All charges withdrawn in Murder Hollow case - Page 2

Soundtrack · 10-16-2010, 10:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kirska

The notice of violation that you've quoted doesn't specify when it's given. If they give it to her when arrive to take the dogs, that's still within the code. Like I said, advanced notice (a warning) is a courtesy.

That's probably because the notice of violation indicates a possible fine, not confiscation of property, therefore no "advance" notice should be necessary:

"the amount to be remitted in response to the notice of violation, and the penalty which can be imposed by the court for the violation;"

Then of course there's the fact that there WAS NO VIOLATION in the first place.

Really, if you've got four dogs in a two dog zoned area, do you think they should suddenly show up at your door and take two of your dogs?

From what I can see, she was going along minding her own business NOT violating any laws, now her reputation has been dragged through the mud, one of her dogs is dead, ten are missing (three of which are actually owned by someone else, which she told the AC officer who assured her that the owner would get their dogs back), her pack has been decimated, and even though she's been vindicated in court people STILL want to insist she's a bad person.

Mikey T · 10-16-2010, 03:35 PM

Quote:

Then of course there's the fact that there WAS NO VIOLATION in the first place.

Which is the case and even in the case of a violation the penelty on Philly statuate is a fine
. Fines and Penalties.

Quote:

(1) Unless otherwise provided, the penalty for violation of any provision of the Code or any regulation adopted under it is a fine not exceeding three hundred (300) dollars for each offense. Each day the violation continues is a separate offense.
(2) For violations that are designated elsewhere in this Code as "Class II" offenses, the maximum fine shall be as follows:
(a) for any violation committed between January 1, 2005 and December 31, 2005, seven hundred (700) dollars for each violation; and
(b) for any violation committed on January 1, 2006 or thereafter, one thousand (1,000) dollars for each violation.
(3) For violations that are designated in this Code as "Class III" offenses, the maximum fine shall be as follows:
(a) for any violation committed between January 1, 2005 and December 31, 2005, seven hundred (700) dollars for each violation;
(b) for any violation committed between January 1, 2006 and December 31, 2006, one thousand one hundred (1,100) dollars for each violation;
(c) for any violation committed between January 1, 2007 and December 31, 2007, one thousand five hundred (1,500) dollars for each violation;
(d) for any violation committed between January 1, 2008 and December 31, 2008, one thousand nine hundred (1,900) dollars for each violation; and
(e) for any violation committed on January 1, 2009 or thereafter, two thousand (2,000) dollars for each violation.
(4) Where the Code provides alternative penalties or remedies, they shall be cumulative and the imposition of any one such penalty or remedy shall not prevent the appropriate City agency from invoking any other penalty or remedy provided for.

But of course that was never mentioned the choice give was voluntarily give up 11 dogs or we will take all of them. Which is sop for such orgs because it limits their liability. That would habe been the end of the story had it not been for the press and up roar that put PSPCA back angainst the wall and the opted for going on offense rather than defend an indefensible practice. Hence the charges, some on dogs that were not removed.

The problem is when a goverment deffers it responsibility to law enforcement to a Private enterprise that garners much of it funding/fundrasing through enforcement actions There are going to be abuses, a lot of them most of which go completely under the radar screen because those that suffer then do not have the means to fight back,

Quote:

even though she's been vindicated in court people STILL want to insist she's a bad person.

Problem is no one is ever vindicated in court. It is whether ther is enough evedince to prove quilit or not. Proving inocence is exceedingly rare.

Kirska · 10-16-2010, 06:04 PM

If there is such a tremendous problem with the law enforcement here and/or the specific SPCA then the local citizens have a responsibility to take action. If they don't, things like this will continue to happen and they will have no one to blame but themselves.

I'm not saying that she's a bad person or that the law enforcement or SPCA were in the right. I will say that I don't see how anyone can care for that many dogs properly short of being a millionaire.

You expect me to believe that this dog is in the best of care?

Soundtrack · 10-16-2010, 09:29 PM

I see an old dog who needs a bath - hardly surprising considering the reported amount of rainfall prior to the raid. I've seen old dogs that looked a lot worse and were receiving excellent care.

Quote:

I will say that I don't see how anyone can care for that many dogs properly short of being a millionaire.

And that's it, isn't it? You just don't think anyone should have that many dogs. Just because YOU can't imagine caring for that many, you think no one else can do it either. Well, I know plenty of people who can and do. They're not millionaires, just ordinary people with ordinary jobs who make their dogs a priority. Heck, at one point I had 18 hounds to care for - single handed. They never went without. When you have proper routines and equipment its not that hard.

murraysmom · 10-17-2010, 08:14 AM

My understanding is that the court mandated that Wendy install a french drain so that her dogs would not end up standing in water when it rained, and that she would be subject to random inspections until Sept. 30th. At that point,if she had complied, there would be another court date and the case would be closed and the cruelty charges would be dropped. I sounds like that has happened.

After the cruelty charges are dropped, she is eligible to apply for a Pennsylvania kennel license which for some reason she did not hold prior to this incident.

Kirska · 10-17-2010, 08:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Soundtrack

I see an old dog who needs a bath - hardly surprising considering the reported amount of rainfall prior to the raid. I've seen old dogs that looked a lot worse and were receiving excellent care.

Quote:

UPDATE: The picture above shows one of the Bassets found at Willard's kennel at the time of the raid. Look closely at those little black dots on the dog's face. Those are ticks. PSPCA officers say all the dogs in Willard's kennel were covered in ticks and some were suffering from Lyme Disease. Many had severe cases of parasites too.

That sounds like a problem that needs much more attention than a bath.

All I'm saying is I don't see how she is an innocent victim here.

Soundtrack · 10-17-2010, 12:15 PM

Again, according to my source who was there, these are outright lies. The spots on the face are scars, not ticks, the dogs did not have parasites and they did not have lyme disease. She also said that the only repairs required were the replacement of a couple of ceiling tiles. Willard had been individually licensing her dogs for years and the kennel building did not fall under the 12 dog limit.

Mikey T · 10-19-2010, 07:20 AM

Quote:

she is eligible to apply for a Pennsylvania kennel license which for some reason she did not hold prior to this incident.

And was not required to have as she had less than 25 dogs during the year. The purpose of the original search warant and the reason that State Wardens were ther was because of a violation of the kennel laws but the quickly withdrew and became uninvolved when no violation of the law was found. Which begs the question of how truthfull the original application for a search warrant was?

murraysmom · 10-19-2010, 08:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mikey T

And was not required to have as she had less than 25 dogs during the year. ?

You're right on that point. For more about the case,see what I posted this morning re: Philadelphia DA's comments on the Willard case.

10-17-2010, 08:14 AM	#15 (permalink)
murraysmom Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: southcentral Pa. Posts: 2,235	My understanding is that the court mandated that Wendy install a french drain so that her dogs would not end up standing in water when it rained, and that she would be subject to random inspections until Sept. 30th. At that point,if she had complied, there would be another court date and the case would be closed and the cruelty charges would be dropped. I sounds like that has happened. After the cruelty charges are dropped, she is eligible to apply for a Pennsylvania kennel license which for some reason she did not hold prior to this incident. Last edited by murraysmom; 10-17-2010 at 08:18 AM.

10-17-2010, 12:15 PM	#17 (permalink)
Soundtrack Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada Posts: 2,580	Again, according to my source who was there, these are outright lies. The spots on the face are scars, not ticks, the dogs did not have parasites and they did not have lyme disease. She also said that the only repairs required were the replacement of a couple of ceiling tiles. Willard had been individually licensing her dogs for years and the kennel building did not fall under the 12 dog limit. __________________ Rosie-Ch Soundtrack Cracklin' Rose CGN AGN RA Am RN TT Melody-Ch Soundtrack Unchained Melody TT Sailor-Ch Soundtrack Expedition Sailor RN TT Chili-Ch Soundtrack Spice Up Your Life Curry-Ch Soundtrack Canadian Brass Pepper-Ch Pennieslogon Living La Vida Loca CGN Vina-Ch Soundtrack Grand Illusion Leila-Ch Soundtrack Almost Paradise Deela-Ch Soundtrack Wink Of An Eye Hermione - Soundtrack Spellbound Eowyn - Soundtrack Rain Dance Last edited by Soundtrack; 10-17-2010 at 12:19 PM.

10-16-2010, 06:04 PM	#13 (permalink)
Kirska Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Dallas, TX Posts: 932	If there is such a tremendous problem with the law enforcement here and/or the specific SPCA then the local citizens have a responsibility to take action. If they don't, things like this will continue to happen and they will have no one to blame but themselves. I'm not saying that she's a bad person or that the law enforcement or SPCA were in the right. I will say that I don't see how anyone can care for that many dogs properly short of being a millionaire. You expect me to believe that this dog is in the best of care?

Remove Advertisements Sponsored Links
Basset.net Advertisement