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! : )

BRINDI MYTH - BRINDI FACT

One click!

 For more info on other Halifax dog cases from January 2007 to November 2009, see By-Law Prosecutions, extracted from documents on all types of by-law violations, posted on halifax.ca. Updates are made whenever the city releases new files. 

(To obtain more details about the cases, one must appear in person and request files case by case. We have done this on a few occasions so far.) 

Here is a little extract from the extract: 

A COMMON BRINDI QUESTION: "Something doesn't add up here!"

A very astute observation. Yes, something does NOT add up...

From a facebook post and an in-depth answer to it:

"Unfortunately Brindi's owner proved herself to be an irresponsible owner by not keeping her muzzled and in her yard as was suppose to be done, she was also given three chances to correct that problem."

This is not quite true, and sadly, it is one of the pesky annoying things about this case that makes it hard to convey in a nutshell!!!

The "chances" are as follows (and yes, there were two unreported mishaps but they are NOT official "chances" and the other dog owners and dogs were not entirely innocent in the matter, as they admitted in court recently!):

1. a report was filed - no injuries and charges laid, Aug. 07 (although the owner now says, a year and a half later, that there were injuries, at the time, she and Brindi's owner examined it together saw nothing; afterwards she admits she did not take her dog to the vet).

2. a second report was filed in April 08: minor injury (one tooth puncture) - Brindi's owner was told she would be charged, which could lead to a fine. The AC officer returned a week later however and announced the muzzle order. He did not reveal that the other dog owner had requested specifically that he NOT go ahead with his first decision to lay a charge. She did this because she was concerned the Brindi's owner, if fined, would not be able to pay the vet bill that she had volunteered to cover ($143).

The truth was not known until after Brindi was seized -

3. July 2008, a report was filed after another short-lived incident. Brindi had escaped without her muzzle, accidentally, when she sensed a dog being walked in front of her house.

There is no evidence that Brindi actually attacked the other dog, according to a statement by a judge on Feb. 3. It is not disputed that Brindi ran to the edge of her property, but it is not clear what happened in the next seconds. There is no vet bill or photo documenting a bite, and no impartial witness saw her bite a dog, which only the dog's owner's son (who was walking it) - claims Brindi bit his dog. However, there was witness testimony that this man had started kicking Brindi almost immediately after she ran to the edge of her property, and he continued to kick her until a driver passed by and honked his horn, causing everybody to scatter. The driver left his car in the road and was able to get Brindi's collar without any trouble, and pass her over to her owner, who sent her right home (50 feet away), where she waited obediently at the front door. The other man left before Brindi's owner could even get his name, let alone apologize.

Brindi's owner was not charged for this incident at the time of seizure, which happened four days later, without notice. There is no appeal process in the system. Thus, she had no other way to stop the killing than to file a lawsuit; then she went to court to challenge the by-law for not giving her due process and to let her dog go.

The owner is a single woman who had recently moved into a rural village inhabited by longtime residents. She offered to make amends, and sought advice for how to improve Brindi's behavior at every instance. Brindi was otherwise extremely well-behaved around people and dogs and children. She is a rescue dog who seems to have some kind of trigger from her past.

• There is no law or written policy anywhere that dictates that a muzzle order violation must lead directly to the destruction of an animal. Yet Animal Control insists to this day that that is what they ALWAYS do. They have even claimed that they were forced to issue a kill order, even though the law gives the officers full discretion at any and every juncture.

It seems to us that since July 2008, Brindi's owner has been caught in a web of bureaucracy and conspiracy that even seems to include the attorney she hired to quash the by-law and get her dog back home. He left the last part undone and turned around and sued her for tens of thousands of dollars - a huge fee that is five times the original estimate!!

All of the incidents lasted less than a minute, some no more than 20 seconds.

Halifax lost to Brindi's owner in the supreme court of Nova Scotia in that by-law case over a year ago. Now all HRM dogs are protected from this fate.

 However, the court left open what the city believed to be a loophole: while it quashed the euthanization order, it did not address the fundamental request to release Brindi to her owner - the whole purpose of the case. Halifax immediately charged Brindi's owner with the first charges ever, only one hour before the time limit ran out (six months). It continued to keep Brindi, insisting she was dangerous - although the city has never designated her as such in its own registry. And, though the warrant relied in part on a provincial law allowing seizures of animals believed dangerous, it stops there: it says nothing about what happens next. What happens after seizure is that a local law must kick in to determine what is to be done with the seized (property) animal. 

The problem for Halifax that there simply is NO LAW in the land that allows a city to hold a dog indefinitely without any euthanization order in hand.*

Now that the city of Halifax's hired gun prosecutor has gotten guilty verdicts against the owner, a sentencing hearing is scheduled for March 9. The usual practice is to automatically charge an owner fines and leave it at that. That is what the by-law A300 stipulates. But Halifax's powerful people are not interested in fines, they only want the dog to be killed. The city animal services department ignored the owner's initial and continued offers to build a fence around her property to avoid mishaps, and to proceed with special training while observing the muzzle order. Instead the city's lawyer's - and fans of the defensive SPCA - have painted her as some kind of outlaw! Animal Services, realizing that the supreme court justice left the door open to them, laid charges at the last minute only in order to get a new kill order. 


When asked months afterwards why he did not lay charges before, the AC officer answers (quite incredibly) that he "felt sorry" for the woman and did not want to cause her further distress with a fine!!! This is the same man who opted for the muzzle order instead of the fine at the drop of a hat, all it took was another dog owner to ask him not to lay a fine!

There is a bad risk that, in response to all the protests about its inhumane treatment, the city may now seek to give Brindi to a trainer to be kept in a cage for the rest of her life. 

Either outcome would set a very dangerous precedent that we find very troubling as dog owners.

Brindi has never seriously harmed another dog, nor has she attacked or bitten a human, or even been known to growl at one!!

So basically... after the muzzle order was in place, Brindi's owner was given no real chances. 

Brindi - now a beloved fixture at the SPCA's pound - was seized the very next time somebody called animal control. Ironically, they told the city the main reason they called was because they heard things (rumours) about this dog rather than the event itself. The man also said clearly that at no time did Brindi try to nip or bite him despite the fact that he repeatedly kicked at her head and stomach!

And after the the tragic seizure, Brindi's owner was given no due process to be able to plead for her life. In fact, despite massive efforts and cost, she has had no real due process till this day. 

Laying charges is not a form of granting due process. The charges are laid against a human; they are a separate matter from killing a dog because the city thinks it is dangerous. But in this matter, Halifax has inextricably linked the two. It's a very dangerous move!

While using the charges to get to a judge to ask for a euthanization order may be the only current option available to Halifax at the moment (a big gap in the system that concerns us), Halifax could have acted quite differently at any time. When a Supreme Court judge says that no due process was given or exists, a city should consider options such as creating a special appeals board or tribunal where the owner can seek to overturn a kill order - without the major life-threatening expense of hiring a lawyer and going to court themselves, while their dog languishes in a pound.

Please, above all, do not get the false impression that Halifax is incredibly rigorous about enforcing the by-law and admire it for that: on the contrary!!! There are numerous cases of dogs biting people - badly too, and multiple cases known involving four dogs - in which the dogs were not seized and in more than a few cases, the owners were never charged. 

What is true is that animal control in Halifax is practiced unevenly and arbitrarily, and that many dogs continue to terrorize their neighborhoods. 

In order to avoid setting a bad precedent, we believe it is imperative that Halifax be content with 3 guilty verdicts, which it rarely gets in other cases, and drop its bid to kill Brindi before March 9's sentencing hearing, so this dog can go back to its owner where she will receive the best health care and training, and finally recover from this ordeal together with her human!

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

* In fact, we wonder if this fact might present another problem for Halifax, as now there is a pit bull in custody for over seven months now, without a valid euthanization order! That dog is accused of biting two humans, but like Brindi, it was not declared dangerous. Even if it had been, the fact is that declaring a dog dangerous does NOT automatically allow it to be impounded or killed, since Halifax gives licenses out to "dangerous dogs". 


Provincial law in Nova Scotia gives these matters over to the municipalities, after providing a means of seizing an animal. However, once a guilty verdict is reached on a municipal law violation, the province comes back and gives the cities a neat way to get a judge add euthanization (or anything they want) as an "additional penalty", something we find equally incomprehensible and reprehensible: 

Additional penalty

177 At the trial of a charge laid against the owner of a dog that is fierce or dangerous, that persistently disturbs the quiet of a neighbourhood by barking, howling or otherwise or that runs at large, contrary to a by-law, in addition to the penalty, the judge may order that the

(a) dog be destroyed or otherwise dealt with; and

(b) owner pay any costs incurred by the municipality related to the dog, including costs related to the seizure, impounding, or destruction of the dog,

and it is not necessary to prove that the

(c) dog previously attacked or injured a domestic animal, person or property;

(d) dog had a propensity to injure or to damage a domestic animal, person or property; or

(e) defendant knew that the dog had such propensity or was, or is, accustomed to doing acts causing injury or damage. 1998, c. 18, s. 177; 2000, c. 9, s. 42.

Halifax dog owners, BEWARE! The system is set up so that regardless of what happens, if you win, you lose, and if you lose, you lose BIG TIME. 

If you love your dog, and have half a brain, you will be very, very worried right this minute, because enough has already happened to set a precedent for more grief.

If the city of Halifax "wins" in the next hearing, EVERYBODY LOSES! Any dog can be taken away and/or put down for ANYTHING at all!

A case from B.C.: Two Dogs Fare Better Than One?

Pair of dogs get benefit of the doubt after owner appeals death sentence

Supreme Court justice agrees to give owner another chance to state her case

BY IAN MULGREW, VANCOUVER SUNSEPTEMBER 5, 2009

Sometimes justice goes to the dogs, like this week when B.C. Supreme Court Justice Doug Halfyard spared the life of a couple of half-breeds.

Zack, a German shepherd cross, and Chloe, a black Labrador cross, were seized Jan. 6 in Nanaimo, declared dangerous dogs July 9 by the provincial court and ordered destroyed.

But owner Elaine Cameron appealed, begging Halfyard to commute the death sentence.

Cameron argued that the pair of pets had been wrongly condemned for attacks on other dogs because of a misunderstanding that led to her being out of the courtroom for much of their trial, which hampered their defence.

Surprisingly, on Tuesday, Halfyard agreed.

"I conclude that if Ms. Cameron had had the opportunity to present her case in the way she would have done if she had been present throughout the hearing, the trial judge might not have made the destruction order," he wrote.

Halfyard continued gravely: "In my opinion, there is a risk that a miscarriage of justice will occur if this appeal is not allowed. Moreover, under our law, justice must not only be done, it must also be seen to be done."

Even if you're a dog.

I couldn't help remembering a celebrated decision by the late Supreme Court Justice Doug Hogarth, who died in 1996 after a notable career.

With his eloquent 1992 judgment, Hogarth saved Robbie, a pure bred Scottish collie, from imminent execution.

The treasured family pet -- accused of nipping "the right gluteus maximus" of a woman in Langley Township -- was apprehended in April 1991 after "a dogfight" between its owners and animal control officers.

The family robustly protested their mute pooch was innocent. They were told he would be summarily executed if they didn't shut up.

"No lineup, photo or otherwise for Robbie," Hogarth lamented, "no charge, no dramatic readings of the Canine Charter of Rights and Freedoms, no plea, no trial, no application of the ancient and historic presumption of innocence, no appeal to the majesty of the Court of Appeal: guilt or innocence undetermined, Robbie faced the ignominy of almost immediate oblivion.

"Thus, Robbie was taken to the Langley Pound which, in the eyes of some, at least Robbie, is a far cry from the warmth, solicitude and understanding of home and hearth and which to him was indeed the equivalent of a canine Gulaag."

The family, like Cameron, insisted that not only shall every dog have his day, but their dog shall have his day in court. And they found the province's senior trial bench has its share of sentimental dog lovers.

Hogarth concluded Robbie was not the vicious culprit -- he had been at home "conducting himself with the essence of canine decorum, sober as a judge." Then he took aim at the Langley animal control bylaw.

"At first glance one assumes that this is a sort of 'War Measures Act' for Municipalities," he scoffed. "Within the context of the present case, one has visions of 'The Great Dog Insurrection of '88: British Bulldogs, German Shepherds, Russian Wolfhounds and the like, huddled in secret kennels presided over by an imperious Pekinese, plotting to overthrow the lawful authorities by force, while hounds in packs roam the highways and byways of the Defendant Township striking terror into the hearts of the citizens, ripping babies to shreds and the like."

Hogarth declared the dangerous-dog sections invalid.

But he advised Robbie to "apply to my judgment the immortal words of Christopher Morley that 'no one appreciates the very special genius of your conversation as a dog does,' and he might well bear in mind that the common-law only allows a dog one bite before he can be condemned."

These two mutts in Nanaimo should take similar note as they head back to provincial court for a second hearing.

imulgrew@vancouversun.com

We assume that if a dog only gets one bite, it would be a bite out of a human... at the very least!! 
We'd also like to know: were those two dogs in BC held in the pound all that time? 

Listen to Olive, not Joan!

Joan Sinden is convinced: she believes this blog is written by the latest person she would like to see suffer. Today's lucky object is Francesca Rogier.

Not with any faith that it would be posted or even believed, but with a sense of duty, and revulsion as well, after seeing the comments from her usual fan base, we have posted the following comment on Joan's blog. She has convinced these people that Brindi's owner will not do all and everything required if Brindi is returned to her. How she can do this, we do not know. But after many similar attempts we are not surprised. She has kicked Francesca around on her plenty of times for over a year.

We hope nobody important might be listened to on these things. We are Nobody Important. We are a small group of people who blog under Nova Scotia Truth. We prefer our names to be kept private to avoid the kind of attacks that go on. To help Francesca however we have sometimes needed the passwords to various things, like blogs. One of us may have inadvertently linked to the blog catalogue in the wrong way; it was very problematic to do. It turned out wrong and we are deeply sorry. We realize you will not want believe "nobody important", but we are heartsick to see what is being said now. Francesca is simply trying to get her dog back and will do anything to keep her safe from harm or causing harm for the rest of her life. Since a dog trainer is no expert on human behavior, is it really proper for a trainer to make speculations in public about the psychology of a dog owner? When it comes to people, Ms. Jay was convinced at one point that Brindi's Angels might come and get her and do her physical harm.* Knowing the meek nature of the personnel involved, we can't help but wonder about her judgment and so should others. Regardless of whether anybody believes this, we stand by everything in the posts and continue to maintain that this is injustice and the owner must be restored her rightful property. Anyone may judge from the outside, but they do not know the truth from the inside out.

Some posts are written by individuals. Some by more than one at a time. We are separate from the rest, we keep a low profile and even those closest to Francesca are not aware of who we all are. 


It is regrettable that so often, intended help - speaking out on her behalf - ends up causing her harm. We have observed this happen to others and now we are the ones to feel bad about it. Since Francesca just lost her longtime companion cat, Rudy, over the course of a sad four days in and out of the vet, we are all the more sorry. 

But we will not allow this to silence us or others.

We hope people will prefer to read the letter published in today's Herald:

Brindi case a travesty

I suppose today that Peter Kelly and his council are smug in the wake of winning the court case against Francesca Rogier. I am angry because this court case was won for the mayor using my tax dollars.

I do not support the animal control laws as they stand, and I want them changed with input from pet owners and animal lovers. As far as I am concerned, this case is not about a crime committed by Francesca or her dog. Instead, it’s about the fact she challenged somebody’s authority.

And unfortunately, she depended on the justice system for help. I hope Nova Scotians will take notice that this could happen to you and your pet. We should have given Francesca more support in this terrible time as she tried to save her dog.

It is not too late. Protest this move and demand that Brindi be given back to Francesca. Brindi was kennelled for 19 months, Francesca has been financially devastated. This is abuse. What kind of society are we running anyway?

People of HRM, I beg you to vote this mayor and council out as quickly as possible and demand new laws to protect animals and pet owners, and select animal control officers with a stringent new hiring policy.


Olive Pastor, Caribou

PS The idea that one cannot employ the word "rape" in any but a literal sense is simply sad and not backed up by the dictionary.

*We note Silvia's comment, printed below. To clarify, we meant that Silvia at one point expressed concern that Brindi's Angels would cause Silvia herself harm (not Brindi). We are presently looking for the source of that information to confirm; if we don't have it within the next day or so we will remove it. While we have no control over what is posted on someone else's blog, if it becomes necessary we will post another comment there. 

The SPCA makes a FABULOUS DISCOVERY: Brindi is a peaceful, non-aggressive dog!

We thought they weren't supposed to notice. Or were deliberately not noticing.

We thought they were not involved in the decision or the outcome of the case in ANY way. After all, they posted a lot of news releases to this effect, and SPCA members repeated it on countless FB groups, blogs, and online newspaper comments, anytime people wanted to know why the "charity" (we use the word loosely) would not help get this dog off death row. 

BUT NOW ----- it's time to pull off the veil. We really knew it all along. 

Superintendent Bill Moore

Community Projects

Halifax Regional Police

February 12, 2010

Bill:

In follow up to our conversation yesterday, I would like to request that the Crown Attorney in

the Rogier/Brindi case make a further submission to the court to suggest an alternative

sentence to euthanasia.

The Nova Scotia SPCA would be willing to assist HRM in making alternative arrangements for

Brindi; such as adoption to home in which her needs could be met, and the community could be

assured of public safety.

It is the Society’s belief that Brindi could be safely placed. Brindi has demonstrated over the

last 18 months that she can live peacefully and happily with a responsible owner.

Please feel free to contact me directly to discuss further.

Best Regards,

Kristin Williams

Executive Director

Nova Scotia SPCA

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Nice, eh? 

So they would not argue against euthanasia when Brindi's desperate owner begged them to -and you will recall, she was NOT charged for six months, therefore, nobody tried to say that she was so irresponsible and guilty, too much to have the right to get her wrongly seized dog back. 

Let's remember something right away: The SPCA are NOT animal experts, trainers, or behaviorists, and they are NOT qualified to make such statements. Sean Kelly used this fact to back off of helping Brindi and her owner many times at the start of this whole cluster bang.... 


Second, the idea that Brindi's stay at the pound has any bearing on how she can live with a responsible owner is a total joke and typical SPCA logic. WHO ARE THEY KIDDING? They cannot have it all ways, but they seem to get it every time. It so happens that we already KNOW Brindi is perfectly capable of these things by virtue of having done it before for a year, with her owner. And very very happily living with two cats as well, even sleeping with them. 

Side note: We haven't had the time or the stomach to detail here what the SPCA has been continuing to do to Janice Bingley but we know that the dogs have been up for adoption permanently, long before charges were laid - correction, charge - and now the hearing on that charge is scheduled for July! 

By the way ...after Brindi's owner was finally charged, the AC officer Hamm invented the story that he didn't charge her earlier because he "felt sorry for her" because he took her dog, and she didn't need financial hardship (of a $300 fine? Instead of over $30,000 for court and legal fees=? LOGICAL! The judge bought it, too! Oddly, the fine is the ONLY penalty offered by A300 and the city swears she was guilty and irresponsible yet did NOT want to punish her with charges?? Not make money on fines and label her guilty`? MORE LIKELY, Hamm didn't want her to have the chance to go before a judge too easily, certainly not without great expense and not in the first month or two! The judge might have actually released her dog! He's no fool, as an ex-cop. But other people are if believe his story. We heard on the stand the man showed he literally has no idea what is written in the by-law. Yet he knows how to get around it AND the Charter just fine.

The SPCA has a lot in common with Tim Hamm in this regard. But we digress. 

It's just so interesting that a group that has kept an animal in a substandard short-term facility for 19 months, fiercely denying all the harm to her health (even with cancer scares, dental disease, and pancreatis accumulating by the month), now wants to have its opinion considered on the question of how to best meet Brindi's needs. 


How can the SPCA in Nova Scotia possibly purport to know what that even means, when their current president is known to be responsible for teaching Brindi bad behavior such as jumping up on people to demand (not receive, but also demand) a treat? Something that Brindi was strictly NOT allowed (let alone taught) to do in her life with her real owner! How can these people expect the right to have a say, even if they were qualified to have one??? 

THIS IS A TRAVESTY OF ANIMAL CARE AND ANIMAL PROTECTION AND HUMAN RIGHTS AND IT MUST BE PUT TO A STOP. 

SOONER OR LATER IT WILL. IT IS ONLY A MATTER OF TIME: We would simply prefer the time to be now, for Brindi's sake, and her owner's, who is a person with a lot of education and skill to offer to this province. 

The law makes animals property, and property is the sacred core of individual and corporate rights in any capitalist system - unless it's a dog, somehow! The "property owner" rights are somehow non-extant in this case. They are automatically value-less. 

SO is the idea that dogs themselves are the center of a billion-dollar industry; if people believed dogs were nothing more than property, Hollywood would not be spewing out dog movie after dog movie all year round. Yet these highly valued box office smashes are discarded by the thousands daily and if they happen to offend in the least possible way, it's off with their heads!! 

OR, off with their owner's head, if the dog happens to turn out to be a sweetheart that everybody likes!! How impossible it is for a human to compete with a sweet dog! No way for Francesca to endear herself as well to the powers that be, even if she were as cute and lovable as, say, Minnie Mouse! Tough luck...

Kristin Williams on the other hand could probably pull it off. After all, she used to work at an amusement park, didn't she? 

ON the other hand, 

How bright is Bob Ottenbrite, Councilor Wile?

REPLY FROM HRM COUNCILOR TO A PLEA TO LET BRINDI GO BACK HOME TO HER OWNER SENT BY A MEMBER OF HUMANE HALIFAX:

From: Mary Wile <mailto:wilema@halifax.ca>  
To: VS
Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2010 4:07 PM
Subject: Re: Brindi

Mrs. S- there is another option and that is a Mr. Bob Ottenbrite, a well-known dog trainer, who help train Brindi,, said he would take the dog and Francesca can visit Brindi. They live nearby.  However, the owner doesn't want to do this.

Franseca has done this before, it wasn't the first time, so obviously she has proven that she is unable to care for her dog.  It gets down to what is the best for the dog-i don't think Brindi should be put down and  I do feel Mr. Ottenbrite should care for the dog. A happy ending.

There was an article in the paper a couple of days ago re the possibility of Mr. Ottenbrite taking Brindi.

Thank you for your concern. 
_______________________

Ms. Wile, we respectfully disagree with your notion of a happy ending!!!!! Aside from the question of how the public can be sure that Mr. Ottenbrite would live up to his word, we must protest loudly, what sort of option this is? What decent trainer would recommend locking up this poor sick animal forever? 


Ms. Wile, an awful lot of Haligonians are very dissatisfied with you and your colleagues for creating an unconstitutional and incomplete law, and not lifting a finger to change it for two years already. They are also deeply unhappy with the way HRM Animal Services applies the law (badly), not to mention its unacceptable treatment of Rogier and Brindi. 

So tell us, Ms. Wile, exactly what has Brindi's owner "done before"? Was she charged and convicted for anything? NO. We ask, why is an elected official speaking in this libelous way? 

Tell us also, how has Rogier “obviously proven" she is unable to care for her dog?? We strongly doubt this. Can the Council say with certitude that Rogier is any worse than the dozens of HRM dog owners who since January 2007 allowed their dogs to seriously and in many cases repeatedly injure people and/or animals - including several who killed chickens and cats? Anyone doubting how poorly Animal Services insure public safety, must see this chart of by-law charges (nobody knows how many dogs are never charged). 67 of those dog owners were charged, some convicted, yet only one ever lost their dog. 
Rogier is a far better dog owner than a certain policeman on that chart named Justin Murphy who owns a rather large and fierce dog (a dogo argentino). In one instance alone, Murphy's dog savagely bit the hand of Bonita Pasquet's 15 year old son, leading to emergency surgery with stitches. Murphy quickly changed  his location in order to protect his dog from a seizure. None ever came. After a long battle to have him charged, the judge simply dropped the case, claiming the Crown could not prove the dog was Murphy's, due to the change in address, even though Murphy freely admitted it was his dog. Pasquet planned to sue him in civil court but life took another course for her. She was furious to learn recently that this was not the first time Murphy was charged for his dog attacking people/animals. One charge was withdrawn, the other converted into a charge of running at large, and fined for about $200. No muzzle. No euthanization. No nothing. Pasquet says before he moved, his dog terrorized the neighborhood, attacking many kids and animals that never resulted in charges. It's nice when you are in the business, eh?


So in our view, Rogier's guilty verdict means precious little. The Council may not know that absolutely NO evidence was presented in court to prove that Brindi bit or truly attacked any dog on July 20, 2008; we only have the dogwalker's word for it, contradicting two other witnesses. For his part, Mr. Shea, the dog walker, changed his testimony a number of times, and in each version he claimed he never heard what was a very loud truck horn, honked about 15 seconds after Brindi escaped her owner's grip (which ended the "attack" that he says lasted minutes). The truck driver testified to his own honking AND to seeing Rogier arrive at the street edge at the same moment - after she ran less than 40 feet to get there, which did not take longer than 15 seconds. That driver also testified that he saw Mr. Shea kicking Brindi repeatedly and pursuing her into the road with his kicks. Brindi might have run off to just have a sniff at his dogs - we'll never really know, because he started kicking her right away! (He says he heard her growl - but never heard the horn. Weird hearing!)
We respectfully remind the councilors and the mayor that Ms. Rogier took a four year old rescue dog from a two year stint in a shelter and pretty smoothly acclimated her to a community where she was fairly beloved, passing obedience class within two months, sleeping with two cats within three months. The mishaps were anomalies that led to no serious harm, and are regarded by the vast majority of dog lovers and trainers around the world (thousands) as normal behavior, if not ideal for humans to witness: this is not a dog that tried to kill an animal or a person. Far from it! In this video of Rogier and her loving dog at the shelter, we challenge anybody to recognize a dog that is truly so vicious it must be locked up forever.

We respectfully ask Mary Wile and her buddies on the council to carefully read the letters on http://supportbrindi.blogspot.com about Brindi and her owner, including the ones from two young girls, a mom with small kids, and several other dog owners, not to mention the kennel, groomer, and vet. 

We also remind the councilors that it was due to their neglect to provide a proper appeal process that forced Ms. Rogier to file suit against HRM to stop the kill order, then launch a supreme court case to get her dog back. And for her trouble, HRM continued to illegally keep her dog locked up. You cannot be unaware that she has been suffering financially, emotionally, and professionally and her poor dog is aging fast and contracting chronic illness - while the SPCA has treated her like a terrorist when it comes to visits, prohibiting even photos!! 

We fear that Ms. Wile has been badly misled, and so has the public. Not only is Mr. Ottenbrite's Mt. Udiacke facility well over an hour away from Ms. Rogier's home in East Chezzetcook, but we have serious doubts both about the wisdom of his "option", as well as about his sincerity and motives. We feel the entire council ought to be made aware of these things it publicly endorses his “option”.

So, how bright is Mr. Ottenbrite? Shiny like vinyl posing as satin. Get this flow of events:

• Brindi and her owner passed Ottenbrite's obedience course in late summer 07 with relative ease (and hard work, we assume), shortly after Brindi was adopted. During those eight weeks of classes, Brindi never attacked another dog. This is not disputed; in fact, a vet who attended many of the same classes testified to this. 
• After that, Ms. Rogier turned to Ottenbrite for advice on how to handle Brindi on the few occasions when, to everyone's surprise, a mishap occurred . 
• His advice consisted of not much more than reassuring Rogier that Brindi's behavior was just a chance happening, basically harmless and normal, until the third time she called more insistently on him for help. At that time, he advised her to take Brindi to agility training at his facility an hour away. Rogier obediently paid his fee and started classes. 
• In this regard, we feel Ottenbrite is partly responsible for Brindi and let down her owner. But Instead of stepping up to the plate for Brindi at the start to tell HRM she is not dangerous, he said nothing, to cover his reputation; later, he blamed everything on her owner.
• After a year and a half of letting Rogier twist in the breeze, Mr. O quite inappropriately wrote a letter to her trial judge to try to intervene in the proceedings without anyone requesting his help– either HRM or Rogier. The judge was greatly annoyed; she did not read the letter, so did not know who wrote it. Interestingly, the hired-gun prosecutor, Mr. Newton, DID KNOW. That must mean that Newton was privy to Ottenbrite's plans - Rogier was not, however. 
• SO, after failing this dog and owner for ages, Mr. O now deceives the latter and proposes to lock up the former for the rest of her life. Nice.
• To achieve his goal, on Feb. 3, he promised Rogier in front of witnesses that his intentions were all in her favor; he promised he would not propose his option to the court or public until and unless the sentencing came down to death for Brindi. He later promised only to offer to take Brindi temporarily and give her back at a future time - after either a proper legal action or Rogier leaving HRM. 
• But as soon as the verdict was announced this past Tuesday, Mr. O went directly to the media even before they had a chance to interview Rogier. And in his media version of the "option", O changed the temporary stay to a permanent one, unbeknownst to Rogier. Nice!
• Mr. O then had the audacity to let it be thought that he and Rogier live close to one another!??! If East Chezzetcook and Mt. Uniacke are close by, it's news to us!! 

Not only does Ottenbrite stand alone in his view of HRM geography: we also understand that no other trainer since 2008 - and Rogier has been contacted by many and contacted many others - has echoed O's advice of agility training. The consensus has been that she should hire a private trainer to work with her and her dog right on her property. 


So how bright is Ottenbrite? What is really going on?


Ottenbrite's longtime connections to the infamous SPCA are no secret. Around 2003, he was its director and is reputed to have ruled with an iron hand. So his earlier silence about the seizure raises many questions: was he silent to protect the SPCA from criticism for their part in this fiasco? What is his position now, now that the SPCA has succeeded in ruining this dog's life, with chronic illness? 

What we see is a trainer taking advantage of a former client in many ways. Recently we learned from a contact to Rogier that Ottenbrite still owes her a fair amount of cash for the remaining agility lessons. A year ago, he told Rogier he would never refund that money despite her financial need. He cited a no-refund policy not given in writing. The problem is, he also flatly refused to give her the remaining lessons at any time. She has since filed a small claims suit against Ottenbrite for the money, plus damages. The hearing is scheduled March 23. We think she'll get win on that one.) So Ottenbrite is, um, far from a neutral third party.... he has a decided interest here, and it is not in Rogier's favor, let alone her dog's.

We find that Mr. Ottenbrite's "option" is far from a fair outcome; it simply compounds HRM's initial wrongdoing in a blatant way. It is so dismaying that he is willing to deceive Rogier and the public for personal gain, while claiming he is impartial. He is hoping to be seen as a knight in shining armour with an option that is so clearly NOT in the best interest of any dog or anyone involved, other than HRM and the SPCA. 


BAD dog trainer!!!! 

Unfortunately, the councilors are too in the dark to understand that far from resolving this situation fairly, Ottenbrite wants to complete the process started by their own staff at Animal Services, namely, a rape in all but name of a single woman who came to Canada to fulfill her dream. Ottenbrite is shamelessly using this woman's misery and her dog's life simply to promote his own business and protect his friends. Worse - he has a connection to a strange woman named Gail Gallant who is known to have been harassing and stalking Rogier for a year now. Ms. Gallant has publicly stated numerous times that she is determined to prevent Rogier from getting Brindi back home - even spreading rumours that neighbors would shoot the dog! 


Not long ago, this was seen on Facebook: 

Bob O said Dec 7, 09: Gail,I will work with the judge before Jan. & you do what you do best.  

We rest our case. 

And in contrast to Mr. O, we find that Rogier has shown far more integrity, told the truth, and been consistent, not to mention the fact that she is the only person to provide a badly needed corrective to the bad by-law A300 to date, while Ottenbrite has said nothing about the law, never mind making an attempt to improve it.

Plus: soon after Animal Services - contrary to all reason and expectation and the law - seized Brindi, Rogier committed publicly to how she would insure public safety in exchange for her dog's life: correct Brindi's behavior with targeted training, and build a fence; she also stated she was quite willing to pay fines for guilty charges, IF only she were charged! Rogier even went one step further and built the fence and hired the trainer soon afterwards, but there came no response at all from Halifax. The contrast to the recent case in NB could not be greater. 


We feel Halifax can trust in Rogier to do the right thing more than Ottenbrite, who is out for himself and his own business interests (the PR will do a lot for him).

MS. WILE: Perhaps you are not aware that it so happens that Ms. Rogier has a much better option on the table, that the judge knows nothing about thanks to HRM. A trainer right here in Halifax named Ted Efthymiadis informed HRM lawyers early last summer that he is willing to train Brindi for free and insure against future issues. But the lawyers and animal services staff never told you and the Council about this. WHY?

PLEASE,  DO YOUR JOB, Ms. Wile! First of all, get the info yourself! Take the time to find out how these officials staff go about their business, and above all, find out the real facts before you endorse any option. And no option is right, other than returning Brindi to her poor beleaguered owner!!