Hon.d.boyle Kill Amstaffs Set Pit Bulls Free?

[kylielou]

Although Dogs Qld and Mel G were very quick to take credit for forcing the Qld Minister having to make the statement she has regarding the American Staffordshire terrier, the truth is far more interesting.

First: 2004

Kylie’s dog Tango was seized as a Pit bull terrier. A Magistrate ordered that the dog was not to be allowed to return to the GCCC unless Ms Chivers prove to the GCCC that her dog was an American Staffordshire terrier.

Then began the war to prove:

1. That the method of identification, 22 point checklist was nothing but a trick to fool dog owners into handing over their dogs and fool magistrates that council had experts in dog breed identification

2. That these experts in dog breed identification held training to a level supported in the rules of law as a true expert.

First case to court was Justin Taylor vs GCCC

Justin is a quadriplegic; the GCCC took his companion dog, as yes “it’s a Pit bull”. Under cross examination form Barrister, Jack Pappas, ACO Selina Neil crashed and burned, taking the 22 point checklist with her as her support. The Magistrate Batts ruled she was in no way an expert in dog breed identification holding no true qualification in this field.

The attempt was then made to get another ACO to save the day, however, when it was found that the person who was to be the GCCC saviour was trained by ACO Selina Neil, that was the end of that and the dog was returned.

Second Case to trial, Dino Da Fre Vs Logan City Council.

6 days in trial, the founder of the 22 point checklist (ACO Debora Pomeroy) on the stand, shooting herself in the foot that many times, even I felt embarrassed. Her star student Dr Jackie Perkins, a much better shot, having difficulties with her foot in her mouth, still manage to convinced the magistrate, she was also not an expert in dog breed identification.

Trial over, submission being exchanged, Logan City Council, withdrew,… dog returned to owner.

Then Darren Wills Vs Redcliffe City Council, and followed around about 57 other misidentifications which when they contacted legal advice informed them the best results for them was to just give the dog back, which they did.

Chivers Vs GCCC

We had to go to the Supreme Court BRISBANE:

Then began the war to prove:

3. That the method of identification, 22 point checklist was nothing but a trick to fool dog owners into handing over their dogs and fool magistrates that council had experts in dog breed identification

4. That these experts in dog breed identification held training to a level supported in the rules of law as a true expert.

This went through the trial, with total agreement from the GCCC barrister, going out of his way to assist.

Then at the end, the GCCC barrister handed in a whole new submission, stating over the past 6 years, including the past trials, which councils had won throughout Qld their process was wrong and now they have the truth?

The Amstaff and the Pit bull terrier are the same dog breed, as Ms Chivers had proven her case she sill loses because, her proven Amstaff is still a Pit bull terrier and as we know Pit bull terriers are a restricted dog breed.

The judge had to rule with what was before him on the day.

A win by stealth, Amstaff is a Pit bull terrier.

A lot of noise from the ex-president of the Qld Amstaff club, and Dogs Qld but noise dose not change polices.

Hard facts do.

Working with Logan Timms Senior Policy Officer of the Department of Infrastructure and Planning, who is the real hero, in my mind, but don’t let him know that I wrote this:

We were now faced with the task of proving the Judge ruling was wrong, the Judge gave us the way by stating this in his decision:

[42] The determination of whether a dog is of a particular breed can be quite difficult.

There is, on the evidence before me, no satisfactory scientific method such as DNA

analysis which provides a reliable answer. The word “breed” itself has to be applied

carefully. To determine whether a dog is of a particular breed is, of course, a

question of fact.

As we were aware that this has been a provable fact for almost 10 years here in Australia, and the GCCC barrister, never having requested this proof in 6 years, but asking for the proof at the end of the trial, we now had the opportunity to prove this point.

I started DNA testing Pure breed Amstaffs with the help of Linc from the Victorian Amstaff club. We could, with 100% accuracy, show the DNA test for an Amstaff was solid. We started testing well known Pit bull terriers.

The results:

1) Boston terrier cross Labrador?

2) Bulldog cross Staffy?

3) Boxer cross Staffy?

4) Neapolitan mastiff Ridgeback?

5) Ridgeback Cross Staffy?

The crosses kept coming back different, I contacted the DNA lab, to find out a reason for the results, only to find they were aware of this and was one of the reasons they did not bother making up a DNA test to prove a dog was a Pit bull terrier.

I contacted well known Pit bull breeders, who confirmed that same thing.

Email to Logan Timms:

To The Hon Minister Desley Boyle

Member for Cairns

C/o

Dear Logan Timms

Senior Policy Officer of the Department of Infrastructure and Planning

Brisbane

Logan, I have 2 questions:

Question 1, The Hon Minister Desley Boyle has in her portfolio, The Cats and Dogs Animal Management Bill 2008. Within this, is a reference to the old 17A Restricted dog laws. My question is: As a law abiding citizen of Queensland and a dog owner, who wishes to obey the letter of the law, how am I to know if my dog is an American Pit bull terrier, a restricted breed?

Can the Minister please give me a scientific positive way so I may, as a common person/ratepayer, be able to know that I have broken the law or not?

As with Mete and Rangi Waikai, her two dogs "Whereo" and "Mo" were both placed under a destruction order by the Gold Coast City Council, Animal Management (Cats and Dog) Act 2008, section 127, Destruction Order.2010/01, Both dogs have been tested for Breed identification, known as BITSA which you are familiar with, and the results:

Mo: Boston Terrier/ Golden Retriever

Whereo: Staffordshire Bull terrier/ Boxer

Both do not hold the cross breeding to be American Pit bull terriers so how is it they have broken the law?

If Boston Terrier/ Golden Retriever are Pit bull terriers, then all other cross breeds are nothing more than mongrels and are free to live in peace, likewise if Staffordshire Bull terrier/ Boxers are Pit bull terriers then all other cross breed mongrels are then also free to live in peace as well?

If the Minister can tell me what are the cross breeds to make an American Pit bull terrier, I will be able to advise Mete and Rangi Waikai on how they can fulfill their obligations as law abiding citizen's of Queensland and obey the current Animal Management (Cats and Dog) Act 2008.

Thank you

John Mokomoko

The problem Logan Timms has is; what is the cross breed make up of the Pit bull when we can’t get a common match? I have 30 DNA test results, Logan Timm’s has possibly the same amounts, the DNA lab had 100’s…..it is fact that it is impossible to prove by looking at a dog or by proven Genetic testing that a dog is a pit bull, the law is flawed.

It would be the same as saying we have a law that states "in the intrest of public safty, you are not allowed to speed on our roads" very good law this one, when asked at what speed is it unsafe to drive, reply, "Idon't know", or "I can't tell you that".

With the help of this web page, and people like Tybrax cross posting it all over the world, the Hon Minister Desley Boyle has had no other option, but to fudge the law along and come out with the statement that the Amstaff is not a restricted dog breed, including in her statement she acknowledged the trial, Chivers Vs GCCC where the Amstaff and the Pit bull are the same breed, now without stating it has inferred that Pit bulls are also not restricted.

As for Mel G, the ex- president of the Qld Amstaff club, I still have her letter of support sent to her club members, unknowingly sent to me. The knife wound in the back has healed up nicely, and everyone knows where you stand on BSL and good luck with your new breed of dogs, Boston Terriers, I hear. Its good to see that in the last minutes of all this you come to take the full credit, it shows you are good for something

Dogs Qld, thanks for not supporting us as well and yes I do not want to be in your papered club membership. I am happy to support all dog owners regardless of breed or pedigree, so I completely understand you withdrawing any support as per your email. Tango as we all know has no papers, so funding and support should only go to your members, and to hell with those other dog owners…

Many I have to thank, like Val, how I used as a Fact checker, Tybrax (Christina A) as idea sounding board, who has worked on this for longer than I have, as she was the one I asked for help when Tango was taken, Barrister Stephen Fynes-Clinton who gave up his time and wavered his fees to help many dog owners, with out the need for recognition, but we should not forget this is not over yet.

John and Kylie, the little people who love their unpapered dogs.

;)

Edited August 1, 2010 by kylielou

[Remarkabull]

Perhaps they should start thinking about ways to recover some of the costs they will incurr from the inevitable compensation claims.

I suggest selling tickets to this "meeting the middle of next week".

I'd like a front row one please.

I'll bring a bag of popcorn, my Ipod and speakers so I could set some nice background music.

The Benny Hill Show theme song would be appropriate I think.

;) I'd go to that meeting! Although it would probably be a frustrating place to be what with all the backtracking and buck passing that will happen there.

What a bunch of clueless idiots these people are. I really hope that the dogs get to go home soon.

[sumosmum]

Although Dogs Qld and Mel G were very quick to take credit for forcing the Qld Minister having to make the statement she has regarding the American Staffordshire terrier, the truth is far more interesting.

First: 2004

Kylie’s dog Tango was seized as a Pit bull terrier. A Magistrate ordered that the dog was not to be allowed to return to the GCCC unless Ms Chivers prove to the GCCC that her dog was an American Staffordshire terrier.

Then began the war to prove:

1. That the method of identification, 22 point checklist was nothing but a trick to fool dog owners into handing over their dogs and fool magistrates that council had experts in dog breed identification

2. That these experts in dog breed identification held training to a level supported in the rules of law as a true expert.

First case to court was Justin Taylor vs GCCC

Justin is a quadriplegic; the GCCC took his companion dog, as yes “it’s a Pit bull”. Under cross examination form Barrister, Jack Pappas, ACO Selina Neil crashed and burned, taking the 22 point checklist with her as her support. The Magistrate Batts ruled she was in no way an expert in dog breed identification holding no true qualification in this field.

The attempt was then made to get another ACO to save the day, however, when it was found that the person who was to be the GCCC saviour was trained by ACO Selina Neil, that was the end of that and the dog was returned.

Second Case to trial, Dino Da Fre Vs Logan City Council.

6 days in trial, the founder of the 22 point checklist (ACO Debora Pomeroy) on the stand, shooting herself in the foot that many times, even I felt embarrassed. Her star student Dr Jackie Perkins, a much better shot, having difficulties with her foot in her mouth, still manage to convinced the magistrate, she was also not an expert in dog breed identification.

Trial over, submission being exchanged, Logan City Council, withdrew,… dog returned to owner.

Then Darren Wills Vs Redcliffe City Council, and followed around about 57 other misidentifications which when they contacted legal advice informed them the best results for them was to just give the dog back, which they did.

Chivers Vs GCCC

We had to go to the Supreme Court BRISBANE:

Then began the war to prove:

3. That the method of identification, 22 point checklist was nothing but a trick to fool dog owners into handing over their dogs and fool magistrates that council had experts in dog breed identification

4. That these experts in dog breed identification held training to a level supported in the rules of law as a true expert.

This went through the trial, with total agreement from the GCCC barrister, going out of his way to assist.

Then at the end, the GCCC barrister handed in a whole new submission, stating over the past 6 years, including the past trials, which councils had won throughout Qld their process was wrong and now they have the truth?

The Amstaff and the Pit bull terrier are the same dog breed, as Ms Chivers had proven her case she sill loses because, her proven Amstaff is still a Pit bull terrier and as we know Pit bull terriers are a restricted dog breed.

The judge had to rule with what was before him on the day.

A win by stealth, Amstaff is a Pit bull terrier.

A lot of noise from the ex-president of the Qld Amstaff club, and Dogs Qld but noise dose not change polices.

Hard facts do.

Working with Logan Timms Senior Policy Officer of the Department of Infrastructure and Planning, who is the real hero, in my mind, but don’t let him know that I wrote this:

We were now faced with the task of proving the Judge ruling was wrong, the Judge gave us the way by stating this in his decision:

[42] The determination of whether a dog is of a particular breed can be quite difficult.

There is, on the evidence before me, no satisfactory scientific method such as DNA

analysis which provides a reliable answer. The word “breed” itself has to be applied

carefully. To determine whether a dog is of a particular breed is, of course, a

question of fact.

As we were aware that this has been a provable fact for almost 10 years here in Australia, and the GCCC barrister, never having requested this proof in 6 years, but asking for the proof at the end of the trial, we now had the opportunity to prove this point.

I started DNA testing Pure breed Amstaffs with the help of Linc from the Victorian Amstaff club. We could, with 100% accuracy, show the DNA test for an Amstaff was solid. We started testing well known Pit bull terriers.

The results:

1) Boston terrier cross Labrador?

2) Bulldog cross Staffy?

3) Boxer cross Staffy?

4) Neapolitan mastiff Ridgeback?

5) Ridgeback Cross Staffy?

The crosses kept coming back different, I contacted the DNA lab, to find out a reason for the results, only to find they were aware of this and was one of the reasons they did not bother making up a DNA test to prove a dog was a Pit bull terrier.

I contacted well known Pit bull breeders, who confirmed that same thing.

Email to Logan Timms:

To The Hon Minister Desley Boyle

Member for Cairns

C/o

Dear Logan Timms

Senior Policy Officer of the Department of Infrastructure and Planning

Brisbane

Logan, I have 2 questions:

Question 1, The Hon Minister Desley Boyle has in her portfolio, The Cats and Dogs Animal Management Bill 2008. Within this, is a reference to the old 17A Restricted dog laws. My question is: As a law abiding citizen of Queensland and a dog owner, who wishes to obey the letter of the law, how am I to know if my dog is an American Pit bull terrier, a restricted breed?

Can the Minister please give me a scientific positive way so I may, as a common person/ratepayer, be able to know that I have broken the law or not?

As with Mete and Rangi Waikai, her two dogs "Whereo" and "Mo" were both placed under a destruction order by the Gold Coast City Council, Animal Management (Cats and Dog) Act 2008, section 127, Destruction Order.2010/01, Both dogs have been tested for Breed identification, known as BITSA which you are familiar with, and the results:

Mo: Boston Terrier/ Golden Retriever

Whereo: Staffordshire Bull terrier/ Boxer

Both do not hold the cross breeding to be American Pit bull terriers so how is it they have broken the law?

If Boston Terrier/ Golden Retriever are Pit bull terriers, then all other cross breeds are nothing more than mongrels and are free to live in peace, likewise if Staffordshire Bull terrier/ Boxers are Pit bull terriers then all other cross breed mongrels are then also free to live in peace as well?

If the Minister can tell me what are the cross breeds to make an American Pit bull terrier, I will be able to advise Mete and Rangi Waikai on how they can fulfill their obligations as law abiding citizen's of Queensland and obey the current Animal Management (Cats and Dog) Act 2008.

Thank you

John Mokomoko

The problem Logan Timms has is; what is the cross breed make up of the Pit bull when we can’t get a common match? I have 30 DNA test results, Logan Timm’s has possibly the same amounts, the DNA lab had 100’s…..it is fact that it is impossible to prove by looking at a dog or by proven Genetic testing that a dog is a pit bull, the law is flawed.

With the help of this web page, and people like Tybrax cross posting it all over the world, the Hon Minister Desley Boyle has had no other option, but to fudge the law along and come out with the statement that the Amstaff is not a restricted dog breed, including in her statement she acknowledged the trial, Chivers Vs GCCC where the Amstaff and the Pit bull are the same breed, now without stating it has inferred that Pit bulls are also not restricted.

As for Mel G, the ex- president of the Qld Amstaff club, I still have her letter of support sent to her club members, unknowingly sent to me. The knife wound in the back has healed up nicely, and everyone knows where you stand on BSL and good luck with your new breed of dogs, Boston Terriers, I hear. Its good to see that in the last minutes of all this you come to take the full credit, it shows you are good for something

Dogs Qld, thanks for not supporting us as well and yes I do not want to be in your papered club membership. I am happy to support all dog owners regardless of breed or pedigree, so I completely understand you withdrawing any support as per your email. Tango as we all know has no papers, so funding and support should only go to your members, and to hell with those other dog owners…

Many I have to thank, like Val, how I used as a Fact checker, Tybrax (Christina A) as idea sounding board, who has worked on this for longer than I have, as she was the one I asked for help when Tango was taken, Barrister Stephen Fynes-Clinton who gave up his time and wavered his fees to help many dog owners, with out the need for recognition, but we should not forget this is not over yet.

John and Kylie, the little people who love their unpapered dogs.

kylielou, thank you to you guys for putting in all the time and effort. It takes so much to fight things like this, and being a fight against Government and Councils, makes it even harder. This must have taken a huge chunk out of your lives. So pleased that some progress has been made. We in Victoria will hopefully also benefit from the progress you have made, when our new laws will come into effect next April. Looks like we are heading for some sort of check sheet down here. I hope that Tango will be back where he belongs very soon.

With the dogs that are being held pending this second DNA test.........I think this is almost like theft! They seem to be stalling, because they are trying to decide what to do next.

Good on you all. I appreciate what you are doing, and I am sure a lot of people would have, indeed have given up long ago. Throwing in the towel means losing. At least to keep fighting means there is a chance of winning. :D

[RottnBullies]

I have just gotten of the Phone to Cr Bob La Castra, 10:45 am Sunday

Q6, In the Supreme court Chiver Vs GCCC your Barristers openly admitted that the 22 Point checklist was an invalid and unreliable, method of identification, then why did your officers use this system after the trial to identify Rangi's two dogs.

A, well its the only method available.

Tell that to ALL those people who have lost their Innocent family pets Cr Bob La Castra

Seems like a lot of unanswered questions there, and in the meantime 2 dogs still Incarcerated whom are no doubt longing to go back home are still waiting while the GCCC sits around scratching their empty air heads :D

[Staffwild]

I would be waiting to see the wording of the corrected Animal Act before rushing off to register any dogs at present..... I was told approx. 50 days for the changed act to be released.....

[kylielou]

Faxed to:

CEO. Dale Dickson

CR Dawn

Cr Bob

Dear Councillor Bob La Castra

Gold Coast City Council

Animal Control.

2/08/2010

Dear Cr La Castra

My two dogs were seized on the 19th May 2010 when they were found by Council Officers after they escaped from my property, which is a minor offence considering the conduct of the department you hold office for:

1. The Animal Control Officers performed an unlawful identification on my two dogs pronouncing them to be Restricted dog breeds, namely American Pit bull terriers, by way of a system called the 22 point checklist.

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Kylie Louise Chivers v Gold Coast City Council [2010] QSC98

PARTIES: KYLIE LOUISE CHIVERS

(applicant)

v

GOLD COAST CITY COUNCIL

(respondent)

FILE NO/S: BS6396/07

DELIVERED ON: 6 April 2010

DELIVERED AT: Supreme Court, Brisbane

HEARING DATE: 29 March 2010

JUDGE: Martin J

During this trial the validity of the 22 point checklist was tested and the Gold Coast City Council’s Barrister openly admitted that the identification test/system was wrong, false and unreliable, so to use this to identify my two dogs is nothing more than a trick to deprive me of my lawful property.

When you were asked why your Officers were still using this test, when the validity has already been established in a Supreme Court, your reply to Mr John Mokomoko on Sunday, 1st of July at 10:45am, was “well it’s the only way available”. Once again you are permitting and authorizing employees, under your direct control, to disobey a direction/finding from a recent Supreme Court trial. This is conspiracy to commit fraud.

2. I have supplied factual/true evidence to show that my two dogs are, by way of a DNA BITSA breed identification test, in fact:

Mau: Boston Terrier/ Golden Retriever

Whero: Staffordshire Bull terrier/ Boxer

3. My dogs DNA was taken as per instruction from the manufacturers information, supplied in the test kit, and after extensive training from a court recognized DNA sampler, Mr John Mokomoko, 14 James Cagney Close, PARKWOOD, Qld 4214, Ph Mob.0421326408. Dino Da Fre Vs Logan City Council, Chivers Vs GCCC.

4. The sample was taken on council’s property in the normal hours of staffed operations and it was done in clear sight of all working staff. If security video equipment was present, my partner would have been documented doing the test.

5. At the time of the DNA BITSA test results, we were aware that with the ruling from the Chivers Vs GCCC that an American Staffordshire terrier and an American Pit Bull terrier are in Queensland the same breed. The results did not come back as American Staffordshire terrier, so you do not have any supported evidence or admissible proof to assert that my two dogs are American Pit Bull terriers.

6. If you still contend that my two dogs are in fact American Pit Bull terriers, then you would have no problem in informing me what is the breed combination that makes up an American Pit Bull terrier? This way I can rule out Mau: Boston Terrier/ Golden Retriever or Whero: Staffordshire Bull terrier/ Boxer, as your council did get the ruling that a American Staffordshire terrier and an American Pit Bull terrier are the same dog, so the DNA BITSA test easily proves that an American Staffordshire terrier is an American Staffordshire terrier. You are once again holding my two dogs without legal authority and without cause.

7. The email/information sent to Cr Dawn, then sent to me by way of email, states:

Message from Cr Crichlow

I asked the question about the DNA testing - have received the following answer- FYI -

We are happy to do it but require their permission if you can suggest they give it to us we will have it done straight away. We have no evidence that the dogs they used for the test were theirs. The test results were dated in June but the dogs were in the pound since May? If they come back OK we can exempt the dogs if necessary and return them as long as no AmStaff is in the DNA line.

Kind regards

Dawn

8. Your Animal Control Officers have obtained DNA samples without consent, as per phone conversation with ACO Norton who informed my partner, Mete, and in a following conversation from ACO Alf, who both are employees under your direct control and are responsible for their actions under vicarious liability laws. The use of these second unlawfully obtained DNA samples are now, as you should know, of no relevant importance as the Hon Minister Desley Boyle has publicly admitted that the American Staffordshire terrier is not a restricted dog breed in both a QLD Government Media release and in person on Ch 9 on Saturday, 31 June 2010, making any results meaningless. Her statement that American Staffordshire terriers are not restricted dog breeds will be legislated as an amendment to the Animal Management Cats & Dogs law 2008

It is clear that the Gold Coast City Council have no lawful reason to hold my dogs, without my permission or consent and you have no admissible evidence to support your claims that my two dogs are American Pit bull terriers. Your Animal Control Officers have acted unlawfully and have committed fraud in the manner of which they attempted to steal my property by way of a trick or false pretence by using the 22 point checklist. You leave me no other option:

If I have not been contacted by the end of this day 2 (July) amended to August 2010, and have in my possession my property, Mau and Whero, then I will have to contact the QLD Police department and have charges laid against the offending officers and yourself.

A Resident of the Gold Coast.

Rangi

From Rangi Nikau

Coomera

Edited August 2, 2010 by kylielou

[sumosmum]

Yep, and I reckon that is fair enough too. They have no reason for holding these dogs any longer.

ETA, The last date on the letter says to return the dogs by end of 02jul10. Should read 02aug10 I think!

Edited August 2, 2010 by sumosmum

[geo]

Great, let us know how it goes. I hope the police do their job better than the council.

[sandii]

there is a question that begs to be ask the first being....... why take DNA of supposed APBT here in Australia? The breed has been banned for so long one would have thought all "pure" blood would have been long gone, imo the "Pit Bull Terrier" is a crossbred dog based on the APBT. Try taking the blood of APBT in the USA and I am sure you will find an answer to your question

[kylielou]

I called the Gold Coast Animal Control, Southport Office.

47 Nerang Street

Southport QLD 4215

Telephone: 1300 694 222

To speak to an Animal Control Manager, ACO Norton, Geoff Irwin, Lester Solaos..anyone and the good girl answering the phone after she had told someone who was asking, came back saying there are no Animal Mangers working today, I asked for their email address, she can give that out, I asked for phone numbers, she cant give that out either to me, it looks like it’s Animal management Public holiday…well who would have thought that?

They aren’t hiding ..do you think?,

As for the question above:

Good question, here in Australia and it looks like in the USA, due to breeders trying to improve the breed, or make their line stand out it would seem that even their it is becoming difficult to tell what in fact is a pit bull by DNA.

Just to show you, that not only do we know that the DNA test works here in Australia, but even in the USA their are other affected dog owners who have problems with councils trying to falsely identify their pets as Pit bulls.

Bad luck the whole world uses the internet.

Open this and play from half way through, 3:25, Logan Timms, I think you will get the point.

Have fun watching

I think David Letterman should run for mayor for the GCCC or at least Head of Animal Control as he is as smart as they are.

[kylielou]

Has anyone ever found this on the Qld government site:

http://www.qcat.qld.gov.au/fees-and-allowances.htm

regulated_dog_flowchart_2.pdf

regulated_dog_flowchart_3.pdf

Edited August 2, 2010 by kylielou

[kylielou]

At 17:02 the GCCC replied to Rangi's letter, demanding the return of her dogs or for council to come up with some admissible proof that her dogs were Pit bull terriers otherwise she would go to the Police in the morning and have them charged:

The reply was to be faxed to me, I called, John Madigan, Acting Coordinator Animal Management, (07) 5581 6664 and asked them to email it instead.

Now I wondered why no email until I got the fax, it was the old use the fuzzy photo-copy setting, but wait, someone at the Animal Control department has been staying back late, nights on the new unreadable super spy trick......reduce the A4 letter to half a page and then fax the three pages so you need a magnifying glass to read it or if you scan it and increase the size it becomes just about unreadable.

Why send it at 17:02 when the phones go to answer service and all ACO are unable to be reached?

One part I could just make out was:

Councils officers are of the opinion that both dogs are restricted dogs and for that reason, pusuant to the Animal management (Cats and Dogs) Act 2008. a destruction order was issued

No explaination as to how these officers came to their opinion, we all know opinions are like arseh@#es we all have one!

I see no reason or excuse not to go to the police in the morning.

John ;)

[rep628]

At 17:02 the GCCC replied to Rangi's letter, demanding the return of her dogs or for council to come up with some admissible proof that her dogs were Pit bull terriers otherwise she would go to the Police in the morning and have them charged:

The reply was to be faxed to me, I called, John Madigan, Acting Coordinator Animal Management, (07) 5581 6664 and asked them to email it instead.

Now I wondered why no email until I got the fax, it was the old use the fuzzy photo-copy setting, but wait, someone at the Animal Control department has been staying back late, nights on the new unreadable super spy trick......reduce the A4 letter to half a page and then fax the three pages so you need a magnifying glass to read it or if you scan it and increase the size it becomes just about unreadable.

Why send it at 17:02 when the phones go to answer service and all ACO are unable to be reached?

One part I could just make out was:

Councils officers are of the opinion that both dogs are restricted dogs and for that reason, pusuant to the Animal management (Cats and Dogs) Act 2008. a destruction order was issued

No explaination as to how these officers came to their opinion, we all know opinions are like arseh@#es we all have one!

I see no reason or excuse not to go to the police in the morning.

John ;)

Best of luck, I hope you bring them legally to their knees! Or the dogs show up on Rangi's doorstep at the crack of dawn wrapped in a bow.. But I think you've got all you need to continue making them look like two-timing fools in court

Rebecca

[chriswiddler]

At 17:02 the GCCC replied to Rangi's letter, demanding the return of her dogs or for council to come up with some admissible proof that her dogs were Pit bull terriers otherwise she would go to the Police in the morning and have them charged:

The reply was to be faxed to me, I called, John Madigan, Acting Coordinator Animal Management, (07) 5581 6664 and asked them to email it instead.

Now I wondered why no email until I got the fax, it was the old use the fuzzy photo-copy setting, but wait, someone at the Animal Control department has been staying back late, nights on the new unreadable super spy trick......reduce the A4 letter to half a page and then fax the three pages so you need a magnifying glass to read it or if you scan it and increase the size it becomes just about unreadable.

Why send it at 17:02 when the phones go to answer service and all ACO are unable to be reached?

One part I could just make out was:

Councils officers are of the opinion that both dogs are restricted dogs and for that reason, pusuant to the Animal management (Cats and Dogs) Act 2008. a destruction order was issued

No explaination as to how these officers came to their opinion, we all know opinions are like arseh@#es we all have one!

I see no reason or excuse not to go to the police in the morning.

John

If the dogs are considered to be Pit Bulls then according to common law in Queensland wouldn't that would make them Amstaffs and so now not covered by restricted legislation?

The Minister needs to address why harmless family pets are to be killed!

[kylielou]

Dear Councillor Bob La Castra

Gold Coast City Council

Animal Control.

3/08/2010

Dear Cr La Castra

You were asked to explain a few very simple questions to establish if your action and the actions of the staff members who work under your control, (Vicarious Liability) were lawful and with admissible proof.

The reply acknowledgment was Faxed to me at 17:02, being after office hours, in a format that I can only consider as a practical joke, I have attached a true, said copy for you to attempt to read.

My two Dogs held for being Restricted dog breed, (American Pit bull terriers.)

You were asked to explain what admissible evidence you had that my two dogs are American Pit bull terriers, ruling out the use of the 22 point checklist, as a tool by the Supreme Court trial Chivers Vs GCCC, part reply letter received states,

“Councils officers are of the opinion that both dogs are restricted dogs and for that reason, pursuant to the Animal management (Cats and Dogs) Act 2008. a destruction order was issued”

You offer no explanation on to how this opinion was formed or any admissible evidence to justify the continuing with holding of my property, so I can only take this as a clear admission that your officer’s action are unlawful and without cause.

You were given the opportunity to explain why your officer took DNA samples without my consent.

You were also asked with the results from your illegally obtained DNA samples taken, how are you going to establish that the results are that of American Pit bull terriers,

When no-body in the world knows what the breed make up of a American Pit bull terriers is.

My dog is a dangerous dog

I obtained copies under an FOI to establish if my dog attacked any one, only to de supplied evidence to the fact that wile my dog had escaped my property, he went to a house not his owners, most possible thinking it was home, finding strangers behind a closed door, barked and ran away.

Hardly the action of a dangerous dog, you have a temperament test which shows my dog not to be a dangerous dog or warrants this title.

As you have refused to give admissible evidence to why you are still holding my dogs under a destruction order as Restricted dogs, (American Pit bull terrier) and Dangerous dog and your reply to the request Faxed on the 2 August was in a format that was barely legible, you have given me no reason but to put this in the hands of the Qld police services, to charge your officers and your self with common theft.

My email address is, (removed)as your staff are not capable of the ability to intelligently send a fax.

Once again from a resident of the Gold Coast.

Rangi

From Rangi Nikau

Coomera

Edited August 2, 2010 by kylielou

[Remarkabull]

I am beyond words to describe my frustration at the moment so I can only imagine what those of you close to this are feeling. I want to go to the council offices and hit these mororns over the head! Don't they realise what incompetent idiots they are showing themselves to be? It's just beyond belief.

If there is anything I can do to help please let me know as this is driving me crazy.

In a previous post something was mentioned about going to the media. Did this happen? Not a fan of ACA but it's amazing how many councils back down once a story hits the tv screens.

[Black Dog in WA]

Anything yet?

[kylielou]

The saga continues:

Yesterday, Cr Dawn demanded from the GCCC Animal Control, an explanation answer to another very simple question:

Can a resident on the Gold Coast who own two dogs that are:

Mo: Boston Terrier/ Golden Retriever

Whereo: Staffordshire Bull terrier/ Boxer

Register thier dog.

The GCCC Animal control department has been formally instructed to not communicate anything to Cr Dawn?

10:30 am under my instruction the owners of the two dog followed councils guidelines on how to register their two dogs and now have in their possession the registration for:

Mo: Boston Terrier/ Golden Retriever

Whereo: Staffordshire Bull terrier/ Boxer

Cr Dawn managed to get an ACO called Len to talk to her where she asked did these two dogs attack or hurt anyone, ACO Len told her no, that’s not true.

Cr Dawn was told there is a note at the GCCC that these two dos are not to be allowed to be registered.

(to bad that it had alredy been done, with the help of Cr Dawn, the power of one! and a bit of yelling and screaming helps)

You could say Cr Dawn is not the sort of person who sea’s the funny side of being lied to, mislead, and generally stalled and when asked simple questions, the review of the dog owners questions on notice, and the unlawful conduct of the GCCC ACO will be finalized on Friday, 6th August 2010.

Facts:

1. Mo: Boston Terrier/ Golden Retriever

Whereo: Staffordshire Bull terrier/ Boxer

2. There is a DNA Bitsa test to prove this.

3. The two dogs have never hurt anyone.

4. The GCCC ACO has lied to the owners regarding said attacks, and is now on record to this fact.

5. The two dogs are registered as what cross breed dogs they are with the GCCC.

6. The next step is to involve the Police for theft.

7. The DNA results from the unlawful DNA samples sent by the GCCC will be at council today, of little use because of the way they were obtained.

On the side note, we are working with a Police officer who is going through the same problem as these two dog owners have been through, some people just don’t know when to give up.

If you try and call anyone from Animal Control on the Gold Coast, they are either on Holiday or unavailable to come to the phone, or if you go to the help desk the poor girls their have to lie and say they all are not available.

John

;)

Edited August 5, 2010 by kylielou

[Remarkabull]

arghhhhhhhhhh

Thanks for the update. Will keep checking and hoping for good news soon. ;)

[tybrax]

Cr Dawn managed to get an ACO called Len to talk to her where she asked did these two dogs attack or hurt anyone, ACO Len told her no, that’s not true.

There was nothing on the FOI reports that stated the dogs attacked liars. ;)

tybrax

Edited August 5, 2010 by tybrax