So
once again, Mr. Derek Graham, whose wife owns Wyndenfog kennel, posts a
poorly informed and illogical diatribe, barely concealing his identity.
Not a very seemly thing to do for somebody with a financial interest in
keeping Brindi locked up.
Mr. Graham, nobody in their right mind thinks it's okay to keep a dog in a kennel for years at a time, so you'd be well advised to remain silent rather than post such claptrap. Being an anti-intellectual is the least of it.
First of all, you've not only twisted the truth; you've got key facts completely wrong: Francesca did not ask the judge that "Brindi should either go back to her house, which appears to be borderline habitable and a property that offers no basic, let alone, advanced containment planning for a dog with Brindi’s considerations - or – she should go an adoptive home Mr Rogier’s choosing"! Instead she asked for Brindi to be temporarily fostered pending the outcome of the appeal, to a foster home that is mutually acceptable to HRM, the court, and herself. A very reasonable proposal for a dog that is highly deserving. And you can read her brief here: http://www.brindijustice.com/brindi/Motion…
And she didn't propose these things because her home is not suitable, or because she doesn't have a right to have her dog at home pending trial /appeal - as virtually every other dog owner prosecuted in HRM - but because she didn't want to ask for too much and she was putting her dog's interests first, unlike you.
Secondly, you are very well aware that Brindi's vet and trainer have been saying since 2010 that it's bad for Brindi to be kenneled again after her ordeal at the Metro Shelter from 2008 to 2010. In October 2010, they both asked HRM to send her to Belle Kennel if not to a foster home. That was the least HRM should have done, as according to our legal advisors it was completely outside of the law to lock Brindi up month after month. And you, sir, and your wife, are complicit in that action.
And overall, neither you nor HRM has a leg to stand on. Five positive assessments say Brindi should be either at home with Francesca or in an otherwise suitable home. Ms. Jordan testified that she finds Francesca a very responsible owner. Back in 2008 Francesca proposed the very conditions that a judge put in place two years later. Too bad HRM didn't accept them in the first place, so that Brindi didn't have to suffer.
Why would Dr. Larkin and Susan Jordan go out on a limb unless they were sure? Both Larkin and Jordan say that long-term kenneling puts her health AND her temperament at risk. The latter is backed up by a recent study: http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/berg…
For the record, a government contractor operating without a business license for two years at a stretch doesn't exactly add to your wife's credibility. More importantly, the veterinary regulations of Canada designate a 3x4 space as the MINIMUM for a medium-sized dog - for SHORT-TERM housing. Not long term!! There's no door to ward off the elements, and the concrete is dingy and cracked. What a sad prospect for a sweet dog to be in such a place, and viewing your family through the window is not positive visual stimulation - if anything it would taunt a companion animal. Letting her out twice a day for 20 minutes - big deal!!
You and your wife are co-responsible for this tragedy, sir. Under the law Wyndenfog is just as liable as HRM. But you are evidently as calloused as the knees of your "ideal woman".
For a member of the Canadian Armed Forces, your character sure leaves a lot to be desired.
Mr. Graham, nobody in their right mind thinks it's okay to keep a dog in a kennel for years at a time, so you'd be well advised to remain silent rather than post such claptrap. Being an anti-intellectual is the least of it.
First of all, you've not only twisted the truth; you've got key facts completely wrong: Francesca did not ask the judge that "Brindi should either go back to her house, which appears to be borderline habitable and a property that offers no basic, let alone, advanced containment planning for a dog with Brindi’s considerations - or – she should go an adoptive home Mr Rogier’s choosing"! Instead she asked for Brindi to be temporarily fostered pending the outcome of the appeal, to a foster home that is mutually acceptable to HRM, the court, and herself. A very reasonable proposal for a dog that is highly deserving. And you can read her brief here: http://www.brindijustice.com/brindi/Motion…
And she didn't propose these things because her home is not suitable, or because she doesn't have a right to have her dog at home pending trial /appeal - as virtually every other dog owner prosecuted in HRM - but because she didn't want to ask for too much and she was putting her dog's interests first, unlike you.
Secondly, you are very well aware that Brindi's vet and trainer have been saying since 2010 that it's bad for Brindi to be kenneled again after her ordeal at the Metro Shelter from 2008 to 2010. In October 2010, they both asked HRM to send her to Belle Kennel if not to a foster home. That was the least HRM should have done, as according to our legal advisors it was completely outside of the law to lock Brindi up month after month. And you, sir, and your wife, are complicit in that action.
And overall, neither you nor HRM has a leg to stand on. Five positive assessments say Brindi should be either at home with Francesca or in an otherwise suitable home. Ms. Jordan testified that she finds Francesca a very responsible owner. Back in 2008 Francesca proposed the very conditions that a judge put in place two years later. Too bad HRM didn't accept them in the first place, so that Brindi didn't have to suffer.
Why would Dr. Larkin and Susan Jordan go out on a limb unless they were sure? Both Larkin and Jordan say that long-term kenneling puts her health AND her temperament at risk. The latter is backed up by a recent study: http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/berg…
For the record, a government contractor operating without a business license for two years at a stretch doesn't exactly add to your wife's credibility. More importantly, the veterinary regulations of Canada designate a 3x4 space as the MINIMUM for a medium-sized dog - for SHORT-TERM housing. Not long term!! There's no door to ward off the elements, and the concrete is dingy and cracked. What a sad prospect for a sweet dog to be in such a place, and viewing your family through the window is not positive visual stimulation - if anything it would taunt a companion animal. Letting her out twice a day for 20 minutes - big deal!!
You and your wife are co-responsible for this tragedy, sir. Under the law Wyndenfog is just as liable as HRM. But you are evidently as calloused as the knees of your "ideal woman".
For a member of the Canadian Armed Forces, your character sure leaves a lot to be desired.
like
dislike
Posted by
humane halifax
on 10/06/2012 at 4:36 PM
I see Ms Rogier had a chance to
express her views on this subject. I thought that a perspective from the
"side of the fence" that Brindi is living on now, might give some
insight on what it like to be bullied by a "True Believer"
My, oh my .. what gives .. no slick-spin, negative, American style attack adds/comments against me or the kennel in "Humane Halifax" tweets since 3 Oct .... maybe they have decided to be useful and pick up some doggy do - rather than fling it .... of course FR is still at it...
BTW , I hope she keeps linking the affidavit photos all over the net to her blog. Despite her diatribes, I love the fact that rational people will see that Brindi’s “cage” consists of getting one –if not more, clean 14 ft run always at her disposal - and a MINIMUM 3 ft by 4 ft sleeping area with a heated floor, fresh dog pillow daily, and a ½ acre outdoor play area that is professionally supervised when she is out playing. I find it difficult to fathom how a person with such an extensive education, has a quantum lack of basic observation skills - that also appears to be at par with her inabilities to operate a common car door power widow. Perhaps these are gifts granted by God to only the lowly common and simple folk … like myself, to compensate for our inability to operate on the intellectual plain she does. Apparently, on her “analysis” of my property – which is not “that nice” a property according to her standards (please feel free to compare our respective dwellings on her sites – there are lots of legal and illegal examples – mine is the one NOT falling apart) …, she has failed to notice in the pictures there are bushes for a dog to run around and grass to play on .. oh … and that big wood thing in the background ..its called a tree.. she said there were none – but I am sure I remember in my grade 1 reading books, that thing sticking out of the ground was called a tree … they tend to provide a great wind break and sunshade - along with the newly landscaped embankments that also provide shade and are fun for canines to run up and down. I am making an un-educated guess, but the Supreme Court Judge agreed that this stuff is pretty good and therefore, Brindi’s “sub-standard “ environment doesn’t throw up any red flags for her to intercede, but , what do I know, I just have a basic education and some post secondary. Maybe at MIT, an embankment is also referred to as “rubble” – which is also on the property that she says the dogs must navigate over. She has claimed that the kennel uses barbed wire to restrict the animals. Perhaps the illegally obtained photos she uses from someone trespassing on my neighbours property on her FB pages, have her confused. Now, I must admit, I don’t believe that they teach much about fencing material at U-M, Columbia, Harvard and MIT –and, in all fairness - perhaps she has confused that with the chicken wire she has used on her property. In any event, the simple masses can plainly see that no such containment exists.
It is un-ethical for providing this environment for Brindi , according to Ms. Rogier and Humane Halifax. Brindi should either go back to her house, which appears to be borderline habitable and a property that offers no basic, let alone, advanced containment planning for a dog with Brindi’s considerations - or – she should go an adoptive home Mr Rogier’s choosing … yet the Judge, for some strange, cruel reason - said “no”
My father always used to say it is impossible to rationalize with people that are educated beyond their intelligence…. maybe he had point …perhaps the combined, compressive nature of that much data from so many lofty institutions has lead to some sort of cascading cerebral trauma that interferes with the ability perceive the world properly …
Sweet Jesus WTF does this Whore want,we all back water people in her mind ,,,well I never went to harvard,nore any of my family did.,However we do know right from wrong and when to give up, The damn mutt is given the best possible care ....no tks to you...your shack is a disgrace,you can't control any thing ,even power windows; so go figure.I suggest you get more education just so you can get more stupid....LOL Forget it let it go you will never see mutt again,nor should you you careless BITCH!
My, oh my .. what gives .. no slick-spin, negative, American style attack adds/comments against me or the kennel in "Humane Halifax" tweets since 3 Oct .... maybe they have decided to be useful and pick up some doggy do - rather than fling it .... of course FR is still at it...
BTW , I hope she keeps linking the affidavit photos all over the net to her blog. Despite her diatribes, I love the fact that rational people will see that Brindi’s “cage” consists of getting one –if not more, clean 14 ft run always at her disposal - and a MINIMUM 3 ft by 4 ft sleeping area with a heated floor, fresh dog pillow daily, and a ½ acre outdoor play area that is professionally supervised when she is out playing. I find it difficult to fathom how a person with such an extensive education, has a quantum lack of basic observation skills - that also appears to be at par with her inabilities to operate a common car door power widow. Perhaps these are gifts granted by God to only the lowly common and simple folk … like myself, to compensate for our inability to operate on the intellectual plain she does. Apparently, on her “analysis” of my property – which is not “that nice” a property according to her standards (please feel free to compare our respective dwellings on her sites – there are lots of legal and illegal examples – mine is the one NOT falling apart) …, she has failed to notice in the pictures there are bushes for a dog to run around and grass to play on .. oh … and that big wood thing in the background ..its called a tree.. she said there were none – but I am sure I remember in my grade 1 reading books, that thing sticking out of the ground was called a tree … they tend to provide a great wind break and sunshade - along with the newly landscaped embankments that also provide shade and are fun for canines to run up and down. I am making an un-educated guess, but the Supreme Court Judge agreed that this stuff is pretty good and therefore, Brindi’s “sub-standard “ environment doesn’t throw up any red flags for her to intercede, but , what do I know, I just have a basic education and some post secondary. Maybe at MIT, an embankment is also referred to as “rubble” – which is also on the property that she says the dogs must navigate over. She has claimed that the kennel uses barbed wire to restrict the animals. Perhaps the illegally obtained photos she uses from someone trespassing on my neighbours property on her FB pages, have her confused. Now, I must admit, I don’t believe that they teach much about fencing material at U-M, Columbia, Harvard and MIT –and, in all fairness - perhaps she has confused that with the chicken wire she has used on her property. In any event, the simple masses can plainly see that no such containment exists.
It is un-ethical for providing this environment for Brindi , according to Ms. Rogier and Humane Halifax. Brindi should either go back to her house, which appears to be borderline habitable and a property that offers no basic, let alone, advanced containment planning for a dog with Brindi’s considerations - or – she should go an adoptive home Mr Rogier’s choosing … yet the Judge, for some strange, cruel reason - said “no”
My father always used to say it is impossible to rationalize with people that are educated beyond their intelligence…. maybe he had point …perhaps the combined, compressive nature of that much data from so many lofty institutions has lead to some sort of cascading cerebral trauma that interferes with the ability perceive the world properly …
Sweet Jesus WTF does this Whore want,we all back water people in her mind ,,,well I never went to harvard,nore any of my family did.,However we do know right from wrong and when to give up, The damn mutt is given the best possible care ....no tks to you...your shack is a disgrace,you can't control any thing ,even power windows; so go figure.I suggest you get more education just so you can get more stupid....LOL Forget it let it go you will never see mutt again,nor should you you careless BITCH!
More to follow
.......................
I think the 'lady' is totally pissed. She has been told in fine fashion and she can't take it.
ReplyDeleteShe can sling it but she sure can't take it. Too f'ing bad, boo-hoo.
ReplyDelete