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

[chriswiddler]

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

:D

If the common law states APBT and AST are the same then even if council considers them restricted wouldn't that automatically make them unrestricted

[kylielou]

Good Afternoon John

FYI - could you please on to Rangi

The Director of Community Services (Colette McCool) has left me a message that she is unable to give me an answer today (on the registering of Rangi's dogs) as she has to seek legal advice. She asked that I be assured that she is seeking that advice and will have an answer for me tomorrow.

Kind regards

Dawn

Cr Dawn Crichlow

Ph: 55816280

Fax: 55816899

email: [email protected]

This is the list of so called brains that run the Gold Coast City Council.

http://www.first-place.com.au/appointments...20Structure.pdf

:D :p ;)

Edited August 6, 2010 by kylielou

[sumosmum]

Hopefully,they will be home for the weekend? Thanks for the update.

[RottnBullies]

I hope some heads will be rolling when this Is sorted

There's just no excuse for their behavior as they continue to spin yarns and bullying people who are not up to scratch with their rights hoping that they get away with It.

Well GCCC I think you have bitten more than you can chew this time!

Stop stalling and I hope these dogs will be reunited with their family asap

[kylielou]

Email from Rangi

Called the council today and Anton said that all correspondence have been sent out and we shall have it by

Monday.

Fingers crossed.

Regards

Rangi

[Sticky]

Despite all the hype surrounding DNA testing its still not able to reliably detect breed in mixed breed dogs.

S

[chriswiddler]

Despite all the hype surrounding DNA testing its still not able to reliably detect breed in mixed breed dogs.

S

The small ,print says it isn't able to detect breed in pure-bred dogs either!

[Sticky]

Despite all the hype surrounding DNA testing its still not able to reliably detect breed in mixed breed dogs.

S

The small ,print says it isn't able to detect breed in pure-bred dogs either!

its basically a scam, a very lucrative one.

S

[kylielou]

6 August 2010 Email from Rangi

Called the council today and Anton said that all correspondence have been sent out and we shall have it by

Monday.

Fingers crossed.

Regards

Rangi

9 August 2010 Message recieved from Cr Crichlow:

The advice I have received on your request follows:

Both these dogs have been deemed to be regulated (restricted) dogs. The older dog was in fact deemed to be a restricted dog over twelve months ago and the owner removed it from the City.

The owner of the dogs has appealed our decision to deem them restricted dogs and the review of our decision has not been completed.

It is hoped to have the review completed by the end of the week.

We are not able to release the dogs until the process is completed, and only then, if we change our decision. Depending on the outcome of our decision, the owners have further appeal rights that they could pursue.

So who's the biggest liar, ACO Anton, or Collet Mc Cool GCCC

Edited August 9, 2010 by kylielou

[sumosmum]

Is there any news regarding this please?

[Remarkabull]

Any news today? Hoping doggies have gone home.

[kylielou]

Points of interest:

1) The Gold Coast City Council have the results from the DNA BITSA test back, they do not like the results as they will not let Rangi have them, she has to obtain them by FOI, funny if the results had come back as an Amstaf we all would know.

2) With this letter was 130 pages of copies of several dogs owners "Useful Tool" 22 point checklist, all of which the dogs had to be returned to the dog owners, I have currently finished another 20 cases proving the "useful Tool" was only a tool to trick dog owners and a few magistrates in to thinking that ACO had some special power, given to them by one Debora Pomeroy, to identify a suspected dog as a Pit bull terrier.

However the name Charlatan is more appropriate to what the ACO are really.

3) Now Rangi has enough to go to the Police and have charges laid on the ACO and the GC Animal Control for common theft and fraud.

Dear Norton Verran

Animal Management Inspector

For the CEO

Gold Coast City Council

17th August 2010

Request for an internal review:

In your last correspondence you raised three points:

1. That the BITSA DNA test could not identify an American Pit bull terrier, due to the fact they have no formal test to identify the breed make up, from an imported dog.

To answer this you have to take into account, the only person stating the two dogs are Pit bulls is you. Your proof is a “known to be non-factual test called the 22 point checklist”. We on the other hand state and can prove that the two dogs are in fact just cross breed dogs.

In order for you to be right, the two dogs would have to be recently imported dogs so the DNA test, as you say, would not work as the DNA gene pool for these dogs would not be included in the BITSA test. The Importation ban has been in force for a number of years so these dogs would have had to be put in cryogenic suspension, and woken up just before you seized them to make this statement factual.

Or can you prove that the dogs are from the very rare, line bred pure bred Pit bull blood line that know body can find or even any of the Pit bull breeders can find as well.

If you can, I would be happy to DNA paternity tests them with the Sire and Dam, to see if you are correct.

We contend that the two dogs are from known breeds of Australian dogs, known and tested in the DNA data base, not from imported stock from the USA.

2. You still contend that the two dogs are American Pit bull terriers, with the only evidence or basis is the training and knowledge of your Animal Control experts using the 22 point checklist. You even state two trials:

C Falcon Vs GCCC:

A male in his 20’s, who before his trial was a victim of a home invasion where he was thrown out of a second story window after being beaten by a base ball bat.

Mr Falcon was in hospital on morphine for 5 to 6 days before his trial where his lawyer was pressured to withdraw from the case as it was a conflict of interest with the GCCC. Still under the medication, morphine, (as stated by the Gold Coast Hospital) and taking several other medications throughout the trial, with broken ribs and bandaged from head to toe, the GCCC lawyers still preceded.

Alf, told John Mokomoko over the phone, that he was present in the court room, so he is also able to verify this to be factual and true.

A truly proud win in court?

Justin Folkes Vs GCCC:

As I recall, the GCCC withdrew from the trial, so clearly not a win, or proof the 22 point checklist is of any reliable use.

3. The 22 point Checklist is a useful tool:

Let’s look at this reliable Tool, in the hands of untrained fools.

25/08/2003: Christina Anderson, Ashmore, two ACO from the GCCC, did use this useful tool to identify her dog as a Pit bull terrier.

ACO Mark Pavey, Scored Tyra at: 48/66

ACO Lester Soloas, Scored Tyra at: 49/66

The dog was asleep at the time of the identification, as shown by the photos provided by, Lester Soloai, with her back to a black couch. Had these two experts bothered to examine Tyra, they would have noticed a ridge running down her back starting from between her ears to just past mid way down her back.

The useful tool did not take this into account either.

In January 2007, a real dog expert called Gary Blane did identification on Tyra, and an assessment of reliability of the 22 point checklist and found the GCCC assessment of Tyra false, being that Tyra was clearly a Rhodesian Ridge back cross, (possibly a Staffy or small terrier).

The GCCC had to accept Gary’s assessment as fact and a Certificate of non-Prohibited dog breed was sent to Christine Anderson.

This document is not recognised, by legislation, other councils in Qld, or any dog organisation in the world, but was in place of an apology.

Useful tool at exposing two fools.

29/05/05: Kathy Spiller, Arundel, dog called Harley: ACO from the GCCC, did use this useful tool to identify her dog as a Pit bull terrier.

AMO 27: Ken Burgess: Scored Harley 47/66

This makes the dog score over 45, so the dog is a Pit bull terrier….wrong, add up the scores and you actually get 45, Ken Burgess can’t count.

The true score is 45/66 so dog is free to go home,

Useful tool at exposing yet another fool.

01/03/06: Dino Da Fre Vs Logan City Council:

ACO Allan Frederickson: Scored Rusty: 56/66

ACO Les Warren: Scored Rusty: 59/66

ACO Debora Pomeroy: Scored Rusty: 55/66

Vet Jackie Perkins: Scored Rusty: 58/66

RSPCA Mick McAuliffe Scored Rusty: 58/66

After 5 experts used the useful Tool, in 6 days giving evidence in court, the useful Tool was not good enough to win the trial against a simple DNA paternity test showing Rusty came from a Staffy, called Peggy.

Dr J. Perkins even adapted the useful Tool into the 17 point checklist, to try and fool the magistrate, that she had bifocal three dimensional vision and could perform the checklist on TV video footage, taking measurements by her special vision, good try but the magistrate, was not that gullible.

RSPCA Mick McAuliffe, Scored Rusty: 58/66, was so embarrassed after his first attempt at fooling a magistrate, in the Christine Maroske Vs Logan City Council, that he failed to turn up to give evidence in the Dino Da Fre Vs Logan City Council, (he was missing somewhere in the USA). He had no credibility after falsifying the first assessment in a rather silly way.

His first attempt at adding his score was similar to that of AMO 27: Ken Burgess, he also can’t add.

Christine Maroske Vs Logan City Council, RSPCA Mick McAuliffe, first assessment of a dog called Bella, added up to a true score of 45/66 making Bella not a restricted dog. He found out rather too late so a substitute assessment was falsified, by bumping the scores up a little to get them to add up to what the assessment sheet was falsely added up to.

Problem was we had both assessments sheets.

At this time in Logan Council, written into their local law was this, if you disagreed with Logan City Councils ACO there was an independent person whose decision was the rule. The only condition was they had to use the useful Tool, or the 22 point checklist. RSPCA Mick McAuliffe.

His explanation was: “Due to an error in Calculation the 27/05/04” the two copies say it all.

With the second falsified checklist, completed, with several scores bumped up a few points to get them to add up to 48/66, Logan City Councils lawyers also can’t count, the new checklist adds up to 47/66 not 48/66 so they still got it wrong.

So the useful Tool exposes yet another 3 ACO as fools, a vet as a double fool, and a person from the RSPCA, as the biggest fool of all attempting to falsify documentation to be used in a court of law, this tool is truly a useful Tool.

This is not the only time ACO have falsified their useful Tool, to save face, here on the Gold Coast, ACO Jason Tyrer and ACO Mick Hays, also did the same as poor old Mick, McAuliffe.

February 2008: Fiona Gibson, Currumbin, Dogs Name Maverick:

Two ACO officers were sent to perform the so called useful Tool, on a dog called Maverick, unknowingly so was, John Mokomoko. Who set up 5 video surveillance cameras, in the lounge room, posted a notice on the front door and in the middle of the lounge room wall that this property was protected by CCTV and filmed the whole show.

At the end of the performance, John Mokomoko spoke with Jason Tyrer ( as shown on the video and as there was a tape recorder going in Jason Tyrer’s pocket at the time) regarding the fact that it was very hard to find an American Staffordshire terrier the colour that Maverick was as the only breeder was on the Sunshine Coast.

Realising they had been set up, the two officers went back to the office and firstly made out that the assessments never happened.

Problem for the GCCC was John Mokomoko had them on video, and I gave them an FOI request for the documentation that they had filled out before they left, also on video, the useful Tool, the 22 point checklist.

After much difficulty, as their department claimed they did not do an assessment and they were not there at Currumbin, John Mokomoko posted the video on U Tube for the world to see, and the copies of the useful Tool arrived.

ACO Jason Tyrer: Firstly scored Maverick at: 51/66 then bumped the score down to 45/66 by crossing out 3’s to lower scores so to give them a way out of not looking so stupid.

This is still falsifying a document.

ACO Mick Hays: did something even worse, he re-typed a whole new useful Tool to match Jason Tyrer’s modified copy, the FOI had asked for the original copies not a doctored modified version. I think this is called covering up false documentation?

I have asked John Mokomoko to put the Video back on U Tube to assist the GCCC in remembering what had happen.

Once again, a useful Tool at exposing a couple of fools.

06/11/2004: Justin Taylor: His dog Fonzie,

ACO Selina Neil, GCCC, scored Fonzie over 45 so Fonzie is a Pit bull terrier. In the Magistrate court in Coolangatta, Magistrate Batts, did not accept the 22 point checklist (the useful Tool) or the expertise of ACO Selina Neil as even remotely feasible as an expert in dog breed identification, dog returned.

A big problem here is ACO Selina Neil was the person on the Gold Coast who trained the likes of ACO Lester Soloai on how to use the useful Tool called the 22 point checklist in the first place, in 2003, however the magistrate also stated that ACO Selina Neil was not qualified as an expert in breed identification nor anyone she trained.

This could explain why ACO Lester Soloai, has misidentified so many dogs using the useful Tool.

Another prime example of the use of fools using the useful Tool:

Julie Morris, Southport, Dog, Zeus:

ACO Lester Soloai, scored Zeus over 45 so Zeus is a Pit bull terrier.

ACO Selina Neil: scored Zeus over 45 so Zeus is a Pit bull terrier.

Julie Morris, after having her dog under a destruction order for 4 years, decided to take it to the Supreme Court and challenge the useful Tools and the two expert Fools. A deal was made that if Julie Morris was to withdraw from the trial her dog Zeus would be allowed to reside on the Gold Coast without restriction for the rest of his life.

The useful Tool did it again, exposing again the same two fools.

Rangi Nikau , Coomera:

ACO Lester Soloai: scored Mau: 49/66

ACO Len Murphy scored Whero: 48/66

I have access to over 20, false uses of the useful Tool, exposing the ACO as nothing but fools for this action and you expect I, Rangi Nikau to accept that maybe this time after over 20 times that I have been shown and can prove, that ACO’s have gotten it wrong, this time they have gotten it right?

ACO Lester Soloai, of all ACO, has falsified evidence in a Supreme Court by claiming the reason he was an expert in dog breed identification in the Chivers Vs GCCC trial, was because he was trained by ACO Selina Neil in 2003 and by ACO Debora Pomeroy in 11th November 2004.

Tango was identified by ACO Lester Soloai, as a Pit bull terrier by way of the useful Tool on the 19/04/2004.

He was trained to use this useful tool by ACO Selina Neil, in 2003, in 05/11/2004 Selina Neill was proven not to be an expert in breed ID or anyone she has trained.

“During 2003 I successfully completed the Gold Coast City Councils breed Identification Course Conducted by Ms Selina Neill who’s title is supervisor Animal Management, Gold Coast City Council”

Ms Selina Neill, was never trained to use the 22 point checklist but it was handed to her by Geoff Irwin Supervisor Animal Management as stated by her in a recent trial, Andrew Richards in Southport court.

In the space of 92 days the person who trained Lester as an American Pit bull terrier identification expert, has identified Tango as a Pit bull terrier and been discredited as a restricted dog breed identifier and trainer herself.

05/11/2004 Selina Neill was proven not to be an expert in breed ID or anyone she has trained

“On or about the 10th and 11th November 2004, I successfully completed the breed Identification Course conducted by Ms Deborah Pomeroy of Brisbane City Council.”

Lester stated in his Affidavit that he did the "useful Tool" 22 point checklist on Tango, on the 19/04/2004? and the reason he was such an expert in the art of the useful tool was the training he had from Debora Pomeroy, even suplying a certificult with dates....?? fool or tool I'm getting mixed up?

Time line: On the 19/4/2004, Lester Soloai assessed Tango and determined this dog to be an American Pit bull terrier as per the assessment document called the 22 point checklist (the useless Tool).

209 days after Lester Soloai had used the 22 point checklist to ID Tangos as a Pit bull terrier, he was trained by Pomeroy on how to use it.

Any training Lester Soloai obtained 209 days after his identification of “Tango” is not relevant, or would have in any way assisted him, I would have thought was obvious.

Exhibit “LS4” confirms the date by way of certificate dated 10th and 11th November 2004 by Ms Deborah Pomeroy.

So either we accept ACO Lester Soloai’s use of the useful Tool as a true way to identify a suspected dog as a restricted dog, a Pit bull terrier, or we do not because of his history of false identifications and his own evidence in the Chivers vs GCCC where he has lied and entered a false affidavit in this trial.

Chivers Vs GCCC, in the SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPLICANT was entered in the Supreme Court went unchallenged, therefore is accepted as fact.

This also proves the useful tool is false.

Your proof that your “officers are of the opinion” and that the use of the “useful Tool”, has only proven your officers are nothing but incompetent fools.

I will post this letter and all relevant documents on the internet, and I am currently preparing all false identifications for anyone who wishes to challenge the useless Tool in court.

Please send your excuses and all further documentation to Rangi by email not by Fax as you clearly don’t know how to use the fax machine by the copies you have sent to date.

Thank you

Rangi Nikau

Edited August 19, 2010 by kylielou

[Remarkabull]

Unbelievable. What a joke, hoping this all ends soon.

[kylielou]

Brenda Weber

The Decision Maker Freedom of Information Maker

Nerang Administration Centre.

Nerang Southport Rd. Nerang.

Date: 20.08.2010

Rangi Nikau

Coomera

Qld

Dear Brenda Weber

Request for Information under the Freedom of Information Act.

My name is Rangi Nikau of Coomera Qld. I am writing to request the DNA results obtained by Gold Coast City Council Animal Control officers for my dogs Whero (female) microchip number 981000300296184, and Mau (male). May I also have the documentation of the time, date and place that these DNA tests took place, as I was told via phone conversation by Norton Verran that I had to go through the F.O.I process to obtain this information.

Norton Verran also advised me via the same phone conversation, that a video recording was made of these DNA tests and therefore, would also like to obtain this recording.

I understand that this application is regarding information about me personally and my personal property so there would be no fee for the request.

I am aware that the GCCC may take up to 45 days to finalise this request.

Thank you for your consideration.

Rangi Nikau.

[Remarkabull]

Has this been resolved yet? Are the dogs home?

[kylielou]

Rangi's husband spoke with ACO Norton who told him that they had conducted a similar BITSA DNA test on his two dogs and had videoed the testing, but as the GCCC did not like the results, as it would have been the same as Rangis', proving they were not liars, Rangi put in an FOI to obtain copies, as you would.

The reply from the person who handles the FOI: Council does not hold any copy of the documents that you have applied for????

This is a common practice the GCCC use as I went through the same problem with a dog called Maverick, who after the 22 point checklist were done on the dog, the GCCC claimed that the assessment was in fact not done and we had imagined everything??

But the GCCC did not know I had videoed the whole thing and I posted it on UTUBE for the whole world to see with their full name and email addresses.

Then we had a back flip and we got one copy of the altered 22 point checklist and the other which had been completely falsified to match the altered copy of the first one.

Edited September 24, 2010 by kylielou

[korbin13]

Rangi's husband spoke with ACO Norton who told him that they had conducted a similar BITSA DNA test on his two dogs and had videoed the testing, but as the GCCC did not like the results, as it would have been the same as Rangis', proving they were not liars, Rangi put in an FOI to obtain copies, as you would.

The reply from the person who handles the FOI: Council does not hold any copy of the documents that you have applied for????

This is a common practice the GCCC use as I went through the same problem with a dog called Maverick, who after the 22 point checklist were done on the dog, the GCCC claimed that the assessment was in fact not done and we had imagined everything??

But the GCCC did not know I had videoed the whole thing and I posted it on UTUBE for the whole world to see with their full name and email addresses.

Then we had a back flip and we got one copy of the altered 22 point checklist and the other which had been completely falsified to match the altered copy of the first one.

It's quite scary to think of the power that our Councils have

[tybrax]

Once again Council prove they are just liars...

tybrax

[wiseguy]

I have only read the original post & found so many variations from the facts that I decided it would be a waste of time to wade through the rest..

For one thing, it was Chivers own ''expert witness'' that testified the American Staffordshire Terrier & the American Pitbull Terrier were if fact the same dog. A classic example shooting of ones self in the foot if ever there was one.

This case was followed with much anxiety by many bull breed owners & the subsequent groans of disbelief reverberated around the country at this revelation was like rolling thunder.

DNA can not distinguish breed, it can prove or disprove parentage & it can declare species, but verify breeds? no.

The U.K.C was raised because the AKC wouldn't allow the APBT on to it register as a pure breed. It was raised specifically to register the pitbull. Nothing to do with sporting types V conformation types at all.

The American Staffordshire Terrier was admitted on the AKC register at a later date. As the Staffordshire Terrier.

It was in fact the APBT with a name change & a legitimate standard. A siimilar scenario to when an application for a prefix name is rejected, one reapplies with a different name.

Come on Chrissy, you can do better than that.

[geo]

This case was followed with much anxiety by many bull breed owners & the subsequent groans of disbelief reverberated around the country at this revelation was like rolling thunder.

It was in fact the APBT with a name change & a legitimate standard. A siimilar scenario to when an application for a prefix name is rejected, one reapplies with a different name.

Come on Chrissy, you can do better than that.

Re Chivers;I think that unless you've walked a mile in someone elses shoes may not understand where it is they're coming from. I fully support what they were trying to achieve.

The amstaff world groaned (not pitbull owners) because someone was calling their precious dogs pitbulls, the truth is pitbulls were hung out to dry whilst everyone else looked after their own back yard. Granted it wasn't an ideal situation as some may say the pitbulls fate had already been sealed and basically there's not too many people out there trying to save them.

The GCCC are bumbling fools who were desperate to win against Kylie and Jon at all costs, the ACO's involved in the case proved themselves less than professional, and when reports etc.. "are lost" you question their honesty.