When I heard last week that Brindi, the Jimmy Melvin, Jr. of the canine world, has been accused of attacking yet another dog, the first thing that popped into my head was: “This is exactly like the convention centre.”
The Brindi saga isn’t so much about the dog as it is about the dog’s owner, Francesca Rogier. Rogier is a True Believer; she really, really believes in that dog.
True Believers are interesting character studies—they’re a little ridiculous, a little beautiful, a little sad, because nothing can live up to the worship they bestow on the targets of their belief. And, the more total the belief—that is, the more blind—the more likely that the believed-in fails.
In Rogier’s case, there was plenty of evidence—two previous attacks on neighbourhood dogs—that Brindi was problematic, but like a creationist contemplating dinosaur bones, Rogier explained away anything that contradicted the True Belief: The dog was just playful, it had been raised wrong, a good owner would bring out the best in it. And those who dared offer a competing narrative were obviously evil—part of the conspiracy, undermining the democratic process, malicious dog-hating heathens.
True Believers have a remarkable ability to win over converts and connect with fellow travellers who, in turn, lash out at those not reading from the prayer book. Hundreds of Brindi supporters from around the world have emailed me, assailing Nova Scotian barbarism and threatening a tourism boycott.
The path to canine nirvana, said Rogier and her supporters, was to believe more deeply in their narrative, to clap louder. If we would just ignore our rational assessments, common sense and previous experience and instead trust her True Believer experts, and let Brindi follow through with the ritual training, we would soon attain that wondrous canine-opolis on the hill, where owner and dog live blissfully with their neighbours, and the rest of us can fill our work days watching YouTube videos of puppies.
Similarly, backers of a new convention centre in downtown Halifax are True Believers. The convention centre is largely the project of the execs at Trade Centre Limited and a cabal of the closely connected in provincial offices and the Chamber of Commerce that make up the local managerial class—a group that can out-bullshit a televangelist.
Like Brindi, the cabal doesn’t have a great track record. There was most notably the Commonwealth Games fiasco, when they were set to bankrupt both the city of Halifax and the province to the tune of $2 billion. But TCL also has lost so much money in its normal operations that the execs were hauled before the legislature to explain themselves. And then there’s the backhanded payments to fellow True Believer Harold MacKay, who apparently has faith that if he shortchanges his vendors and buggers the taxpayer long enough, one day those Common concerts will be a financial success.
In a rational world, we’d smack them with a newspaper, rub their noses in their failures and shove them out the door, but in true True Believer fashion, their solution is to instead blame others for their failures and insist we believe more strongly in the narrative—to clap louder.
To reach Halifax Heaven, we’re told, we must ignore our rational assessments, common sense and previous experience and instead sing to the hymnals written by bought-and-paid-for True Believer priests. And those who dare question the faith are obviously evil—impediments to progress, malicious academics, Halifax-hating heathens.
Like Rogier’s network of angry animal lovers, convention centre backers threaten economic ruin—a collapsed convention industry, a downtown with tumbleweeds. But if we all get on the True Believer page, we’ll live in convention centre utopia, with travelling businessmen cluttering up our streets, which will be paved with gold.
Next week, infrastructure minister Bill Estabrooks will likely announce that he has drunk the Kool-Aid, and that the province will support the convention centre.
We now have allegations that, all good intentions to the contrary, Brindi’s attacked another dog. With the convention centre, we’re going to eventually realize we’ve built a shiny money pit that sucks the life out of downtown.
It turns out, True Belief notwithstanding, that a dog is just a dog.
Related Stories
Province rolls out convention centre details
This article appears in Sep 23-29, 2010.
I used to feel bad for Brindi’s owner, but apparently she’s just an idiot that can’t keep her aggressive dog on a leash and behind a fence. I feel bad for the dog since it could be killed because of a negligent owner.
I feel bad for Brindi being tied into Tim Bousquet’s weekly bloviating. It makes me want to bite someone, too.
Blaming Brindi for the attacks is like blaming paint for graffiti. Yes, the animal is currently problematic, but in the right hands and right environment, she would certainly not have to be destroyed.
When you disagree with someone’s position, it is always easy to paint them as having poor intentions. It is simple, not to mention fun from a prose perspective to talk about cigar-chomping fat cats in suits who are hell bent to line their own pockets, whilst gleefully leading Nova Scotia into economic ruin. Similarly, it is enjoyable to paint the opposition as grey-haired granoloa munching hippies whose theme song is Groucho Marx’s “Whatever it is, I’m against it”. It’s also fun to point out the irony of Bousquet critiquing those who use demagogy to further their case. He, of course delights in associating the centre with the Commonwealth Games and tax reform, just because he knows those are flashpoint issues. But here’s the thing – it does disservice to use those kinds of tactics. Does he really think that every supporter of the convention centre is merely worshipping mindlessly? No, Bousquet is smarter than that. But he has, like so many intrepid reporters before him, been sucked into the lie that in Halifax in order to be seen as a leader, you must be staunchly pro or con. We are a people who love to role out the rhetoric and hyperbole at public meetings. Get in a crowd and all you will hear is that the convention centre is either going to bring back the halcyon days of a vibrant downtown, or that investment in such a boondoggle will drag the province down into a Grecian economic collapse. Bousquet does both sides a great disservice when he feeds into the caricatures of either side. The real convention centre conversations are happening in coffee shops. And it should come as no surprise that both supporters and detractors of the convention centre have interesting things to say about the future of downtown. There are True Believers – people so entrenched in a position that they cannot conceive of a valid opposing view. I just did not expect to see it so prominently on display in The Coast.
Rogier is a moron.
I called it, that sweet little Brindi, would be in another incident months ago.
This charge to build the new centre is yet another attempt by FUZION, Citizens 4 Halifax, and other special interest groups to plow a self-serving creation into downtown Halifax.
Should have killed that mutt the first time!
And then there is the other side of the issue. Those who fail to understand that a convention centre may be a final lifeline for a rapidly deteriorating downtown core. Those who fail to listen to the downtown business community or published studies. Those who are so wholly ignorant and biased on the subject they are willing to sacrifice what little journalistic ethics they may have left and post and article of half truths, lies and innuendo that later requires a public apology.
http://www.thecoast.ca/RealityBites/archiv…
I just wish John Baird would start calling out the ‘Halifax elites’.
We know who they are.
Woof, GRRRRRRRR.
The Convention Centre can NEVER make money. It would take an additional 200,000 hotel night @ $300 a day in spending just to generate enough tax revenue to breakeven on the cost of capital. This is just basic math. People need to wake up. We got out of the Commonwealth Games when $400 million became $1.7 billion. How do you the people of Delhi feel about their $4 billion 2010 Commonwealth Games. This is the same Trade Centre group promoting this circus.
If you think that spending $140 million on a convention centre is a good idea then you need a financial guardian because you’re too stupid to be an investor.
Sigh!……. How is it that some still fail to understand that convention centers are not a for profit business in themselves. How many times do you need to be told. Convention centers are built and located in the downtown of cities to be an economic engine for the area. They create revenue for local industry and cities as a whole. This is why convention centers are supported by public financing. They are an important part of a cities infrastructure. Please please try to grasp this concept as hard as it is for you.
I find it somewhat strange that there was no mention of the fact that The Coast ran a feature on Brindi a good while ago that seemed to hold the very position that Tim is deriding.
This is a fun piece – at a time when it almost feels like gallows humour.
I believe the proponents have gotten so mixed up about this that they mistake these symbols of success and healthy economy with the actual economy itself. I think they have it exactly backwards.
The sports stadiums and concerts and leisure activities and convention centres flow from a healthy economy not the other way around. I think we can invest in better things that fit a more forward-looking, investment oriented vision for Halifax and Nova Scotia.
I think the folks saying that convention centres (like public some other infrastructure investments) are not supposed to make money are captive to economic theories few of them understand and that are simplistic in the extreme. But convention centres, especially second convention centres with debatable prospects, are not exactly like school books or beds in hospitals or public safety initiatives or support for small business innovation or projects to put young people to work.
If I take them at their word – that they truly believe their policies will produce broad benefits for all – it does not change my position that there are simply better ways to invest and save tax money to build health, wealth and happiness in the community.
Wow, I don’t know who “Knew it and said so” is – but that is the most succinct and well written nugget about the Brindi saga that I’ve read in a long, long time – I may have to steal it and use it elsewhere! Good job!
Seen the animal control and a coupla cops there today, seems Brindi is in the same shit again.
The convention centre is simply an engine in a city that really, really needs an engine. The actual revenue that it generates itself is just icing on the cake. Will it pay for itself? No, not directly. Will it pay for itself? Yes, indirectly many times over. Add Tim Bousquet to the list of people not smart enough to understand this very basic concept.
Kill the Dog already…. sheesh
As for the convention center…… its hard to know who is right here…. either its a 160 million boondoggle or an economic engine that will help revitalize the downtown area…. i dont think i have enough impartial info to make an informed decision so i wont speculate…. although i think the idea of another basement convention center is very short sighted given the impressive views the site could produce.
For Flucks Sake LEAVE BRINDI ALONE.
WE ALL KNOW HOW RURAL NOVA SCOTIA NEIGHBORS CAN BE. FULL OF GOSSIP, LIES And BULLSHLIT.
AND- That’s what I see here some NS Country Hicks looking for their 15 minutes of INFANOUS.
“we’re going to eventually realize we’ve built a shiny money pit that sucks the life out of downtown.”
Because the ACTUAL pit that’s there now is working wonders for downtown, right?
Facile. Why isn’t anyone looking at the neighbours? Rogier bought a heritage house on a street with a bunch of inbred yahoos. Complaints started when she started renovating the house. Do the math.
Dogs attacking dogs…let the dogs decide, that is what dog’s do. I don’t want one more dollar spent for legal remedies for a dog owner who can’t manage her dog. This is a civil matter, let the nuts spend their money.
It is somewhat reassuring to see that I am not the only one who finds this article and its premise repugnant. But I must take extreme exception to it, starting with the inappropriate and offensive comparison, not least because I happen to know that the convention centre is a terrible idea. I am Francesca Rogier, an architect and urbanist (and sorry if I sound elitist or anything, but it happens that I trained at U-M, Columbia, Harvard and MIT, working and borrowing my way through!). I also worked at leading architecture firms in the US and Europe. I have studied these projects at length.
Frankly, if I had seen your disgraceful article at the time, I and others would likely have started proceedings against you and the Coast – if only to stop you from publishing more of the same, or the infantile Brindi v. Stan poll currently running.
You clearly took delight in putting me down as a “true believer”, but have you, Mr. Tim Bousquet, done any actual research for this article? Apparently not. Ironically, given your display of (willful) ignorance, your “true believers” notion fits you (and HRM) far better: your “information” about me and Brindi is erroneous and inaccurate, much like the stuff HRM puts over in the courtroom. You appear to paraphrase me as saying “The dog was just playful, it had been raised wrong, a good owner would bring out the best in it.” ?? Where did I say or write this or anything like it? Nowhere! Your remaining remarks similarly purport to paraphrase other statements or behavior, and yet none are remotely recognizable.
Worse, you do not seem to grasp how your misinformation, flawed logic, and innuendo (not to say libel) only serves to incite further attacks, but a judge just might. Innuendo about the convention centre is one thing, and perhaps people are right to call you out for it (above). But your innuendo about me and my dog is different, as it is directly harmful to an individual (who has no interest in financial gain at stake). Unlike my dog, I and the others you smear are entitled to fundamental rights and am protected by defamation laws. What I see here is the kind of yellow journalism worthy of Frank Magazine, and like it, you pander to a group of very nasty (and pretend-angry) harassers, most living outside of HRM, who have posted libelous and personally threatening online attacks since 2009. Not very responsible of you.
Let’s talk common sense and “rational assessments”, shall we? Brindi has never attacked a human, and will not do it, even when kicked. She has been “rationally” assessed by professional experts five times now – count them, Tim, FIVE. Results? ALL POSITIVE. The three different trainers and vet, who did the evaluations for the court at my request (all but one without pay), all found Brindi to be eager to please, attentive, affectionate, and highly trainable. They do note a minor territorial streak, but they interpret it from the reports, not their actual assessments, however. (read them at Freebrindi.blogspot.com). Also, I not only agreed with the results – they fit perfectly – but did my utmost to train and continue training well beyond the court conditions.
That is fact. That is rational. That is common sense. But, just like you, HRM is a “true believer” that Brindi should die, and like you, it has no evidence or expert opinion to back it. It ignored the assessements, and – unheard of in dog cases – totally failed to come up with any of its own in four years. Zero. Now it’s pretending there have been no evaluations at all.
I don’t care who says I’m an idiot. I expect kneejerk responses by uniformed, unnamed people. Who can blame them, given such irresponsible, non-factual reporting? It’s a sad and known fact that courts don’t always reach the right decision, and dog cases are notorious for doing just that. The media’s job is to penetrate the surface. It is pretty clear to thinking people that Brindi was wrongly seized. So I challenge you and anybody with such unfounded opinions to talk to respected canine behavior consultant (approved by HRM) Susan Jordan, read her court testimony and her statements on me and Brindi at brindijustice.com. In short, she deems Brindi to be at the lowest level of aggression, and calls me a very responsible dog owner: she told the judge she really wants to continue working with the two of us. Susan is in high demand, she was not paid for her time, and yet she said this. Get it?? you are not interested in the facts.
Beyond poor logic, your insensitivity and apparent delight in bashing, and providing fodder for others to bash, are quite brazen; your bias is undeniable. Equally glaringly absent are any factual details about “attacks” – what actually happened, how severe were they (NOT), who were the other owners, who decided to kill Brindi and why? Where is mention of the fact that I challenged and changed the by-law at great cost to myself, and that this is increasingly being done by other dog owners across the continent? Zero interest in that, let alone the years of illegal detention (that you also never bothered to research).
Odd too, given your usual critical view of HRM, your crusade about Peter Kelly as executor, etc., that the idea never occurred to you, of all people, that sheer retaliation, not rationality, is what motivated HRM to seize and lock away Brindi again after a minor incident, then evict me and try to tear my house down.
Instead of maintaining some semblance of journalistic objectivity, you, Tim, are a true believer – in HRM’s superficial lies. I don’t know about the CC fans, but a public apology from you to me as well as others supporting Brindi is certainly in order as far as I’m concerned.
A public apology is not a bad idea, especially since searching The Coast for Brindi turns up a clear pattern of smears, apart from maybe one piece.
this article doesn’t make any kind of coherent or substantiated points. it is subpar. comparing brindi to melvin is highly inaccurate as well, she has been involved in a few incidents, but they are minor and caused minimal damage. the same can’t be said about melvin. but it sounds sensationalistic, and to someone with a lame sense of humour, funny? i think the coast’s readers would be much better served by some proper research and rational arguments rather than some off the cuff, lazy, ridiculous musings of someone who seemingly can do a better job, when he’s motivated. shame.
Why does Halifax have a vendetta against Brindi and Ms. Rogier? Is this the way you treat newcomers to your town? This vendetta has been going on for 5 years or more, with Brindi pining away in a cage. Why are you trying to take her house away, too? Why did Halifax return dogs back to their owners that have attacked children and adults? Why did Halifax return two dogs to their owners that savagely destroyed a Shih Zhu? Brindi never attacked a human and the incident with another dog is trivial. Give Brindi back to Ms. Rogier and let them get on with their lives. There’s no reason to keep Brindi locked up. She needs interaction with people and more socialization. Free Brindi and let her live and get the training that she needs. Halifax released the dangerous dogs back to their owners. Halifax has no excuse to keep a dog prisoner that is not dangerous.
I see Ms Rogier had a chance to express her views on this subject. I thought that a perspective from the “side of the fence” that Brindi is living on now, might give some insight on what it like to be bullied by a “True Believer”
My, oh my .. what gives .. no slick-spin, negative, American style attack adds/comments against me or the kennel in “Humane Halifax” tweets since 3 Oct …. maybe they have decided to be useful and pick up some doggy do – rather than fling it …. of course FR is still at it…
BTW , I hope she keeps linking the affidavit photos all over the net to her blog. Despite her diatribes, I love the fact that rational people will see that Brindi’s “cage” consists of getting one –if not more, clean 14 ft run always at her disposal – and a MINIMUM 3 ft by 4 ft sleeping area with a heated floor, fresh dog pillow daily, and a ½ acre outdoor play area that is professionally supervised when she is out playing. I find it difficult to fathom how a person with such an extensive education, has a quantum lack of basic observation skills – that also appears to be at par with her inabilities to operate a common car door power widow. Perhaps these are gifts granted by God to only the lowly common and simple folk … like myself, to compensate for our inability to operate on the intellectual plain she does. Apparently, on her “analysis” of my property – which is not “that nice” a property according to her standards (please feel free to compare our respective dwellings on her sites – there are lots of legal and illegal examples – mine is the one NOT falling apart) …, she has failed to notice in the pictures there are bushes for a dog to run around and grass to play on .. oh … and that big wood thing in the background ..its called a tree.. she said there were none – but I am sure I remember in my grade 1 reading books, that thing sticking out of the ground was called a tree … they tend to provide a great wind break and sunshade – along with the newly landscaped embankments that also provide shade and are fun for canines to run up and down. I am making an un-educated guess, but the Supreme Court Judge agreed that this stuff is pretty good and therefore, Brindi’s “sub-standard “ environment doesn’t throw up any red flags for her to intercede, but , what do I know, I just have a basic education and some post secondary. Maybe at MIT, an embankment is also referred to as “rubble” – which is also on the property that she says the dogs must navigate over. She has claimed that the kennel uses barbed wire to restrict the animals. Perhaps the illegally obtained photos she uses from someone trespassing on my neighbours property on her FB pages, have her confused. Now, I must admit, I don’t believe that they teach much about fencing material at U-M, Columbia, Harvard and MIT –and, in all fairness – perhaps she has confused that with the chicken wire she has used on her property. In any event, the simple masses can plainly see that no such containment exists.
It is un-ethical for providing this environment for Brindi , according to Ms. Rogier and Humane Halifax. Brindi should either go back to her house, which appears to be borderline habitable and a property that offers no basic, let alone, advanced containment planning for a dog with Brindi’s considerations – or – she should go an adoptive home Mr Rogier’s choosing … yet the Judge, for some strange, cruel reason – said “no”
My father always used to say it is impossible to rationalize with people that are educated beyond their intelligence…. maybe he had point …perhaps the combined, compressive nature of that much data from so many lofty institutions has lead to some sort of cascading cerebral trauma that interferes with the ability perceive the world properly …
So once again, Mr. Derek Graham, whose wife owns Wyndenfog kennel, posts a poorly informed and illogical diatribe, barely concealing his identity. Not a very seemly thing to do for somebody with a financial interest in keeping Brindi locked up.
Mr. Graham, nobody in their right mind thinks it’s okay to keep a dog in a kennel for years at a time, so you’d be well advised to remain silent rather than post such claptrap. Being an anti-intellectual is the least of it.
First of all, you’ve not only twisted the truth; you’ve got key facts completely wrong: Francesca did not ask the judge that “Brindi should either go back to her house, which appears to be borderline habitable and a property that offers no basic, let alone, advanced containment planning for a dog with Brindi’s considerations – or – she should go an adoptive home Mr Rogier’s choosing”! Instead she asked for Brindi to be temporarily fostered pending the outcome of the appeal, to a foster home that is mutually acceptable to HRM, the court, and herself. A very reasonable proposal for a dog that is highly deserving. And you can read her brief here: http://www.brindijustice.com/brindi/Motion…
And she didn’t propose these things because her home is not suitable, or because she doesn’t have a right to have her dog at home pending trial /appeal – as virtually every other dog owner prosecuted in HRM – but because she didn’t want to ask for too much and she was putting her dog’s interests first, unlike you.
Secondly, you are very well aware that Brindi’s vet and trainer have been saying since 2010 that it’s bad for Brindi to be kenneled again after her ordeal at the Metro Shelter from 2008 to 2010. In October 2010, they both asked HRM to send her to Belle Kennel if not to a foster home. That was the least HRM should have done, as according to our legal advisors it was completely outside of the law to lock Brindi up month after month. And you, sir, and your wife, are complicit in that action.
And overall, neither you nor HRM has a leg to stand on. Five positive assessments say Brindi should be either at home with Francesca or in an otherwise suitable home. Ms. Jordan testified that she finds Francesca a very responsible owner. Back in 2008 Francesca proposed the very conditions that a judge put in place two years later. Too bad HRM didn’t accept them in the first place, so that Brindi didn’t have to suffer.
Why would Dr. Larkin and Susan Jordan go out on a limb unless they were sure? Both Larkin and Jordan say that long-term kenneling puts her health AND her temperament at risk. The latter is backed up by a recent study: http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/berg…
For the record, a government contractor operating without a business license for two years at a stretch doesn’t exactly add to your wife’s credibility. More importantly, the veterinary regulations of Canada designate a 3×4 space as the MINIMUM for a medium-sized dog – for SHORT-TERM housing. Not long term!! There’s no door to ward off the elements, and the concrete is dingy and cracked. What a sad prospect for a sweet dog to be in such a place, and viewing your family through the window is not positive visual stimulation – if anything it would taunt a companion animal. Letting her out twice a day for 20 minutes – big deal!!
You and your wife are co-responsible for this tragedy, sir. Under the law Wyndenfog is just as liable as HRM. But you are evidently as calloused as the knees of your “ideal woman”.
For a member of the Canadian Armed Forces, your character sure leaves a lot to be desired.
As a postscript to Mr. Graham:You again fail to grasp what happened in court – not a surprise!
On the motion to foster Brindi, the fact is that the supreme court justice, Hon. M. Heather Robertson, decided she did not have jurisdiction to grant or deny the motion. She declined to consider the motion; even though she did bring up aspects of it, she based her decision not on your kennel or anything else about the case or the motion arguments. It’s a mistake to draw any further conclusions about it. We disagree with the jurisdiction decision and think it’s a cop-out, frankly, but that’s what the good judge did. Unfortunately for Brindi.
The draft of the Order Francesca was seeking is posted here:
http://www.brindijustice.com/brindi/Form78…
Really offensive graphic, not to mention the article.
A jerk is just a jerk, Tim. Were you drunk when you wrote this?
Wow if that’s the kennel owner (or hubbie?) talking he’s pretty darn defensive, isn’t he!! Haha.
A common car window? Or a new car window that works backwards? Who cares! If the dog didn’t do any serious harm, why the hell is HRM still trying to kill it? How embarrassing that HRM failed three times in court to get a euthanasia order. And no wonder, not a single pro from the dog world, not even Mr. Graham or his wife, says Brindi should die!
So what the hell?? Let her go, you idiots! Stop picking on her owner!
And while you’re at it, do something about the dog that bit the little girl and her mom in Bayers/Westwood last month – they both needed stitches, for God’s sake, but HRM didn’t run over, guns blazing, and seize it!
IMO the woman is ruthless and bullies and harasses anyone who has a different opinion or who she even remotely perceives to be a threat IMO and has given a revival demonstration of the word ‘smear’. Fran doesn’t seem to understand that this case is going to be before the Appeal Judges and tweeting her followers HRM’s phone number and names of animal control and HRM employees names, etc. has no barring on the decision and it further demonstrates harassment as does sending fake dog poop to HRM. It appears to me, she wants win at any and all costs. Fran glosses over or totally ignores key facts all available in the court documents if anyone chooses to actually read them instead of listening to one-side. She even took down the link on one of her sites to the Judge’s verdict she had posted, possibly because she realized the facts and actual evidence was so damning to her.
The blogs she writes and the various sites she has, promote links for donations for herself including collecting for renovations to her house, so if that is not a vested financial interest I don’t know what is! I thought the article was ‘right on target and/or hit the mark’ and have a right to express my opinion even if I don’t read from the same prayer book.
Stalk much, “Real Pet Owner”? You sound real, like a real bastard. Can you name a specific “key fact” that you think she got wrong? I’d like to see that. I see posts like yours a lot, lots of accusations, no substance.
So what if the appeal is coming? Wasn’t the point to get this dog out of the kennel? What is your problem with that exactly??????
All I know is, anybody in her situation would be fighting just like her to hang on to what they’ve got. I’d hardly call that “financial interest”!!!
OK “Humane Halifax” –
If ya wanna go – then lets go then, the gloves are coming off …
“Humane Halifax” / “Robert Riley ?” / “Francesca Rogier?” /”Brindi’s Mom?” whoever … – because you are too cowardly to use your own name, you predicably post a scatered pile of banner designed to distract from the main issues by using worthless references to studies that don’t apply and character assisnations – in an attemp to draw the reader away from the real topic – accountablity and responciblity. I, Derek Graham stand in the open. I don’t throw inuendow and sling crap and then scury under a rock or in this case – hide behind a cloak of self -righteousness with a trendy slick Twitter name. Therefore, I speak to what I know, what I have experienced, or what I have seen.
This kennel business operates in the real world. We don’t have the luxery of putting up donation sites all over the web if things don’t go our way. That means hard work. That means providing a safe enviroment. That means if you want a service, you have to pay for it. Brindi represnts a small percentage of the finaical gain to this business and to be quite honest, there is no amount of money that truly compensates for the amount of grief that Humane Halifax and Francesca Rogier have caused in terms of ridicule and childlike harassment. For the record – We are not holding Brini to personally aggravate Francesca Rogier, although it would appear that is what she’s trying to sell. We’ve been hired to do a job and provide the best possible service that goes with this line of work. Frankly, we would just like to be left alone to do our job, however, is obvious that your organization or group and Ms. Rogier believe that attacking this business and the people in it will win you public sympathy and support. I advise you to rethink your strategy because quite frankly, other than being an annoyance and sometimes just a plain nuisance, your tactics are failing miserably. I seriously don’t expect any of you to actually follow through on that, as that would be an indication of perceived defeat. However, if common sense miraculously makes its way between the ears of any of your members, I will consider that a miracle and be thankful.
I was present during the Supreme Court hearing as to whether Ms. Rogier was going to be successful in convincing the courts to have Brindi moved from our Kennel to a foster home environment. She first had to convince the court that they had jurisdictional authority to act. If the matter of jurisdiction could be resolved, only then would she be permitted to challenge the “living conditions” of the kennel to support fostering to a home. For the record I would like to state that a home environment with a properly trained owner who has taken the necessary precautions to provide a safe environment for the intended pet is always preferred to any kennel environment. That was never the question. The question here, posed before the courts, was this ideal environment necessary and obtainable under the current circumstances and what criteria would be required for the Supreme Court to have permission for jurisdictional interference. Ms. Rogiers argument was approximately 2 hours long. Several times she was warned to stop referring to elements of the original trial as an excuse to support her jurisdictional argument. When it became apparent that she had no real basis for the Supreme Court to interfere with the decision of the lower court, her final tactic was to attempt to discredit the affidavit submitted by the kennel and to refer to late the payment of a business licensing with the hopes that she could infer that the kennels administrative abilities were a reflection of their professional abilities. The HRM lawyer only required 10 min. to present an argument that although the kennel is not ideal – as NO kennel is – it was certainly adequate under the circumstances. The judge quickly dismissed Rogier’s argument, and stated that she was quite confident with the kennels abilities to take care of the dog in question and noted that under the kennel’s care, the dogs general health had might have even improved.
It is very sad and unfortunate that this animal had to be confiscated due to the negligence of the owner for a second time. This is what happens to a dog that has attacked other dogs or is left vulnerable to attack, on multiple occasions. Generally, the accused is not afforded the luxury of choosing who or what organization the confiscated animal will be assigned to. As Ms. Rogier stated on her blog and during the court proceeding, NO kennel environment is suitable for long-term stay -be it Wyndenfog or Belle Kennels. Apparently, your “legal advisors” have, come up somewhat lacking in convincing the entire legal system that they are operating completely outside of the law. The term “locked up” is flippantly used by your group is a reference to a penal system and its inmates. I find it particularly vile and disgusting that you would refer to the housing, caring, exercising, and attention given to an animal in kennel care, in this manner. It is abstract, irresponsible and absurd and nobody in their right mind would be bringing their dog to this facility if that were the case. The original owner of this animal insists on prolonging the animal to stay in the state of legal limbo indefinitely by her attempts at appeal. She has no one else to blame but herself for the prolonged situation of this form of care. However, this business anticipated this action, consequently we have modified the standard kennel environment to better suit the situation. It is unprecedented, therefore NO current study can’t accurately account for the variables for which this situation applies. The affidavit submitted to the Supreme Court listed the MINIMAL and most stringent situation that this animal would endure. This was presented in this manner so that the court would understand the worst possible scenario at any given time that this animal would experience. The presumed lack of a door system to the outer runs clearly shows how much this group does not understand the structural requirements for kennel doors. In this case, on our kennel system, there is a drop slide down door on the interior. This closes off the all the elements to the animal, less the occational draft. For extreme weather conditions, a hinged outer door drops into place on the outer frame of the building creating a double door. Insulated inserts are put in place to deal with substantial temperature drops. In effect, this system represents a higher R-value than the doors on any home.
The maximums in this situation were not listed as it would have been considered exaggeration and inaccurate. That being said, some of the maximums that Brindi is afforded are, four 3 X 15 runs as they are all interlinked. In addition to added run space when available, an entire 8 x 8 room, heated floor, with the standard bedding and pillows is available upon occation. Finally, extra walks up to approximately 1.5 hours or the same amount of time of free play in a controlled grassed area. It should be noted that we would have loved to be able to take her out for walks to other environments that offered different scenic venues, but, due to the security risks posed by many of her online supporters threatening to illegally confiscate her and/ or forcibly break into this kennel or our personal residence, this made this option quite impossible. Brindi’s restrictions are directly related to Ms. Rogeir’s social media followers and her unwillingness to curb or eliminate such comments. These comments are a matter of record and she has no one to blame for this, except herself.
I don’t know what legs I am supposed to stand on – or whatever that statement is supposed to mean. I’m well aware of what Ms. Jordan’s qualifications were as the courts determined – she was considered an expert in reference to training, not behaviour. What I do know is that the operator of this kennel has twice as much experience as Mrs. Jordan in this field as well as operating kennel for 12 years and being a registered breeder for twice that as well. It is safe to assume that if she was doing anything unethical, it would have been noticed long ago. Humane Halifax has an infatuation with quoting credentials. It is been said, because I’ve heard personally, that the owner of this kennel is rated one of the top five instructors in this province. This is hearsay – I freely admit that – and I admit that could be considered a biased opinion, however, I encourage anyone with an open and objective viewpoint to research that. For an animal that would appear to have aggressive tendencies, it would appear that she is more than qualified to cope with any aggression issues that Brindi may show signs of and professionally deal with them.
The question of the business license. This kennel had not renewed his license due to an administrative error, period. Once discovered, this was immediately corrected. If you think this has anything to do with the professional capabilities of a person’s training in a specific field I would submit to you that your focus is guided to suit a specific agenda. I am serving member of the Canadian Armed Forces and my wife has choosen a career in kennel management and dog training. These jobs with their respective duties and responsibilities were our primary efforts. We freely admit that we will have to apply more personal time and resources to ensure that our administration of the business is raised to a higher standard. Despite innuendo inferred by this group, there are no payment anomalies or taxation anomalies.
I find it particularly amusing that a supposedly credible group that is dedicated to the care of animals would waste time and resources researching personal communications on various social media for the sole purpose to put somebody in a bad light – and that the best that they could come up with, was a singular joke selected for specific people that was never intended for public viewing. It speaks volumes to the desperation of how low and underhanded this group will go to get public support and speaks to their character. It is literally the kettle calling the pot black. It was never my intent for this comment that was intended as joking banter, to have been put in a public forum like that, had it not been for the actions of some twisted and small minds. Never the less, if some people were offended, I apologize, and I don’t deny saying it, however, I would like to personally thank the conniving individual for educating me on the vulnerabilities of the Internet and the methods that some people will stoop to.
Humane Halifax loves to talk about complicity. So let’s go there. Ms. Rogier is complicit in allowing illegally obtained photographs of my residence on her social media and taking advantage of them. Ms. Rogier is complicit in allowing incorrect information based on these photographs to be spread on the Internet. Ms. Rogier is complicit in not discouraging potential violence against this kennel or the people that reside in this residence. Ms. Rogier is complicit in trespassing on this residence on Christmas Eve. There is a standing police file on record. There are statements recorded off the Internet that support EVERYTHING printed. Ms. Rogier had to be personally and formally warned by the RCMP to cease any other possible invasive intrusions on this property. THAT…is matter of record. Ms. Rogier presents herself as a victim; however, this “victim”is a bully and many people who once supported her, now see her in a much different light.
As I mentioned before, I am serving member of the Canadian Armed Forces CD with over 25 years experience. I’ve have served my country on various deployments including Afghanistan. I am a husband and a father. I also hold a martial arts degree and have instructed sexual assault management and countermeasures to female members of the military and civilian population. I volenteer as a football trainer for a local Hight school.
As I mentioned before, I stand in the open and do not hide or back down from any fight. As also mentioned before, I’m not one to grab a soapbox and preach down to others, however, I would put my character up against the likes of the ones at Humane Halifax any time, and I do not think they would present much of a challenge.
Apparently a nerve was touched.
Our group is new but it strives to draw attention to what is hidden, forgotten, misleading because we consider dogs and cats family members, and because fixing HRM animal control must be done, and it must start with Brindi.
Where do you stand?
There is not only no imperative to continue locking Brindi up regardless of her “crimes” (and the case does fall into that category): there is every reason not to.
And yes, locking her up is what you are doing; one could render a worse image. The punitive aspect certainly resounds in the latter rather militant part of your post.
Look around. Cities are beginning to realize how wrong it is to lock away a dog for months at a time. Years are unheard of. You are not doing your job, you are doing something that is widely regarded as wrong and harmful.
It is what it is.
A few corrections and some information:
-The motion hearing began after 2:15 pm and ended just before 3:30 pm. If you were there for two hours, perhaps you were at the wrong hearing? As far as the rest of your analysis, why should anybody accept it as accurate and objective?
-Brindi’s vet questioned the kennel’s size and door, as well as other things. If the court had allowed it, this information would have been presented. As a full response to the kennel affidavit could never be made, so assuming what the judge would have said is pure speculation.
-Nobody said a word about how good a trainer Ms. Graham is or isn’t, but now that you did, the subject does raise some questions, as many other trainers totally disagree with what she is doing here. Trainers from Halifax to Australia, in fact.
-Similarly, if we were so off the mark, how is it that from here to places far and wide so many dog lovers, owners, rescuers, have questioned the affidavit, as well as the whole case, on ethical grounds?
-Nobody is holding a gun to your head, or to your wife’s head, Mr. Graham. You have a job. Your wife can train, breed, or kennel. She has other customers, doesn’t she? If this bothers you so much then perhaps you should rethink your involvement. That’s your decision. But attacking Brindi’s owner is not a wise way to go.
-To characterize urgent fundraising efforts to save a dog – without succumbing to destitution – as “luxury” is shockingly offensive. Are you that cold? And do you honestly imagine you are in a worse financial situation? Wow.
-It’s the truth that Wyndenfog was not licensed, and making that fact known is not illegal. You probably should be glad about that as you were already running up a fine of over $36,000.
You doth protest too much.Since when is it trespassing to use the driveway of a place of business to drop off a doggy Xmas stocking – on Xmas eve, when most folks are at home, no less – trespassing? Please. Never mind photographs; worry about negligence.
And with you there to protect the premises with all your training and experience, it seems odd that you feel so threatened, even if one were to believe people are “threatening to illegally confiscate her and/ or forcibly break into this kennel or (y)our personal residence”. Honestly.
Here are a few counter-examples for you to think about with regard to the abnormal situation you are cooperating with. Just a suggestion.
*In Broward, Florida, a leashed husky that killed a poodle was seized and sentenced to death. Six months later the dog went home. No muzzle order. The town kicked out the mayor, changed the law, and got 6 other dogs off death row as well.
Out of concern for the other dog owners, the county lawyers went to them and offered financial compensation. We are talking only months, not years, remember. Brindi is in her fifth year of confinement!
*In Okanagan, a dog named Shadow was accused of biting a woman who allegedly kicked him. The trial was mid-way through, the owners had a sharp lawyer destroy a number of witnesses, but the sudden adjournment of another six months was too much for the owners, the Madsens. They called a public gathering and it resulted in immediate negotiations, with the district stating it acted out of concern for the long-term period of kenneling Shadow had endured.
(Remember, Brindi did not attack people who kicked her on two occasions.)
The district also reimbursed the Madsens 60% of their legal costs. Imagine, Mr. Graham.
Here are a couple of things – the district’s statement, then the report on the release of Shadow.
Regional District releases statement regarding Shadow
CHBC News, Kelowna : Monday, July 23, 2012 5:04 PM
http://www.castanet.net/news/Kelowna/78303…
On Monday afternoon, the Regional District of the Central Okanagan released a statement regarding Shadow, an Alaskan Malamute accused of biting a woman in the leg. Shadow has been kept at a dog pound in Kelowna for the past 15 months, which is half of its life. People around the Okanagan as well as across B.C. have become attached to the story and many are calling for the animal’s release.
Here is the release verbatim:
RDCO Statement – Custody of Shadow
The Regional District of Central Okanagan presents the following facts:
• On April 27th, 2011 Regional District Dog Control received a report of a dog attack-person bitten on Middle Bench Road in Lake Country on March 26th, 2011.
• The injuries suffered were severe and required a lengthy treatment and rehabilitation.
• The victim identified an Alaskan Malamute dog named Shadow as the aggressor and RDCO Dog Control began an immediate investigation.
• On May 1st, 2011 RDCO dog control seized the dog under Section 49 of the Community Charter.
• In July 2011, a trial date was set for July 2012 to hear arguments on a Destruction Order.
• On April 20th, 2012 a Provincial Court judge ruled the seizure was improper since no warrant was obtained and the judge gave the Regional District five days to get an approved warrant.
• On April 24th, 2012 the Regional District obtained a warrant to seize the dog alleged to have bitten a person on March 26th, 2011.
• On January 3, 2012 the hearing for the dog owners’ application for interim release of their dog was dismissed by a Provincial Court judge.
• In February 2012 a consent order offer was made by the Regional District to the dog owners to release the dog including a number of conditions provided to protect public safety.
• If accepted, this consent order, would have returned the dog to its owners and finally conclude this matter. The offer was refused by the dog owners.
• On Monday and Tuesday last week, July 16th and 17th, the Provincial Court trial began hearing evidence and the case has been adjourned, likely to continue in January 2013.
• While there are witness statements that conflict with the victim’s statement, the Regional District is not in a position to make a judgment.
• The judge will determine the outcome of the case, based on all the evidence that is presented.
The Regional District would like to address a number of issues of concern raised by the public.
• The Regional District does not believe it is appropriate for any dog to be held for extended periods of time in its dog pound facility, but it is bound to protect the safety and interests of the public and all ratepayers in the Central Okanagan. Consent orders are a tool to avoid keeping dogs for long periods of time.
• Criminal, family and civil court matters are the priority for the courts and it makes it difficult to get dog bylaw cases before the courts in a timely manner. Counsel for the Regional District has been told on several occasions by judges that dog bylaw cases are not more important than civil, family or criminal cases.
• Last Friday, July 20th, the Regional District offered a revised consent order to the dog owners. Among the conditions are secure fencing, behaviour training and control when outside the fenced area. The Regional District is awaiting a response.
The Regional District regrets this situation and is concerned about the welfare of the dog, but will consider only one option other than continuing to house the dog at the RDCO pound and that is for the owners to take their dog back under the conditions of the revised consent order.
(END)
That was the statement of the district. This is what happened a week later:
http://www.castanet.net/news/Central-Okana…
Charges dropped, Shadow goes home
by Wayne Moore – Story: 78490
Jul 27, 2012 / 6:00 pm
Shadow is going home.
An agreement between her owner, Peter Madsen, and the Regional District of Central Okanagan (RDCO) was finalized Friday, paving the way for Shadow’s return to her family later that afternoon.
In announcing the agreement, the RDCO says the two sides reached agreement on a Consent Order which outlines what they describe as a number of mutually acceptable conditions.
As part of that order, the dog owners have agreed to a program of rehabilitation and reintegration training for the two year old dog to help her in transitioning back to her owners’ home.
“The agreement marks a positive step for both parties in resolving what has been a very difficult case. It’s been an extremely emotional experience for everyone involved: the victim, the dog owners, Regional District Dog Control staff and other professionals in the community,” says Regional Board Chair Robert Hobson.
The Lake Country Alaskan Malamute had been on ‘death row’ in the RDCO’s dog pound for the past 15 months awaiting a court date on allegations she attacked and bit a Lake Country woman March 26, 2011.
As part of the agreement reached between the parties, Madsen says the RDCO agreed to drop all charges against Shadow while Madsen says he has agreed not to pursue civil charges against the district.
“It’s been hell for our family. We just wanted it to end,” says Madsen, whose attempts to get Shadow released from the pound cost him and his family ten’s of thousands of dollars.
“We are grateful for the cooperation of the Regional District in working to resolve this matter and getting Shadow back with us. We’re very happy that she is home and will begin professional training to help with her adjustment.”
Madsen adds the Regional District has agreed to help with his legal costs as well as the cost of rehabilitation in case the experience at the pound has caused lasting affects on the dog.
For their part, the family agreed to build adequate fencing around the family home. Madsen says those renovations passed RDCO inspection Friday, paving the way for completion of the deal.
Madsen also offered his thanks Paul Macklim at the Regional District and to members of the media who helped champion Shadow’s cause.
He adds he will continue to fight for the need for better conditions and better facilities at the RDCO’s dog pound.
He also hopes the district will change its policy and allow dogs such as Shadow to go home under strict conditions while awaiting court disposition of cases like this.
Madsen says it’s done that way in other jurisdictions and should be done here as well.
It’s anticipated the final consent order between the parties will be presented for Provincial Court approval early next week.
earlier piece:
http://www.castanet.net/news/Central-Okana…
Praiseworthy caliber of reporting.
Finally –
*Cities and by-laws differ, and some are ahead of others. Most know about Calgary’s method of handling dog cases by dealing with dangerous dogs and violations separately; using a separate tribune and limiting the time to 30 days and 30 for appeals.
* In Boston, Mass., a city many times bigger than Halifax, the fines start at less than $50. The city never orders a dog to be destroyed. By law the most it can do is ask to get a dog sent out of town, unless the owner agrees on euthanasia. But to get to this point takes a number of incidents, and they must be severe in nature.
Also relevant here is that Boston also clears the record of a dog yearly, so that an incident that happened 4 or 5 years earlier can’t be held against the dog – or the owner, in fact, cumulatively and for the rest of its life, as if it is a human being. Makes sense.
You are a person with free-will. Brindi is a helpless animal. Any owner would grieve for her every day. Be a soldier, but be a soldier of compassion first, Mr. Graham.
There is probably nobody who can say with absolute certainty how well or badly the Convention Centre will succeed or fail, based on its passage to date. My informed prediction however is that the word and will of the current HRM cannot be trusted!! Haligonians must do their best due diligence on such a huge investment, because based on past performance and irrefutable evidence unearthed by Tim Bousquet in other pieces for The Coast, you cannot trust or believe much, from this Mayor and council.
I do however know quite a lot about how Brindi, an innocent, now senior dog has been used as a political football by the HRM for the past 4 years & counting (decades in dog years) for all the wrong reasons! As a true believer, based on true facts, I believe I can shed some further light on this subject.
What the general public may not know is that Brindi has been wrongfully convicted & held behind bars in solitary confinement at Wyndenfog Kennel, an unlicensed facility (a truth exposed just this week when the owners rushed to right this unlawful violation) a glaring oversight by the HRM. Was it incompetence, collusion or just unprofessional? I believe they are guilty of all three transgressions, while Brindi continues to do time behind bars for about 23 of every 24 hrs with limited contact & stimulation. HRM has denied any social interaction with other dogs, isolated in a small cell with NO visitations whatsoever, including her Vet, and cruellest of all from her owner Francesca Rogier, restrictions we wouldn’t even impose on violent human criminals! Despite many suitable offers for a normal environment in a foster home & reports proving how harmful this is to any dog long term, Brindi is forced to languish there to this day! And for what purpose? Financial gain for Wydenfog for sure, but financial loss for the tax payers of Halifax! And incalculable losses to Brindi and Ms. Rogier.
BRINDI is a gentle dog, not guilty of any crime ~ merely a few minor scuffles in defending her own property line from other dogs, typical in canine circles, yet she has NEVER bitten a human nor caused harm to anyone in her lifetime. Other dogs in Halifax have committed serious injury yet HRM deemed it perfectly fine for them to go home with a fine! Not for Brindi though, who gets cruel & unusual punishment by any standard & unprecedented with HRM, violating their own by-laws, for which Haligonians deserve full disclosure!
Warehousing any pet like this is deplorable but most egregious against an innocent one. This now infamous case, some calling it a vendetta against her owner, began with trumped up charges by vindictive neighbours in the first place, then covered up & compounded by a biased few in the city bureaucracy & a judiciary which has repeatedly failed to do its job based on ALL evidence, even after a Supreme Court finding in Brindi’s favour shortly after being seized by animal services.
Brindi’s actions have clearly been misinterpreted & maligned & even now sits on “death row” pardoned only by her owner’s efforts to save her! Both have suffered needlessly, despite full legal briefs, five independent affidavits by vet & canine experts, petitions & letters of support across the country, and the fact that no human or animal was ever HURT! Yet, this ineffective Kangaroo Court process continues to shamelessly ignore most of Ms. Rogier’s evidence while allowing outright perjury from the HRM. Francesca has been relentlessly villified for trying to save BRINDI’s life at considerable cost to herself, and only at great cost to taxpayers because HRM chose to convict & condemn her to death, a drastic move, unprecedented for such a non incident at best, a minor scuffle at worst. Why?
The wilful disregard for animal rights, even human rights and countless violations committed by HRM are baffling, even corrupt, and have been well documented over the past 4 years ~ enough for a mounting civil suit that any litigator would welcome! I believe the true threat to public safety based on how badly this case has been mishandled at every turn seems to be the current practices, negligence, hidden agenda & cover up by the HRM!!!
All of the above, loudly begs the question –> What politicians will now step up during this Municipal Election campaign to champion BRINDI’s cause?? The true facts and evidence in this case have been buried far too long for HRM’s own wrongdoings, which has to make rational voters furious about public funds being so ridiculously wasted!! Why? Who exactly is this serving? And isn’t it long overdue that this council be voted OUT?
Anyone who champions Brindi, the Underdog will surely win the hearts & votes of true believers, animal lovers, good pet owners & thinking Haligonians who want better animal services, as well as much improved by-laws, more fiscal responsibility and MUCH better political representation for the greatest good of Halifax!
What is a city supposed to do when you have an owner that allows her dog to run at large, has multiple accidents/excuses and the dog is attacking other peoples’ beloved pets? HRM issued warnings before that didn’t work, so they seized the dog after numerous other incidences. The Judge gave an order, the owner was fined and whoops there is another attack only weeks later. Brindi was attacking dogs OFF her property (she was loose), this is all well documented in the court records. You even have the ex-owner filing a false report on tape admitting to what happened and that it was Brindi’s fault. The sentiment in NS seems to be either put the dog down or rehome Brindi as this now ex-owner has clearly demonstrated she is not capable to controlling this dog. The Judge had a broad range of sentences and I believe she choose in the middle range. Whether Brindi has injured a person is not the issue, do you not care about other people’s dogs? How would you feel if your dog was attacked? I personally believe if Fran really loved this dog she would ask HRM to rehome Brindi to her forever home now and she would drop the appeal. She has stated she only has a 20% chance of winning at best, so why not just end this???
Real Pet Owner: What you are is a Real Crap Spreader. Do you always twist and omit key facts in your daily life? People must lose patience with you a lot. But we will keep speaking and correcting you every time.
Major misinformation deconstructed:
1. Seized her “after numerous other” incidents? WRONG WRONG WRONG. HRM gave 1 warning after a scuffle at the edge of her property (see below). At the SECOND incident report, HRM muzzled Brindi and concealed the fact that it decided on this after the other dog owner asked them to withhold the fine they had already decided to issue – why? It was about more than not wanting to jeopardize the money Francesca had offered for a vet bill that turned out higher than necessary. And remember,- OFFERED! That means TAKING RESPONSIBILITY – which is what few dog owners do around here!
HRM seized Brindi on the very next report -an incident that was so minor, there was no injury; there was no contact between the two dogs. HRM didn’t even tell Francesca and get her side of it first. It just showed up with a death order and took Brindi.
Later HRM used the fact that Brindi was see without her muzzle as a reason, LYING THAT THE LAW FORCED THEM TO KILL HER. The law contains no such provision!!!
2. THESE 3 INCIDENTS ALL HAPPENED AT THE EDGE OF FRANCESCA’S PROPERTY. AT MOST SHE WAS A FEW INCHES OFF OF IT!
The phrase “at large” is generally understood to include “out of sight of owner”- NOT ONCE THE CASE FOR FRANCESCA AND BRINDI.
A few inches off property??? WOW! HRM continues to get so much mileage out of what is nothing more than a technicality -yet does nothing about dogs that go into other yards and savage other pets, even kill them!!!
NONE OF THE COMPLAINANTS THOUGHT HRM WOULD SEIZE BRINDI OR ASKED IT TO!
3. Funny that you skipped two years: the part where the supreme court found the euthanasia law unconstitution and canned the euthanasia order but HRM kept the dog anyhow for another 18 months while trying to get another order by laying charges 6 months late. Kind of changes the story A LOT don’t you think?
4. The sentiment in NS? According to whom? You don’t even post your name, you are blowing more foul smoke around and you stink from it.
5. This owner is so much more conscientious than half a dozen average owners here, it’s not even funny. Having a klutz moment can happen to anybody, but does your average person go above and beyond court conditions – conditions that she offered herself 2 years earlier??
6. It’s very MUCH an issue whether Brindi has injured a person, moron!!!!!!!!!! A. Our laws are meant to protect people. Dogs are property; if you damage somebody’s property then you can take them to small claims court. B. it’s reasonable to deem dogs that bite people (severely) DANGEROUS; C. dogs that have several chances to attack but fail to inflict serious harm are either lousy at it or don’t intend to do serious harm – that’s what Dr. Ian Dunbar, a top canine behavior expert. says. Who are you to think you know better than he does? Even the Animal Control officer who seized Brindi believes in Dunbar’s words but sadly she thinks it’s okay to go against her own beliefs for the sake of her job!
7. ONCE AGAIN… on rehoming, over 2 years ago, in December 2010, Francesca begged HRM to rehome Brindi if they wouldn’t let her go home or be fostered pending trial. HRM refused. GO ASK HRM WHY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
8. After dragging out the trial another five months, the judge didn’t make any real decision but instead gave Brindi to the city that’s been trying to kill her, asked it to assess her again (not needed, but whatever), and then rehome her – unless the results were negative. The decision is worth appealing because it undermines due process but never mind, that’s over your head.
9. We all know the results can never be negative for Brindi. We all know it sure doesn’t take 5 weeks to do an assessment or find a home. SO GO ASK HRM WHY IT DIDN’T DO WHAT THE JUDGE SAID!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
10. With backing from vet and trainer, Francesca is begging HRM to foster Brindi NOW. It refused. GO ASK HRM WHY!!!!!!
It’s HRM who needs to be taken to task here. And you. Stop spreading lies, go back into the hole you crawled out of.
It’s uncanny how every line of your post is either a twist of truth, omits key info, or makes up nonsense, like this:
“The Judge had a broad range of sentences and I believe she choose in the middle range.”
Huh?? How is it in the middle range, exactly? Just another fairy tale!
The judge’s decision was off the charts, because the law called for her to make the decision about Brindi’s fate, not pass it to HRM! She didn’t even give HRM a deadline, require it to consult a real expert, or have it report back to her! Miscarraige of justice!
As far as the report Francesca made, you forgot to mention, she made the decision under duress, and regretted this very much. You also forgot to mention that she was persuaded to do it by none other than THE HRM DISPATCHER, whose idea it was. That woman, Michelle Steen, was in fact trying very hard to help Francesca keep Brindi safe from HRM. From the very start in 2008, Ms. Steen had been trying to help, because she was completely against what HRM did to Brindi. She had no trouble admitting this in court, but it only came out in cross examination. When the HRM Prosecutor questioned Michelle, the lawyer cleverly stepped around all that and created a false impression for the judge on many issues. By the time Francesca had the chance to set things straight and make a motion to dismiss, however, the judge had already admitted inadmissible evidence and wouldn’t reverse herself, likely to avoid looking bad. She really messed up the whole trial, that judge (here’s secrete: even the transcribers think so!).
The only reason you post your crap, “Real Pet Moaner” is because you are addicting to being a bully and a cyberstalker. You have a problem. If karma doesn’t get you, something will.
Here’s one of Graham’s lies that got overlooked:
“Brindi’s restrictions are directly related to Ms. Rogeir’s social media followers and her unwillingness to curb or eliminate such comments. “
Sheer poppycock! Some of us know only too well that as a rule HRM imposes such restrictions on all dogs seized (no visits, no public access, no walks, not special treat, no vets or trainers can see them, etc. etc.). Brindi has been under the very same restrictions she was at the SPCA.
They imposed the restrictions again as soon as Brindi was taken.
None of that has anything to do with social media. So stop slamming Francesca and her supporters – Brindi supporters – for it!
PS these restrictions don’t exist on paper in the form of law or policy statement. Nothing by the council, the mayor, or even a policy memo by Lori Scolaro, your buddy. That tidbit once came out in court when you weren’t looking. The Coast isn’t interested in this stuff, I guess. But HRM isn’t authorized to impose such restrictions, which really do require it even if they didn’t violate the Charter… so they are not exactly legitimate.
The amusing thing is, tools like you and the SPCA obey HRM’s rules so readily. You never question them even when they obviously go against the welfare of animals, not to mention the rights of lawful owners. Hope they’re paying you a lot, somebody’s gonna sue you sooner or later.
When you take a break from bashing Francesca, check out other cities and how they are not afraid to allow visits and walks and all kinds of things, like I dunno, due process?! Good cities don’t keep dogs locked up past 12 days unless they have a court order!!!! It’s time our courts realized they are not protecting public safety, but simply aiding and abetting HRM’s habitual wrongdoing.
Good luck Francesca!
First of all, why are you even concerned with my opinion or others? I guess the article above is very accurate in “fellow travellers who, “lash out at those not reading from the prayer book” lol.
March 2009 “Rogier’s five-year-old brown mutt that was seized by the city after three attacks on other dogs” http://www.thecoast.ca/halifax/saving-brin… Which wouldn’t have included the last attack, so that would make FOUR would it not? Fran usually mentions two for some reason.
If she would have been a responsible pet owner, there wouldn’t have been FOUR attacks plain and simple. I find it shocking a self-proclaimed animal group and other followers that seemingly have a willful disregard for the animal rights of the dogs that were on a leash with their owners on a public road. Bylaws are there for protection too. I am glad HRM and the judges thought differently. HRM probably had a good idea she was going to appeal lol. If they had adopted Brindi out and Fran appealed and won, Fran may have had grounds to sue, so that wouldn’t have been very responsible on their part.
I never say never, but it is seems Fran is the one surrounded by bad karma thanks.
Gee, big surprise Brindi had a setback after being held captive and isolated from other dogs for two whole years, and a foolish judge thinks the answer is to train her inside a kennel where she’s also isolated from other dogs…
Brindi had barely two months to recover. Nevertheless, it seems she had been doing well. And In the first month I recall Francesca reported how Brindi was attacked a few times! I think the trainer said the muzzle provoked other dogs, imagine! Yet Brindi stayed calm and obeyed Francesca who had her firmly in control. Funny nobody ever mentions this. Of course she would never have reported it to HRM; they’d just come and take Brindi. As they did at the first opportunity without doing a real investigation, ‘cause iit’s about retaliation, they just had to pay her $5000 after all.
What counts is not number, Rubber-stamp Mind, but SEVERITY. HRM?
What matters is, has something terribly harmful happened? Answer: NO. SO DROP IT.
Fine the owner if you must, but don’t pretend for a second that this dog is a candidate for the needle. And don’t pretend the owner “can’t control” the dog based on incidents that happen many years apart!!!
And when this city has such a dismal track record of protecting public safety against really dangerous dogs, it’s scandalous beyond belief. More often than not, HRM stupidly applies the human standard of “it was just a first offence..” to dogs. Too bad about the dead cat. For Brindi, HRM had to trump up little things with smoke and mirrors; the conservative judges kissed right back, and there you go –another miscarriage of justice. No surprise in Nova Scotia!
So now it’s the judge’s fault, Brindi’s fault & the new car’s fault, just as long as nobody say’s it is Fran’s fault for not having the leash and muzzle ON. Alrighty then.
HRM gave Fran $5,000 really? Does that mean she has stopped soliciting donations then?
Real Pet Owner, what a genius you are man. Yeah sure, Francesca’s “fault” was so terrible, a brief klutzy moment with a window and couple of scratches on a dog! Let’s string her up man! She must have planned it for years! What a horrible bitch!
Kicking up a fuss again about donations are you? You’re like a broken record – with tunnel vision. All you see is Francesca, Francesca this, Francesca that. Give it a friggin rest!
But thanks for pointing out HRM had to pay $5,000. I assume that was from the Supreme Court case. That’s the case they lost, right? Hmmm, so something was definitely their fault, right? Nice try about the money but if you knew anything you’d know HRM would have had to pay a long time ago. I sure hope they did. They should have paid a lot more IMO too.
Didn’t they lose because they were unfair and blocked due process? Because they were at fault. That goes back to the first seizure in 2008 when they lied about the law too – wasn’t that their fault?
Locking up Brindi for four years and messing up her health and her training – come on, nobody but HRM’s fault. You know they don’t do it to every dog, even dogs that kill animals, and that’s their fault for sure.
Messing up Brindi’s health, wasting $14,000 of taxpayer money on the first trial, Lord knows how much they spent on the losing Supreme Court case, then another ton of money for the second trial that kind of went off the rails as far as I can tell – hmm, add to that, kicking her out, trying to tear down her house – none of that was a klutz moment, but lots of deliberate planning and scheming. Whose fault?
What the frig are you blaming Francesca for you idiot? Harassing her without end – that’s your fault, you creep.
If she hadn’t fought and they killed Brindi way back when, you’d of blamed her. And if the HRM bastards do end up killing her (probably when nobody’s looking), I’m sure you’ll keep on blaming her.I’m sure you’ll keep on blaming her no matter what, because you’re one sick bastard who gets his/her rocks off one way or another -as long as you can harass somebody who has nothing to do with you. So nice and safe behind a computer screen, aren’t you!
Well,Well.I see that Fran is going off the deep end,still trying to pass the buck and blame the situation she is in on everyone but her own actions, Its Hrm fault,the Judges fault,The Grahams fault,The people walking their dog on a lead,on a public highway,the SPCA’s fault; I am sure that I missed a few…..However the old saying….”IF it walks and talks like a duck it must be a duck” in other words Fran it is your fault plain and simple and that has been proven in court.
Time for you to get real FR. You can post all the other cases world wide about dogs, but the big difference is, they are one incident each who’s owners took responsibility. Your case is a case of HABITUAL INCIDENTS, one after the other. If you had the dog home with you now, rest assured there would be more incidents. Yes, the people of this country are entitled to be safe from dog attacks on public property. YOU knew from prior experience what your dog was like, but you still allowed it to continue. YOU DO NOT DESERVE TO HAVE ANY DOG IN YOUR LIFE.
It is so obvious that people behind the labels Frida, JAK and Real PO have REAL issues with the truth, and likely have a lot to hide as they’re so desperate to spout venom, villify the victims, bury the truth and spin everyone into their web of DECEIT. If Haligonians want the REAL WHOLE TRUTH about Brindi’s case, check out the facts for yourself on the Save Brindi facebook page and documents on the Humane Halifax website. This is a matter of public record and Ms. Rogier and supporters have NO need to manufacture anything the way the trolls & haters do… all those who love to twist facts & tell outright lies to cover up all the wrongdoing by the HRM & Animal Services. Your motives are so transparent! Ratepayers who know are rightfully furious with THEM for this whole mess from day one! Francesca is only trying to save her dog from a wrongful death sentence, and what true animal lover wouldn’t try to save their pet from vindictive neighbours, then wilfully ignorant and corrupt officials!! Right from the beginning this was an unjustifiable, biased decision for reasons only the HRM knows. But rather than admit THEY were wrong, HRM continues to perpetuate the myths & wrongful charges against Brindi & Ms. Rogier to cover THEIR own a$$e$!! Wasting public funds on this witch hunt which is duplicitous, reprehensible and ILLEGAL!! Why would you believe self righteous haters who want to kill an innocent dog in the first place, then lock her up for FOUR YEARS in a sub standard facility at tax payers expense, without ANY assessment of their own as ordered by the court, nor accepting no less than FIVE independent evaluations from qualified people!! Believe their overkill actions, stealth & incompetent lack of compassion, not their ridiculous SPIN desperately sinking in a quagmire of their own making. Deeper and deeper in sheep and so full of it. This city is headed for a huge LAWSUIT if they don’t release Brindi immediately … with a full apology to Francesca, the tax payers and TRUE dog lovers everywhere!! Fess up or shut up!! Most Haligonians and readers of The Coast are not as gullible as you all seem to think they are!!
OMG Tim Bousquet your article is as relevant now 2 years prior. How often does that happen on a story after 2 years? Certainly hit the nail on the head!
Mr. Graham, returning to your laundry list of accusations, it’s striking how you seem to think Francesca Rogier so powerful that she controls social media and the whole internet! Yet you still sling mud, so you can’t really be so afraid of her, can you?
Obviously she does not control what other people do or say on the internet, look at all the incorrect information you’ve been spreading about her! And would be out of line to discourage free speech. If other people take you to task, that’s your problem. As for discouraging violence – do you have proof of threats of violence, and can directly connect them to her? Do you have proof that she encouraged violence? Doubtful. So bandying about the word “complicit”, not a good idea.
You and your wife operate a home business – or businesses? So since when is it trespassing to deliver a package to a business? Accusations like that are kind of libelous. In addition, you are government contractors who provide a public service. The public has a right to inspect contractors. But all she wanted to do was drop something off. Trespassing it ain’t! And even after you took it upon yourself to take issue with her effort to connect with her beloved dog on a holiday by sending her special treats and a letter of love, HRM did not impose a restriction on her movements – that would violate her rights.
So to insinuate wrongdoing by referring to a standing police file, or a formal warning that “had” to be issued seems like a baseless, defamatory smear. You instigated these things by sending the RCMP to her house on Boxing Day. That call was a misuse of their time, as no wrongdoing was committed. But apparently you decided that dropping off an Xmas stocking for a pet is an act of terrorism. You even claimed you feared there was a bomb inside! Sending out the RCMP under false pretenses is not very admirable, Mr. Graham. It’s not credible that a person would scheme to blow up the very kennel where there beloved pet is kept, is it.
A pattern starts to form when it’s recalled that just a few days earlier your wife abruptly banned the vet clinic from photographing Brindi. It had been doing this for some time for its records of her condition. According to the clinic, your wife acted without reference to any HRM instruction or a provocation by Francesca or anybody else (alleged or real). Nobody knows what prompted your wife, but once HRM was notified, the photography was resumed by the next visit and every visit after that.
These things happened months before the trial – which you attended. Why? You were not there to testify, nor were you tasked with reporting about it online. It’s not like it was a popular event. Few knew the case was scheduled that day. Only one or two people were there, no media. But you made a point of being there all day, every day. You’re free to do that, of course. But for the one HH member present your glaring face was hard to miss. It sharply contradicted the guise of neutrality you adopted in a lengthy commentary on Facebook immediately afterwards. And you posted without revealing your connection to the kennel, using a different location. Seems very odd, and together with misrepresenting facts of the case, that sort of stuff could be construed as hostile provocation, harassment, intimidation, etc. Before that, nobody knew or cared who you were until you drew attention to yourself. It was perfectly reasonable to take a closer look after that. Who knew there was no business license?
Then there’s the way you flocked to the hate groups.
It’s been remarked that you are directly connected via Facebook groups and friendships to individuals who have been engaging in harassment and intimidation of Francescafor a long time. A lot of content, and even several of their groups, have been removed by Facebook, and some of these individuals are known harassers, and have been warned more than once by the RCMP to stay away from Francesca’s property, stop emailing her, etc. There’s a real police file on them, lots and lots of printouts. And you’ve added to it with some pretty nasty tweets and comments of your own, there and here and who knows where else. Not very nice conduct for a government contractor who claims to be neutral.
Seen altogether, you and your wife’s conduct is looking a bit too aggressive under the circumstances, a bit too hostile to be overlooked. And now, these creeps have followed you here. They say the same old things over and over; however tempting, for those in the know they’re not worth responding to. You’d be well advised to steer clear of them. They aren’t your friends, Mr. Graham. It’s a dangerous game you’re playing.
Can’t get over this article – Brindi must die because there were TWO WHOLE PREVIOUS “ATTACKS” – that wonderful blanket term that under A-300 can mean anything from a dirty look to a killing! And under A300 there’s absolutely nothing about number of attacks, or when any dog – labeled dangerous or not – should or must be seized and put down. The law is vague and overly broad, yet it’s not, all at the same time. It’s just incredible how award-winning journalists fill in the blanks instead of applying facts.
The punishment is too harsh in this case, but the owner forgot the first rule of thumb when dealing with other human beings…sometimes you gotta suck it up an apologize even if you don’t think it’s fair or your fault. In an ideal world, maybe not so, but ego and emotion always comes into play. Lashing out and starting a war with the kennel contracted to look after the dog…unwise, kennel owner responding, also unwise. Just adding gas to the already flaming fire. Human egos are overshadowing the life and death balance this dog is under.
The owner here, “onlyaboutdogs”. I wonder why you assume I did not apologize? Of course I did. It’s the first thing I did, and I do it over and over right through to sentencing. Unfortunately it made no difference. This is not about ego for me; this is about my dog. It’s a case of good old fashioned injustice and retaliation. Nothing so unusual these days.
Well obviously you cannot apologize in private and then go public and criticize those you’ve said you’ve apologized too. Human beings are obviously fallible and driven by ego and emotion – the world is obviously and overtly not fair. I don’t get what you are doing, but that’s okay, I don’t have too. Armchair quarterback, I know, but how is the “battle” with the kennel owner working for you or Brindi? It does nothing only maybe release your anger on someone who will respond. Which I also don’t agree with, by the way.
As a matter of fact, Francesca Rogier and Brindi have taken far too much abuse for too long, from power tripping fat egos in the HRM, from the kennel owners themselves (Derrick & Christine Graham) Macdonald, Scolaro & animal services who have all been deceptive & manipulative, vindictive neighbours, animal haters and pinheads who apparently still don’t recognize a highly dysfunctional and corrupt situation.
No intelligent person thinks it is moral or humane to confine any dog to a small cage in a kennel, year after year after year! Yes, rather than placing the dog in a foster home as the court instructed, your HRM city staff have flipped the finger to the courts and you, the taxpayer by disobeying that order, wasting tens of $1000’s of public funds in this unethical & un-precedented prosecution of an innocent dog for two minor scuffles with other dogs near her property ~ when NO ONE WAS EVER HURT. Then HRM further shirked responsibilities by blaming Brindi’s owner for their OWN incompetence, and for doing what any good owner would ~ stepping up to save her pet’s life! Ridiculous? WAKE UP AND SEE THIS FOR WHAT IT IS! Sometimes the most painful thing is having one’s eyes OPENED!!!
From the beginning, this overkill has been a big EGO TRIP by the “powers that be” who now must SAVE FACE in light of their own glaring negligence. Even worse, they have failed to honour their responsibilities. Failed in their duty to care for the well being of the dog, failed in due process, failed to do what they are paid to do (with public funds) These same people have failed to get even ONE evaluation of the dog. Why? Because they know that would expose them for the fraud they committed. They know that they will NEVER get any expert to condemn Brindi because she is a gentle, well trained dog ~ NOT a danger to the public at all. Just as every one of the FIVE independent evaluations (paid for by the dog’s owner) have responsibly found and reported. These are public record, FACTS which your incompetent and/or corrupt HRM representatives cannot dispute. Yet they continue to ignore, deny, cover up and lie about all of the above ~ even in court under oath! And they have self righteously done so at the expense of taxpayers, the expense of the dog’s physical and mental health & well being, at the financial & emotional expense of Brindi’s owner and at the expense of an impending lawsuit which once again the taxpayers will have to pay for. They continue to flaunt the law… and why not, they answer to no one. And you keep supporting them, letting them waste your money. Why? Because their “entitled” egos say they can.
It’s time to put the blame right back where it belongs… squarely on the shoulders of your HRM city staff, who screwed up from the start, and just continue to screw up, day after day, month after month, year after year. Where and when will this deplorable dysfunction end! Beating up the owner Francesca is never going to make them right, nor vindicate these HRM bullies. No matter how many times, the same lies are repeated, facts are distorted, there is NO justification for this trumped up “case”. Every nasty bit of mudslinging here will never be justified. Harsh words, wrongful actions, incompetence, deliberate obstruction of justice and dereliction of duty can and will ultimately hurt everyone!
In the meantime, the uninformed, vindictive and the guilty have all contributed to the abuse of an innocent dog. Rruthlessly blaming her owner doesn’t make the wrongdoing right, nor right those wrongs. It only compounds the mistakes & wrongdoing. All the false & empty accusations serve no one, and hurt everyone. And it just might come back to bite you. God help anyone who finds themselves in a situation even remotely similar, expecting any kind of TRUE justice from a Halifax court. You won’t likely get that here. But you’ll have nobody else to blame when you keep enabling bullies, or become bullies yourselves in a misguided cause against another ordinary citizen, forced into extraordinarily cruel circumstances.
Perpetuating the hatred & lies really hurts everyone. Everyone except the corrupt and the immoral who know exactly who they are… and it’s time they admitted their mis-steps in deliberately prolonging this travesty of justice. Otherwise, nobody wins. In fact, everyone loses.
I don’t quite get what you’re saying, Onlyaboutdogs, but it doesn’t matter. I am criticized for everything, from all sides; it would be refreshing to see an equal amount of criticism going toward the municipality. Obviously, HRM is out of line with other cities in its secrecy and excessive restrictions, on top of a very terrible legal configuration, ripe for exploitation and abuse, not to mention that the knowledge base is pitiful. (And/or some officials are not implementing the same principles of canine behavior and handling on the job as they would in their personal lives, which is really sad).
The kennel owners were never admirable in that regard but I did not have cause to complain loudly until they stepped into it, so to speak, with the photo issue. What I learned from the most recent information submitted to the court (for Sept. 25) was even greater cause, not just for me but for Brindi’s vet. If you think it’s wrong to speak out, let me remind you that if I didn’t do just that, Brindi would have been killed on Aug. 7, 2008. If I didn’t speak out when necessary after that for the sake of her health only, she’d in far worse shape, or dead from the effects of HRM confinement. I don’t make any apologies for that.
The article True Believers really is about one subject – obsessive behaviour. Whether it’s Brindi compared to some building complex or something else completely different, the point of the matter is – when people get so entrenched in their positions, they lose the capacity to be rational. I must admit that I felt myself sliding down that slippery slope. Onlyaboutdogs raised a good point. All I am doing is providing the people who wish to hurt my family, my business, and my integrity – the means by which to accomplish that. Let’s face it, they’re going to say I’m lying – I going to say they are lying. They say that their position is based on truthful wrongdoings, ineptitude, incompetence, and conspiracies. I say my position is based on factual evidence, rule of law, supported by the Supreme Court. They, of course, will refute this, and the foolishness will go on and on.
So do your worst Ferkel, dmt, Humane Halifax, and whoever. Purge to your hearts content and call me the lowest because, the reality is, our business is going great. If we were as awful as you depict us – Brindi would be dead or very sick by now, we never would’ve lasted three months –let alone 12 years – and we would have been run out of HRM or up on charges ourselves. None of which is the case. The fact is, – I’m not the one being dragged into court –twice – for not providing adequate control of my animals, and, the RCMP has had no reason to pay us visits because we don’t trespass on other people’s property. We’ve endured all your criticism and stood up to public scrutiny and will continue to do so in an open and honest manner. One question I would like to pose in closing on this tired subject –directed at the readers that can keep an objective viewpoint: If the Nova Scotia that Ms Rogier describes is so evil, the people so corrupt, the system so unforgiving, so inept, so duplicitous, and so dysfunctional – even up to the highest court- as she and her cohorts describe – then why the hell isn’t the general population leaving in droves to escape the tyranny or marching on City Hall and Province House ?
Don’t worry Onlyaboutdogs – I concur with your assessment. I shall not be an annoyance to you any further as this is my last entry on this subject. If Ms Rogier crosses over any legal lines again, the RCMP has been well briefed and is ready to respond and so is a good lawyer. The gasoline has left the building.
If the Nova Scotia that Ms Rogier describes is so evil, the people so corrupt, the system so unforgiving, so inept, so duplicitous, and so dysfunctional – even up to the highest court- as she and her cohorts describe – then why the hell isn’t the general population leaving in droves to escape the tyranny or marching on City Hall and Province House ?
Damn good question. Here is another one. Why is she so hell bent on getting resident status in this god forsaken country??
Dont Blame the Messenger, I don’t know about all that obsessive stuff and frankly I could care less about by-law crap. Collecting fines is HRM’s favorite past time. They’re not criminal charges so I don’t know why the heavy tone and all that. There’s laws with fines on the provincial side too and I believe you’ve admitted you and your wife are guilty of not licensing your business for two years. Doesn’t that put you into the lawbreaker category? People like you are supposed to be fined $50/day, whatever the reason for it. And the province likes collecting fines even more than HRM. I guess 2 years comes to $36,500 which is pretty steep. I know they don’t always ask for that much, but you didn’t pay any fine at all, did you? Seems odd for the province to have a fine and not enforce it. They sure enforce fines for letting your car license expire! Just wondering.
BR – I’m taking it on speck that you are not another “Humane Halifax / Rogier automaton – otherwise I wouldn’t bother … Onlyaboutdogs – sorry – but this is a different subject
BR – all that I can tell you, is that as responsible business practitioners, we immediately proceeded to Access Nova Scotia when we realized there was a late registration for the business. We apologized and explained our situation. Access Nova Scotia /Joint Stocks were satisfied that we just pay up for the late registry. That’s it. That’s all I can tell you. They are the governing authority so I can only assume that upon review, they believed this was all that was required. If your looking for an axe to grind – go to the Humane Halifax website – they have already covered your perspective in spades. The only people that seem to be getting all bent out of shape over it is people like yourselves and groups vested in Rogier’s interests. FYI – I have reviewed the registry database and there are numerous single proprietorships that have late entries for payments. Is it your position that they all be fined arbitrarily without inquiring as to why the payment is late? For example, at one point – I was late re- registering my martial art business due to deployment to Afghanistan. In this case, I was late because I got called to serve my country. Now, I don’t presume to speak for Joint Stocks, but it would seem to me to be pretty calloused for a Provincial agency to fine a military service member because he can’t file a payment on a specific date, due to serving his country in a foreign nation, in the defence of the nations interests. BTW – I have read the Act for Partnerships and single proprietorships and it appears pretty obvious that the intent of the heavy fine is for people that operate knowingly with intentions to mislead the public and the government and to mis-represent themselves for the sole purpose of finical gain. I can assure you – this was not the case. People are late all the time for payments, important dates, and ask for postponements when they can. Sometimes you get cut a break – sometimes you don’t. I know a woman who couldn’t make to court on time if her life depended on it. One time, she claimed she hurt her finger and asked for a later date. Another time, it was an alleged single vehicle accident and she was hours late. The court could have been much less understanding and entertained a charge of contempt, – but for whatever reason – it kept giving her a break. Probably – the judge wanted to give her the benefit of the doubt. All I ask is that you pay us the same courtesy. The point is, there are simply a lot of details that you may not be privy to and before you start using words like “lawbreaker” and terms like “People like you” perhaps you should do more research other than “Just wondering” .. Oh .. and maybe .. you might want to check your bitterness before you approach the keyboard too … all that negative energy is bad for your health …
Dontblame, just a sec. I am still wondering. I informed myself all right but I still don’t get why the province goes to the trouble to set a $50 a day fine, but doesn’t enforce it. Not even a minimum? Makes no sense. I didn’t see anything about factoring in the reasons or intent in the license law. Are you saying that failing to have a business license could be a criminal charge, like business fraud? I didn’t think so. But I do know the registry lists other businesses with expired licenses, but the registry doesn’t say if they were fined and some of them don’t exist anymore so it’s hard to compare. I only know that if I violate a law, I expect to pay a fine even if I don’t like to, and that in itself is not arbitrary. It would be it arbitrary if I had to pay a fine and others didn’t. I’d be suspicious about why. We all know that in life, when you get caught, who you are matters more than what you did or why. Also, what I know of government contracts is that in general they are pretty nitpicky, and when you get awarded a contract, signing it is a guarantee that your business is all legal and proper. Did the kennel license expire before or after? Sure I know things slip through the cracks, but believe me government types aren’t always real generous about forgetting to dot your i’s, among other things in case the other bidders find out. Who knows, maybe HRM could get in trouble because they didn’t check. I wonder if the province covered for them or something. Or they like soldiers? I don’t know, but $36,500 is a lot of money for anybody. I’d say you’re pretty darn lucky.
As long as you continue to make excuses for your actions Mr/Mrs Graham of Wyndenfog Kennel, we’ll just have to keep setting the record straight for the thinking public, anyone who actually cares, and for all those who drank the Kool Aid, Tim Bousquet referred to above.
You claim to be “responsible practitioners”? By your own admission & failure to act, not renewing BOTH your business licenses for TWO BUSINESSES, as well as having your kennel license suspended TWICE, you have demonstrated exactly how IRRESPONSIBLE and negligent in fact, you ARE! Public records of your kennel history were posted earlier in this thread, so you’re really not fooling anyone here, other than the aforementioned KoolAid drinkers.
It is laughable that you would play the “military” card to milk some kind of public sympathy because you were serving your country in Afghanistan and therefore forgot about these renewals. Was your wife/business partner, who was running the business right here in in Halifax every day, the one who writes your posts under various code names, correcting all your spelling & grammar mistakes, also incapable of keeping that commitment? Just a simple renewal form & a cheque to write, nothing complicated about that, or is that such a daunting task for BOTH of you to complete? Apparently so. Yet you seem to have “friends” at the Registrar who didn’t mind waiving ALL fees/fines for these multiple oversights? Sure sounds like yet another conflict of interest we’ll have to look into further. In fact, if Fran hadn’t exposed your kennel as UN-licensed just a few weeks ago, it is highly doubtful you would have renewed & paid your kennel license at all. Even HRM was negligent NOT checking that before locking Brindi up there. More incompetence.
As for your unsolicited advice to “check your bitterness before you approach the keyboard too … all that negative energy is bad for your health” there is no bitterness here, only TRUTH TELLING. Those of us who KNOW the TRUTH have to stop this endless smear campaign. It would serve you well to stop swallowing your own KoolAid. Or… was that just another one of your veiled threats again, like the GUN you posted on facebook with a similar threat! From where I’m sitting, you’re the ones full of venom & spite, you are the ones on shakey ground. You can’t be trusted to tell the truth, the whole truth or barely even half the truth, even under oath. So why should anyone believe that you’re taking proper care of Brindi?? You seem to have a lot to hide there as well, since you never allow any visitations, even from her own Vet, already paid for by Fran! Many of us suspect you are badly neglecting her vet care, dental check ups, mental & physical well being, exercise,and denying her the love & companionship of Francesca w/o visits, harshly imposing so many restrictions on everything else. Try spinning that one military man!
Again, you demonstrate your great lack of responsibility, indifference, how little you care about Brindi’s well being, keeping her caged and isolated for so long. Not weeks, or months but YEARS! Without even ONE evaluation which the court ordered, in all that time. Why not? What decent animal people would refuse to even LOOK for a proper foster home, despite qualified offers. Why not? It’s all about YOU and YOUR profit. Just follow the money folks! They’re getting paid by HRM with YOUR tax dollars. Does that sound right to you Haligonians? You certainly cannot blame this one on the dog or on Fran… because she’s been repeatedly asking to have Brindi fostered from the second HRM unnecessary HRM seizure to the present day, after they refused to release her from that CAGE!! You should be fuming mad at HRM animal services for wasting all this time AND money…. PROFIT, POWER, MONEY, EGOS. Those are the REAL reasons for such cruel & unusual punishment. Halifax wrongly foots the bills, Brindi wrongly suffers the life sentence, while HRM & company are GUILTY on all counts. It’s unconscionable & unconstitutional too.
Jeez Louise “Dontblamethemessenger” wouldn’t it be better to lay low? You almost got fined $36,500?!! Even if your military pension is bigger than the HRM contract, why risk losing it by mouthing off? Don’t forget the SPCA made a pretty serious mistake by keeping Brindi way longer than 30 days! They kept defending themselves just like you do, and eventually they lost the whole HRM contract. The truth is, their real mistake was not saying no to killing her up front, so the whole thing could have been avoided. Locking her up all that time was just as wrong. The public complained very loudly but the SPCA stupidly thought they had to protect their HRM contract by refusing to help Brindi, even though they knew she was a good dog.
And in return for doing HRM’s dirty work for two years, HRM turned around and dumped the contract even before the court case ended, with the “long term” vs. “short term” excuse! Then HRM put Brindi in the new Homeward Bound pound for two whole months. It’s even more short-term than the Metro Shelter – the only outdoor space it has is a two-car parking lot with a blocked-off fence. Two months on top of 22 months – and HRM wouldn’t let them walk Brindi outside the fenced area, so the poor dog never sniffed a blade of grass or even the dirt on the ground! That’s HORRIBLE! 12 of us complained about it at the time but the SPCA pretended it was okay. Why? Simple: politics!
The reason you’re so darn defensive and attack so viciously – much like the SPCA did – is to avoid the sad fact that you’re doing something wrong. But be warned! Just because HRM thinks “long term” means keeping a dog locked up for two years and longer at your kennel doesn’t mean it’s okay at all. It’s not!!! And with a 3×4 or 4×4 pen, your kennel is really just another short-term holding center in my opinion, and the outdoor area is somewhat better, but not by much. Brindi’s alone a lot and has no doggie company at all. The only reason you’re getting away with this (so far) is because of HRM’s vendetta against Brindi’s owner, and by constantly attacking her character, it’s easy for HRM to get the courts to go along with it. Pure politics. And politics doesn’t make it right.
Politics is the only reason the SPCA isn’t laying charges of abuse and negligence on both you & HRM. It’s not about what’s good for Brindi or any of the other dogs and you know it!
But hey, politics change overnight, there’s an election soon, so I’d stay quiet if I were you!
Dmt, kate2008,chette, BR (and all the others that have a remarkably similar writing style to Ms Rogier – gee, what a coincidence) Yup -Extremism at its finest – there is no middle ground with you “people”, no rational, no civility, no compromise … believe what you want and say what you want –our going to anyway. Classic American style political diversion technique. You “guys” (yes – I believe this is the masterwork of one person) need someone to defer blame for someone else. In this case, a certain person’s inability to follow a simple bi-law. Might as well be the kennel .. So dig up as much dirt as possible– try to make them look as bad as possible from every perspective – and make it is as public as possible so it satisfies several agendas and gains sympathy for your cause …well .. good luck with that … in Canada .. you might find that the general public here sees through that tactic and it has no influence in the courts… just try to stay within the law please … or I will be forced to respond …..again.
Oooooo, I’m sooooo scared Mess-enger… was that yet another threat??? Well pass this on to all your alter egos… You are sooo transparent you’re becoming a joke. I only speak for myself, since I don’t know any of the honest, decent REAL people posting here, and I don’t pull the strings on any puppets the way you do. The one thing ALL Brindi supporters DO have in common is THE TRUTH. And a force for TRUE JUSTICE. If Tim wants to call that TRUE BELIEVERS, so be it. Unlike you, WE have no need to LIE about ANYTHING. The facts speak for themselves. You simply LIE about EVERYTHING in a desperate attempt to cover all your other lies ~ but the gig’s up. Epic FAIL. Smarter people than you, recognize that the more you dig, the bigger that hole gets, the harder it is for your small mind to remember all those BIG LIES and keeping your pseudo-names straight. Yeah REALLY! You’re not fooling anyone, except maybe yourself… HA!
Derek, deal with this: extremism is when you refuse to accept simple facts, when you go any length to avoid reality, and are willing to trample on ethics and morals at any cost, to pursue your own selfish goals. That would very much apply to you, my dear man, and of course the city whose money you are taking to hold my beloved companion captive.
Are you so certain that every supportive post – and posts critical of you – are written by the same person?
Is it so unimaginable that other people besides myself: a. know how to spell and write clearly (wow, how rude!) and b. agree that HRM has been wrong and cruel for over four years? Not to me, and not to them!
The label “classic American” is a clear nod to your gang of xenophobic cyberbullies, isn’t it? Like them, it suggests your own fear of inferiority. Come on, we all know the Canadian armed forces work hand-in-hand with Americans. I wonder what they’d think of that remark?
It’s a matter of fact that there’s plenty of people right here in Halifax, and across Nova Scotia and Canada, as well as right around the world, who find you and HRM to be very irrational, uncivil, and totally uncompromising. They are right. That you use the word “compromise” really makes me laugh!! There is absolutely nothing more I can do to compromise. Just how many times do I have to repeat the fact that I approached HRM from day one with very reasonable offers and alternatives, and it rejected every single one? We’re talking four years of this – totally unlike it’s routine handling of other cases, where they not only compromise but let owners get off scott free, no seizure, no muzzle, even if the dog killed an animal. And one kill is enough to deem it dangerous; quality over quantity, my dear.
I guess I also have to point out again: HRM dog by-law (not bi-law) offences carry fines. FINES. And that is all. The HRM by-law A300 was never intended to, nor does it call for, punishing dog owners by locking up their pets for years and then killing them in addition to excessive fines!! Let alone giving their dogs to HRM! This is FACT. So cut the repeated digs about it; I never denied what happened; it was accidental, not intentional or “habitual”, and I always, and immediately, took responsibility. So please don’t dishonor your uniform and lie yet again. What I do take issue with is the disproportionate and irrational HRM response, and the fact that I am punished so extremely, while the rest of the dog owners in HRM – to a person – are not. You cannot dispute this. HRM doesn’t even dispute it!
Might as well be the kennel? Does that mean, it might as well be you who’s locking up Brindi? That’s probably the most honest thing you’ve said yet, and possibly the most despicable.
I have no cause but one: I want my dog back. If I cannot get her back, I want her in a good responsible home (as I proposed over two years ago!) Your home does not fit that description. In fact, the more you reveal of yourself, the less assured I am of your ability to care for and love another being, let alone a dog. That may sound harsh, and I don’t think I’ve ever said it about anybody, but at least it’s honest – because after seeing the photos and reading the affidavit, plus your posts, and observing how willingly you support injustice, I truly fear and grieve for Brindi even more now than I ever did before. Right now, to monitor her enzyme levels, she needs to see the vet ASAP for a blood test – and you don’t seem to care. She needs to continue on those supplements, because they are the only thing that helped, and yet HRM ignores my vet’s recommendations for this. You don’t appear to give a damn.
Courts are important, but they are also fallible. Every court system allows appeals precisely for that reason. And appeals are no guarantee of justice either. Every institution is fallible because humans are fallible. Institutions must be challenged when they fail, or they won’t ever improve. Nobody hands out justice freely, it’s hard-won every time, just like civil rights. But I digress.
What you don’t seem to appreciate is that you not represent everyone in this province, and certainly not Canada (thank God). There are a number of Canadians in similar situations – as I informed you with facts – who stand behind me. You are also personally vulnerable to a lawsuit from every dog owner whose dog you lock up, or locked up, if not me. With every case, your exposure grows. HRM typically declines to seize the dogs of really wealthy people, even if the dogs bite people or savagely attack small dogs, as I also know from tracking their cases. But you never know, HRM could make a mistake one day, or a few poorer people could sue jointly, or some animal group could take it up. Should that ever happen, the HRM contract will not protect you. I know, because I took time to read the fine print for HRM contractors a few years ago and confirmed it with legal counsel. So good luck, and instead of bashing me online, why not go out and spend some time with Brindi, and make darn sure she’s happy and healthy as much as possible under the sad circumstances.
PS, Brindi knows 40 different commands, a lot more than “fetch” or “paw”. She can use a lot more “stimulation” than that.
@Ferkel who has already identified herself as Francesca Rogier ~ I APPLAUD YOU! For your incredible patience, honour, dedication & courage throughout this entire unjustified & unnecessary ordeal that the HRM has put you through! You have been unbelievably forgiving of all the negligence, incompetence, lies & abuse not only from Animal Services, but from Derek and Christine Graham at the Wyndenfog Kennel and the nameless, faceless, ruthless BULLIES who blindly accept everything they spew, then vindictively choose to further victimize the VICTIMS! An innocent dog and the owner who loves her. You and Brindi have both been so egregiously wronged!!! Shame on all those cowards involved. But nobody else could possibly have educated these people any better!!! Your clarity, compassion & tolerance is remarkable!
My hope however, is that it did not go over their heads. Because almost everything else in the past 4 yrs has, despite all the indisputable documentation you have provided. Do you think any of the naysayers have even read it? It seems painfully obvious that Tim Bousquet hasn’t!! Regardless, Brindi believers including myself will continue to support you & Brindi 100% and I hope you DO sue for damages when this whole miscarriage of justice is over. You certainly have more than enough grounds!
This is their standard/yawn diversionary tactic; blame everyone else instead of Fran for not keeping Brindi in HER YARD on multiple occasions! Brindi was not able to put on a leash and muzzle.
Fran apparently hasn’t asked HRM to compromise, that she will drop the appeal and let Brindi be rehomed (yet has claimed to have done so years ago) so it seems she is willing to gamble with Brindi’s life (as she expressed to exhaustion that HRM will put Brindi down) and let the appeal judges decide! With a possible 80% chance of losing, this makes no sense to me IF you believe HRM will indeed kill your dog. No logic to me whatsoever IMO is being applied and I hope not ego driven. Rehome Brindi now and don’t take a chance if you truly believe HRM will put Brindi down. Get her out of the kennel you malign so much, that you’re so worried about her health, etc., think of what Brindi will gain.
“Real Pet Owner” – you never cease to spout illogic at every juncture. If we didn’t know you already to be a mere troll stalker, you’d have to be totally insane. Heck, maybe you’re both. You’re really scraping the bottom of the barrel now. Anything to accuse Francesca of something, right?
Answer this: why should HRM agree to rehome Brindi now, of all times?? This city doesn’t care about dropping the appeal. It has all the advantages and a bottomless budget for legal costs – our tax dollars! It’s invested at least $75,000 or more trying to kill her, what do they care about more costs? HRM WANTS TO KILL BRINDI, PERIOD! It will never voluntarily go back on the original decision to kill her. Never.
Use your tiny brain: adopting her out now would make it look very wrong, and if you know anything about HRM, you know it will to anything to avoid looking wrong – literally anything!
If and when the appeal fails, at some point HRM will definitely kill her and either say nothing, or, if they’re pressed for information (but not necessarily, they’re good at pretending they have a “policy” of internal secrets), it will simply make up a lie – maybe say she was ill and had to be put down, or she got a negative assessment, whatever, it will be a lie. Obviously Derek and Christine Graham will go right along with whatever HRM wants. And nobody else can do a thing to stop it because the judge took away due process.
Get it through your head once and for all. HRM is in the wrong, HRM wants Brindi dead at all costs. If it actually upsets you (unlikely, knowing you) then why don’t you complain to HRM for once? Badgering Francesca again and again just shows the world what an ass you are. Too afraid to even use your real name…
Do you not realize what you would have in writing if you offered that you will drop the appeal if they will rehome Brindi permanently? Seriously, are you too emotionally involved that you can’t see how HRM would look to turn down that offer in writing? Forget years ago, here and now, in black and white print. I will ignore the rest of your name calling and spin as I think you are missing the point and I have to say as usual. This would halt HRM from having the option of putting Brindi down if you lose as you think they will. You started the appeal and you have the right to drop it as well. “Open” up your mind and think about it.
LMAO Real Pet Owner, you a comedian or something?! Hahaha I’m still laughing!!! Do you even live here, or bother to read The Coast? If you follow Tim Bousquet’s articles, it’s so obvious HRM does not care how bad it “looks”, in writing or not! The secret vote for the Occupy eviction, the public outrage about both, but HRM never apologized, & it still holds secret council meetings, that looks pretty darn bad!! Look how bad HRM looked over the St. Pats school scandal but it didn’t change its mind a bit. The list goes on and on, HRM looks bad multiple times, and it just doesn’t care, it’s like a steel trap. In case you think the court cares what somebody puts in writing and HRM rejects, well that’s just stupid.
BR your statement, ”In case you think the court cares what somebody puts in writing and HRM rejects, well that’s just stupid.” Yet again, you are off the mark, you seem to have a habit of assuming. Oh well, it seems Fran isn’t interested in 100% securing Brindi’s life since she apparently is not trying to settle this matter before the appeal. I cannot believe HRM would turn down her dropping the appeal in exchange for rehoming Brindi. It would be a win-win situation.
“I cannot believe HRM would turn down her dropping the appeal in exchange for rehoming Brindi.” Believe it, for the same reason HRM refused all previous offers – even guilty please in exchange for rehoming her.
“It would be a win-win situation.” For HRM, it would be lose-win!
Everybody but you gets that HRM simply WANTS to kill Brindi. Every action HRM has taken since 2008 confirms it.
Face it: HRM has no qualms about killing Brindi or any other dog, even your dog!
Where is the proof is there to your claim? What conditions did Fran put on it years ago? Anywhere that was way back and a whole other ball game. The Judge has given an order and it is up to HRM to decide unless in the unlikely event the appellate court overturns the verdict. She has the power right now to ask to have Brindi rehomed unconditionally, yet she apparently doesn’t ask??? After all the work she has done, how hard would it be to send an email and ask? I can’t help but wonder the reasons she wouldn’t do this simple task and I have no sympathy for not putting Brindi’s interest first.
RPO you have no mental capacity to grasp the truth. Stop wasting everybody’s time. Why don’t you go to HRM with an offer to adopt Brindi yourself? They can always use a good laugh.
Where is your proof BR & Kate ~ talk is cheap? She can’t do a simple email to HRM? Why is that? You guys seem to speak for her lol.
I am not interested in adopting a dog, I have one. She has never had ANY issues, so I am not worried about HRM bylaws. I am too responsible of an owner and smart enough to know I am not a dog expert to deal with Brindi’s issues. I’m not blaming Brindi, just sayin’.
God you suck, Real Pet. You suck bigtime. I feel sorry for your dog.