HALIFAX, NOVA SCOTIA—Why have officials in Halifax, Nova Scotia spent thousands of taxpayer money to carry forth the vendetta and personal animosity of a city employee against a dog that belongs their neighbor?
Halifax , the city employee nor the owners of the ATTACKED dog don't have a vendetta or personal animosity against Fran. The problem is, Fran don't think the law or court orders apply to her. She will not take the rightful blame for not following any laws period.
Why is the city of Halifax determined to kill a dog, taking action that they never have in the past?
Brindi, a highly intelligent and loving rescue dog, has been kept in captivity for essentially three years since being arbitrarily and capriciously seized from her guardian.Not only is using city resources, money and power to exercise a personal cause unethical, it’s an egregious abuse of power and waste of tax dollars by Halifax officials that cries out for an investigation.
Well no. Fran is the one who started this, kept it going. She didn't follow the rules the first, second, third, fourth time. Even after she was told " the next time, Brindi would be killed". She was asked in court by a judge if she understood the rules to have Brindi back and she said YES. She was also asked if she had any questions pertaining to the muzzle order... she said NO.
Next Tuesday and Wednesday, Nov. 8 and 9, Brindi’s guardian, Francesca Rogier, heads to the Dartmouth Provincial Court at 9:30 a.m. to try and save the life of her beloved friend.
That time has come and gone. Poor baby got a boo boo on her wittle finger and CANCELLED court. Saying she couldn't prepare her brief or use the computer ( she only had a year to do it ).
WORLD WATCHING HALIFAX OFFICIALS TOO
The entire world is currently in tune to these outrageous acts against dogs by governmental agencies. The world is waiting to see if the Belfast City Council in Belfast, Northern Ireland acts responsibly in the case of Lennox, seized under the Dangerous Dog Act, imprisoned in a secret location since May 2010 simply because he looks like a pit bull. His assessments by impartial qualified dog experts all show that he is non-aggressive.
This whole scenario is happening over and over and over. Will your dog become the next victim of arbitrary and retaliatory government using your own tax dollars to combat you and your family pet?
This article may not be reprinted or republished without the express written permission of The North Country Gazette.Two dogs seized under the Dangerous Dog Act in the United Kingdom have been returned to their owners this past week. Two other dogs, Simba and Venus, remain on death row but there are committed, ongoing efforts to free the dogs and release them to their owners.
DON'T YOU DARE compare an irresponsible selfish owner with Lennox.
Meanwhile, the House of Lords has agreed that the Dangerous Dog Act doesn’t work and needs an overhaul—-and they have voted unanimously to do so.
Now the eyes of the world are focused on Canada—Halifax, Nova Scotia to be exact where the atrocities against a seven-year-old shepherd mix are almost beyond imagination.
On Tuesday and Wednesday, Nov. 8 and 9, Brindi’s owner, Francesca Rogier, will be put on trial for bylaw infractions stemming from a minor scuffle with a dog in front of her house on Sept. 14, 2010. The dog was not seriously harmed. The owners were related to the people who first reported Brindi to the city, and one of them works for the city of Halifax.
So what if the owners of Lucy is related to one of the other dogs Brindi attacked. Does that make it not true? What does it matter where the owner work? That STILL don't mean it never happened. The " scuffle " didn't happen in front of Fran's house, it happen on a PUBLIC ROAD.
Experts have previously testified on behalf of Brindi, that her “issues” can be corrected with training and in no way constitutes a death warrant”.
That I agree with EXCEPT it won't happen with this owner.
If the court finds Francesca guilty on any charge, the prosecutor for Halifax says he will invoke a law allowing the court to order a dog put down as an “additional penalty”.
The prosecutor can ask for anything, just like Fran can ( and has )... the judge DOES NOT have to order it.
For more information, and the trainer’s assessment, seehttp://freebrindi.blogspot.com/
USE REASON IN ENFORCING DOG LAWS
Any dog law, no matter in what country or jurisdiction, must be enforced using reason and discretion
TRUE... their reason is because SHE WILL NOT ADHERE to any law or court order.
Municipalities have a role to insure public safety, but within reason: they must also treat dogs and owners fairly.Bylaw infractions are minor offenses that are meant to be fined.Killing a dog is not a fair or moral penalty for any by-law infraction.If a city seeks to kill a dog it says is dangerous, it must present proper grounds. It must have proof that it has attacked with the intent to kill or do serious harm. It cannot fairly ask for “pre-emptive” action.Dogs that fight dogs are not necessarily a threat to public safety (dogs are not part of the public – if they were, they would have rights!).Dogs typically fight dogs as a way to establish dominance. It is no indication they will attack humans. Dogs can be trained out of this behavior.Fatalities due to dog attacks rank very low on the list of causes of accidental death and injury. They are not even among the top 50.UNFAIR TREATMENT OF DOGS AND OWNERS IS NOT ACCEPTABLE
Municipalities should be held to a consistent standard that is in keeping with their usual enforcement of the law.Halifaxdecided in 2008 to muzzle, then seize and destroy Brindi, fully aware that she had never attacked a person and had not injured dogs at all, except for one minor injury that was treated with first aid.Halifax’s decision to kill Brindi was thus way out of line with its customary enforcement. Its decision to seize Brindi once again is not only cruel and unusual punishment itself, but also in stark contrast with its handling of a recent case of a pit bull that attacked a woman in the throat and face.The city has never had Brindi’s behavior evaluated professionally. It will not be bringing an expert witness to the stand next week. (An animal control officer will testify, but she is not qualified in dog training and behavior.)Clearly Halifax is not pursuing this case in the interest of public safetyBOTTOM LINE: BRINDI IS NOT A KILLER AND MUST NOT BE KILLED
Brindi was evaluated by several trainers and behaviorists at the request of her owner. None of these deemed Brindi dangerous. They regard her as territorial, and suggested more training.Brindi’s owner observed all court-imposed conditions for Brindi’s return.The conditions are following a muzzle order, building and maintaining a dog run, and doing further training.The conditions were identical to the conditions she originally offered to the city in 2008, but were met with no response from the city.The incident leading to Brindi’s second seizure and third year behind bars was an accidental event. Freak accidents do happen: people should not be punished for them by the destruction of a beloved family member.Moreover, the incident was no more serious than previous incidents. Like those, it occurred on or near her property (i.e. at most, a few feet from the boundary).Brindi simply needed more time to readjust to her surroundings after being locked up for two years without contact with other dogs.Francesca worked with trainer Susan Jordan. She did more training that was required and continued after Brindi was released – not because a court ordered it, but because she wanted Brindi to be as perfect as possible.This time, Ms. Rogier, Brindi’s guardian, has been charged with owning a dog that runs at large, owning a dog that attacked another animal and failure to comply with a notice to muzzle the dog.
The charges, even if true, certainly do not warrant destroying a dog and in fact, according to Ms. Rogier, there’s no precedent for ordering the dog destroyed. If the court should find Ms. Rogier guilty of the charges, then she’s the one that should be penalized, not the dog and certainly not by destroying the dog.
There is no precedent.. that's true... then again, there has not been another FRAN ROGIER.
But at the end of the day, NO, Brindi does not deserve to be their pawn. She does not deserve to die. She is just protective and territorial, like most dogs.
Rogier, 50, an American citizen, an architectural professor and a Fulbright Scholar, has exhausted $30,000 in savings on lawyers. She has put her architectural career on the back burner, trying to save the life of her precious Brindi.
No she didn't.... all the conning she has done for donations are paying for her legal bills.... the ones she asked for and the donations for Brindi's " illnesses" that was never confirmed or proven. Which BTW she has been representing herself for a few years now. Mainly because she won't pay them and now no lawyer will take her on. She is that hard to deal with.
BRINDI HELD IN POUND FOR 3 YEARS
Brindi has been in a pound for essentially the past three years except for a short reprieve from July 2010 until she was seized again in September 2010. The family has run out of money trying to save the dog and has been trying to raise funds to bring Brindi home.
NOT TRUE. Brindi hasn't been in the pound all that time. Brindi was HOUSED ( under contract ) at the NSSPCA until the new city pound opened. One of Fran's "friends " owned the new pound and Fran fought to have Brindi put there. I guess because she thought her friend would allow her to see Brindi and do whatever she wanted when she wanted. But she found out real fast that would not be the case. Then Brindi was taken to a training facility/ kennel. After that was when Brindi was given back to Fran ( see the judge does not have to do what anyone ( lawyer or defendant )wants them to do.
Individuals may donate to help pay for legal costs. Go tohttp://freebrindi.blogspot.com/ and click on the DONATE button. or click here: https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=9595134• Participate in an auction at: http://www.epier.com/auctions.asp?franya• Buy a FREE BRINDI t-shirt at http://www.cafepress.com/freebrindiClick here to sign the Free Brindi petition.
That says it all.... it is ALWAYS about her legal bills
Click here for the Free Brindi website.
Click here for Brindi’s Facebook page.
Brindi is not at the SPCA, she is at the city pound, this is all controlled by the Halifax Regional Municipality and therefore can be stopped by them only. Those who believe that Brindi can be re-homed, it is not an option so if Francesca gives up, the city kills Brindi.
NOT TRUE
Keeping a dog in a pound indefinitely is detrimental to its health. Killing a dog that is not dangerous goes against the principle of protection of animal welfare yet the SPCA is participating in this abuse, Rogier says.
NOT TRUE ALSO. The HRM / CITY POUND can ask for destruction but the judge DON'T have to agree. The SPCA NEVER participated in anything EXCEPT house Brindi and took care of her. Kept her safe.
It is willing to kill this dog, while earning money for it (no less than $414,000 a year, at present), according to Rogier. Having kept silent for six months, ignoring her owner’s pleas for help, last January the Nova Scotia SPCA began repeatedly asking the city to “re-home” Brindi. Not only is this something the city cannot legally do (without a judge’s order); it would be a wrong and cruel thing to do to an owner who has sacrificed so much for the sake of her beloved pet and it would be cruel to a dog that was neglected for years and has never known any other home.
Yes the SPCA put forth a request to re-home Brindi because unlike you ( the editor ) they and many other people who are not so gullible knew and know what is going to happen. Fran has proven on more then 3 occasions she is NOT a responsible owner and not a good owner for a dog with issues.
Brindi has already spent half her life behind bars. She may lose her life altogether unless somebody does something to let Brindi go home where she belongs!!!
Unless Fran ASKS the COURT to spare Brindi and release her to a reputable rescue with no interference from her.... this dog WILL DIE. Fran will be the only one with BLOOD ON HER HANDS.
Brindi had been incarcerated from July 24, 2008 to July 2010 in the SPCA kennels on death row in Halifax, Canada and has been held in the city pound since being seized again in September, 2010. Her fate still hangs by a thread. She is condemned to die for nothing other than just being a dog. Now, Canada is still intent on killing a defenseless dog and Brindi’s time may be up, Rogier says.
Brindi didn't just attack ONE dog..... this last one was the 4th ( FOURTH) reported one.
Brindi has never attacked or threatened a person. She never killed or caused serious injury to anyone or anything. Rogier describes her as “ just a good natured mutt, 6-years-old” rescued from a shelter in 2007 by Rogier.
It's true Brindi has never attacked a person. But she did knock a person down while she was trying to get that persons dog.
Sadly, she only knew freedom for a short amount of time before she was incarcerated by the City of Halifax.
BECAUSE OF HER OWNER.
In addition to seizing the dog, city actions are threatening Francesca’s home, she says. She owns it outright and always kept up with the property taxes. The city set up a situation where it can take her house next summer by charging her for a fence that was not required, with boarding that was not required, and putting the total of $10,000 onto her tax bill, plus 15% interest.
The fence was required. The property was all torn up ( for a few years ) and was dangerous. Children could have easily been hurt ( you know kids and construction sites ). She was told to erect one but didn't so the city HAD to do it. Why should taxpayers have to pay for her AGAIN?
She says this action is highly unusual and conveniently allows the city to seize and auction off her property within a year – next June – if the bill is not paid in full by then. This is the last part of the city’s overt effort to block her from asking a judge to release Brindi.
It's NOT highly unusual.... her house was dangerous and just like other dangerous properties, you have a certain time limit to do the work or you lose it.
She says it began with a baseless eviction order followed by a demolition order. She was not permitted to appeal either. She was evicted, but she narrowly evaded demolition by restarting construction.
RETALIATORY ACTION
Why did Halifax do all this? Rogier says the fact is that the city has always lacked the legal authority to detain a dog indefinitely. It had no proper defense, so it took drastic and brazen action to prevent her from going to court to get Brindi out pending trial (or permanently). The actions began with the day before Francesca first tried to get an injunction; the eviction a few weeks later prevented her seeing that through.
BULLSHIT. If anyone believes this crap, I own the USA and I can sell it to you for a good deal.
The city manipulated facts and did several end-runs around the laws to do all these things, she says. After taking Brindi without just cause in 2008 and refusing to return her, it dragged out the battle for two years.
It is " she says "... and she is one of the biggest liars around. She loves to twist facts so she sounds like the victim when actually ALL DOG OWNER and the HRM citizens are the victims.
Francesca is an architect and was supervising construction on her house – a foundation and a new garage – with a valid permit, etc.: but she was forced to suspend the work to fight for Brindi. Essentially, the city exploited a situation that it created. And yet, she had a valid permit throughout, and her house is a heritage property.
It’s been war against a lone woman and her dog from day one. She says it’s never been a fair fight.
LMAO... SHE SAYS... says it all.
Halifax has a very bad reputation in general when it comes to treatment of property owners and individuals, according to Rogier.
Again.. SHE SAYS
“It’s record of dog cases is very uneven and dubious as well, but with Brindi it reached a new low. Whether your dog is seized and destroyed depends on who you are”, she says. She is a newcomer in her area, without connections or great wealth.
“Even the courts are biased”, she says and says she couldn’t even get a court to hear her application to release Brindi, or order that she be allowed to visit her regularly.
HALIFAX IN CONTEMPT OF SUPREME COURT’S RULING
On July 24, 2008, a few days after a minor encounter with another dog, animal control officers armed with a warrant and euthanization order, seized Brindi from her home without notice. She then languished on death row, even after winning a landmark Supreme Court battle in 2009 ordering the original euthanasia order null and void.
To date, Rogier says the City of Halifax has spent over $417,000 on Brindi’s detainment in refusing to release her. Unbelievably, Nova Scotia, Canada seems to be the first country ignoring its own Supreme Court Justice’s ruling, Rogier says.http://www.courts.ns.ca/decisions_recent/documents/2009nssc14.pdf
Brindi was confined indefinitely in a short term facility. Recently, Brindi needed biopsy surgery of a suspected cancer growth found near her spine. Her teeth have deteriorated because she was denied her favorite “chew” toys and raw beef bones that her owner and friends brought to her on a regular basis.
She now suffers from painful and chronic pancreatitis due to the stressful conditions of her confinement. According to many, “It is concerning and distressing to think that this innocent and once healthy pet, has been detained and made to languish in isolation as pawns in political bureaucracy. She has been reduced to such poor physical state that it actually constitutes animal cruelty and neglect at its finest, and all at the hands of a governing agency.”
Experts have testified and reported that, “Regardless of the tremendous pain and isolation of her confinement, Brindi is still a friendly, well adjusted dog that poses no danger to the public in any way.” For more information, and the trainer’s assessment, seehttp://freebrindi.blogspot.com/
Brindi has been evaluated as “not dangerous” and highly trainable. During eight weeks of obedience class, which she passed with ease, she had no issues with other dogs. Experts have testified her issues can be corrected with training and in no way constitutes a death warrant. Even after desperate attempts in creating public awareness and gaining public support and sympathy, creating petitions, informational videos, protests and massive email campaigns to government officials, candlelight vigils in worldwide support for Brindi’s case, Canada has failed to compromise in a humane resolution of this precious dog.
According to some individuals close to the case, “Speculation into corruption of government officials and growing questions as to what the true motivations are behind such a case. Brindi is just a dog, defenseless to man, that has done nothing wrong other than be born. Brindi may be condemned to die after a few harmless dog squabbles. She is needlessly languishing and slowly deteriorating on a government’s whim.”
As in courts in the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland, the case of Brindi brings to light some disturbing observations of some archaic and dangerous laws being practiced in the courts of Canada, where Brindi’s case seems to lack in common sense, decency and most importantly, in humanity.
One can not help but wonder how such stories reach far and wide, no matter the nation, no matter where in the world and that it is only a matter of time before another “Brindi” reaches our own front doors, and it could be one of our dogs. Would we care then?
USE COMMON SENSE, NOT ABUSE OF POWER
Found abandoned with five puppies, Brindi waited two years in a shelter before Fracesca Rogier adopted her in 2007. Ms. Rogier had her microchipped, spayed and vaccinated. Brindi did very well in obedience class and obeys many commands. She loves her owner and is gentle and safe around infants, children and adults. She even lived peacefully with two cats.
Brindi, or rather Rogier, was charged in September 2010 with a total of three offenses that were minor by any comparison. They happened when Brindi accidentally got loose and ran up to dogs being walked along the road at her property line. Only the second offense resulted in an injury, a small tooth puncture requiring minimal vet care, for which Ms. Rogier voluntarily paid. As most dogs, Brindi is territorial, protective of her property and her owner.
After this, the city issued a muzzle order. In Halifax By-Law A300, a muzzle order is one of six ways to deem a dog dangerous. The authorities construe this as a sanction for seizure and euthanization for any further violations. So, because she was not wearing her muzzle on the third offense, they seized her without warning four days later, even though the other dog was not grabbed or injured.
This blanket imposition of the maximum penalty for minor offenses is unjust. Halifax has already recognized that Brindi is not a threat to humans. It was informed by two respected trainers that her wayward behavior does not signify aggression and definitely can be corrected yet the city apparently prefers to have her pay the ultimate price for human error, rather than accept reasonable alternatives that would both maintain safety and keep her alive.
Clearly, Brindi does not deserve to die. Ms. Rogier is desperate to have her precious dog back. She has already built fenced enclosures attached to her home entrances, engaged a private trainer and offered to pay all fines and costs.
STRONG PUBLIC OPPOSITION
There is strong public opposition to the euthanization of Brindi and many have appealed to HRM Animal Services and the City Council to accept Ms. Rogier’s reasonable and responsible offer so that Brindi can go home immediately.
On Sept. 14, 2010, Brindi and Francesca were returning home from a long day of errands. Brindi was unmuzzled as she had been confined, riding in the car. As they were emerging from the car, Brindi bolted when seeing another dog being walked past the driveway by neighbors related to those who first reported her and also happen to work for the city. A scuffle between the dogs ensued.
“They were determined to see Brindi killed”, Rogier says. “They both admit to kicking her repeatedly (both at once!) and Brindi did not try to retaliate in any way”. They were not criminally charged.
Though this was a minor incident, a freak accident as Brindi was not running at large, the city dog catchers seized Brindi within days. She’s been locked up ever since, and Francesca is not allowed to visit her.
Rogier says this happened 10 weeks after Brindi was released from two years in the pound.
“Halifax had seized her without warning or laying charges, issued a euthanasia order, and offered no right of appeal — they would not even read letters or meet with me and her lawyer about it”.
Though she won a case in January 2009, Halifax had refused to return Brindi, and instead laid charges — the first ever in the city of Halifax. It took another 18 months before a judge finally released Brindi in July 2010 with conditions identical to those that Francesca had volunteered to set into place at the start. Brindi came home with two chronic health conditions — but she was alive.
“Sadly, Halifax was just waiting for an excuse to get her again”, Rogier says, “for the kind of scuffle that happens daily in the dog parks and on the streets, which many would not bother to even report”.
The incident from last September was no different than the others, Rogier says and resulted in only superficial wounds to the dog which was essentially trespassing on Rogier’s property.. However, they were not arrested.
BRINDI KICKED REPEATEDLY, ABUSERS NOT CHARGED
“In fact, the people with the other dog kicked Brindi in the head and stomach repeatedly”, Rogier says. “She did not turn on them. She let me take her into the house. Because the courts were booked up, the trial was postponed for over a year.
It will be held Nov. 8-9 in Dartmouth, Nova Scotia.
“These “trials” typically last less than a half hour, but two days are scheduled because it is being treated like a criminal case” she said. “Even though Halifax does not have very much to show why Brindi should be killed, it is using every technicality possible”.
While dog by-law infractions are simply fined, Halifax will try to use one to three guilty verdicts to get the judge to then impose an “additional penalty” on Francesca: namely, to order that they kill Brindi”.
The current situation makes it clear that the reason Brindi was seized is not because she is particularly dangerous. Halifax arbitrarily decided to target her back in 2008: it will not be deterred by logic, law, or compassion. Last December, Francesca tried to get Halifax to let Brindi go pending trial, or even adopt her permanently, or let the two of them leave Halifax and return to the U.S. — but Halifax said no. She has no lawyer, as she cannot afford one after the previous ordeal which cost her $30,000. Even if she had the money, there are no animal law practitioners in Nova Scotia, and most lawyers do not want to take a case like this.
Excerpts in a video about Brindi include Francesca, Eileen McInnis, CBC Reporter and Sandra Flemming, SPCA Director — all attesting to the goodness of Brindi. This is a direct opposite of the behaviorHalifax officials and Rogier’s critics would have you believe is Brindi.
Despite all the attacks and egregious behavior directed towards Brindi byHalifaxofficials, she has never escalated in her behavior, which experts say is primarily territorial, not “dog-aggressive”
She has never shown any aggression towards people, even when they kick her in the head and stomach
The city’s request that Brindi be killed is an “additional penalty” beyond what the by-laws require for a violation. There are fines and there are “additional penalties” that the city can seek. In this case, the additional penalties are death.
The city of Halifax has taken extreme retaliative action against Francesca for her success in saving her dog.
“How can you kill a dog who will not attack when it is being harmed by strangers??”, Rogier asks. “The incident was clearly an accident, but the city has a vendetta”.
Having lost twice to Francesca, city officials—unethically promulgating the case of a city employee—is now apparently hoping to convince a court that she did not obey court conditions. They even used illegally obtained recordings to obtain the seizure warrant, she says. And when she tried to get an injunction for Brindi’s release, she says they did all they could to obstruct it.
Halifax officials used their power and position to have her immigration status investigated and sent building officials after her, who issued contradictory orders to secure her home – a home renovation postponed because of Brindi’s prior ordeal. Then, they evicted her anyway, falsely claiming it was unsafe, and denying her the right to appeal the eviction.
Rogier emigrated toNova Scotia in 2006 with a simple dream of fixing up an old house and keeping a dog and two cats as family. She says she was ripped off by a fraudulent contractor who went bankrupt and left her home high and dry. She battled for two years to save her dog, costing her over $30,000 and bleeding dry her savings.
UNKIND NEIGHBORS WANTS DOG DEAD
Her success was short-lived, tragically, as unkind neighbors directly related to the same family who first reported Brindi for a harmless scuffle. They eagerly cooperated with the animal control manager who signed the death order in 2008 after setting her up with an unfairly imposed muzzle order.
Francesca is in dire straits now, because after she met the demands of building officials, doing exactly as an engineer required, they evicted her anyway. She was given minutes to pack some belongings and forced to leave her cat behind. She returned the next night to find that Amelia the cat was trapped in the house and the water heater was broken. It was fully functioning the day before and HRM employees admit suspiciously that they “saw” it was detached from the pipe. As she used the hot water minutes before leaving, this can only mean they did the deed, she says. Hurricanes and winds did not do this in two years!!
She says HRM has lied in public about her heat and water lacking, and about her house being unsafe. Yet they are unable to lie to her about it as a reason for eviction. Instead, they are autocratically demanding she complete all construction before she can move back in. This is unheard of anywhere inNorth America! As is the attempt to kill a dog that has never killed or seriously harmed an animal, let alone ONCE bit or threatened a human”, she says emphatically.
HRM (Halifax) have tied her hands so she cannot save herself or her dog: having forced her to spend thousands on the added work in October, they evicted her without notice last November. They also chased off reputable contractors by lying to the press, and are now demanding she submit to their control. She must submit a work schedule that she cannot possibly guarantee with winter weather setting in. Their plan is to move to the next step of claiming she is not serious about finishing and will likely revoke her construction permit very soon. This is a house she loves dearly and planned her new life there with Brindi. She designed a beautiful new garage and basement as a foundation. She lost half of her budget to legal costs yet still wants to make it happen.
Francesca has a right to her dream just as she has a right to be with her dog. Brindi has a right to live in a loving home.
There is no reason on earth for such unacceptable and brutal treatment of a lone female immigrant who worked hard to become a professional and a teacher, and worked hard to train her dog well – Brindi did not bite these peop[le even when they kicked her in the head!!! The only “reason” is that these local civil servants have a chip on their shoulder and want to punish Francesca for standing up for her rights so that she could protect her dog.
They are accustomed to misusing the law to get what they want. That is how they took Brindi for two years and did it again, and that is how they evicted Francesca and are now making it impossible to finish the house, and that will be how they take the house away from her entirely, her supporters say.
IMPASSIONED PLEA IN DEFENSE OF A DOG
In 1870, U.S. Sen. Vest was addressing the jury in a court case in defense of a dog. This is part of his impassioned plea:
”The one absolutely unselfish friend a man can have in this selfish world, the one that never deserts him, the one that never proves ungrateful or treacherous is his dog. A man’s dog stands by him in prosperity and in poverty, in health and in sickness. He will sleep on the ground, where the wintry winds blow and the snow drives fiercely, if only he may be at his master’s side.
He will kiss the hand that has no food to offer. He will lick the wounds and sores that come from the encounter with the roughness of the world.
He guards the sleep of his pauper master as if he were a prince. When all other friends desert, he remains. When riches take wings and
reputation falls to pieces, he is a constant in his love as the sun in its journey through the heavens”.
Brindi deserves to come home.
• See letters of support at: http://supportbrindi.blogspot.com/• Sign the Free Brindi ipetition:http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/FREEBRINDI/• Care2 Alert: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/free-brindi-this-dog-must-not-be-euthanized• Write to public officials – see the discussion topics
http://supportbrindi.blogspot.com/On Facebook, see the group Save Brindi and Francesca from City of Halifax https://www.facebook.com/groups/35473542760/
On Twitter, follow @BrindisMom (Free my dog Brindi!!) @franyafranya (freedom and justice for all!)
There’s also an events page, Raise Awareness for Brindi
http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=221705961228541
Please email the following people and let them know that you feel the city’s goal to exact an additional penalty — the killing of Brindi — is unjust and cruel on many grounds.
Please voice your disagreement over the city’s goal to kill Brindi. It is unreasonable and unjust. Minister of Justice Ross Landry: justmin@gov.ns.ca . He has the power to stop the case from going ahead.
He has the power and should order an investigation of the city’s handling of the matter and its use of taxpayer funds to prosecute the case brought on complaint of a city employee. That’s a prohibited conflict of interest as well as using the city building officials against Rogier.
Others to contact:
Mayor Peter Kelly: kellyp@halifax.ca
HRM elected councilors: harveyb@halifax.ca , adamss@halifax.ca, barry.dalrymple@halifax.ca, brad.johns@halifax.ca, darren.fisher@halifax.ca, David.Hendsbee@halifax.ca, sloaned@halifax.ca, humd@halifax.ca, jennifer.watts@halifax.ca, karsteb@halifax.ca, lorelei.nicoll@halifax.ca, mcclusg@halifax.ca, mosherl@halifax.ca, outhitt@halifax.ca, peter.lund@halifax.ca, rankinr@halifax.ca, streats@halifax.ca, smithj@halifax.ca, utecks@halifax.ca, walkerr@halifax.ca, wilema@halifax.ca
local media:ehowe@ns.sympatico.ca, news@globaltv.com, cbcns@cbc.ca, news@cbc.ca, atlanticnews@ctv.ca, jackie.foster@ctv.ca, radionews@halifax.cbc.ca,
news957@rogers.com, newsroom@herald.ca, halifax@broadcastnews.ca, news@ckdu.ca, metronews.ca, coast@thecoast.ca, editor@tridentnews.ca, newspaper@msvu.ca, info@dalgazette.ca, the journal@gmail.com, mackins@halifax.ca 11-5-11
For the past several months, The North Country Gazette has donated much time, expertise and website resources to raise public awareness for the Lennox and other dog cases and the repugnant Breed Specific Legislation in effect in the United Kingdom. Any donations made through PayPal to NCG to help defray expenses would be sincerely appreciated.
We allow a visitor one free read of one article. If you wish to read additional articles or return at a later time, a subscription is required. To signup, see the subscription ads to the right. For questions, contact news@northcountrygazette.org One month, $4.95; six months, $24.95; one year, $39.95
This " newspaper " or whatever it's suppose to be is no different then FRAN... greedy, liars, fact twisters and non fact seekers. As the saying goes... birds of a feather flock together.
