tybrax

Rubbish the evidence was to prove the three points. The dog was an Amstaff, the checklist was invalid, and there are no experts in breed id. This is what the Supreme Court case was about. So Tango won his three points and should of been free to go home. Until Geoff Irwin at the last minute added the submission That the Amstaff is a Pit Bull. Sheer Malice because they new they couldn't win. tybrax

Mr Logan Timms Senior Policy Officer Strategic Policy and Legislation Department of Local Government, Sport and Recreation PO Box 15031 CITY EAST QLD 4002 Contact Logan Timms

Easy to lay blame when it was Geoff Irwins who handed the submission in stating the amstaff is a Pit bull at the last minute. What was his comment in court, oh yeah we made a mistakes 6 years ago, and forgot to add the Amstaff. Sheer Malice tybrax It's a terrible result. But one that every breed knowlegable individual knew was a distinct possibility. There is no escaping the fact the AST & the APBT are the same breed. Being in denial doesn't help. In fact it has just exaggerated the situation. There are so many people out there with dogs they were told were not APBTs They are now faced with a raft of possibilities, all of them bad. I have just had a pool installed & the contractor was telling me about his AST. I ask him the obvious questions..." "Did you buy him from a registered breeder" "Yes" "did you get the ANKC registration papers?" "No, we don't want to show him" "First thing you do when you get home is contact the breeder & arrange for the papers to be forwarded, without them if there is any bother your dog will be classed as a pit bull. ANKC rego papers with the matching micro chip number will be accepted as proof of breed & could just save his life & you a lot of grief" "But he is an Amstaff, not a pit bull" '" Same breed" 'They told me it isn't" "They lied" Now it may not matter anymore. It would have been better for all concerned if the people had of just moved south to Australia. Cheaper too. How much do you reckon the court costs will be? A mill maybe? And your an expert in breed id????

Easy to lay blame when it was Geoff Irwins who handed the submission in stating the amstaff is a Pit bull at the last minute. What was his comment in court, oh yeah we made a mistakes 6 years ago, and forgot to add the Amstaff. Sheer Malice tybrax

Top post. They lost on all three accounts, Tango is an Amstaff, the checklist is invalid, and there are no experts. They did not contest any of it, this is what the fight was over. The councils were the ones that added the submission stating the amstaff is a pit bull. tybrax

http://au.tv.yahoo.com/sunrise/video/play/.../breed-hounded/ Sunrise tango case. tybrax

Unless your dog is on a working registry then no dogs should be bred without ANKC papers. People need to realise that if they buy unpapered dogs they won't get the same support from the ANKC as the recognised breeds do. Breeders shouldn't sell there pups to pet shops.

Sheer Malice

Council has passed the buck onto the state gov. Logan Timms has stated he cannot comment as he has not read the submission but would like to hear from people with there concerns. Logan Timms State gov, [email protected]. The Department’s postal address is PO Box 15031, City East, Queensland 4002. tybrax

Council has passed the buck onto the state gov. Logan Timms has stated he cannot comment as he has not read the submission but would like to hear from people with there concerns. Logan Timms State gov, [email protected]. The Department’s postal address is PO Box 15031, City East, Queensland 4002. tybrax

Its called pass the buck. tybrax

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/04...?site=goldcoast Kylie will on the ABC this morning between 8.40 and 9.30 tybrax

Wasn't this proven in previous cases, and the reason for the amendment to the regulations recently? Yes it was, but council ignore it and still use the 22 point checklist. tybrax

The case will be appealed. Council have to pay there own cost. can't say much till l get info. Zayda post the document up it's public knowledge. A Current Affair tonight tango's story channel 9. ABC has done a story as well. tybrax

Argument proving Tango to be an Amstaff, also proving the 22 point checklist to be a complete false tool to identify a suspected dog to be a Pit bull terrier, we also were to prove that the Animal control Officers hold no qualification/training of any real bearing to be an expert under the rules of law, as an expert in dog breed identification. All three points the Gold Coast City Councils 2 QC's agreed with without contesting any part. These are the points we were fighting for and won they did not contest. In fact they indicated that for the past 6 years they may have got everything wrong with the way they had administered this law but could fix it? Then they threw this on the table. The Amstaff was a Pit bull terrier?????? So we had proven that Tango was an Amstaff, the 22 point checklist was false and the ACO were not experts so all their evidence was inadmissible, But, Tango still was a Pit bull terrier as Amstaffs are really Pit bulls just known by another name?? Rather than concede, and allow the return of Tango to Qld they would rather destroy all Amstaffs as well??? The direction given by Geoff Irwin to the law firm King & Co Solicitors', to take in order to win, this submission is now before the Judge who has to rule on the evidence before him. This is Councils arguments only, not a court judgement!!! This is just sheer "MALICE" By Geoff Irwin to go after the Amstaff because they new they could not win. tybrax

l cannot confirm this until the Supreme Court releases it, for public knowledge. Which they haven't done yet. All parties involved are still with barristers. tybrax

The defendant (Chivers) produced evidence which suggested that Amstaffs and APBT were the same breed of dog. All that the GCCC legal team did was to ask the judge (based on Chivers own evidence) whether an Amstaff and an APBT were the same breed of dog. The judge's decision (based on the evidence of the case before him) was that "yes" they are the same breed. Rubbish Geoff Irwin GCC instructed his Solictor to produce the evidence that the Amstaff was a Pit bull. Argument proving Tango to be an Amstaff, also proving the 22 point checklist to be a complete false tool to identify a suspected dog to be a Pit bull terrier, we also were to prove that the Animal control Officers hold no qualification/training of any real bearing to be an expert under the rules of law, as an expert in dog breed identification. All three points the Gold Coast City Councils 2 QC's agreed with without contesting any part. These are the points we were fighting for and won they did not contest. In fact they indicated that for the past 6 years they may have got everything wrong with the way they had administered this law but could fix it? Then they threw this on the table. The Amstaff was a Pit bull terrier?????? So we had proven that Tango was an Amstaff, the 22 point checklist was false and the ACO were not experts so all their evidence was inadmissible, But, Tango still was a Pit bull terrier as Amstaffs are really Pit bulls just known by another name?? Rather than concede, and allow the return of Tango to Qld they would rather destroy all Amstaffs as well??? The direction given by Geoff Irwin to the law firm King & Co Solicitors', to take in order to win, this submission is now before the Judge who has to rule on the evidence before him. This is Councils arguments only, not a court judgement!!! This is just sheer "MALICE" By Geoff Irwin to go after the Amstaff because they new they could not win. l will not post anything up until it is public knowledge. Zayda Asher l have only just recieved the documentation from an amstaff breeder, and have not had time to read it. tybrax

$500,000 to keep dog off death row Thomas Chamberlin | April 6th, 2010 John Mokomoko with Tango A COUPLE who say they have spent almost $500,000 in a fight for their dog to live on the Gold Coast should today learn if they have won their six-year battle. Kylie Chivers and John Mokomoko have taken on the Gold Coast City Council in the Supreme Court over the identification of their dog Tango as an American pit bull, as opposed to an American staffordshire terrier. The council's ruling of Tango as a pit bull meant the dog, which originally cost them $300, was automatically deemed dangerous and needed to be put down. To keep the animal safe the family moved it to a kennel just south of Tweed Heads more than five years ago, where it could be registered as an American staffordshire terrier. Today, hundreds of thousands of dollars later, a judge is to decide Tango's fate in a decision which could have wider ramifications for thousands of dog owners, after council lawyers argued the American pit bull and American staffordshire terrier were the same breed, meaning both were dangerous. "The fallout of the decision could be horrendous," said Mr Mokomoko, 47, who works as a Brisbane airport security officer. The couple had made an agreement with the council to move Tango to NSW instead of having him destroyed, which has fueled the council's argument why the dog should not be returned to the Coast. Their case prompted Mr Mokomoko to work 98-hour weeks at his former security job at the Tugun desalination plant to pay the cost of the kennel, weekly travel, lawyers and documentation including Freedom of Information requests, and video evidence. At one point he was paying another security officer to drive his wife down to see Tango. He also helped other dog owners successfully overturn 57 dog identifications through the courts, which he said had brought his total costs close to $500,000. Along with thousands of pages of documents, the couple also obtained DNA samples from Tango's parents and submitted a breed identification test to the court, arguing the 22-point identification checklist from southeast councils was flawed. Mr Mokomoko fears if today's decision goes against them it could set a precedent and affect all American staffordshire terriers. The American staffordshire terrier clubs of Queensland, Victoria and Northern Territory have written to city council CEO Dale Dickson expressing concern and calling on the council to drop the case. "This has the potential to negatively impact upon an entire recognised pure breed, representing tens of thousands of dogs and their owners, for the sake of one court case involving one dog," said Victorian secretary Lincoln Hancock in a letter. If the family wins today and if a judgment is made on the 22-point identification checklist, Mr Mokomoko believes it will prompt litigation from other owners who may have had their dog wrongfully identified as pit bulls The Mokomoko family is also seeking costs from the council. http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/2010/0...lead-story.html tybrax

Print Share $500,000 to keep dog off death row Thomas Chamberlin | April 6th, 2010 John Mokomoko with Tango A COUPLE who say they have spent almost $500,000 in a fight for their dog to live on the Gold Coast should today learn if they have won their six-year battle. Kylie Chivers and John Mokomoko have taken on the Gold Coast City Council in the Supreme Court over the identification of their dog Tango as an American pit bull, as opposed to an American staffordshire terrier. The council's ruling of Tango as a pit bull meant the dog, which originally cost them $300, was automatically deemed dangerous and needed to be put down. To keep the animal safe the family moved it to a kennel just south of Tweed Heads more than five years ago, where it could be registered as an American staffordshire terrier. Today, hundreds of thousands of dollars later, a judge is to decide Tango's fate in a decision which could have wider ramifications for thousands of dog owners, after council lawyers argued the American pit bull and American staffordshire terrier were the same breed, meaning both were dangerous. "The fallout of the decision could be horrendous," said Mr Mokomoko, 47, who works as a Brisbane airport security officer. The couple had made an agreement with the council to move Tango to NSW instead of having him destroyed, which has fueled the council's argument why the dog should not be returned to the Coast. Their case prompted Mr Mokomoko to work 98-hour weeks at his former security job at the Tugun desalination plant to pay the cost of the kennel, weekly travel, lawyers and documentation including Freedom of Information requests, and video evidence. At one point he was paying another security officer to drive his wife down to see Tango. He also helped other dog owners successfully overturn 57 dog identifications through the courts, which he said had brought his total costs close to $500,000. Along with thousands of pages of documents, the couple also obtained DNA samples from Tango's parents and submitted a breed identification test to the court, arguing the 22-point identification checklist from southeast councils was flawed. Mr Mokomoko fears if today's decision goes against them it could set a precedent and affect all American staffordshire terriers. The American staffordshire terrier clubs of Queensland, Victoria and Northern Territory have written to city council CEO Dale Dickson expressing concern and calling on the council to drop the case. "This has the potential to negatively impact upon an entire recognised pure breed, representing tens of thousands of dogs and their owners, for the sake of one court case involving one dog," said Victorian secretary Lincoln Hancock in a letter. If the family wins today and if a judgment is made on the 22-point identification checklist, Mr Mokomoko believes it will prompt litigation from other owners who may have had their dog wrongfully identified as pit bulls The Mokomoko family is also seeking costs from the council. http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/2010/0...lead-story.html tybrax

If one dog is taken the Gold Coast City Council is guilty of all three, including the Minister for local Government Desley Boyle. The letter writers have informed both parties of the truth, no they need to be informed of their responsibilities, they will try to pass the buck, and blame the courts for the results but they control what happens before the decision, they can do the write thing and with draw. Now that they are aware the their id a genetic difference between AST and APBT, that is scientifically able to be proven and is very easy to prove in court. nonfeasance - a failure to act when under an obligation to do so; a refusal (without sufficient excuse) to do that which it is your legal duty to do. Nonfeasance is a term that describes a failure to act that results in harm to another party. Misfeasance, by contrast, describes some affirmative act that, though legal, causes harm. In practice, the distinction is confusing and uninstructive. Courts often have difficulty determining whether harm resulted from a failure to act or from an act that was improperly performed malfeasance wrongdoing or improper or dishonest conduct, especially by a person who holds public office or a position of trust, intentionally doing something either legally or morally wrong which one had no right to do. It always involves dishonesty, illegality, or knowingly exceeding authority for improper reasons. Malfeasance is distinguished from "misfeasance," which is committing a wrong or error by mistake, negligence or inadvertence, but not by intentional wrongdoing. Example: a city manager putting his indigent cousin on the city payroll at a wage the manager knows is above that allowed and/or letting him file false time cards is malfeasance; putting his able cousin on the payroll which, unknown to him, is a violation of an anti-nepotism statute is misfeasance. This distinction can apply to corporate officers, public officials, trustees, and others cloaked with responsibility. misfeasance a form of wrongdoing, especially the doing of something lawful in an unlawful way so that the rights of others are infringed. Generally, a civil defendant will be liable for misfeasance if the defendant owed a duty of care toward the plaintiff, the defendant breached that duty of care by improperly performing a legal act, and the improper performance resulted in harm to the plaintiff. misfeasance n. management of a business, public office or other responsibility in which there are errors and an unfortunate result through mistake or carelessness, but without evil intent and/or violation of law. Misfeasance is distinguished from "malfeasance" which is conduct in violation of the law please add this to you leters. tybrax

Jed sent you a message regarding tango case. Thank you Geo. tybrax

This is only a council arguement and not a judgement or ruling. This come's next week. Many people are fighting very hard at the moment. tybrax

Dear It was with great disgust and intense anger that I learnt today that you, the Minister for Local Government, Hon Desley Boyle, are about to allow an Animal Control Officer to attempt to manipulate a Supreme Court Judge into changing /altering the Customs Act 1901 of the Commonwealth, and Animal Management (Cats and Dogs) Bill 2008 and what was left of 17A. As I understand what has happened, a woman by the name of Kylie Chivers, being the owner of a misidentified dog called Tango, was under a Magistrate Court order to prove her dog was an American Staffordshire Terrier in order to have it allowed to return to her home on the Gold Coast after being in a Kennel in NSW for over 2016 days. Ms Chivers fulfilled the terms of the agreement with no contest from the Gold Coast City Councils 2 QC’s to this fact. Ms Chivers evidence also showed that the Tool (the 22 point checklist) used by Animal Control Officers to identify suspected dogs was knowingly false, a point that was also unopposed by the GCCC legal representatives. Thirdly, Ms Chivers evidence showed that the Animal Control officers were not experts in anyway of the practice of dog breed identification, being not experts in this field as to the rules of law, not experts in a court of law. Ms Chivers had proven all three points without any objections from the GCCC legal team, what has happened next to any reasonable minded person appears to be nothing more than malice and spite. The direction from the GCCC was to try and trick/use the Supreme Court judge into making a judgment that an American Staffordshire Terrier is the same as an American Pit Bull Terrier thus changing laws both within local council/state/and federal by setting a precedent. Why would the GCCC rather kill all the American Staffordshire Terriers in Australia just to stop one dog from returning to the Gold Coast? Remembering that the dog Tango is an American Staffordshire terrier born before 2005 so able to be registered and able to return to the GC anyway. Can you explain how “the end justifies the means” in this case or is it just once again another case of abuse of office/power? After speaking with your advisors in regulator authority, they have assured me 17A and the Customs Act 1901 of the Commonwealth had never intended to add American Staffordshire terrier as a restricted dog breed. I suspect your standard response will be “we are not responsible for what a local council does!”, but as the guardian of state laws, isn’t it your responsibility to stop this before it is too late. Ms Chivers uncontested evidence shows her dog, Tango, is an American Staffordshire terrier, fair and square. Yet again, a couple of hundred thousand dollars of taxpayer’s money wasted on another trial where common sense should have prevailed. It is reasonable to expect our state government to maintain the integrity of laws they enact In reality, all Australian American Pit Bull Terrier imports from the United Kennel Club (USA) numbered fewer than ten purebred registered dogs, and the last one was imported in 1990—therefore the breed is absolutely separate from the American Staffordshire Terriers developed here. The AST is a purebred show dog, registered with the ANKC, a body recognized in all states, there are thousands of them legally in the country with many in Qld and it would seem that GCCC has acted without any government and/or councils mandate or consultation in its submission to the Supreme Court on 29th of March 2010 and fails to recognize the enormity of the fallout from this proposed change in Qld restricted dog laws. I ask that you intervene to ensure that the American Staffordshire terrier is not proclaimed identical to the American Pit Bull Terrier in this country, thereby maintaining the intent of the Customs Act that bans importation of only four specific breeds of dog and on which the Queensland law was clearly based. I am the owner of a show breed, papered American Staffordshire terrier and I vote. Yours Sincerely, Collette McCool (Head of Local Govt) [email protected] gov.au Dale Dickson (CEO OF GCC) - [email protected] John Coen (Head position of GCC) - Att John Coen - gcccmail.goldcoast.qld.gov.au Depends on how many use this template, please make sure you paraphrase the sentences so some of the wording is different. tybrax

If the DoL people are the same people that are at the forefront of anti-BSL campaigning then they havn't got a hope in Hades of changing BSL legislation with their attitude. Thats why the Supreme Court case was just won. Great t-Shirts Rottnbullies tybrax

Thank you Sheba. tybrax