Help Save The Ast Qld (template)

[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

Edited April 1, 2010 by tybrax

[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