Friday, October 15, 2010

A little fun for a Friday - what else can you expect from stupidity

This post is purely and simply for my own ghoulish enjoyment. And because I'm mentioned in the subject's comment, that gives me allowance to comment back. This lady is the same "lady" who earlier this year felt she had made a huge coup, but city lawyer Mary Ellen Donovan got Trish (who's last name at the time was Malkoff, but has now mysteriously changed to "Hoste") to admit "Everybody who's been working really really hard to support this case has been completely wasting their time" - now THAT'S what an ADMISSION! haha! I don't know who was red faced, but to me - that's NOT the city of Halifax!

Certainly we are in serious times here and this subject shouldn't be taken flippantly. Brindi could very certainly die at this point. But who's fault is it? Is it mine? Is it the city of Halifax? Is it Trish Malkoff's? Is it Mary Ellen Donovan's? Is it Mayor Peter Kelly's? Is it every citizen of the HRM that doesn't speak up? Who's is it? Is it Brindi herself that put her in her current predicament? When you read Trish's missive below - you'll think it's a lot of different people's - but you certainly would never think that it's Brindi's owner - Francesca Rogier.

I am not sure what Trish Hoste thought she'd accomplish by writing her comment at the "Standing with Brindi" blog - but I don't think it's going to have any kind of positive effect on Brindi's case - and it certainly won't have ANY effect on the actual case. She should have learned that the first time around. Continuing to denigrate this area of the world though - all the way from the other side of the world - is HUGELY counter-productive in the area of good-will.

I think that before you read any further - you should follow this link and go to another blog if you haven't been there already, and read a couple posts from the website "Standing with Brindi" - specifically the posts called "The Incident" and the post "Owner to Ask Judge: Can Brindi be Freed pending Upcoming Trial" - in the post called "The Incident" - the author goes into pretty intricate detail about what happened on the day of the alleged attack - naming the names of the owners of the beagle mix who reported the incident that has caused this whole melee. It says in particular -

"The injuries suggest they were caused by a dog gripping another dog with its paws. Contrary to newspaper reports, there were no puncture wounds on the dog’s neck, nor any obvious teethmarks to prove without a doubt that Brindi was not wearing her muzzle. The Simms live several blocks north of the Pettipas. Their statements say that as a rule, they do not walk their dog further south to pass the Rogier home. However, they were in the habit of closely “eyeing” the Rogier home."

Interesting. It also details where Mr. Simm's works - I don't why naming Mr. Simm's employer has anything to do with the dog attack. Do you? That whole blog is an interesting read - especially since in at least one spot on the blog it says "There is little to report on this recent situation involving Brindi as neither side nor the city is talking" - and by neither side I'm assuming one of those sides is Francesca Rogier herself - so where are they getting their information from?

But I digress - on to the Trish Hoste portion of the entertainment, and that's what this is, and nothing else - because this has nothing to do with the "Brindi story" - because once again - NONE OF US has anything to do with the outcome of this case. The only ones involved are: Francesca Rogier, the dog who was attacked and their owner, the investigating Animal Control Officer, the Crown Attorney, and the JUDGE. And THAT'S IT. Sorry all you animal advocates from around the world. You are shut out again. That's jurisprudence at its best. Or worst. I don't know.

But on to Trishie.

Trish Hoste says:
October 12, 2010 at 4:14 pm
(With a special note to HRM Councilor, David Hendsbee, at the close)


It is absolutely beyond the comprehension of any decent, honest, fair-minded, just, law-abiding, merciful, respectable and respectful person of good conscience, that an entire city authority can be so single-minded in its quest to destroy one woman and her dog.

It is now glaringly obvious for all to see that it’s not a woman scorned that hell hath no fury like, but rather the ‘dishonorable’ officials in The City of Halifax (HRM), Nova Scotia, Canada. They conduct themselves with flagrant disregard for their sworn duty to uphold human and animal rights, and justice for all within the community, and for the voters who elected and entrusted them with that very task.

Instead of respecting and abiding by the legal decisions handed down by the Supreme and Provincial Courts, who denied HRM’s attempts to euthanase Ms Rogier’s dog Brindi, their resentment at losing and their vindictive obsession to annihilate these two souls knows no bounds. And of course they needed no second excuse for the opportunity to try once again to finish what they’ve determined to do all along: kill Brindi and bring Ms Rogier to her knees, for daring to stand up to them. I don't think that Animal Services were at Ms. Rogier's house when she was taking the groceries out of her car and left her window down in her car so that Brindi could jump out and go and run up to another dog who had the very bad luck to be walking along a public road that his owner's relatives also have the bad luck to live on - so that Brindi could have an altercation with on a very unlucky day in July. Do you think they were there that day?

Once again they have forcibly seized and incarcerated Brindi after just two short months of freedom, following 2 years of hell on ‘death row’, after Animal Services had seized and held her illegally for most of that time! Once again they have brought the same misdemeanor charges against Ms Rogier for which she has already been tried, found guilty and paid a fine. The moment the Judge freed Brindi, albeit under stringent conditions, the vigilantes and the knives were out, no matter what! And actually - Brindi wasn't seized immmediately - they waited a couple weeks while they completed their investigation - which surprised the hell out local dog people - we all figured they'd seize her immediately - we actually thought that Brindi was going to be seized earlier in the summer when we saw other shit happening!

No doubt the twisted, hate-fuelled ‘DOG-KISSER’ & ‘DOG-LOVER’, lusting after Brindi’s blood, and driven by their passion to run Ms Rogier out of their province; What the hoo-ha? I avoid this topic like the plague - but you are giving me SUCH good stuff here - how can I NOT write something! This is just pure FUN! I love you Trish Hoste - don't stop writing this shit! I LOVE YOU!!!! .. And /or one or other spite-filled author of the poison-pen letters and comments posted in the press and on the above websites, before and after Brindi was released; .. And/or the o-so-pious, butter-wouldn’t-melt-in-her-mouth Catholic neighbor, who patently has no concept of the dictates and teachings of Christianity or her Church; So now people aren't allowed to be Catholic anymore - what the hoo-haa is going on over there in South Africa - I know Nelson Mandela isn't dead yet - it can't be THAT bad over there yet, can it? .. And/or some pathetic cowardly idiot who has no compassion, or understanding of the nature of dogs, and can’t wait to run crying to big brother; .. One or all of them, somewhere along the line, have had a hand in filing these ‘conflicting’ reports of a dog incident occurring at or near Rogier’s home.

Tragically, neither Brindi nor Ms Rogier ever stood a chance against them, or the might of HRM, however hard she tried to comply with the court’s ruling. Especially when Ms. Rogier is posting videos to her own Facebook group of Brindi trotting around in a public place without her muzzle on, eating cake - and Mr. Bobby Riley going on another Facebook group (CTV News) trotting off about how there was a little white dog at that function who didn't have any problems at all with Brindi being there! So we have a video of Brindi with no muzzle, and an old man saying there was another dog there - and it's less than a month after Brindi's free. Now THAT'S a smart thing to do, wouldn't you say?

I realize I must sound just as prejudiced in favor of Brindi and Ms Rogier as do their enemies who seek to destroy them, and who I firmly believe deserve to be named and shamed, for their disgraceful roles in this affair, but questions now beg to be asked: Doesn’t anyone at HRM see the miscarriage of justice that is taking place here, or that the law is most definitely not blind when it comes to Brindi and Ms Rogier?

Is there no man or woman left in HRM who will stand up and speak out against this deliberate persecution? Persection for what? For condemning her own dog to death for continuing to put her in jeopardy for not keeping her safe? Is there no-one with the courage of their convictions who is prepared to expose the glaring prejudices with regard to the application of the A300′s by-law in this particular case, when HRM’s own records show no seizures in the vast majority of dog-related cases, even when attacks on humans are involved?

And last but not least, what about these A300 by-laws, the ones which, by the city’s own admission, are flawed and in need of revision, or the fact that the Supreme Court has taken issue with and quashed various clauses? Is long-due reform on hold until Brindi and Ms Rogier can safely be disposed of? Yes they are on hold until Brindi's case is well good and gone.

I refer readers to the website, “STANDING WITH BRINDI”, from which I have found some of this information and borrowed some comments. From there, and I quote: “It seems that not all Nova Scotians approve of HRM Animal Services or the law it enforces. Petitions calling the treatment of Rogier and her dog unfair have reportedly begun circulating around the province this week.” (We all need to find and sign those petitions!) I have seen or heard of none, I MUST be running in the wrong circles.

In fact, there is also an excerpt on the above site, from an interview with HRM Councilor, David Hendsbee and Don Connolly on CBS.. “HRM Councilor David Hendsby from his CBC interview with Don Connolly in regards to this recent incident:

“abundance of speculation” “who was the victim?” “will there be a fair process or is [Brindi] guilty right [off] again”… and I would add one more: “a rush to judgment.”


To the Honorable Councilor, David Hendsbee,

I recall that two years back, when this nightmare for Brindi and Ms Rogier began, you were one of the few voices, if not the only one, who spoke out responsibly, the truth, with integrity, intelligence, reason and respect for the position you hold and those you serve.

It is a great shame that unlike the days of Henry VIII et al, a man of decency and honor like you can’t dissolve HRM and demand the heads of those who have betrayed their office and the public, beginning with The Mayor and the Head of the Legal Department. The whole world knows who they all are!

Let’s hope and pray that the voters speak with their crosses on the ballot papers, come next election and that true men and women of sanity prevail. Otherwise Nova Scotia may well find itself with a local government modeled after our political system in South Africa, where the liberators, the ANC, are fast becoming the oppressors. Little by little, our government shows less and less regard for our constitution, or the basic human rights, including freedom of information and the press, and more importantly the sanctity of an independent judiciary, which it enshrines.

Good luck!

I was sent an email a couple weeks ago that someone actually RECEIVED FROM David Hendsbee about how he now feels about the Brindi case - and I'll paste it below for your enjoyment - he seems to have made a flip flop about the story. Very interesting - enjoy.

Thank you for your e-mail.
At first I wanted Francesca Rogier to win her case because I believe there are some flaws in our bylaw about Responsible Pet Owners. The lengthy court processing proven one point of how fruitless it can be for the municipality to deal with simple pet issues such as animal control. I would prefer a simpler Appeals Committee of Council instead of the courts.

Besides this dog has never bit a person and dogs will be dogs. It is just show dominance about its property. Never has a dog been mauled and chewed apart either. I am concerned that we, the municipality should consider a No-Kill policy except where the animal has been deemed extremely dangerous where it has bitten people or participated in organized dog-fights.

Both animal and owners can be trained.

But now with the latest situation, I believe Ms. Rogier has lose her right to keep the dog. She is in violation of the HRM Bylaw again but also in contradiction of a Provincial Court Order. The muzzle order was an imperative condition of her pet's parole. BUT Her chance for redemption has now been lost.

This has been a very frustrating situation where the community has been polarized. Even neighbours have expressed diverse opinions about Brindi. I think the dog should be given to someone else now. Perhaps on a large farm property preferably out of the municipality.

My patience likes yours has worn thin on this matter.

Thank you again for your comments.

Best Regards > DAH

And lastly - and perhaps BESTLY - is a video that is making the rounds of Facebook today - it's a video from a Judge down in the States and she's talking about a case where a dog owner's dog has attacked another dog at the property line - and what she thinks about the owner's defence - that the person walking their dog on the public road shouldn't have been walking there because they knew that the dog who attacked was aggressive - so they should have been walking somewhere else. It's CLASSIC. BEAUTIFUL.

Have a fabulous Friday!


  1. You're truly a bag of scum, Joan.

    To be so entertained and wet (the only way, I guess) by what you have already deemed to be a matter not "to be flippant about," is so typically in your warped tiny mind.

    At least she proofreads her posts (almost). You could learn something from her...if you could learn. That's fine, please remain your vicious, vindictive slimy self. We know that Joan and know exactly how to deal with her. You got permission to steal and reprint that, right? Aren't you dead, yet?

  2. If this wasn't so blantly tragic for Brindi this post would be hilarious.
    The onus on ANY DOG OWNER is to keep your pet safe and to ensure NO MATTER WHAT that your dog does NO HARM. Simple as that. AND if perchance your dog offends and it is 'incarcerated' because you the OWNER are at FAULT - then YOU ABIDE by the conditions the court has set. You do not flagrantly disregard the ruling - it is a RULING. You do NOT decide when and where to put the muzzle on your dog - you comply so that your dog will NOT reoffend. IF you do NOT like the ruling - you work your ass off to get training for your dog and keep at that training until you can get a third party evaluation done. YOU WORK with the Court and Municipality and if that means you roll over and beg - you do just that - BUT YOU DON'T write letters to Judges, Mayors, Councillors, Professional Dog Trainers and the Public at Large telling them they are all STUPID and NO NOTHING ABOUT THE LAW and dogs etc. YUP FR you sure have shone a light on our inadequate bylaws because there should be a clause that if a dog owner refuses to comply the animal, upon assement can be rehomed and is no longer your 'property'.
    Again I say if Brindi is euthanized it is NOT her fault it is the negligence of her owner to be proactive and to be a responsible pet owner instead of being a reckless individual.

  3. Ah, Jeff - my own personal stalker, hand delivered to me by Brindi's Mom - fresh faced from Los Angeles California - brings his best game to this post - I love you too Jeff!

  4. Surely Jeff is speaking of someone else, right? Not OUR Joan Sinden, that 'fearless tireless' blogger who made materials for Fran to use at an early meeting with the Mayor. Constructing charts to display arcane data visually--that's not just scribbling your name on a petition: that's real help, as Fran realized. Joan was doing that back when no one had even heard of Fran. (Now that WAS a long time ago!) My goodness--what a difference 2 years makes. And--it is NOT Joan who has changed!!

    Excerpts from the deathless prose of "Free Brindi" Blog

    Oct. 24 08
    "So, since to my great sorrow, Brindi was still in the pound by October 22 after all, I felt it necessary to join the discussion, since the appointment originated with Brindi. I was happy to stick to the rules: don't mention the dog. Joan Sinden, that fearless, tireless blogger-ette, prepared a number of materials to hand over, including a chart of previous by-law prosecutions. Several good points were made."

    and 11/23 (Re Selling things to people to raise $$$$) The 2-year total must be quite a chunk--it was reported I'm sure.

    "Here it is modeled by Buttercup, of Me and my Dogs in Halifax fame. It's a bit too small for her, sadly, because she looks marvelous otherwise. But it's perfect for dogs of a more diminutive persuasion -- perhaps 15 lbs. or so."

    There's a darling pic of Buttercup wearing whatever-she's-selling but it wouldn't copy. It's Joan's dog and an open blog, Jeff.

  5. Good grief Joan, I went back to your link to Standing (in the Corner Disgraced) with B & F. Something is weird! It seems a whole bunch of people in Nova Scotia have the SAME names. The most recent comment is from that polite gent from LA, the restrained Jeff. He said: "Unfortunately, it would take real money and a real lawyer to beat them back this time and they’ve seen to it that she has neither. Listening, Blair? You’re scum like the rest."

    Scum?? Must have the wrong Blair Mitchell. Surely it couldn't be the one who won the case in the Supreme Court for Miss Rogier! Her first attorney took a hike to S. America after 3 weeks with her as his client. Smart guy. (Did he ever come back, anyone know?) After agreeing to take Fran's case, her third lawyer, as Fran noted in her blog, then spent her brief time doing the paper work to formally quit & dissociate herself from Fran. (Lemme OUT of here!!) Another smart cookie. Jeff cannot mean the Blair Mitchell about whom she bragged "Then I called my lawyer, interrupting an important meeting. His first response was, 'If they did that, they would be sued till kingdom come.' He made calls, got the city's lawyer at home." She seemed to really appreciate (well at least she noticed!) that Blair Mitchell worked thru the holidays on her case. Apparently, hauling attorneys out of meetings on some rumour she's freaked out about is just her due as a 'paying client.' Be nice if she HAD paid him without his having to haul her butt into Small Claims Court. Did she ever pay even that reduced, court-ordered amount? I do not know.

    written Jan. 12 2009 About the trial before the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia
    "As the day went on, however, things seemed to take on a good momentum. My lawyer, Blair Mitchell, really did his homework, and then some; he worked all through the holidays to prepare a 23-page brief. I felt so lucky and grateful to have him on my side. SO MUCH WORK went into it, so many months. We had help from so many people, too, including my sister Nancy, Joan Sinden, and an animal rights group from Dalhousie. It was not easy to follow all the legalese; Blair kept warning me it would be boring. Nothing about it is boring to me, it's about my dog after all. I knew he must have been doing well, when halfway through, people sitting with me who didn't expect to be able to understand a word suddenly began sitting up and taking notes."

    And there's that OTHER Joan Sinden again, right there in court with Fran.

    One thing I feel Jeff got 100% right—and MANY others who posted comments did too. Jeff said : “Why she didn’t get the hell out of there as soon as Brindi was released, I will never know.” Me neither, Jeff. I too thought she’d at least put Brindi in the car and not stop except for gas until she crossed the border. There are excellent kennel facilities in Bangor & THEN she could come back and deal with any loose ends in NS. But what’s to deal with? All the furniture, dishes, even linens came with the house. Toss some jeans in a suitcase, a bag of cat food, and her laptop and blow the joint. She feels she’s been singled out for ill-treatment by HRM. Who in the world wants to stay in a place like that? Did you ask HER that, Jeff? Beats me.

  6. 1. I believe that this has gone from due process to vengeance on HRM's behalf, which I am disgusted with, but I believe Francesca is unfortunately the victim of her own demise. See No. 2.
    2. I believe that if anyone else was in Francesca's shoes, this situation would be in a completely different place. Unfortunately, a rude, adversarial attitude only serves to provoke and inflame a situation and lack of self-awareness plays a huge part in the failure of this situation. As long as a person approaches any situation with hostility, assumptions about people's intentions, and bad attitude, they will never, ever succeed in getting what they want.
    3. "Two years of hell on death row" one respects a writer who uses unnecessary melodrama (and too many exclamation points). Brindi lived in the SPCA shelter, sleeping on a cozy comfy bed in the office, eating quality food and treats, playing with toys and interacting with staff for cuddles and love every day. For this writer to discount the efforts and heart of the young staff and volunteers who loved this dog for two long years and now have to see her sad face in the paper with a muzzle on, is despicable.
    4. "...they have brought the same misdemeanor charges against Ms. Rogier for which she has already been tried, found guilty and paid a fine"...wrong. Is the writer implying that if I have been fined, tried, and convicted of murder two years ago, I am free to murder again and should not be charged the next time? Of course not - this latest incident is completely separate and of course she would be charged again.
    5. "...the o-so-pious, butter-wouldn’t-melt-in-her-mouth Catholic neighbor, who patently has no concept of the dictates and teachings of Christianity or her Church." Wow, did she seriously write that out loud?? I don't even believe in God and I find that statement offensive. Writers who resort to personal attacks and name calling only do so when they lack any other defense.
    6. "I realize I must sound just as prejudiced in favor of Brindi and Ms Rogier as do their enemies" No, just prejudiced, period. See No. 5 above.
    7. As for Hendsbee, my personal experience with him is that he is a bully, but I find this statement in his email interesting: "I believe Ms. Rogier has lose her right to keep the dog. She is in violation of the HRM Bylaw again but also in contradiction of a Provincial Court Order" - is Mr. Hendsbee claiming to be trial judge and jury with this statement? Those are pretty big words to put out there when the case hasn't even gone to court yet.