COLLEEN BROOKE DOSSEY
THE FOLLOWING is my testimony to the court regarding the charge of
“HARBORING A VICIOUS DOG” –
COURSE OF EVENTS LEADING UP TO BLUE’S SEIZURE:
1) I am a single mom with two children, a dog, a cat and a ferret. My dog’s name is Blue and is mostly white in color. He is about 40 pounds and has always been sweet and gentle with my children, other dogs, my cat and he is afraid of my ferret.
2) On January 11, 2016, I proceeded to leave my home at about 830am and later in the day about noon I would receive a phone call that there was a break-in at home.
3) My dog Blue got outside reportedly about 11am and started down the block toward Main Street which is only five houses from my house. Obviously my dog got loose from extenuating circumstances that were beyond my control and I should NOT be cited for LOOSE DOG for which I was not cited.
4) Trevor and Teddy, according to Teddy, who should be here in this courtroom to submit their own eyewitness testimony saw my dog loose and running. He was probably scared and confused. Then they lost sight of the dog for a few minutes.
5) Trevor and Teddy, according to Teddy, then witnessed the fact that Blue my dog was in a physical altercation with a husky who was with a man. It is completely unknown to me whether the husky was on a leash.
6) Trevor and Teddy, according to Teddy, did witness the man hitting my dog over the head with a firearm to ostensibly separate them.
7) Trevor and Teddy, according to Teddy, did NOT witness the man getting bit by either dog. They saw blood on his hand however it was unclear if that was from a bite from a dog or from Blue’s own blood since he was hitting Blue over the head with a firearm causing bleeding.
8) To my knowledge, this man was NOT cited for loose dog or for vicious dog. I was blocked by the court clerk to subpoena this man or to know his identity or to know any of the evidence that was set forth against me for claiming that my dog was vicious when he is not.
9) Trevor and Teddy, according to Teddy, now states that the dogs were separated and that Blue approached them in a friendly manner without growling, barking, snarling or any such vicious display whatsoever.
10) In my opinion, my dog might have approached the man and husky to seek refuge and comfort since my dog is a gentle dog known to get along with other dogs, cats and even small animals such as my ferret, as well as my small children.
11) My dog has never bit anyone and has never had a behavior issue in his life of 2.5 years approximately.
12) At this point, animal control was called and my dog Blue was taken to the animal control facility in Shawnee.
PHONE CALL I RECEIVE FROM ANIMAL CONTROL:
1) I received a phone call from the animal control officer that if I did not produce $500, they would gas to death my dog and decapitate him to test for rabies. They did not give me an opportunity to call my veterinarian to check on my dog’s rabies status before informing me that they would do this to my dog.
2) When I called my vet, it became known that my dog IS UP-TO-DATE ON RABIES WITH A THREE YEAR VACCINATION.
3) The animal control facility ACO continued to threaten the life of my dog since he believed that the dog was not “up to code in Shawnee” by having a YEARLY rabies vaccination, even though my dog was UP-TO-DATE WITH A THREE YEAR VACCINATION.
4) I made a fundraiser for the $500 and it was raised but could not be accessed until a couple days because it was via the internet. However, I was able to raise about $200 and my vet agreed to “quarantine” the dog even though legally and medically the dog did NOT need to be quarantined neither at the vet nor at the animal control facility because the dog is current on a three year rabies vaccination.
5) My vet has stated that even though the dog is current on rabies with a three year rabies vaccination that he would give the dog an additional rabies vaccination just to be in compliance with the Shawnee code that allegedly states that a dog needs a rabies vaccination every year but consider the following:
A. RABIES SHAWNEE CODE: Code 1986, Section 5-146-c: “…….any dog that is over the age of four months and that has not been vaccinated against rabies within the preceding 12 months……”. I believe this has been interpreted incorrectly in that NOT BEEN VACCINATED is precluded by the three year rabies vaccination. Clearly it would be veterinary malpractice to vaccinate a dog EVERY YEAR WHEN THEY ARE COVERED BY A THREE YEAR VACCINATION. So I believe then that my dog is being illegally held in a “quarantine” that is unnecessary by common law since he was up-to-date on his three year rabies vaccination. Therefore my dog should be immediately released from my vet’s office to my care to my home.
6) Therefore if it has been the policy of Chris Thomas the administrator to demand sums of cash from the public (threatening felony animal cruelty on companion animals held illegally at the animal control facility) for vaccinating an animal for rabies EVERY SINGLE YEAR, this would constitute extortion and “forcing” veterinarians to commit malpractice. Even if a dog was not current on rabies, the animal control facility would be legally responsible for placing a dog into quarantine and billing the citizen later, not threatening death with a demand of cash, i.e., extortion. Consider the following:
Oklahoma Statutes Citationized
Title 21. Crimes and Punishments
Chapter 60 – Extortion and Blackmail
Section 1482 – Extortion Induced by Threats
Cite as: O.S. §, __ __
Fear such as will constitute extortion, may be induced by a threat, either:
1st. To do an unlawful injury to the person or property of the individual threatened, or to any relative of his or member of his family; or,
2nd. To accuse him, or any relative of his or member of his family, of any crime; or,
3rd. To expose, or impute to him, or them, any deformity or disgrace; or,
4th. To expose any secret affecting him or them.
Oklahoma Uniform Jury Instructions
Oklahoma Jury Instructions- Criminal
Section OUJI-CR 5-33 – Threat Defined
Cite as: O.S. §, __ __
EXTORTION – THREAT DEFINED
A person has been threatened when that person has been put in fear of:
[unlawful injury to his/her person/property]
[unlawful personal injury to his/her relatives/(family members)]
[unlawful injury to the property of a relative/(family member)]
7) Due to clear definition of extortion in the state of Oklahoma, the city of Shawnee and specifically Chris Thomas, Administrator, and his animal control officer are criminally subject to the laws of extortion as well as liable in a civil court violating my civil rights.
8) SHAWNEE CODE VICIOUS DOG:
Sec. 5-3. – Vicious animals. Modified
No persons shall own or harbor any vicious animal within the city, unless the same is kept upon private premises of such person and securely locked within a sufficient enclosure to prevent any possible means of escape. For a secure enclosure to be sufficient, it must be constructed with four sides, a top, a bottom and a locked gate of sufficient materials, not including soil, to prevent any possible means of escape. Any vicious animal running at large on the streets or alleys, or other public ways, of the city shall be immediately removed and impounded, or terminated when deemed necessary by the animal control officer to protect public safety when the situation warrants, regardless of whether or not such animal has a collar and tag or muzzle. Any leash, tether, chain, rope or other device used to control a vicious animal when an animal is taken off personal property shall not exceed six feet in length without such animal being constituted running at large. Other officers of the law may likewise, when deemed necessary to protect the public safety, remove, impound or terminate a vicious animal when the situation warrants.
A vicious animal or a dangerous animal is defined as any animal that:
Because of its physical nature, is capable of inflicting serious physical harm or death to human beings and would constitute a danger to human life or property;
Has behaved in such a manner that the owner knows or should reasonably know that the animal has tendencies to attack or to bite human beings or other animals;
Commits an unprovoked attack on a person or animal on private or public property; or
Threatens to attack or terrorizes a person in such a manner that personal safety is in jeopardy and when, in the opinion of the animal control officer or other officer of the law, such animal poses a personal or public threat following a complaint filed by the affected person with the city animal control division or police department.
8a. DISCUSSION OF BLUE:
a. My dog has never been aggressive or vicious or has ever in the past displayed any such behavior as previously stated.
b. The ordinance clearly defines a vicious animal as “….capable of inflicting serious physical harm……or would constitute a danger…..” which my dog Blue could never be capable of doing not ever in the past or in stated incident of January 11, 2016.
c. As the owner of said dog, I am testifying with 100% confidence that my dog has never been engaged in a dog fight or has ever displayed any aggression whatsoever. Furthermore, my veterinarian submits a testimony of dog’s gentle temperament.
d. Regarding the incident of when my dog got loose on January 11, 2016, the dog was loose due to extenuating circumstances of my home being broken into and my dog becoming understandably confused to the point that he was scared and looking for me and my children for comfort. My dog is neutered so he would not have been running to mate.
e. Regarding the incident of my dog involved in an altercation with another dog, the husky, it is
1. UNKNOWN IF THE HUSKY INITIATED THE ALTERCATION.
2. UNKNOWN IF THE HUSKY WAS OFF A LEASH.
3. UNKNOWN IF MY DOG, IN OSTENSIBLY DEFENDING HIMSELF, AGAINST A LARGER DOG THAT MAY HAVE BEEN LOOSE OFF A LEASH, BIT ANYONE.
4. THERE IS NO PROOF OF A BITE. FURTHERMORE IF THERE WAS PROOF OF A BITE, THERE IS NO PROOF THAT THAT BITE ORIGINATED FROM MY DOG.
5. IF THERE WAS A BITE, WHICH THERE IS NO PROOF OF A BITE, THE BITE WOULD HAVE ORIGINATED FROM ATTEMPTING TO SEPARATE TWO DOGS THAT WERE IN AN ALTERCATION in which my dog Blue suffered puncture wounds but it is UNKNOWN IF THE HUSKY DOG SUFFERED ANY WOUNDS AT ALL FROM MY DOG BLUE.
8b. Therefore there is no proof that my dog bit any person and there is no proof that my dog acted with provocation as that is not in my dog’s nature to do so. If there was proof of a bite to the man that was hitting my dog over the head with a firearm, then the teeth of both dogs would have to be considered in that bite injury and the DNA of the saliva tested from the bite wounds, if there was a bite, which no proof of a bite has been submitted to me.
1) REGARDING DOG LOOSE AND AT LARGE: My dog Blue got loose due to extenuating circumstances beyond my control regarding my house being broken into and not through my own negligence.
2) REGARDING RABIES UP-TO-DATE, “QUARANTINE”: My dog was up-to-date legally and by veterinary standards with a three-year rabies vaccination and as soon as that was discovered, the dog should have been immediately released to my custody and should be immediately released to my custody now.
3) REGARDING ILLEGAL PRACTICES: If the law is not clear to the common individual that a three-year rabies vaccination is legally binding from a veterinary practice definition, then it should be amended. But I am reading the ordinance that clearly states that if the dog is “vaccinated within the last 12 months” meaning that if the dog is UP TO DATE then said ordinance has been construed illiterately to be construed that a dog should be a victim of veterinary malpractice and citizens should be extorted for cash with threat of death of their animals by said ordinance to vaccinate their dogs EVERY YEAR (even though covered by a three year rabies vax which is legally binding from a veterinary standard and by common law) which would constitute abuse of said animal, that is to say veterinary malpractice.
4) REGARDING PROVOCATION AND ALLEGED BITE:
A. There is no proof whatsoever that my dog provoked an incident of physical altercation.
B. There is no proof whatsoever that my dog bit the man with the husky dog.
C. There IS proof that my dog was loose and was in a physical altercation with a dog but that was most probably and logically initiated by the husky dog since my dog would not initiate same as proven by his temperament history and his temperament as witnessed by Teddy.
D. In addition, there IS proof that my dog is a gentle dog by witnesses at these scene of the incident even after my dog was bit by the husky with proven wounds and even after being beat about the head with a firearm.
I am therefore requesting that the charge of “vicious dog” be dropped entirely and my dog returned to me immediately.
COLLEEN BROOKE DOSSEY
I was assisted in the preparation of this document by
Kate Riviello, President, nokill-newyork.org
1) Colleen was blocked from reading this brief in her defense by the City’s Attorney M.A. Karns and Judge Wiley. She requested to read her statement several times and the City Attorney and Judge Wiley kept concurring with each other that she was presenting “hearsay” and was not able to get even a couple sentences read.
2) Colleen had a notarized copy of the above statement together with a signed statement from her veterinarian that the dog Blue was gentle and not in any way aggressive. She was not permitted to submit her statement nor was she permitted to submit this additional testimony since the vet was not there to testify as to its authenticity.
3) The City Attorney stated that she had seen the video of Colleen and Blue at the vet office and ordered that the dog be confined in his kennel and be unable to be walked at all out of the confines of the kennel.
4) Colleen was not afforded copies of any of the evidence set forth against her even though she requested from the Court Clerk the ability to subpoena the “man with the husky.” The Court Clerk advised her (yes legally advised her which is irregular) that she could not subpoena the City’s witness. When in court, she stated that she was not provided copies of evidence against her and the City Attorney asked, “Did you ask for it?” What was sought in particular was medical evidence of a bite to the “man with the husky.” As it turns out the man with the husky testified that he sustained only some sort of “cut” to his finger.
5) Right there and then in the City of Shawnee’s court, Blue dog was sentenced to death. The City Attorney in her benevolence (sarcastic dripping) stated that the dog could be killed at the vet’s office and not be gassed.
And that was it. Adjourned. Sine die. Or so they thought. In fact if we have our way it will be the first day on the path of the end of their careers. An appeal is being prepared and filed. An attorney is being retained. A press conference will be called upon filing. Because the City of Shawnee will kill Blue dog over our dead bodies.