answer to. To me, this would appear to be a fundamental blunder that most lawyers learn never to fall into. If you're going to ask a question in cross-examination you should really know the answer in the first place. Also, there appeared to be avenues where they could have pressed their position stronger, particularly on the cross-examination of your testimony. The crown appears to be quite comfortable with the evidence as it was presented to support their case, perhaps that’s why they didn't bother. With respect to your query on any legal training, the military requires us to become very familiar with the NDA (National Defence Act) along with different aspects of civil law. These studies are part of our leadership training and we are encouraged to learn more if we have any opportunity to do so, however legal issues of any major consequence are always referred to the JAG office. I am, by no means a legal authority, only an observer.
5 hours ago
Francesca Rogier I was being sarcastic, but whatever! Lumping me together with the city is pretty unfair, kind of cruel, really. I rescued my dog and I love her dearly. Otherwise, why would I fight so hard for her life? Do you realize that HRM's new pound put down 51 stray dogs in a 12-month period, just because somebody working there deemed them "dangerous"? Not a qualified behaviorist, not a vet, not anybody with the proper knowledge. The statistics on dangerous dogs don't support this rate. Unless HRM has an epidemic, something is very wrong here.
5 hours ago
Francesca Rogier That comment was to Marilee Marrilee Wilson
5 hours ago
Francesca Rogier Derek, please google by-law A300 and the HRM Charter sections 193-197. I would be interested to hear your thoughts on that.
5 hours ago
Francesca Rogier Also, Derek, this may interest you: http://halifaxhumane.org/bylaws-attacks.php
5 hours ago
Francesca Rogier And to spare the members of this group, maybe you can message me off the page.
5 hours ago
Meg Charnley What's pretty unfair and cruel is that this dog's life is in jeopardy because of human negligence and irresponsibility.
5 hours ago · 1
Marrilee Wilson I can understand why you'd feel upset with my comment. And I'm sure your tired of people taking sides. I was offering my opinion. I hope that after all is said and dome Brindi is well taken care of for the rest of her time on earth.
5 hours ago · 1
Francesca Rogier And Meg: what is it to be irresponsible? If you accidentally stumble and trip somebody, is that irresponsible? Do you really think a person can control all mechanical objects and animals together, 100% of the time? And if they don't, is that irresponsibility? That word implies a moral failure, and a moral judgment, and I don't think it's appropriate at all. The law calls for fines - that's appropriate. Not detaining a dog year after year and then killing it.
5 hours ago
Dawn 'CeCe' Kelly Everyone *is* and should be absolutely (& respectfully) entitled to their opinion.
5 hours ago · 1
Dawn 'CeCe' Kelly There is *absolutely* NO acceptable (or arguable) defence to arbitrarily ignoring a court order and expecting to get away with it.
5 hours ago
Meg Charnley Well, you. Your dog attacked other dogs, and I fail to see where you had control over your dog... If you did have control over your dog, you wouldn't be in this mess and your dog wouldn't have made attacks. The Animal Control Officers don't just swoop in and take any old animal they choose... they need to have a reason. This was more than just an accident. The first incident may have been, but when it happened repeatedly, it stopped being an accident. I think you could have had much more control than you claim is possible. No, you can't control every action a dog has, but you could have penned the dog, leashed it outside.
5 hours ago · 2
Francesca Rogier Don't make assumptions. Animal Services actually do choose which dogs they take, and the differences would astound you. The law does not require a reason; they just say they have one, and that's all it takes. They don't have to answer to anybody. If you are new in Halifax, I suggest you do some checking on this.
5 hours ago
Francesca Rogier You "think" I could have had much more control, but that's your opinion, based on nothing, since you haven't got the details. So please. When you are so freely judging people, it can backfire on you.
5 hours ago
Meg Charnley Animal Services choose which dogs they take, but they need to have a reason. If I had a dog, they can't just come into my house and take it. They would need a reason or a complaint from someone. Your dog was taken because you didn't control it from attacking other people's animals.
4 hours ago
Meg Charnley I may be new in Halifax, but I've spent years working for an animal shelter. The law isn't that different from province to province.
4 hours ago
Francesca Rogier They don't take most dogs - I mean, 99.99% of dogs - that are reported to attack. They don't usually muzzle dogs just because of any old attack, either. They are not allowed to lie about the law, but they did, to me and the public.
4 hours ago
Meg Charnley Really, you couldn't have any more control than you did? You couldn't have penned or leashed your dog?
4 hours ago
Francesca Rogier The trouble is that you are too willing to trust authority without question, and too willing to question your fellow man and take away their individual authority.
4 hours ago
Michael McCluskey Meg, the only way to win is not to play.
4 hours ago · 1
Francesca Rogier Meg, if you are really that interested in the answers, this is not the place for it.
4 hours ago
Dawn 'CeCe' Kelly Seriously?? Francesca - I can't see your reply but I know you are here by the posts others have made. Blocking people for having a differing *opinion* (and not a personal *exchange*). That's quite concerning actually. How then to properly debate the issues?
4 hours ago · 1
Meg Charnley Yours wasn't a case of any old attack. Yours was a case of several attacks. And how can you assume who I am willing to trust? I know what I know because I've seen it first hand through the work I've done in animal shelters. And Michael, you're right. This is stupid, seeing as I'm obviously talking to a brick wall.
4 hours ago
Gail Gallant for those who can see fran's posts, I was sent one she included me into... she claims one of my dogs went after children and or people... her friend started that rumor and it never happened. I have asked for proof and nothing has been forthcoming. Besides the fact I never had a " pitbull" at the time they claim it happened. There has never been an ACO at my door for any dog I have ever had or have. If what she says was true, just the stigma of having one and a call go to AC, you bet someone would be at my door in a heartbeat.
4 hours ago
Dawn 'CeCe' Kelly Are you 'in court' over this 'supposed' issue, Gail?
4 hours ago
Michael McCluskey People, just stop.
4 hours ago · 2
Francesca Rogier What is the definition of attack? If you don't distinguish among the range of attacks - ones that cause life-threatening injuries from ones that cause no injury - is there a valid reason to judge number of attacks over severity? I don't think so.
4 hours ago
Dawn 'CeCe' Kelly It's a debate, Michael - fact based (or should be).
4 hours ago
Gail Gallant no I am not and never have been
4 hours ago
Francesca Rogier By-Law A-300 section 2: “attack” means to injure or bite, or to threaten or give the impression of threatening
4 hours ago
Michael McCluskey Tell me the last time you debated a fanatic out of anything.
4 hours ago · 3
Dawn 'CeCe' Kelly Well - no point in it being brought up then.
4 hours ago
Francesca Rogier I am not a fanatic, Michael. Tell me who made you the referee?
4 hours ago
Francesca Rogier Meg wants it both ways: she wants to be able to continue posting about Brindi, and also wants to stand apart and pretend it's just awful how the topic dominates the page. Thanks, Meg.
4 hours ago
Dawn 'CeCe' Kelly Well, as I stated above, she clearly doesn't want to debate with those that can, she's blocked them. I have not ever had a personal exchange with the owner of this poor dog.
4 hours ago
Dawn 'CeCe' Kelly the "well, no point in it being brought up, then" was to Gail
4 hours ago
Meg Charnley No, Fran, as the saying goes, "I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person." :)
4 hours ago · 2
Gail Gallant ‎:) I didn't bring it up.... she did
4 hours ago
Dawn 'CeCe' Kelly I failed to make that clear - I was replying to your post, but talking about her post.
4 hours ago
Dawn 'CeCe' Kelly ‎(the one nobody can see). Not sure what the point is of that, but whatever....
4 hours ago
Gail Gallant ohh ok :)... guess so she can say things about people and they not know. Guess that isn't working for her :)
4 hours ago
Francesca Rogier In your case, only half true.
4 hours ago
Francesca Rogier And my name is Francesca. Please respect that.
4 hours ago
Dawn 'CeCe' Kelly Gail - NTM
4 hours ago
Francesca Rogier You definitely fit right in in Halifax. I didn't move to Halifax, I moved to the Eastern Shore, but Halifax claimed it as part of its territory a few years back.
4 hours ago
Gail Gallant lmao ok...
4 hours ago
Michael McCluskey I rmember when Halifax claimed that territory

http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20070610114050/uncyclopedia/images/a/ac/Frenchman_crying.png
4 hours ago · 1
Francesca Rogier I wonder if people would vote to keep HRM if they were given the chance.
4 hours ago
Gail Gallant lol
4 hours ago
Dawn 'CeCe' Kelly Francesca Rogier "And Meg: what is it to be irresponsible? If you accidentally stumble and trip somebody, is that irresponsible? Do you really think a person can control all mechanical objects and animals together, 100% of the time? And if they don't, is that irresponsibility?"

Here's a thought (mine) - *IF* you accidentally stumble and trip it's an accident. *IF* you accidentally *stumble* and trip over a span of time a few (or several different times), then you have developed or become a (or even *your* own) *statistic* and in that case, 'something' that subsequent judgement calls will be based upon. In other words, you are in 'the wrong place', at 'the wrong time', doing (or not doing) 'the wrong thing', too often. This could also be termed an 'irresponsible' action and exhibits behavior that should have been evident and long corrected (in other words, not an accident OR responsible).
4 hours ago · 1
Gail Gallant IMO if you stumble so much best see a doctor
4 hours ago
Meg Charnley If your dog attacks too much, best see a judge.
4 hours ago
Dawn 'CeCe' Kelly Or get new glasses.
4 hours ago
Francesca Rogier Some people love beating a dead horse, don't they? Good luck Meg, I hope your cat survives despite your inability to control it.
4 hours ago
Meg Charnley My cat lives in an apartment in which it needs to go through several doors to get out. And up until know I can take solace in the fact that I've controlled my cat better than you've controlled your dog.
4 hours ago
Francesca Rogier Except you posted that it was gone for 16 hours, right?
4 hours ago
Meg Charnley Me? No...
4 hours ago
Meg Charnley LOL.
4 hours ago
Meg Charnley You need to learn to creep people's Facebooks better than that. LOL.
4 hours ago
Dawn 'CeCe' Kelly ‎Meg Charnley - are you talking to yourself? Hmmmmm better get a hearing aid!
4 hours ago
Meg Charnley Talking to Ms. Rogier... Apparently she blocked you too.
4 hours ago
Meg Charnley Ms. Rogier... Just out of curiosity's sake, please show me where I said my indoor apartment cat was missing for 16 hours. :) Just curious.
4 hours ago
Dawn 'CeCe' Kelly No doubt. Any opinion other than her own is the wrong one. Wonderful way to converse lol
4 hours ago · 1
Meg Charnley Clearly.
4 hours ago
Meg Charnley I'd just love to know where she got the information that my cat, my indoor apartment cat that has never touched grass a day in his life, went missing for 16 hours. Especially since I'm pretty sure my personal Facebook is sealed shut to people who aren't on my friend's list.
4 hours ago
Francesca Rogier Guess again.
4 hours ago
Dawn 'CeCe' Kelly Probably didn't 'get it' anywhere. Just another figment of a wild imagination?
4 hours ago
Dawn 'CeCe' Kelly One can only guess....
4 hours ago · 1
Francesca Rogier People in glass houses...
4 hours ago
Meg Charnley No, you point it out, "Fran". You got this information. You back it up.
4 hours ago
Francesca Rogier It doesn't feel nice to have people spread false information about you, does it, Meg?
4 hours ago
Michael McCluskey And I heard that I was voted sexiest person in Halifax!
4 hours ago · 2
Dawn 'CeCe' Kelly What were you wearing??
4 hours ago · 1
Meg Charnley How are you spreading it? No one is going to believe you that I let a cat get out through three locked apartment doors and up two flights of steps to get out for 16 hours. Especially coming from someone I've never met in my life. Haha.
4 hours ago
Meg Charnley LMAO./
4 hours ago
Meg Charnley This has the potential to be the funniest conversation segway I've seen in a while.
4 hours ago
Francesca Rogier Can't be true, Michael, if you're on facebook on a Saturday night, and it's even St. Patrick's day, you're not exactly living up to that reputation.
4 hours ago
Michael McCluskey Oh silly me, I was! Look at the cover of The Coast Feb 14th.
4 hours ago
Dawn 'CeCe' Kelly oh, too bad....I don't have a copy 'in house' ;-(
4 hours ago
Meg Charnley Where can I find a copy?
4 hours ago
Francesca Rogier I've never met you in my life, Meg, but you're so very certain about my ability to control my dog. So ha ha to you.
4 hours ago
Michael McCluskey http://www.thecoast.ca/binary/2b5f/001.jpg
4 hours ago
Meg Charnley Haha... One difference, Fran. My cat isn't in the news or in court for attacking other animals. Your dog is. :)
4 hours ago
Meg Charnley That's not you, Michael, is it?
4 hours ago
Michael McCluskey Yes ma'am
4 hours ago
Francesca Rogier Proves nothing. But please yourself: when you become a behavioral expert, we'll talk.
4 hours ago
Meg Charnley Wooow. I actually kind of want an autographed copy. How did you end up on The Coast? Dressed as Cupid?
4 hours ago · 1
Dawn 'CeCe' Kelly Excellent, very *sexxxy*, Michael McCluskey
4 hours ago
Michael McCluskey I was voted by The Coast's readers
4 hours ago · 1
Francesca Rogier Just because my dog is being cruelly locked up for years does not mean you can disrespect my grandmother's name, Meg.
4 hours ago
Meg Charnley I love the Battlestar Galactica shirt.
4 hours ago
Michael McCluskey I beat Ellen Page and SYdney Crosby
4 hours ago
Dawn 'CeCe' Kelly However did they *know*?
4 hours ago
Meg Charnley Sure, Fran.
4 hours ago
Michael McCluskey There's a matching cape
4 hours ago · 1
Meg Charnley Michael that is awesome!
4 hours ago · 1
Francesca Rogier Get a room.
4 hours ago
Michael McCluskey Do you ever watch Castle or Firefly?
4 hours ago · 1
Francesca Rogier And go to hell, with all respect, Meg. You're an ass.
4 hours ago
Francesca Rogier Whatever, Mug
4 hours ago
Michael McCluskey I did a show with Nathan Fillion
4 hours ago
Meg Charnley Never watched Castle or Firefly, Michael. What are they about?
4 hours ago
Meg Charnley What do you do for a living, if you don't mind me asking. Are you in media?
4 hours ago
Michael McCluskey Oh, the star is Nathan Fillion, good guy
4 hours ago
Michael McCluskey Keep a cool head, good night
4 hours ago
Meg Charnley Night, Michael!
4 hours ago
Meg Charnley ‎:)
4 hours ago
Meg Charnley Michael, I guess my friend knows who you are from Hal-Con. Pretty cool. I need to make a point of going sometime.