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.