Since this is about By Law Enforcement in NS,I thought I might bring up an issue that is I am a bit familiar with about our BY Law officer in our neck of the woods:
A friend of mine,has been tormented by a German Shepard mix owned by a neighbour for about the past 4 years,ie whenever a vehicle drives in to visit my friend the Mutt will come out and attack the tires of the vehicle, this I have seen myself as the damn dog wants a piece of my vehicle everytime I go to visit this friend. This has been reported to By Law many times,and to my knowledge other than BY Law paying the owners of the Mutt a visit nothing has been done.
Now about 3 days ago my friends son and wife along with their children drove down my friends driveway the grand kids on bikes as were the parents the grands are 4 and 8 years old, the damn dog came out and wanted a piece of the wheels,or maybe the kids not sure what would of happened if the parents wern't there and the kids were alone. 3 reports went to by law the next day,to my knowledge nothing has been done,still again.
Now let me tell you this,which I find real shocking,about a year ago my friend ran into this BY Law officer,and asked, "how are you making out with neighbours dog?" reply," its still going on nothing has changed"..than the idiot BY Law officer says.....Hang on this is real good......"a bowl of anti freeze works well"....Now what do you all think of that? I know what I do but it would mean another rant from me.
Now I have several dealings with this By Law officer or POS as I like to call her, here is just one of my dealings with the POS. Most of you know that I am in the landscaping,property maintaince business well about this time I got a call from an 80+ lady who was crying she got a super heated letter from by law demanding that the lawn on her property cabin be mowed in 7 days or else. Well The next day I called By Law,told officer that I would mow the damn lawn but due to weather it could be well over 7 days. which seemed to satisfy the POS. Than the next day I get another call from a non Resident that got a similar letter,called POS and said meet me at Non Residents property and tell me what you want. POS agreeded, bet she wishes she didn't,lol....She gave me a list of demands I told her it wasn't going to happen,as over half of what she wanted was always natural bushes,and was that way for over a 100 yrs,what I told her was I would clean up around the house on property and that would be it. I did;that was the end of it.
Than I asked POS if she got a kick out of sending super heated letters to old ladies,her excuse was that, POS didn't know where they lived,guess POS couldn't take the time to look up where tax bills were sent.......LOL
Now back to my friend and dog issue, which is a simple fix its called a fence,a secure fence....which would solve the problem, now if that is not done,what I will do is take my bike and drive in driveway of my friends,problem will be solved right than and there if mutt tries to attack my bike or me,it will be called self defense,as I will fear for my life; can't say that when sitting in a 5000 lb truck.
Bottom line someone is going to be bitten and it will end up with a long civil suit which there is no need of if the BY Law officer would of done her job.
Sorry for the rant and if anyone finds it offensive the admins can remove.
Saturday, August 25, 2012
Thursday, August 23, 2012
Fran are you fracking NUTS:????
Humane Halifax @HumaneHalifax
@cbcmainstreet We'll even campaign for him. provided #MayorKelly lets #Brindi go home NOW. #Halifax #readthisteweet #dogsmatter
Fran your case is before the courts.....do you think for a minute that anyone will take your crap up to the local gov.....ain't going to happen...Honey you made your bed so lay in it....Brindi is no longer your dog...you screwed up at least 8 times,so honey let it go Brindi will be re homed now how about dropping the appeal.it appears that you won't have the funds,(UNLESS YOU GET A JOB)
Personally I think you ran out of suckers,so please STFU...or get a lawyer as to watch you in court is a friggen joke....yep I seen you in action....I am surprised that the Judge didn't ask you to remove yourself: because you made a total ass of yourself.,So hire a lawyer.....OH but wait didn't you stiff a lawyer? hmmmm.....Did that lawyer not sue you for non payment,something like 20,000 bucks, well now HRM has at least another 10,000 on top of that..your history is out there as public knowledge...check it out....YOU DO NOT PAY YOUR BILLS..now me dare you all over the internet looking for money,,,,WTF for a bottle of wine?? Get Robert Riley to buy it for you,as he told me how rich he is...got screen shots.....LOL
Now sweetie.....You are going to help Peter Kelly...Pure BS....lets go back in time and see some of your comments about him and all your crap to get people to write him.....Yep Peter will welcome you with open arms.......LOL
Now here is my advice,get on the next train,plane or bus and haul your fat ass out of hrm and Canada,we will look after your x mutt.
@cbcmainstreet We'll even campaign for him. provided #MayorKelly lets #Brindi go home NOW. #Halifax #readthisteweet #dogsmatter
Fran your case is before the courts.....do you think for a minute that anyone will take your crap up to the local gov.....ain't going to happen...Honey you made your bed so lay in it....Brindi is no longer your dog...you screwed up at least 8 times,so honey let it go Brindi will be re homed now how about dropping the appeal.it appears that you won't have the funds,(UNLESS YOU GET A JOB)
Personally I think you ran out of suckers,so please STFU...or get a lawyer as to watch you in court is a friggen joke....yep I seen you in action....I am surprised that the Judge didn't ask you to remove yourself: because you made a total ass of yourself.,So hire a lawyer.....OH but wait didn't you stiff a lawyer? hmmmm.....Did that lawyer not sue you for non payment,something like 20,000 bucks, well now HRM has at least another 10,000 on top of that..your history is out there as public knowledge...check it out....YOU DO NOT PAY YOUR BILLS..now me dare you all over the internet looking for money,,,,WTF for a bottle of wine?? Get Robert Riley to buy it for you,as he told me how rich he is...got screen shots.....LOL
Now sweetie.....You are going to help Peter Kelly...Pure BS....lets go back in time and see some of your comments about him and all your crap to get people to write him.....Yep Peter will welcome you with open arms.......LOL
Now here is my advice,get on the next train,plane or bus and haul your fat ass out of hrm and Canada,we will look after your x mutt.
Wednesday, August 22, 2012
Looks as someone is driving Fran over the Bend.....Note NO NAMES..could be libel.
Wednesday, August 22, 2012
0
0
The amazing stubbornness of stalkers and haters: a rant for once
At every stage of the way, regardless of the mounting unfair and cruel actions of various authorities or agents, a stubborn core of best unnamed somehow manages to fit them into a strange, ill-minded spin aimed at making me the sole villain. Safe in their internet hideouts, these bizarrely obsessive people currently insist - to anyone willing to listen - that I am now blocking the city from adopting out Brindi.
The emails from prosecutor Katherine Salsman I posted weeks ago happen to make it very clear that by the appeal deadline, HRM had not done the court-ordered assessment, nor made any decision about Brindi, other than to keep the results of said assessment private. Nor had the city scheduled a date for reaching a decision.
So while the idea that I am blocking is hardly credible, it's all the more astounding, not to say mind-blowing, to discover again and again just how persistent these people are. No matter what turn things take, no matter how absurd the spin. I guess they rely on the fact that a certain percentage of people won't think for themselves, let alone discern fact from opinion. It's a low percentage, but the litany of untruths, some hatched as far back as 2009, are not unthreatening in this age of Google.
Among the most brazen, and potentially damaging, are faked quotes: for instance, a declaration I supposedly made in a courtroom to the effect that I would rather see Brindi die than go to somebody else. I never said anything of the kind, in writing or out loud. I couldn't even form the thought, and I'm sure no one else in this situation could either. How anybody claiming to love dogs could spread such a falsification about a dog owner in the tragic situation of fighting for their companion's life is beyond me.
These utterances do not originate in misunderstanding, and they are not merely opinion; they come from a conscious choice to cause harm, as much and as often as possible. Equally hateful and absurd are accusations that I want Brindi to be impounded longer because I am using her to make money from donations so I can live off of them. Or that I am mooching off the people of Nova Scotia - a nice trick, as visitors are not entitled to public assistance. Or, that I am tying up the courts and costing the taxpayers lots of money.
That one is really something, as I did everything possible to avoid going to court - like any sane person would. The truth of the matter is that by declining to provide a way to appeal a euthanasia order in 2008, refusing to accept reasonable offers, HRM forced matters into court, and kept them there, even when the outcome was pretty certain. The letter accompanying the euthanasia order even suggested I hire a lawyer. Because there was no appeal process, and the city said it wouldn't suspend the order otherwise, I had to file a lawsuit right, just to buy time to try to persuade it not to kill my dog. I had no idea at the time how impossible the latter would turn out to be, or how much it would cost along the way.
Similarly outlandish: the claim that I turned down a rescue (or rescues) willing to take Brindi, and that I steadfastly refused to follow the court conditions - conditions I not only volunteered two years earlier, but which I actually exceeded, by doing more training than required. Then there's more sinister tales designed to ruin my reputation altogether: that I was denied tenure in my university post (um, no, tenure review was still two years off when I decided to take a break), or that I drink heavily. A few Berlin friends and ex boyfriends would find that one particularly amusing, no doubt. It gets even worse.
Along the way, these cyberstalkers, haters, whatever you want to call them, have interlaced their savagery with demonstrably false claims that they are "working behind the scenes" with HRM, under the implausible pretext that they alone care about my dog - a dog they also contradictorily claim is a danger to the neighborhood and would be shot. Some of these people don't even live within ten miles of Halifax. They also obscure the fact that HRM has repeatedly ignored all alternatives and excluded even the SPCA, its own pound contractor at the time, from the court proceedings. So much for putative local loyalty.
Though it makes me pretty ill to even recite these lies and smears, I am all too aware of the saying that, repeated often enough, a lie becomes the truth - Lord knows this city has employed it to great effect. As a friend said, "They don't even know what they are talking about, yet the (expletives deleted) never shut up." Who needs this? I ignore it the best I can, but I'm not unaware of the lingering negative effects on me, and sometimes it just becomes too much. There's more than enough cognitive dissonance in my life already, from the contrast between my sweet dog, the number of people who adore her, and the facts on the ground on one side, including a few regrettable moments of error, but no more than that, and the conduct/decisions of the city. Bad enough HRM orchestrated an eviction and a demolition order - rescinded a year later - based on demonstrably false claims that my house was structurally unsafe. (That one remains to be dealt with in yet another judicial review...!)
Sadly, this muck, with all the pain it causes - not only me but a number of very caring people - goes largely unchallenged by otherwise respectable individuals who ought to know better. A lot better. After all, it's not as though HRM (or the SPCA, for that matter) have a spotless record of consistently and fairly enforcing the law. Nor am I the only one to raise issues about the inadequacy and constitutionality of said law and its enforcement. The difference is, unlike others, I was forced into this when my dog was seized to be killed (largely on the strength of a fictitious law regarding muzzle order violations), and the city refused to let her go, no matter what. And by "what", I mean, everything from lack of sufficient reason, to petitions, letters, behavioral assessments, and a supreme court order quashing the euthanasia order.
Making me the scapegoat when the harm and injury are there for anybody to see is very sad, very shameful, and nothing to be proud of. The main reason they seized her again, according to court statements from animal services and the prosecutor, is that I had the audacity to temporarily leave town with her, simply because like everybody else, I knew they would seize her again, to kill her. (A dispatcher for HRM also told me to take her out of town, but that fact was overlooked in court.) Never mind that this was not called for either time. Never mind that they already lost twice in court. And this time, they didn't exactly "win" either, because for reasons best known to her, instead of ordering them to put Brindi down, the judge dumped everything back in HRM's lap, bringing it all back to July 2008, essentially, when the city made a decision without providing due process or even an investigation.
That court decision is another thing this crew of haters keeps lying about. Unfortunately, they're profiting from some rather unclear reporting. So unclear, in fact, an argument broke out during a recent barbecue where a few guys insisted Brindi is already dead, I'm told. One self-styled animal advocate even told the media that Brindi is kept with other dogs now and is doing just fine, so it must be all my fault that she had any problems in the past. Um, no, sadly, she is strictly isolated from other dogs, and that fact has been known for years.
How I wish a good journalist would finally take it upon themselves to look into the situation in depth and present a coherent, complete picture, preferably without sensationalizing, as the facts are plenty sensational enough.
Meanwhile, Brindi's alive, as far as I know, anyhow. I am missing her more than ever, mourning the loss of another summer, another year, another seven for her. I'm living still with the distant view of the kennel they're keeping her in, located right across the inlet from my window. But I don't dare bring up that torturous aspect in a courtroom. The Kafkaesque task of having to prove the obvious, without benefit of a lawyer, citizenship, or a certain appendage, is challenging enough.
So sorry, no, I am not blocking HRM from doing something, anything, good for Brindi. "Not even remotely." Nobody on earth would be more delighted than I if HRM would give some kind of sign that it is willing to let some intrepid person adopt Brindi, or barring that, that it would consent for Brindi to be fostered, starting right now, to the end of the appeal process. Enough is enough.
(And PS, I dearly hope the city's vet checks her blood levels soon, as a matter of fact.)
at 8/22/2012 07:11:00 PM
0
0
The amazing stubbornness of stalkers and haters: a rant for once
At every stage of the way, regardless of the mounting unfair and cruel actions of various authorities or agents, a stubborn core of best unnamed somehow manages to fit them into a strange, ill-minded spin aimed at making me the sole villain. Safe in their internet hideouts, these bizarrely obsessive people currently insist - to anyone willing to listen - that I am now blocking the city from adopting out Brindi.
The emails from prosecutor Katherine Salsman I posted weeks ago happen to make it very clear that by the appeal deadline, HRM had not done the court-ordered assessment, nor made any decision about Brindi, other than to keep the results of said assessment private. Nor had the city scheduled a date for reaching a decision.
So while the idea that I am blocking is hardly credible, it's all the more astounding, not to say mind-blowing, to discover again and again just how persistent these people are. No matter what turn things take, no matter how absurd the spin. I guess they rely on the fact that a certain percentage of people won't think for themselves, let alone discern fact from opinion. It's a low percentage, but the litany of untruths, some hatched as far back as 2009, are not unthreatening in this age of Google.
Among the most brazen, and potentially damaging, are faked quotes: for instance, a declaration I supposedly made in a courtroom to the effect that I would rather see Brindi die than go to somebody else. I never said anything of the kind, in writing or out loud. I couldn't even form the thought, and I'm sure no one else in this situation could either. How anybody claiming to love dogs could spread such a falsification about a dog owner in the tragic situation of fighting for their companion's life is beyond me.
These utterances do not originate in misunderstanding, and they are not merely opinion; they come from a conscious choice to cause harm, as much and as often as possible. Equally hateful and absurd are accusations that I want Brindi to be impounded longer because I am using her to make money from donations so I can live off of them. Or that I am mooching off the people of Nova Scotia - a nice trick, as visitors are not entitled to public assistance. Or, that I am tying up the courts and costing the taxpayers lots of money.
That one is really something, as I did everything possible to avoid going to court - like any sane person would. The truth of the matter is that by declining to provide a way to appeal a euthanasia order in 2008, refusing to accept reasonable offers, HRM forced matters into court, and kept them there, even when the outcome was pretty certain. The letter accompanying the euthanasia order even suggested I hire a lawyer. Because there was no appeal process, and the city said it wouldn't suspend the order otherwise, I had to file a lawsuit right, just to buy time to try to persuade it not to kill my dog. I had no idea at the time how impossible the latter would turn out to be, or how much it would cost along the way.
Similarly outlandish: the claim that I turned down a rescue (or rescues) willing to take Brindi, and that I steadfastly refused to follow the court conditions - conditions I not only volunteered two years earlier, but which I actually exceeded, by doing more training than required. Then there's more sinister tales designed to ruin my reputation altogether: that I was denied tenure in my university post (um, no, tenure review was still two years off when I decided to take a break), or that I drink heavily. A few Berlin friends and ex boyfriends would find that one particularly amusing, no doubt. It gets even worse.
Along the way, these cyberstalkers, haters, whatever you want to call them, have interlaced their savagery with demonstrably false claims that they are "working behind the scenes" with HRM, under the implausible pretext that they alone care about my dog - a dog they also contradictorily claim is a danger to the neighborhood and would be shot. Some of these people don't even live within ten miles of Halifax. They also obscure the fact that HRM has repeatedly ignored all alternatives and excluded even the SPCA, its own pound contractor at the time, from the court proceedings. So much for putative local loyalty.
Though it makes me pretty ill to even recite these lies and smears, I am all too aware of the saying that, repeated often enough, a lie becomes the truth - Lord knows this city has employed it to great effect. As a friend said, "They don't even know what they are talking about, yet the (expletives deleted) never shut up." Who needs this? I ignore it the best I can, but I'm not unaware of the lingering negative effects on me, and sometimes it just becomes too much. There's more than enough cognitive dissonance in my life already, from the contrast between my sweet dog, the number of people who adore her, and the facts on the ground on one side, including a few regrettable moments of error, but no more than that, and the conduct/decisions of the city. Bad enough HRM orchestrated an eviction and a demolition order - rescinded a year later - based on demonstrably false claims that my house was structurally unsafe. (That one remains to be dealt with in yet another judicial review...!)
Sadly, this muck, with all the pain it causes - not only me but a number of very caring people - goes largely unchallenged by otherwise respectable individuals who ought to know better. A lot better. After all, it's not as though HRM (or the SPCA, for that matter) have a spotless record of consistently and fairly enforcing the law. Nor am I the only one to raise issues about the inadequacy and constitutionality of said law and its enforcement. The difference is, unlike others, I was forced into this when my dog was seized to be killed (largely on the strength of a fictitious law regarding muzzle order violations), and the city refused to let her go, no matter what. And by "what", I mean, everything from lack of sufficient reason, to petitions, letters, behavioral assessments, and a supreme court order quashing the euthanasia order.
Making me the scapegoat when the harm and injury are there for anybody to see is very sad, very shameful, and nothing to be proud of. The main reason they seized her again, according to court statements from animal services and the prosecutor, is that I had the audacity to temporarily leave town with her, simply because like everybody else, I knew they would seize her again, to kill her. (A dispatcher for HRM also told me to take her out of town, but that fact was overlooked in court.) Never mind that this was not called for either time. Never mind that they already lost twice in court. And this time, they didn't exactly "win" either, because for reasons best known to her, instead of ordering them to put Brindi down, the judge dumped everything back in HRM's lap, bringing it all back to July 2008, essentially, when the city made a decision without providing due process or even an investigation.
That court decision is another thing this crew of haters keeps lying about. Unfortunately, they're profiting from some rather unclear reporting. So unclear, in fact, an argument broke out during a recent barbecue where a few guys insisted Brindi is already dead, I'm told. One self-styled animal advocate even told the media that Brindi is kept with other dogs now and is doing just fine, so it must be all my fault that she had any problems in the past. Um, no, sadly, she is strictly isolated from other dogs, and that fact has been known for years.
How I wish a good journalist would finally take it upon themselves to look into the situation in depth and present a coherent, complete picture, preferably without sensationalizing, as the facts are plenty sensational enough.
Meanwhile, Brindi's alive, as far as I know, anyhow. I am missing her more than ever, mourning the loss of another summer, another year, another seven for her. I'm living still with the distant view of the kennel they're keeping her in, located right across the inlet from my window. But I don't dare bring up that torturous aspect in a courtroom. The Kafkaesque task of having to prove the obvious, without benefit of a lawyer, citizenship, or a certain appendage, is challenging enough.
So sorry, no, I am not blocking HRM from doing something, anything, good for Brindi. "Not even remotely." Nobody on earth would be more delighted than I if HRM would give some kind of sign that it is willing to let some intrepid person adopt Brindi, or barring that, that it would consent for Brindi to be fostered, starting right now, to the end of the appeal process. Enough is enough.
(And PS, I dearly hope the city's vet checks her blood levels soon, as a matter of fact.)
at 8/22/2012 07:11:00 PM
fran wants suggestions!!
""Francesca Rogier
I am watching the days of yet another summer tick by, another lost year for Brindi, and I can't help remembering that the HRM prosecutor actually complained last November about the cost of keeping her locked up - something they were doing illegally and without any reason, something they kept doing despite health concerns, something they kept doing while ignoring my pleas to let her come home pending trial, foster her pending trial, or just adopt her out permanently.
Of course, the idea that the city was concerned about the cost was a sick joke. That the lawyer even had the audacity to say it shocked me, and that the judge took it seriously totally floors me. I bet she didn't complain about it when the killer dogs case was adjourned. And, as I find to my chagrin over and over, plenty of adjournments are granted that don't result in a five-month delay. The length of a delay is not my fault as a defendant. For "the Crown" to complain AT ALL about the length of adjournments is totally wrong; the "burden" for delays due to crowded court schedules always falls on the Crown, or is supposed to according to common law.
Isn't it interesting, then, that HRM isn't worried about the cost now? They seems perfectly content to let her languish even longer - all the way up to August 1, and to this day, they were in no hurry to get an assessment as the Judge told them to on June 26; no hurry to make any decision, or even set a date for deciding. It's just unbelievable. And the lack of interest in this in the local media is phenomenal.
The anniversary of the 2008 seizure came and went on July 24. The two-year anniversary of the 2010 seizure is coming fast: Sept. 27. What can be done about that? Does anybody have any suggestions?"""
Well its a bit late now frannie,however my advice or suggestions would of been....Live by the laws of the land and stop making up sick excuses.
My suggestion now would be stop delaying,stop begging for money,get a friggen job,move out of Canada since you hate it so much,go buy a pet rock as you are not a fit person to own any animal.Further no need to fret,spread lies,as Brindi will be re homed regardless of your lies and delaying.
I am watching the days of yet another summer tick by, another lost year for Brindi, and I can't help remembering that the HRM prosecutor actually complained last November about the cost of keeping her locked up - something they were doing illegally and without any reason, something they kept doing despite health concerns, something they kept doing while ignoring my pleas to let her come home pending trial, foster her pending trial, or just adopt her out permanently.
Of course, the idea that the city was concerned about the cost was a sick joke. That the lawyer even had the audacity to say it shocked me, and that the judge took it seriously totally floors me. I bet she didn't complain about it when the killer dogs case was adjourned. And, as I find to my chagrin over and over, plenty of adjournments are granted that don't result in a five-month delay. The length of a delay is not my fault as a defendant. For "the Crown" to complain AT ALL about the length of adjournments is totally wrong; the "burden" for delays due to crowded court schedules always falls on the Crown, or is supposed to according to common law.
Isn't it interesting, then, that HRM isn't worried about the cost now? They seems perfectly content to let her languish even longer - all the way up to August 1, and to this day, they were in no hurry to get an assessment as the Judge told them to on June 26; no hurry to make any decision, or even set a date for deciding. It's just unbelievable. And the lack of interest in this in the local media is phenomenal.
The anniversary of the 2008 seizure came and went on July 24. The two-year anniversary of the 2010 seizure is coming fast: Sept. 27. What can be done about that? Does anybody have any suggestions?"""
Well its a bit late now frannie,however my advice or suggestions would of been....Live by the laws of the land and stop making up sick excuses.
My suggestion now would be stop delaying,stop begging for money,get a friggen job,move out of Canada since you hate it so much,go buy a pet rock as you are not a fit person to own any animal.Further no need to fret,spread lies,as Brindi will be re homed regardless of your lies and delaying.
Tuesday, August 21, 2012
From Fran's Blog:
Here is how fran pulls her scams...don't believe a word of it!!
""Friday, August 10, 2012
0
0
Appeal filed Aug. 1: another marathon begins
The reason the judge told HRM that they must wait to take any action until after August 1 was because that was the last day to file an appeal of any kind before the Supreme Court.
I dearly wish it weren't so, but the outcome of this trial was a very odd twist, not what the law envisages, and certainly not what anybody I know expected. For whatever reason, I really felt the case had been mishandled almost from the start. After waiting until well after the trial was finished, the judge denied the motions I filed - including a motion to dismiss the charges, based on several grounds related to constitutional rights. Right or wrong, that motion was to be heard on the first day of court, March 2, and would have been presented orally, and presumably, decided on the same day. Instead, I ended up filing it in writing, to my great dismay.
Though I had prepared to present this motion with a lot of effort, a lot of notes, and a lot of brain cells, March 2 was a very wintery day that kept the tow trucks very busy, and my car went out of control not far from my house, skidding and swerving around a curve on solid ice. Thankfully, a street sign stopped it from flipping into a 12 foot drop at the side of the road, the opposite side, where there was no ditch to speak of, just the drop, and a few trees. I knew I'd be late, but not how late: it took an hour and 15 minutes for CAA to arrive, then another 45 minutes to free my car, which had lodged against the sign with the front tires pitched up in the air. It was not easy getting out of the car and I wrenched my lower back in the process, possibly also in the swerve (I don't know, but it hurt badly enough to force me to a clinic by the end of the day, where a doctor gave me some serious muscle relaxants).
I phoned the court right away, and again 45 minutes later; just to be sure the message got through, I enlisted the aid of a neighbor to call as well. The first time, a clerk answered; the next few times, I got voicemail. I left more messages for the judge and the prosecutor that it would be some time and I would keep them posted, also gave my cell number for a reply if they wished. By the time the tow operator arrived, I was frozen solid, and went home to warm up brielfy and call the court and HRM once more to let them know I was on my way. I called the HRM legal office as well, getting voicemail again. Unfortunately, once on the road, a red light told me I had to stop for gas. The tow operator had run my engine for a half hour or more in the process of extricating the car and used it all up! So it was around midday when I got to Dartmouth Provincial Court. Having received no calls, and being greeted without a word by a few friends, I was totally unprepared to hear them say they had heard testimony and were "on a break" - a break from what?? What testimony? I had no idea that the judge had decided to go ahead with the trial itself, dispensing with my oral motion to dismiss the charges, which, if successful, would have ended the trial before it began.
I was already shaken from the near-miss and the cold; now I was in utter shock. Learning that I could submit the motion in written form was a bit of a relief, but it changed everything. Now I was in a very scary situation. Witnesses had already testified, and evidence had been admitted to which I had intended to object (as I indicated in my preliminary brief). And also, the judge, who held a vior dire in my absence but neglected to mention that, was now requiring me to cross-examine two witnesses whose original testimony I hadn't heard. She simply said, "Well, you have their statements, I presume?" - meaning their 2010 statements to the HRM animal control officer and the RCMP (which are on BrindiJustice.com). Yes, I had them, I had read them as well, but of course, my memory of them was hardly fresh. Back in 2010, two days were set aside for this trial, and my understanding was that the first one was one for my "charter" motion, the second, on March 16, for the trial itself, if the motion failed.
So of course, I had focused on the motion presentation. But now the judge and prosecutor shrugged off the whole idea behind the schedule; in fact, the prosecutor had called five witnesses to appear at 9:30 - the time I was to present my motion. I had warned her in advance that they would not be needed, because my presentation would take time, plus with replies and rebuttals, it was unlikely they could be called. But she called them in anyway. The judge told me that she was told I had said I'd arrive at 10:45 am, and so she offered to start the trial. I had never said anything of the kind, in fact, simply because I had no idea when the tow truck would arrive, but I had the feeling the judge doubted my word, preferring to believe whatever person had given her that information. She scolded me, in fact, and gave me the impression she was more concerned about the witnesses than the proceedings, or, I have to say, my condition. (By this time my back was starting to hurt a lot, and I had to ask for permission to sit.)
So one thing let to another, far too many things to recount here. Suffice it to say, things went wildly, more twists happened, and nothing flowed in the usual manner, even taking into consideration that these charges normally took up a half-hour in court, not two days. These cases are usually heard within a month or so of the incident, not 16 months. In fact, one experienced court observer was stunned enough to say, "They did everything backwards!"
By the next court appearance on March 16, I had submitted the written motion to dismiss and prepared a few more. My trainer, Susan Jordan, testified, and I cross-examined two more Crown witnesses. Then, though I didn't even get the chance to change my not guilty plea - or even know by then whether there would be another court day (the judge had said on March 2 that it must end March 16), let alone what her decision would be on the motion to dismiss, I decided to testify, hoping to straighten out a lot of exaggeration and distortion created by the prosecutor. Probably a bad idea, but I don't know what else I could have done under the circumstances. Two lawyers I consulted between the court dates were astonished and supportive of filing a motion to declare a mistrial, which had no chance of succeeding either, but was advisable, they said, as a prelude to an appeal.
An appeal - the very last thing on earth I want, after a trial date set 13 months after an incident, and taking place another five months later due to an adjournment I had to ask for at the last minute because I injured myself two days before the original November date. (A heavy concrete block slipped out of my grip, falling on my own fingers; I moved my hand as fast as I could, but one finger got caught, and a knuckle was split open - hurt like mad, could not think straight for days. As with the ice and the road sign, I had narrowly escaped permanent harm - not enough to satisfy the court that it was a legitimate reason for an adjournment, evidently, as would become clear later, in the judge's oral verdict.)
All this time Brindi was still locked up, unlawfully, as far as I could tell. I was desperate to get her out, haven't even seen her. And though the judge seemed to share that concern, and said the trial must conclude March 16, at the end of that day she announced that it would "continue" May 10. She would review my written motion- which, it has to be said, entailed so much more work than making an oral motion - and, rather than setting another court day for oral arguments/rebuttals from both sides, the prosecutor would have to reply in writing. If I wished, I could rebut that as well. She refused both my request to withdraw the motions altogether, to simply speed things up (this is all in the transcripts, incidentally, and audio recordings), and my plea for her to consider releasing Brindi pending the outcome - in fact, she claimed she did not read the letters the vet had submitted, calling them "hearsay". I believe this was because I had not subpoena'd the vet to come to court, where HRM would have the right to question her - but the fact is, a. it would have caused her a great deal of trouble to leave her practice, and b. she was not testifying to anything related to the charges, but appealing for Brindi to be released pending the outcome, based on health concerns. Also, in terms of a "reliable source" and the definition of hearsay, the vet was no stranger to HRM; the city had been allowing Brindi to visit her clinic on a nearly monthly basis since 2010, and had received numerous reports throughout - even followed her direction.
Even more disconcerting, it was never clear what was going to take place on May 10 - would there be a continued hearing? My attempts to find out, via faxes to the court, led nowhere. I had to prepare for anything and everything, which is of course impossible. In the event, on May 10, there was no more actual "court time". After dismissing my motions (overlooking one as well), the judge simply announced her decisions on the verdicts. Then, rather than set a date for a sentencing hearing, she suddenly decided on a "process" of accepting written submissions only: no more court time, no more opportunity to bring in further witnesses, experts, etc., to be questioned: they would only be able to submit a written statement. It was another mountain of work, and very confusing. And, needless to say, she again set a deadline far into the future, so that Brindi would languish even longer: June 26. I posted about that statement already. Now, on May 10, her reasons for not having a sentencing hearing (which is what was done in the past, and is the norm) seemed rather vague; she made some mention of it all making things easier for me, as opposed to "viva voce" testimony. I don't claim to be good at this stuff, but I had been through an entire trial before, plus the current one, representing myself; I was already accustomed to thinking and speaking on my feet. She even complimented my efforts on March 2, in fact. Then, on June 26, she spoke in a different way about her decision not to hold a sentencing hearing, saying that it was done that way because the trial had already taken up so much time. Two days in court is not exactly a long time, though. And, the 2010 trial (heard by Judge Murphy) took up two court days plus a full day for the sentencing hearing. So this leaves me even more puzzled, to say the least.
And in the end, after all that, the judge didn't really finish her job of deciding. She left half the decision up to HRM.
So I have filed an appeal of both the verdict and the sentence - the verdicts of guilty on charges of owning a dog that attacks, owning a dog that runs at large, and violating a muzzle order; the sentence of fines for me, and turning Brindi over to HRM to presumably "assess" in the "usual" way - expressly avoiding an actual qualified trainer in favor of pound personnel (although this would not alter the results, in Brindi's case, since they all like her).
The hitch is, the judge neglected to set a deadline for HRM to do an assessment and make a decision - a decision that it's already made many times over, of course, choosing not to have Brindi assessed at any juncture.
So - no deadline for HRM, no decision made, at least, not in the five weeks or so between June 26 and August 1, other than the decision to not make the assessment results - yet pending - known to me and/or the publi (note - the Aug. 1 deadline set by the appeal period restricted HRM from either giving Brindi to somebody else or putting her down; it did not prevent the city from having her assessed during that time.)
Are you tired yet? I sure am. Pretty despondent, too. I have read enough to know that appeals are very complicated: the majority of them, - maybe 70%? - fail, and worst of all, they typically take a long time. So now the question is, will a Supreme Court justice be kind enough to allow Brindi to be fostered while the appeal unfolds over the coming months?? I don't know, but I plan to find out, hopefully by the end of this month. In the meantime, HRM has said it would hold off on taking any action (yet undetermined anyhow) on Brindi.
September 27 will mark the second year of her second detention. She was four when they first took her; now she is nine. I watch other dog cases unfold with astonishment, such as the two pit bulls released last February after a judge decided that three witnesses were not enough to identify them as the killers of a shih tzu "without a reasonable doubt" (not a usual test for such things, by the way). I just don't know what to think anymore.
at 8/10/2012 09:37:00 PM """"""
""Friday, August 10, 2012
0
0
Appeal filed Aug. 1: another marathon begins
The reason the judge told HRM that they must wait to take any action until after August 1 was because that was the last day to file an appeal of any kind before the Supreme Court.
I dearly wish it weren't so, but the outcome of this trial was a very odd twist, not what the law envisages, and certainly not what anybody I know expected. For whatever reason, I really felt the case had been mishandled almost from the start. After waiting until well after the trial was finished, the judge denied the motions I filed - including a motion to dismiss the charges, based on several grounds related to constitutional rights. Right or wrong, that motion was to be heard on the first day of court, March 2, and would have been presented orally, and presumably, decided on the same day. Instead, I ended up filing it in writing, to my great dismay.
Though I had prepared to present this motion with a lot of effort, a lot of notes, and a lot of brain cells, March 2 was a very wintery day that kept the tow trucks very busy, and my car went out of control not far from my house, skidding and swerving around a curve on solid ice. Thankfully, a street sign stopped it from flipping into a 12 foot drop at the side of the road, the opposite side, where there was no ditch to speak of, just the drop, and a few trees. I knew I'd be late, but not how late: it took an hour and 15 minutes for CAA to arrive, then another 45 minutes to free my car, which had lodged against the sign with the front tires pitched up in the air. It was not easy getting out of the car and I wrenched my lower back in the process, possibly also in the swerve (I don't know, but it hurt badly enough to force me to a clinic by the end of the day, where a doctor gave me some serious muscle relaxants).
I phoned the court right away, and again 45 minutes later; just to be sure the message got through, I enlisted the aid of a neighbor to call as well. The first time, a clerk answered; the next few times, I got voicemail. I left more messages for the judge and the prosecutor that it would be some time and I would keep them posted, also gave my cell number for a reply if they wished. By the time the tow operator arrived, I was frozen solid, and went home to warm up brielfy and call the court and HRM once more to let them know I was on my way. I called the HRM legal office as well, getting voicemail again. Unfortunately, once on the road, a red light told me I had to stop for gas. The tow operator had run my engine for a half hour or more in the process of extricating the car and used it all up! So it was around midday when I got to Dartmouth Provincial Court. Having received no calls, and being greeted without a word by a few friends, I was totally unprepared to hear them say they had heard testimony and were "on a break" - a break from what?? What testimony? I had no idea that the judge had decided to go ahead with the trial itself, dispensing with my oral motion to dismiss the charges, which, if successful, would have ended the trial before it began.
I was already shaken from the near-miss and the cold; now I was in utter shock. Learning that I could submit the motion in written form was a bit of a relief, but it changed everything. Now I was in a very scary situation. Witnesses had already testified, and evidence had been admitted to which I had intended to object (as I indicated in my preliminary brief). And also, the judge, who held a vior dire in my absence but neglected to mention that, was now requiring me to cross-examine two witnesses whose original testimony I hadn't heard. She simply said, "Well, you have their statements, I presume?" - meaning their 2010 statements to the HRM animal control officer and the RCMP (which are on BrindiJustice.com). Yes, I had them, I had read them as well, but of course, my memory of them was hardly fresh. Back in 2010, two days were set aside for this trial, and my understanding was that the first one was one for my "charter" motion, the second, on March 16, for the trial itself, if the motion failed.
So of course, I had focused on the motion presentation. But now the judge and prosecutor shrugged off the whole idea behind the schedule; in fact, the prosecutor had called five witnesses to appear at 9:30 - the time I was to present my motion. I had warned her in advance that they would not be needed, because my presentation would take time, plus with replies and rebuttals, it was unlikely they could be called. But she called them in anyway. The judge told me that she was told I had said I'd arrive at 10:45 am, and so she offered to start the trial. I had never said anything of the kind, in fact, simply because I had no idea when the tow truck would arrive, but I had the feeling the judge doubted my word, preferring to believe whatever person had given her that information. She scolded me, in fact, and gave me the impression she was more concerned about the witnesses than the proceedings, or, I have to say, my condition. (By this time my back was starting to hurt a lot, and I had to ask for permission to sit.)
So one thing let to another, far too many things to recount here. Suffice it to say, things went wildly, more twists happened, and nothing flowed in the usual manner, even taking into consideration that these charges normally took up a half-hour in court, not two days. These cases are usually heard within a month or so of the incident, not 16 months. In fact, one experienced court observer was stunned enough to say, "They did everything backwards!"
By the next court appearance on March 16, I had submitted the written motion to dismiss and prepared a few more. My trainer, Susan Jordan, testified, and I cross-examined two more Crown witnesses. Then, though I didn't even get the chance to change my not guilty plea - or even know by then whether there would be another court day (the judge had said on March 2 that it must end March 16), let alone what her decision would be on the motion to dismiss, I decided to testify, hoping to straighten out a lot of exaggeration and distortion created by the prosecutor. Probably a bad idea, but I don't know what else I could have done under the circumstances. Two lawyers I consulted between the court dates were astonished and supportive of filing a motion to declare a mistrial, which had no chance of succeeding either, but was advisable, they said, as a prelude to an appeal.
An appeal - the very last thing on earth I want, after a trial date set 13 months after an incident, and taking place another five months later due to an adjournment I had to ask for at the last minute because I injured myself two days before the original November date. (A heavy concrete block slipped out of my grip, falling on my own fingers; I moved my hand as fast as I could, but one finger got caught, and a knuckle was split open - hurt like mad, could not think straight for days. As with the ice and the road sign, I had narrowly escaped permanent harm - not enough to satisfy the court that it was a legitimate reason for an adjournment, evidently, as would become clear later, in the judge's oral verdict.)
All this time Brindi was still locked up, unlawfully, as far as I could tell. I was desperate to get her out, haven't even seen her. And though the judge seemed to share that concern, and said the trial must conclude March 16, at the end of that day she announced that it would "continue" May 10. She would review my written motion- which, it has to be said, entailed so much more work than making an oral motion - and, rather than setting another court day for oral arguments/rebuttals from both sides, the prosecutor would have to reply in writing. If I wished, I could rebut that as well. She refused both my request to withdraw the motions altogether, to simply speed things up (this is all in the transcripts, incidentally, and audio recordings), and my plea for her to consider releasing Brindi pending the outcome - in fact, she claimed she did not read the letters the vet had submitted, calling them "hearsay". I believe this was because I had not subpoena'd the vet to come to court, where HRM would have the right to question her - but the fact is, a. it would have caused her a great deal of trouble to leave her practice, and b. she was not testifying to anything related to the charges, but appealing for Brindi to be released pending the outcome, based on health concerns. Also, in terms of a "reliable source" and the definition of hearsay, the vet was no stranger to HRM; the city had been allowing Brindi to visit her clinic on a nearly monthly basis since 2010, and had received numerous reports throughout - even followed her direction.
Even more disconcerting, it was never clear what was going to take place on May 10 - would there be a continued hearing? My attempts to find out, via faxes to the court, led nowhere. I had to prepare for anything and everything, which is of course impossible. In the event, on May 10, there was no more actual "court time". After dismissing my motions (overlooking one as well), the judge simply announced her decisions on the verdicts. Then, rather than set a date for a sentencing hearing, she suddenly decided on a "process" of accepting written submissions only: no more court time, no more opportunity to bring in further witnesses, experts, etc., to be questioned: they would only be able to submit a written statement. It was another mountain of work, and very confusing. And, needless to say, she again set a deadline far into the future, so that Brindi would languish even longer: June 26. I posted about that statement already. Now, on May 10, her reasons for not having a sentencing hearing (which is what was done in the past, and is the norm) seemed rather vague; she made some mention of it all making things easier for me, as opposed to "viva voce" testimony. I don't claim to be good at this stuff, but I had been through an entire trial before, plus the current one, representing myself; I was already accustomed to thinking and speaking on my feet. She even complimented my efforts on March 2, in fact. Then, on June 26, she spoke in a different way about her decision not to hold a sentencing hearing, saying that it was done that way because the trial had already taken up so much time. Two days in court is not exactly a long time, though. And, the 2010 trial (heard by Judge Murphy) took up two court days plus a full day for the sentencing hearing. So this leaves me even more puzzled, to say the least.
And in the end, after all that, the judge didn't really finish her job of deciding. She left half the decision up to HRM.
So I have filed an appeal of both the verdict and the sentence - the verdicts of guilty on charges of owning a dog that attacks, owning a dog that runs at large, and violating a muzzle order; the sentence of fines for me, and turning Brindi over to HRM to presumably "assess" in the "usual" way - expressly avoiding an actual qualified trainer in favor of pound personnel (although this would not alter the results, in Brindi's case, since they all like her).
The hitch is, the judge neglected to set a deadline for HRM to do an assessment and make a decision - a decision that it's already made many times over, of course, choosing not to have Brindi assessed at any juncture.
So - no deadline for HRM, no decision made, at least, not in the five weeks or so between June 26 and August 1, other than the decision to not make the assessment results - yet pending - known to me and/or the publi (note - the Aug. 1 deadline set by the appeal period restricted HRM from either giving Brindi to somebody else or putting her down; it did not prevent the city from having her assessed during that time.)
Are you tired yet? I sure am. Pretty despondent, too. I have read enough to know that appeals are very complicated: the majority of them, - maybe 70%? - fail, and worst of all, they typically take a long time. So now the question is, will a Supreme Court justice be kind enough to allow Brindi to be fostered while the appeal unfolds over the coming months?? I don't know, but I plan to find out, hopefully by the end of this month. In the meantime, HRM has said it would hold off on taking any action (yet undetermined anyhow) on Brindi.
September 27 will mark the second year of her second detention. She was four when they first took her; now she is nine. I watch other dog cases unfold with astonishment, such as the two pit bulls released last February after a judge decided that three witnesses were not enough to identify them as the killers of a shih tzu "without a reasonable doubt" (not a usual test for such things, by the way). I just don't know what to think anymore.
at 8/10/2012 09:37:00 PM """"""
This was sent to me by a reader of this blog
I will leave it up to my readers to comment on this taken off Free Brindi Blog:
""Temperament Test Results
“Brindi”
Wednesday, June 13, 2012
Homeward Bound City Pound
The purpose of a temperament test is to establish the predisposition of a dog’s behaviour’s under stress when behavioural concerns are most likely to present and ascertain the dog’s strengths and weaknesses. As it is the job of a shelter to minimize the stress factors on a dog in confinement and rarely make a dog do something she doesn’t want to do. The tests are designed to measure what happens when the dog is required to deal with a variety of situations similar to the ‘real world’ environment under the owner’s leadership.
The dog, Brindi, was transported from her long-term care shelter by the Owner of the shelter. She has travelled with her in the car to the vets and to the Homeward Bound Shelter on previous occasions. For a perfectly set test, it would have been more accurate to not have moved the dog as she was ‘energized’ slightly by the unusual activity. To counter this concern and in order to carry out the test, Brindi was taken into the evaluation room at 11:00 a.m. and placed in a kennel. The muzzle and leash were removed. The door was closed and she was left to settle in.
Tester (Susan Jordan) and Observer entered the room at 11:38 a.m. The necessary tools for testing were gathered and testing commenced at 11:45 am.
General observations: Upon entry the dog wagged her tail and whimpered in response to our presence. She settled quickly when no attention was directed to her. She was taken by the Tester from the crate with the use of the cotton slip leash.
1. Sociability:
Phase 1: Taking the dog out of the kennel to the testing area and ignoring the dog. Response was “high” – took less than one minute to respond and seek the Human attention.
Phase 2*: Sitting down, ignoring the dog. Response was “high” – the dog checked in and out several times, and then put her paws on the lap within 40 seconds seeking attention.
Phase 3: Backstroking x 3 repetitions (no verbal interaction). Both during and after the strokes, the dog responded at a “high” level, orienting and seeking the attention.
Phase 4: An affectionate interaction (20 seconds of direct attention). Initially, Brindi responded quickly and with interest. She did disengage and move away before the 20 seconds had elapsed. This is a “medium” level response.
* During Phase 2, the dog urinated on the test room floor without offering any signals. This shows, due to long-term confinement in a kennel, that the housetraining skills have become weak.
Conclusion: (Sociability): Brindi exhibits normal to high need for human interactions and desires the bond/connection in the Human/dog relationship. She does not show any measureable signs that indicate concern or aggression towards Humans.
2. Dominance:
Phase 1: Teeth exam level one (amateurish handling). Response was medium to submissive as the Tester was able to complete five repetitions, but the dog struggled mildly each time.
Phase 2: Teeth exam level two (stronger handler skills revealed). Response was medium to submissive as the tester was able to complete five repetitions, but the dog struggled mildly each time. Remained social.
Phase 3: Safe Hug (reaction to hugs/close contact): First attempt to execute “vet safe” hug was unsuccessful – the dog backed away. On the second attempt, she struggled slightly, and then settled. Body was a little stiff, but tolerant. This is a medium level reaction. She was still comfortable with close contact after the hug and did not move away.
Conclusion: (Dominance): Brindi is well within the acceptable norms of canine response to these tests. She does not exhibit any reason for concerns in this area.
3. Play and Prey Response:
Phase 1: Tug and competitiveness. Brindi was happy to chase the squeaky toy, but did not engage actively in the tug component. Fleeting eye contact, calm grip. When reaching or the toy, she showed submission by rolling and exposing her belly and portraying an eye roll/fearful expression.
Phase 2: Retrieve. Brindi was only mildly interested in fetching the toy. She was only mildly competitive in toy possession.
Phase 3: Calming down after play. The dog disengaged quickly, ready to move onto another activity.
Conclusion: (Play and Prey Drive): Brindi measures on the low end of this canine scale.
4. Food and Aggression:
Phase 1: Give the dog a chew toy. Brindi was given a piece of a “pig’s ear” (a highly valued dog treat). She was permitted to engage with it before the tester attempted to remove it from her possession. She responded at mid-level with turning/chewing but there was no growling.
Phase 2: The food bowl. The bowl was filled with a half can of wet (high value) food. Brindi was permitted to become fully engaged in the consumption. Tester tries to touch dog, move bowl, gently “interfere’ with eating. Brindi’s tail was wagging, but she was freezing over the bowl, breathing faster and pushing it away from the Tester. The moment she was finished, she relaxed. This is a medium level response.
Conclusion: (Food and aggression): Brindi has developed some mild resourcing behaviour due to extended confinement.
Mental Sensitivity:
A loud clap is delivered behind the dog when she was distracted. This was complicated by the fact that Brindi stopped and had a bowel movement (no signals given) in the room. She did startle and move away from the stool.
Conclusion: (Mental sensitivity): This result is not conclusive, but the response is mild lack of sensitivity to surroundings.
Reactions to Strangers:
The Tester and dog were positioned facing the door. The Tester is to ‘act anxious” when the stranger knocks/enters/exits. Brindi had a medium to low response (good). She stared, stiffened and held a slightly conflicted position. As soon as the woman exited the room, the dog returned complete focus to the Tester.
Conclusion: (Reactions to strangers): Brindi’s results are indicative that she is comfortable with strangers.
Reactions to Strangers with Dogs:
Once again, Tester and dog are positioned facing the door. Tester gives stranger/dog permission to enter but continues to act anxious. Brindi began to escalate upon hearing the dog outside. Upon entry, she shows signs of anticipation (whining, pulling, lip licking, whiskers forward, body animation.) She was not able to stay contained beside the Tester without leash control. When stranger/dog exited, Brindi’s posture did change and she displayed a “prey bow”. There were no “dog friendly calming” signals displayed and she needed a minute to calm herself. After about 50 – 60 seconds, the dog was able to reorient back from her alert state to both Tester and Observer.
Conclusion: (Reactions to strangers with dogs): Extended isolation has been detrimental to the social skills, play and calming signals and acceptance of a dog moving away.
The test was concluded at 12:20 p.m.
Overall Conclusions:
1. Sociability: Brindi exhibits normal to high need for human interactions and desires the bond/connection in the Human/dog relationship. She does not show any measureable signs that indicate concern or aggression towards Humans.
2. Dominance: Brindi is well within the acceptable norms of canine response to these tests. She does not exhibit any reason for concerns in this area.
3. Play and Prey Response:
4. Food and Aggression: Brindi has developed some mild resourcing behaviour due to extended confinement.
5. Mental Sensitivity: This result is not conclusive, but the response is mild lack of sensitivity to surroundings.
6. Reactions to Strangers: Brindi’s results are indicative that she is comfortable with strangers.
7. Reactions to Strangers with Dogs: Extended isolation has been detrimental to the social skills, play and calming signals and acceptance of a dog moving away.*
If this was a dog from the general dog shelter population, these test results would indicate that the dog could be placed on the adoption floor with a few provisions for specific training. These would include housetraining, food guarding exercises, handling exercises and heavy dog-dog socialization training.
There were no significant “flags” that would preclude this dog from being adopted in to a home.
Knowing the background for this dog in more detail, these tests merely substantiate that the dog is not dog-human aggressive, she seeks human social bonding, is not dominant in nature and has only mild play/prey drive. The issue of territorial guarding is isolated and can be modified.
It is the Humans who have helped shape Brindi into the dog she is today, especially considering the length of confinement over the past four years (in addition to the original two years prior to her adoption to Ms. Rogier). It is the Humans who can also help her to overcome and modify her current behavioural issues.
Susan Jordan
Paws for Family and Friends
Canine Behavioural Consultant / Professional Pet Dog Trainer
http://freebrindi.blogspot.ca/p/temperament-test-results-and-statement.html""
""Temperament Test Results
“Brindi”
Wednesday, June 13, 2012
Homeward Bound City Pound
The purpose of a temperament test is to establish the predisposition of a dog’s behaviour’s under stress when behavioural concerns are most likely to present and ascertain the dog’s strengths and weaknesses. As it is the job of a shelter to minimize the stress factors on a dog in confinement and rarely make a dog do something she doesn’t want to do. The tests are designed to measure what happens when the dog is required to deal with a variety of situations similar to the ‘real world’ environment under the owner’s leadership.
The dog, Brindi, was transported from her long-term care shelter by the Owner of the shelter. She has travelled with her in the car to the vets and to the Homeward Bound Shelter on previous occasions. For a perfectly set test, it would have been more accurate to not have moved the dog as she was ‘energized’ slightly by the unusual activity. To counter this concern and in order to carry out the test, Brindi was taken into the evaluation room at 11:00 a.m. and placed in a kennel. The muzzle and leash were removed. The door was closed and she was left to settle in.
Tester (Susan Jordan) and Observer entered the room at 11:38 a.m. The necessary tools for testing were gathered and testing commenced at 11:45 am.
General observations: Upon entry the dog wagged her tail and whimpered in response to our presence. She settled quickly when no attention was directed to her. She was taken by the Tester from the crate with the use of the cotton slip leash.
1. Sociability:
Phase 1: Taking the dog out of the kennel to the testing area and ignoring the dog. Response was “high” – took less than one minute to respond and seek the Human attention.
Phase 2*: Sitting down, ignoring the dog. Response was “high” – the dog checked in and out several times, and then put her paws on the lap within 40 seconds seeking attention.
Phase 3: Backstroking x 3 repetitions (no verbal interaction). Both during and after the strokes, the dog responded at a “high” level, orienting and seeking the attention.
Phase 4: An affectionate interaction (20 seconds of direct attention). Initially, Brindi responded quickly and with interest. She did disengage and move away before the 20 seconds had elapsed. This is a “medium” level response.
* During Phase 2, the dog urinated on the test room floor without offering any signals. This shows, due to long-term confinement in a kennel, that the housetraining skills have become weak.
Conclusion: (Sociability): Brindi exhibits normal to high need for human interactions and desires the bond/connection in the Human/dog relationship. She does not show any measureable signs that indicate concern or aggression towards Humans.
2. Dominance:
Phase 1: Teeth exam level one (amateurish handling). Response was medium to submissive as the Tester was able to complete five repetitions, but the dog struggled mildly each time.
Phase 2: Teeth exam level two (stronger handler skills revealed). Response was medium to submissive as the tester was able to complete five repetitions, but the dog struggled mildly each time. Remained social.
Phase 3: Safe Hug (reaction to hugs/close contact): First attempt to execute “vet safe” hug was unsuccessful – the dog backed away. On the second attempt, she struggled slightly, and then settled. Body was a little stiff, but tolerant. This is a medium level reaction. She was still comfortable with close contact after the hug and did not move away.
Conclusion: (Dominance): Brindi is well within the acceptable norms of canine response to these tests. She does not exhibit any reason for concerns in this area.
3. Play and Prey Response:
Phase 1: Tug and competitiveness. Brindi was happy to chase the squeaky toy, but did not engage actively in the tug component. Fleeting eye contact, calm grip. When reaching or the toy, she showed submission by rolling and exposing her belly and portraying an eye roll/fearful expression.
Phase 2: Retrieve. Brindi was only mildly interested in fetching the toy. She was only mildly competitive in toy possession.
Phase 3: Calming down after play. The dog disengaged quickly, ready to move onto another activity.
Conclusion: (Play and Prey Drive): Brindi measures on the low end of this canine scale.
4. Food and Aggression:
Phase 1: Give the dog a chew toy. Brindi was given a piece of a “pig’s ear” (a highly valued dog treat). She was permitted to engage with it before the tester attempted to remove it from her possession. She responded at mid-level with turning/chewing but there was no growling.
Phase 2: The food bowl. The bowl was filled with a half can of wet (high value) food. Brindi was permitted to become fully engaged in the consumption. Tester tries to touch dog, move bowl, gently “interfere’ with eating. Brindi’s tail was wagging, but she was freezing over the bowl, breathing faster and pushing it away from the Tester. The moment she was finished, she relaxed. This is a medium level response.
Conclusion: (Food and aggression): Brindi has developed some mild resourcing behaviour due to extended confinement.
Mental Sensitivity:
A loud clap is delivered behind the dog when she was distracted. This was complicated by the fact that Brindi stopped and had a bowel movement (no signals given) in the room. She did startle and move away from the stool.
Conclusion: (Mental sensitivity): This result is not conclusive, but the response is mild lack of sensitivity to surroundings.
Reactions to Strangers:
The Tester and dog were positioned facing the door. The Tester is to ‘act anxious” when the stranger knocks/enters/exits. Brindi had a medium to low response (good). She stared, stiffened and held a slightly conflicted position. As soon as the woman exited the room, the dog returned complete focus to the Tester.
Conclusion: (Reactions to strangers): Brindi’s results are indicative that she is comfortable with strangers.
Reactions to Strangers with Dogs:
Once again, Tester and dog are positioned facing the door. Tester gives stranger/dog permission to enter but continues to act anxious. Brindi began to escalate upon hearing the dog outside. Upon entry, she shows signs of anticipation (whining, pulling, lip licking, whiskers forward, body animation.) She was not able to stay contained beside the Tester without leash control. When stranger/dog exited, Brindi’s posture did change and she displayed a “prey bow”. There were no “dog friendly calming” signals displayed and she needed a minute to calm herself. After about 50 – 60 seconds, the dog was able to reorient back from her alert state to both Tester and Observer.
Conclusion: (Reactions to strangers with dogs): Extended isolation has been detrimental to the social skills, play and calming signals and acceptance of a dog moving away.
The test was concluded at 12:20 p.m.
Overall Conclusions:
1. Sociability: Brindi exhibits normal to high need for human interactions and desires the bond/connection in the Human/dog relationship. She does not show any measureable signs that indicate concern or aggression towards Humans.
2. Dominance: Brindi is well within the acceptable norms of canine response to these tests. She does not exhibit any reason for concerns in this area.
3. Play and Prey Response:
4. Food and Aggression: Brindi has developed some mild resourcing behaviour due to extended confinement.
5. Mental Sensitivity: This result is not conclusive, but the response is mild lack of sensitivity to surroundings.
6. Reactions to Strangers: Brindi’s results are indicative that she is comfortable with strangers.
7. Reactions to Strangers with Dogs: Extended isolation has been detrimental to the social skills, play and calming signals and acceptance of a dog moving away.*
If this was a dog from the general dog shelter population, these test results would indicate that the dog could be placed on the adoption floor with a few provisions for specific training. These would include housetraining, food guarding exercises, handling exercises and heavy dog-dog socialization training.
There were no significant “flags” that would preclude this dog from being adopted in to a home.
Knowing the background for this dog in more detail, these tests merely substantiate that the dog is not dog-human aggressive, she seeks human social bonding, is not dominant in nature and has only mild play/prey drive. The issue of territorial guarding is isolated and can be modified.
It is the Humans who have helped shape Brindi into the dog she is today, especially considering the length of confinement over the past four years (in addition to the original two years prior to her adoption to Ms. Rogier). It is the Humans who can also help her to overcome and modify her current behavioural issues.
Susan Jordan
Paws for Family and Friends
Canine Behavioural Consultant / Professional Pet Dog Trainer
http://freebrindi.blogspot.ca/p/temperament-test-results-and-statement.html""
Well,Well lots of developments in past 2 weeks:
Well,for one reason or another I have not said anything for 2 weeks,however I think its about time I crawled out from under my rock,and brought everyone up to date.
most of you know that Fran is delaying Brindi, (HER X DOG) from being sent to a forever home,by appealing her last court case which she lost was fined the min of 600 bucks and brindi was turned over to HRM,and would of been re homed by now,but Frannie seen it not for the good of her mutt,but as a lost meal ticket for herself.
There are several groups set up all by frannie to raise funds for an appeal,which as she knows is a lost cause,as she has no LEGAL grounds, I have searched and found that her suckers donated 600 bucks in 5 days now this has been going on for weeks,so dare I say she has pulled in maybe 10 times that,however I will find out and give actual amount in due course; now that is only one fund raiser she now selling t shirts,has a separate pay pal account and a few other scams.
Now i also have noted that Ms SFB,aka fran seems to have lost a lot of support in the past 2 weeks,people are starting to wake up,and realize that not only is this woman nuts she also is a scammer,and her main source of income for the past 4 years has been her poor x dog;even though she is healthy,can work,is educated,(so she says) and also has a web site where she charges 50 bucks an hour to translate, so please help me whats wrong with this picture?
About 6 weeks ago fran claimed she had landed status in canada,however yesterday she changed her tune is an american in a foreign country...wake up people....its just another scam of getting $ out of you.
now a heads up;fran has many AKA'S main one now is Debbie Mcdonald,and she also using Robert Riley's account on face book,since she has lost so much support in the past she will pull whatever she can to feed her face,except WORK.....and I feel sorry for all the suckers that are sending her funds that they probably can't afford.
Now I can link you to various FB groups,twitter accounts,blogs etc, however take some time and do a google search,the above is all on public social chats like FB her blog,and twitter,so no need to take my word for it,in fact with a bit of digging God knows what you will pull up; I just touched the tip of the iceburg....MORE TO FOLLOW AS TIME ALLOWS......
most of you know that Fran is delaying Brindi, (HER X DOG) from being sent to a forever home,by appealing her last court case which she lost was fined the min of 600 bucks and brindi was turned over to HRM,and would of been re homed by now,but Frannie seen it not for the good of her mutt,but as a lost meal ticket for herself.
There are several groups set up all by frannie to raise funds for an appeal,which as she knows is a lost cause,as she has no LEGAL grounds, I have searched and found that her suckers donated 600 bucks in 5 days now this has been going on for weeks,so dare I say she has pulled in maybe 10 times that,however I will find out and give actual amount in due course; now that is only one fund raiser she now selling t shirts,has a separate pay pal account and a few other scams.
Now i also have noted that Ms SFB,aka fran seems to have lost a lot of support in the past 2 weeks,people are starting to wake up,and realize that not only is this woman nuts she also is a scammer,and her main source of income for the past 4 years has been her poor x dog;even though she is healthy,can work,is educated,(so she says) and also has a web site where she charges 50 bucks an hour to translate, so please help me whats wrong with this picture?
About 6 weeks ago fran claimed she had landed status in canada,however yesterday she changed her tune is an american in a foreign country...wake up people....its just another scam of getting $ out of you.
now a heads up;fran has many AKA'S main one now is Debbie Mcdonald,and she also using Robert Riley's account on face book,since she has lost so much support in the past she will pull whatever she can to feed her face,except WORK.....and I feel sorry for all the suckers that are sending her funds that they probably can't afford.
Now I can link you to various FB groups,twitter accounts,blogs etc, however take some time and do a google search,the above is all on public social chats like FB her blog,and twitter,so no need to take my word for it,in fact with a bit of digging God knows what you will pull up; I just touched the tip of the iceburg....MORE TO FOLLOW AS TIME ALLOWS......
Monday, August 6, 2012
Want to play some more Fran???
Well its high time that I posted another RANT, I now see that FR lost all rights to her mutt Brindi,and rightly so FR knows that Brindi will be re homed yep its a done deal,a responsible owner has been found.
Now Brindi has attacked ....Lost track of how many dogs.....all of which were on a lead,walking on a public highway, I won't go into details here,but a quick search of google will bring it up....You see FR loves the lime light.
She has been convicted 6 yep 6 times ,yet instead of fessing up and admitting she Fu@@ up she decided to fight it out in court,and resulting of a total of 6 convictions.
Brindi was to be re homed if a suitable home could be found as ordered by the Judge, well a home has been located. Now what does FR want to do??She wants to know where,what,when,who...well FR it ain't going to happen...with your bulling tactics
over the past yrs....ie sending e-mails to employers demanding they be fired...you have proven that you a total arse.The last thing the new owners want to see is you,beating on the door at 3 AM.come beat on mine,I have 3 60 lb dogs that are trained to attack on command..LOL..However they are also trained to NOT go to the road if someone is walking by. FFS its a very simple matter to train a mutt,Fr you are the leader of the dog,it appears to me that you want no one walking on the public road in front of your shack! could it be you have a grow op going on?....LOL
Yep Fran I am writing this for you,since you do not want any e-mail from me,so I guess we chat on public forum, you tried to say twitter was private,and going to sue,well still waiting and that was 2 yrs ago.
Ok lets let forget about the dog for now....FR you have posted many times that you personally do not ask for funding...,.which is pure BS...FFS you you used the fake profile Debbie Macdonald asking for funds...Shit I posted it on By Law....check it out... Now WTF are you going to use the money for? To live on,buy wine,buy paint,or buy potato chips to make you sick....)OMG worse excuse I heard to fail to attend court.
I see you are now selling windows the tax payer paid for 85$ each...want pics..now what else can be fraud?
Oh well thats just the tip of the ice burg,I can go on and on...however I want all people to READ the facts,,before they give 2 cents to this fraud.
BTW FR there was a gathering of over 20 people yesterday who brought in an internet fraud expert and you fit the profile....the walze has only begun.
Now Brindi has attacked ....Lost track of how many dogs.....all of which were on a lead,walking on a public highway, I won't go into details here,but a quick search of google will bring it up....You see FR loves the lime light.
She has been convicted 6 yep 6 times ,yet instead of fessing up and admitting she Fu@@ up she decided to fight it out in court,and resulting of a total of 6 convictions.
Brindi was to be re homed if a suitable home could be found as ordered by the Judge, well a home has been located. Now what does FR want to do??She wants to know where,what,when,who...well FR it ain't going to happen...with your bulling tactics
over the past yrs....ie sending e-mails to employers demanding they be fired...you have proven that you a total arse.The last thing the new owners want to see is you,beating on the door at 3 AM.come beat on mine,I have 3 60 lb dogs that are trained to attack on command..LOL..However they are also trained to NOT go to the road if someone is walking by. FFS its a very simple matter to train a mutt,Fr you are the leader of the dog,it appears to me that you want no one walking on the public road in front of your shack! could it be you have a grow op going on?....LOL
Yep Fran I am writing this for you,since you do not want any e-mail from me,so I guess we chat on public forum, you tried to say twitter was private,and going to sue,well still waiting and that was 2 yrs ago.
Ok lets let forget about the dog for now....FR you have posted many times that you personally do not ask for funding...,.which is pure BS...FFS you you used the fake profile Debbie Macdonald asking for funds...Shit I posted it on By Law....check it out... Now WTF are you going to use the money for? To live on,buy wine,buy paint,or buy potato chips to make you sick....)OMG worse excuse I heard to fail to attend court.
I see you are now selling windows the tax payer paid for 85$ each...want pics..now what else can be fraud?
Oh well thats just the tip of the ice burg,I can go on and on...however I want all people to READ the facts,,before they give 2 cents to this fraud.
BTW FR there was a gathering of over 20 people yesterday who brought in an internet fraud expert and you fit the profile....the walze has only begun.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)