[ SHOWGSD-L ] from the it can happen to you file... "Injustice In Pennsylvania"
- From: "Ginger Cleary" <cleary1414@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "'showgsd L list'" <showgsd-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 09:08:06 -0400
Forwarded with permissionâ?¦
Ginger Cleary, Rome, GA
<http://craftyk9-gingerc.blogspot.com/> My Blog
Men fight for freedom, then they begin to accumulate laws to take it away from
themselves. ~Author Unknown
--- On Thu, 10/21/10, Sharyn Hutchens <timbrebluewhippets@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Please note this is forwarded. It was written by Lisa Warren, who has given
permission for distribution. It's a fascinating and chilling review of the
"abuse" case in PA involving AKC judges/Bichon breeders Mimi Winkler and Jim
Deppen.(news stories at
http://articles.mcall.com/2010-06-25/news/mc-lehigh-animal-cruelty-20100625_1_dog-wardens-animal-cruelty-dead-dogs
and
http://articles.mcall.com/2010-09-29/news/mc-mimi-winkler-animal-cruelty-ruling20100929_1_ironwood-kennels-miriam-mimi-winkler-james-r-deppen
If you have questions, please contact Lisa, not me, as I don't know any more
than what she has written below. Her address is elysiumdox @ aol.com.
===8<==============Original message text======
As the author, I give permission to cross-post the version below of "Injustice
in Pennsylvania,"
Lisa Warren
INJUSTICE IN PENNSYLVANIA
Lisa Warren
After nearly fourteen months of hell for Pack Master Wendy Willard, the
Pennsylvania Murder Hollow Basset Hound trial finished on October 9th, 2010,
when all 22 counts of animal cruelty were withdrawn. To anyone following that
case and the one involving Pennsylvania kennel owners Mimi Winkler and Jim
Deppen, the similarities are striking.
In both instances, there were over twenty charges of animal cruelty, a number
suspiciously close to the actual number of dogs in each kennel, implying that
every single dog in each kennel was being abused. In both cases, animal
control officers trespassed onto the kennel properties, and in both cases
defendants testified that the officers employed coercion, intimidation and
threats to assure the surrender of dogs. The confiscated dogs in each case
were delivered to rescue organizations and re-homed long before any charges
were filed, effectively denying the defense any access to the evidence.
In both cases, months passed between the day the dogs were taken and the date
the charges were filed. And in each case, a dog died as a result of the actions
taken by the officers. (In the Winkler and Deppen case, it was reported by the
news that multiple dead dogs were found on the property. In actuality, there
was only one dead dog, a dog that was not "found" by the wardens but was
presented to them as proof of the result of their alleged negligence in not
re-securing gates during their trespass.)
In both cases, numerous, similar kennel violations were charged and
subsequently withdrawn. At the Winkler-Deppen hearing, the prosecution
presented a photograph depicting poor kennel conditions that two witnesses,
both intimately familiar with the kennel facility, testified could not have
been taken at that kennel. There were charges of unsanitary conditions as
frivolous as dust on a ceiling fan and chewed edges on plastic crates. (No dogs
were living in crates in that kennel, but crates were used as beds in some
runs.) Mid-point in the proceedings the prosecutor saw fit to withdraw all
eighteen charges pertaining to the facility and unsanitary conditions.
In each case, photographs depicting dogs with exposed haws, normal in both
Basset hounds and Neapolitan Mastiffs, were submitted as evidence of dogs
needing veterinary care for cherry eye, demonstrating either ignorance or an
intention to misrepresent evidence on the part of the animal control officers.
And in the Winkler-Deppen case, it is my opinion that the prosecution also
failed to prove that other photos and video footage used as evidence actually
depicted their allegedly abused dogs; in fact, the defense vigorously denied
ownership of most of them. Not only were they not known to the defendant, but
the microchip numbers the state attributed to those dogs could not have
possibly been the chips scanned: one was the chip number for a dog that was not
confiscated, and another was a microchip number that was never assigned to any
dog owned by either of the defendants according to their own records and the
records of both Home Again and CAR. One is left wondering where and how the
prosecution got the numbers they arbitrarily assigned to those dogs and what
their motivation was in doing so.
Were some of the defendant's confiscated dogs in need of a bath? They tell me
yes. They were white dogs that had been in a kennel with gravel runs during a
very rainy month of April and they were due to be bathed. (Seven of them were
adult dogs of Winkler's breeding that had recently been returned to her for
reasons that varied from a move to a nursing home to the dog's not matching the
former owner's new décor.) Were some of them matted? Again, yes, but Bichon
coats can mat almost overnight, and it is notable that there were no charges of
eczema, skin lesions, fleas or ticks, or any of the conditions that the
prosecution's witnesses from various rescue organizations, (at least one of
which is believed to be funded by PETA and HSUS,) kept saying could develop
from matted coats. Also absent were any charges of physical abuse, inadequate
housing, malnourishment, internal parasites, dirty ears, dirty teeth or myriad
other problems that would have developed if the dogs had, in truth, been
neglected. And one of the dog wardens actually testified to the outgoing
personalities of the dogs that were taken.
I am not familiar with all of the details of the Murder Hollow case, but I am
friendly with Mimi Winkler and Jim Deppen and was present at all three days of
their hearings. I heard evidence of falsified evidence and an attempt at
witness intimidation. I heard several contradictions in statements made by the
dog wardens and heard testimony regarding their admitted trespass onto the
property that, as the former owner of the kennel, I personally knew could not
be true. And I heard the magistrate, an elected official who is neither lawyer
nor judge, remark that he had never heard a case anything like this one, being
accustomed to twenty-minute small-claims court proceedings. That admission was
delivered immediately before he issued a judgment that was completely counter
to a provision of the Pennsylvania Dog Law that had been highlighted in closing
arguments.
From an initial charge of 22 counts of animal cruelty, the magistrate found the
defendants guilty on four counts. One count was for a Border Collie in bad
condition that had recently been dumped there or had strayed onto the property,
a dog for which the statute clearly exempts the defendants from any duty of
care. (The defendants were feeding and housing the dog temporarily, deciding
what to do with a dog with obvious neurological problems.) The other three
counts were for Bichons. Why only three of the 18 that were seized, and which
three? It seemed an arbitrary number since no reason was specified. Winkler was
also found guilty of lying to the dog wardens, something she denies and the
evidence seems to belie, and both defendants were convicted of failure to have
a kennel license, an uncontested charge. To several observers that day it
seemed that the magistrate, in spite of the evidence and in the face of
overwhelming reasonable doubt, felt compelled to issue a finding that favored
the prosecution, but chose to do so in a way that left very wide avenues open
for the pending appeal.
Something I do not know about the Murder Hollow case is whether or not
purported friends of Wendy Willard chose to find her guilty before knowing the
whole story, but I have been stunned by the unreserved judgment and sheer
schadenfreude of some dog people toward Mimi Winkler and Jim Deppen, who
naturally perceived those pre-judgments as betrayals by people who might have
been expected to realize that, in this day of involvement of animal-rights
activists in state and local government, this kind of thing can happen to
anyone with multiple dogs: insignificant situations can be blown up, lumped
together with totally unfounded charges and used to indict a dog owner, all in
the pursuit of the animal rights agenda. The fact is that very few of us can
afford to think, "It couldn't happen to me."
A kennel raid would unnerve even the steadiest among us and, in more than one
Pennsylvania case, it seems the state employees sensed the time when a kennel
owner was most vulnerable and least likely to invoke the rights granted by the
law. On the very morning her dogs were confiscated, Mimi Winker had learned
that her son had cancer. She was in tears as she tended to the dogs and was
understandably unable to summon the presence of mind needed to effectively
stand up to three opportunistic Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture dog
wardens who, she testfied, threatened her with incarceration and coerced her to
sign over her dogs, all because the dogs were having, in the words of the
defense attorney, " a bad hair day." A former Pennsylvania Society for the
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals ("PSPCA") humane officer has said, "We were
told to tell them "In lieu of charges, surrender your animals," exactly the
approach that was used that morning in Winkler's kennel. She succumbed, yet two
months later Winkler and Deppen were charged with animal cruelty counts that
included all of the dogs that were taken.
Winkler was told that day that she had 72 hours (guaranteed by statute) to have
the Neapolitan with the alleged cherry eye treated, but she testified that she
was not informed of her same right concerning the Bichons, none of which were
in immediate need of anything more than grooming. Why were the Bichons, a breed
that the officers told Mimi Winkler would be easily placed in good homes,
summarily taken? Former PSPCA humane officers told a Pennsylvania newspaper,
the "Pocono Record," that officers had a quota of confiscated animals to fill
and that annual bonuses were dependent on satisfied quotas. The dog wardens on
this case are employees of a different Pennsylvania state entity but the two
entities work together in some cases, (Murder Hollow was one,) and it is
difficult to put the possibility of monetary considerations on the part of the
officers completely out of mind.
This would be a nightmare for anyone. Winkler and Deppen report that they
suffered threats and repeated intimidation by authorities, the loss of beloved
dogs that were taken and never recovered, the death of a cherished dog at the
careless hands of dog wardens, the charges appearing in the news and online
weeks before receiving official notification, a world-renowned breeding program
seriously curtailed, reputations severely damaged, attacks and abandonment by
people thought to be friends, lies circulating on the Internet, health problems
resulting from the extended periods of stress and, finally, a conviction in
spite of what many courtroom observers felt was a lack of substantiated
evidence and in the face of testimony that the authorities had behaved with
audacious overreach.
People don't believe something so blatantly unjust will ever happen to them.
But everyone with dogs needs to be very aware of their state and local laws,
should have a strong knowledge of all legal rights, and should be prepared to
react appropriately if officers attempt to trespass, confiscate animals or
bring unfounded charges. Like an emergency evacuation plan, a plan of action to
employ if the authorities try to confiscate dogs is something to prepare and
know by heart, hoping all the while that it will never be used. Also, months
later it might be difficult to recall exactly what happened during those hours
of extreme stress or to prove it should the prosecution falsify evidence, so it
is important to document everything pertaining to a raid with photographs or
video and a written timeline of what happened. The authorities in every state
should be obligated to provide the accused with copies of all paperwork
pertaining to the case, so an accused dog owner should remember to insist on
that. In both Pennsylvania cases, the defense maintained that officers did not
provide copies of documents the accused parties were entitled to, documents
that the defense might have effectively use later.
There is much, much more to the Winkler-Deppen case than can be covered here,
enough for a good writer to turn into a novel replete with conspiracies,
political agendas, sexual harassment, witness intimidation, repeated rogue
actions by policing authorities, and dramatic events in the courthouse hallways
and parking lot as well as in the courtroom. Given the other similarities, it
would not surprise me if the same held true regarding the Murder Hollow trial.
(It is of interest that there is a third Pennsylvania case with charges and
circumstances not unlike those in the cases cited here. That kennel owner has
sued the state for $10,000,000 in damages. Yet another case with similar
charges was dismissed, one that involved the same primary Dog Warden as the
Winkler-Deppen case.)
===8<===========End of original message text===========
------------------------------------
__._,_.___
============================================================================
POST is Copyrighted 2010. All material remains the property of the original
author and of GSD Communication, Inc. NO REPRODUCTIONS or FORWARDS of any kind
are permitted without prior permission of the original author AND of the
Showgsd-l Management. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Each Author is responsible for the content of his/her post. This group and its
administrators are not responsible for the comments or opinions expressed in
any post.
ALL PERSONS ARE ON NOTICE THAT THE FORWARDING, REPRODUCTION OR USE IN ANY
MANNER OF ANY MATERIAL WHICH APPEARS ON SHOWGSD-L WITHOUT THE EXPRESS
PERMISSION OF ALL PARTIES TO THE POST AND THE LIST MANAGEMENT IS EXPRESSLY
FORBIDDEN, AND IS A VIOLATION OF LAW. VIOLATORS OF THIS PROHIBITION WILL BE
PROSECUTED.
For assistance, please contact the List Management at admin@xxxxxxxxxxx
VISIT OUR WEBSITE - http://showgsd.org
NATIONAL BLOG - http://gsdnational.blogspot.com/
============================================================================
Other related posts:
- » [ SHOWGSD-L ] from the it can happen to you file... "Injustice In Pennsylvania" - Ginger Cleary
