What makes Joan Sinden so sure?

Joan Sinden's at it again. She just can't help herself. Stop us if you've heard this one already...  But at New Year's, she posted a resolution that she would no longer engage in flinging mud (in so many words) at others, especially, she implied, Brindi's owner, Francesca Rogier.

That resolution was very short-lived. Today she posted another in a series of long diatribes that she seems to alternate with endless boring pictures of her dogs doing non-fascinating things like running in the park or eating cheese. In it she claims among other things that it's a done deal that the judge won't order Brindi to be put down:

"...Francesca said [in the paper] she was planning to ask for a postponement today from the judge - so that she could have an expert assessment done of Brindi - of, I guess - Brindi's temperament - to show the judge that she's not a killer dog and shouldn't be killed. Although I don't know why she's doing that, because there are already so many anecdotal reports from people that she could have called for character witnesses that would have said the exact same thing today..."

No need for an expert opinion? That's not what we hear. Halifax's hired prosecutor is following orders to stick to his guns, and doing a damned good job of it. So what makes Joan so sure? Not only is she sure, she is actually brazenly claiming that Francesca Rogier is somehow wrong not to rely on "anecdotal reports" about Brindi. Perhaps she means the SPCA staff? But they don't allow Brindi to be together with other dogs, so they can't say much, plus, they're not experts, and a judge only cares what an expert says. Sorry, Joan!

Was Joan perhaps annoyed, as this time the assessment would be done by somebody other than her buddy, Silvia Jay? Silvia's report was very positive, but not long afterwards, she dumped Rogier because of a harmless facebook remark that Joan and others used to convincing her that Rogier was not going to follow her advice to keep her dog under control. (Mind you, Silvia never met Rogier in person or saw her with Brindi.)

Some facts
What Joan doesn't know (sigh, so much!!), is that it was not like Rogier was deliberately delaying things for no reason. In fact, the new assessment could have been ready days ago. As Rogier told the judge today, she arranged for two trainers to be at the shelter at 10 am on February 27. This was the very next day after HRM gave permission  (per her request two days earlier), without requiring a court order - a first! Trainers Meaghan Lumley and Ted Efthymiadis were there with their dogs before ten, politely waiting to be let in. They cooperated; the SPCA cooperated; Animal Services did not. Both were informed on that Friday that this was the only day and time the trainers had available. All Animal Services had to do was send over an AC officer to be present ( to meet their own requirement). But they did not. This led to a series of morning calls between the trainers, the SPCA, Animal Services, and Rogier, who was in the process of saying goodbye to her very ill cat at the vet's. We heard that Rogier actually was fielding the calls while holding her cat in the exam room, as the vet prepared the needle. Horrible thought.

Rogier did not get to finish that part of the story but she did tell the judge today how she spoke to the Animal Services several times, and the first time they said an officer was on his way to the shelter already. A few minutes later the trainer called with news that Animal Services had just told the SPCA supervisor that nobody was coming. No reasons given. Rogier talked to Tim Hamm, who said Lori Scolero, his boss, refused to dispatch him and he did not know why, because he was not busy. At the vets an hour later, during her cat Rudy's last moments, Rogier got a call from HRM lawyer Kishan Persaud, who told her the assessment could not happen because Animal Services did not have the manpower to send somebody to the shelter right then (note, they are always back and forth). Rogier explained the limitations of the trainers' schedules, and that they only needed one hour, and it was the only chance before the March 9 hearing (today). Persaud then agreed to arrange it all, told her he was sorry about her cat, Rudy, and hung up.

But it didn't happen. Before she even left the vet's with Rudy's remains, Rogier got another call from Meaghan Lumley, saying she and Ted had both finally left the shelter without doing the assessment. It's fortunate that these two had agreed to do it at no cost, but what a shame that they could not do the job!
From then on Rogier, understandably grieving for her cat, searched anew for a suitably qualified trainer while preparing other materials for the hearing. One from out of the province who agreed, but was booked till mid-month. Rogier knows judges don't care about anecdotes. Hence, the request for adjournment.

Accusations and allegations
We are always amazed at how confident Joan Sinden is of her facts and of her conclusions. Accusations fly in her blog posts, and sadly, very few have any basis in reality. She has already accused the new "corporation" (?) contracted to run the pound of scheming to let Brindi "disappear" once she's their charge. The new poundkeepers are connected to the Hope for Wildlife Society, where Rogier worked as a volunteer. One of her tasks was to bring about the commissioning and ceremonial launching of an artist-designed "peace pole" for the grounds of the Society in 2008, before and after Brindi was seized. It is the first peace pole in Nova Scotia, and it features a prayer for peace translated into eight languages specially chosen for the area, two on each side, with animal prints at the base. It's in a beautiful setting that has a great view of the ocean, out in Seaforth, Nova Scotia.

This little-known fact is worth mentioning also because of the rumours being spread now by Bob Ottenbrite, that Rogier's "supporters" threatened him with violence. He says this caused him to retract his offer to cage Brindi in his kennels for the rest of her life. We recall it was just over a year ago that the SPCA accused Rogier and/or Brindi supporters of issuing death threats against its personnel. Though apparently based solely on hearsay, they got the RCMP to investigate, effectively smearing Rogier. This came in handy when they resumed denying visits to Brindi. Maybe now it was time to apply more smear to the situation. Being a former SPCA president, and observing the lies issued by that group about Janice Bingley, their HRM contract, and a bunch of other things, we have to wonder how honest Ottenbrite is.

The mention of violence brings us to another fact, even less known: Rogier joined a Friends Meeting (Quakers - can't get more non-violent than that) after arriving here. We can also can affirm that those supporting her are admittedly "not the type to protest", and on the whole, gentle, sincere folks; the word meek comes to mind... They are mostly women, all dedicated animal lovers, and some even work for the Anglican church. So we sort of doubt that she or any supporters would encourage or engage in violence.

Fooling people
Nevertheless, we now see Joan Sinden throwing around some hefty mud once again, this time, with stones in it. What is again odd, though, is that after all the furor, the worst she can accuse Rogier of is fooling people in virtual space - her space!! - campaigning for Brindi. These are the very ferreners she's been bashing for days. But now she is angry, and she wants them to be angry:

So all the blathering, bad mouthing about the geographical area called Halifax, and Nova Scotia Canada that I personally love - as much as I love my own dogs - and that is A LOT - was done for NOTHING. And that makes me a little bit angry. And I think it should make a lot of people angry - and I think it should make the people WHO WERE DOING IT - a little bit angry too. I think they should feel a little bit USED. That's my opinion...

Isn't it amusing how from one beat to the next she bashes people, then invites them to be angry along with her? Fortunately, they're a bit too clever than that. Too bad; they have a wicked network she'd probably love to join.

But really - Joan should feel used? Not Rogier, who has been suffering through the death of a pet, the extended incarceration of her dog, and living in an unheated house without running water, while HRM refuses to budge an inch? Who's the real drama queen here? And as far as fooling people goes-or rather, foolish people-if Joan were in court today she'd know Rogier requested the adjournment last week and was slated to go before the judge yesterday, so we would have known the answer ahead. Unfortunately, nobody told her (or the prosecutor?) that the judge wasn't going to attend. So to answer her written request, the judge asked today if she wanted an adjournment, and she answered yes, and so on...  Maybe Joan doesn't understand these things about courts because she has fortunately never had to represent herself. It's often risky to go before a judge the day of a proceeding and ask for a postponement, but the judge agreed with Rogier about expert testimony. So did the prosecutor, in the end. And with the courts so backed up, April was kind of a miracle date. 

As preposterous as Joan's theory is, there will be the few who remain suspicious, so maybe we have to remind everybody: Rogier is not doing this for her amusement, or to irritate people, or fool them. She'd have to be certifiable, and if she were, we highly doubt she'd have lasted till now! No, she is all about working out the best way to save her dog's life, just trying to find their way out of the local bureaucratic/juridical maize.

Notice, we said her dog. Her court case, her money, her time, her agony. No mention of the name Joan Sinden. So naturally, Joan can't know all that is going on, only what she sees reported in the press. And that, as we see from her conclusions, is woefully scanty and repetitive. 

Journalism award, really?

Re press reports, Joan lavished praise on Pat Lee of the Herald (we think they know one another) for writing such a great piece about the case today. Lee gave more coverage to a peculiar plan afoot to give Brindi away (we think maybe it's a conspiracy) than to the news of the day. The article is so ridiculous, it's not even worth comment - a big dive down in quality from the writing of her colleagues.

Not as amusing is that Joan then weeps for the SPCA, another group she alternately bashes and praises,

because that is going to be SO HEARTBREAKING for the SPCA staff - that they are going to have to give Brindi up at the end of March - regardless of the outcome of the trial - they are now going to have to give her up. 

Heartbroken??? Give her up??? Wow, what a twisted mind!!! We are talking about a short-term facility where Brindi is NEVER walked and has contracted chronic illness!

Yes, one day, one way or another, the shelter knew Brindi's days were numbered. But Joan, darling, the pain of departure would have been so much less, had the SPCA simply done the right thing at the start, or any point afterwards, and told HRM: this is not a dangerous dog, let her go! No, they told Rogier, they wanted the big bucks, so they were willing to trade Brindi in permanently; heck, in public, they denied vehemently that they had any say in the matter up till recently. We would have thought that Joan would find that a bit strange, but no, she's more worried about their feelings.

We think Joan Sinden is very sincere, in her way. But we also suspect she doesn't know when she's a leader and when she's a follower; when she's pawing at something important, or when she's just a pawn. All the approving comments from her friends must be blinding her. (Sigh.)

Twisting the law
People other than Joan wonder why the SPCA and Bob Ottenbrite are so determined to steal Brindi away from Rogier (the dog nobody wanted for two years is suddenly so popular?). We don't know of any precedent for this in HRM recent history, even for major infractions; nor does the law specifically call for it. But today Ottenbrite announced yet another plan: certain "arrangements" are being made for a home for Brindi. Oh, what a relief! Not. We suspect Bob hasn't grasped a few things yet - namely, he's got little credibility on this issue, and second, it's so obvious he's doing it to get back at Rogier, and so is the SPCA.

Why get back at Rogier? Perhaps because as soon as they ripped Brindi from her arms she had the nerve to go to both Ottenbrite and the SPCA right away for help in getting back. I.e, to do their jobs. Both of them ducked big time, it seems, and from then on, they showed a lot of bad faith towards Rogier. She doubtless made them uncomfortable; after all, by not letting them kill Brindi, she made them look bad, didn't she? And the longer she fought for Brindi, the angrier they got. Now, 20 months later, they appear in public as neutral saviors with a plan that has long been in the works for about a year and little hidden behind the scenes (and on the web). The odd thing is that nobody has asked them what took them so long. But maybe it's not so odd for Halifax.

It was Ottenbrite who first took aim first at Rogier well over a year ago, posting on yahoo groups (NSdogs) that she was to blame for Brindi's situation (though, again, the law did not require seizure nor had she done anything comparable to previously seized dogs). He had no criticism for HRM and nothing at all to say about the SPCA (who were prepared to kill Brindi Aug. 7, 2008). We would have expected the SPCA to be hard on Rogier, but Ottenbrite? She was a satisfied customer, as far as we knew. But what we didn't know is that Mr. O is also a former SPCA president who is very friendly with the current officers. You protect your friends, after all. Forget the dog or your client.

None of that is important to remember, however, only this is:


Brindi is still Francesca Rogier's dog, period. You can see that quite clearly in her videos, and will see it in person as soon as she's home. Brindi is still alive today, because Rogier stood up and asked them not to kill her and shelled out good money for a lawyer to file a suit to keep her alive till she could convince the city to give her back. Brindi is still alive because Rogier adopted her eight months before the SPCA raided her shelter and had a chance to deem her "unadoptable" and put her down. Brindi is so well-liked because Rogier worked very hard every day for many months to train Brindi consistently and shape her from an abused, abandoned rescue, into a calm, cooperative, happy pet. And other dogs are alive because Rogier's court case got rid of the worst part of A300.

So we happen to think Rogier deserves a lot more thanks for all her trouble than the current plan hatched by a group that formed to "arrange" a "good home" for Brindi. We hope the media asks them a lot of good questions.

And we also hope the ferreners keep it up!!! Eat your heart out, Joan Sinden! : )


Ed: Addendum, March 15: We expected Joan to rage about Rogier's letter to the Herald demanding a retraction for Pat Lee's article. The interesting thing is that she has not denied knowing Pat Lee. Instead she tackles marginal matters. Also, she strongly implies that Rogier is somehow involved in her vicious feud with Jeff de la Rosa. She launched that one herself by calling him an a-hole in reply to his comment (which she chose to publish). She couldn't have known at the time that he was the owner of a dog impounded for five years. On the other hand, she didn't soften much after she found out, either. Our advice to Joan: if she's really afraid of Jeff, she should not post anything about him, least of all untrue statements. He doesn't have to come here in order to take her to court. He can simply sue Joan Sinden from an American court, which is a whole lot easier. Since she shows no signs of slowing down, we hope Joan can afford a lawyer.