Little Cat Feats, a 501(c)(3) (charity) dog and cat shelter that was established several years ago by Doug and Despina Harris in Milford, Connecticut has been raided!
On August 20, 2002, representatives of the state and animal control officers from various towns arrived at this sizeable residence with local police armed with a search and seizure warrant obtained on the basis of a lone, unsubstantiated allegation that, in some unspecified way, animals had been abused or treated cruelly there.
The owners were not even allowed to call a lawyer.
They were given an abbreviated "receipt" for items taken from them, and promised a detailed receipt "in two days". As of September 13, Doug and his wife still did not have this receipt.
The warrant was directed specifically at Doug Harris and not, as would logically have been more appropriate, at Companion Animal Therapy Advocates, Inc., the Connecticut corporation of which Little Cat Feats is "the rescue and adoption mission". The warrant authorized the taking of "every animal, living or dead". Every single animal was taken from there - including the Harris's personal pets (a dozen-plus cats and three dogs), for a total of 79 cats and three dogs.
Supposedly in connection with this investigation into alleged animal abuse, the raiders took - among other inappropriate items -- all animal adoption records going back three-plus years. Also taken - without authority of the warrant - were various personal photographs and mementos of now-dead-and-buried personal pets. (As well as being an illegal seizure of the Harris's personal property, this represented a gross affront to them personally and - like so much of the rest of what's been happening here - a vicious violation of this society's standards of human decency.)
The day after this raid, Doug Harris was served papers for a civil suit against him by the city relative to a long-simmering zoning issue.
The suit mentioned above also makes the following (and other) claims:
1. That they "either relinquish ownership of the animals to the State of Connecticut, Department of Agriculture, or post a surety bond or cash bond with the State of Connecticut, Department of Agriculture, in the amount of $450 per animal for the Department's reasonable expenses in caring and providing for such animals…"
2. Once permanent custody has been granted to "the Department", its representatives shall, with the blessing of the court, "order the humane destruction of such animals as are so injured or diseased that they should be destroyed…"
3. That we be ordered "to pay the State (etc.) an amount equal to $15 for each animal which was seized, pursuant to the search warrant, for each day from the date that the animals were seized until the date that ownership of the animals was vested in the State."As of September 13, it is believed no charges were pending, other than zoning-related ones.
An hour before the August 20 raid, a regular check was performed, and every animal was alive. So far absolutely no information has been given to Little Cat Feats as to why the Harris's personal animals - or any of the others -were hauled out of their home only to be caged - a condition some of the animals have never known and none deserve. Also, the present status and condition of the majority of the animals remains unknown.
But a civil action against Doug Harris filed by the State Department of Agriculture on August 28 noted that "of the cats taken, three have died and one had to be euthanized."Harris is in contact with the ASPCA and their attorneys, and they are well aware that the first priority in Doug's mind is to secure the freedom of ALL the confiscated animals - "alive or dead". Still, Harris and others fear that not even all remaining animals will long survive the cruel, heartless and illogical incarceration they've now suffered for nearly three weeks - while NO criminal charges of any kind have ever been filed against Little Cat Feats or Doug Harris. No cruelty charge - no abuse charge - nothing!
This could happen to ANYONE - and this possibility must be prevented by taking action NOW!
http://www.geocities.com/helpcatrescuer/lcf.html
5/31/08
letter to the ACLU
I urgently require assistance regarding the blatant abuse of my civil rights by the State of Connecticut Department of Agriculture. My case unfortunately is just one example of the many victims, whos lives were ruined by harassment, deception, slander, manipulation, and gross negligence by this department. Accountable only to the Governor’s office, they exercise absolute power. Apparently, the procedure for investigating complaints is by forwarding them to the offenders so they may deal with at their own discretion. This practice perpetuated “the list” (as referred to by dept. staff)-handy source of easily accessible personal contact information for their next targets. I respectfully request your prompt assistance in this important matter. Enclosed is a brief summary, including several Connecticut state statute violations. Upon request, additional detailed materials will be provided. Your assistance is essential in order to help prevent another gross miscarriage of justice, further waste of taxpayer money, and the suffering and torment of the animals by of the very department supposedly responsible for their protection.
The officers, in the course of their investigation, clearly illustrate malfeasance by their:
Failure to substantiate validity of any statements made in complaints
Blatant disregard for the totality of the circumstances, specifically all relevant evidence advantageous to defendant, no matter how credible
Trespassing defendant’s property repeatedly without disclosure
Demanding immediate entry to defendant’s home for mandatory inspection
Denoting any failure to comply with demands, no matter how unconstitutional, or unreasonable would be perceived as admission of guilt to indeterminate crime
Unprofessional, inappropriate, disrespectful, threatening, manipulative, dishonest, cruel, and excessively forceful conduct toward defendant and her animals
Threatening and executing severe, excessive retaliation for non-compliance
Refusal to disclose the nature, cause, or source of the complaint, what law was violated, or any information in writing, (despite defendant’s repeated requests)
Refusal of defendant’s numerous good faith efforts to prove compliance with the law and establish open communication in an effort to resolve the issue in accordance with the law, in the best interest of the animals, and with respect for her civil rights.
Failure to interview multitude more likely credible readily available sources
Failure to consider evidence (which they originally requested) submitted by primary care veterinarian detailing conditions of all animals (personal and org.)
In the application for the search and seizure warrant, the officers, (with the explicit intent to mislead the judge and defame the defendant:)
improperly cite complainants statements-implying they are factual information derived from proper investigation rather than unsubstantiated hearsay (constituting the substance of the content in the application for warrant)
Purposefully omit any relevant evidence in support of defendant
Creatively spun summation of trespassing encounter with defendant
Misrepresent highly questionable sources as “credible and prudent” (volunteers recently dismissed from minor roles with the non-profit org. run by the defendant due to issues involving their incompetent, manipulative, dishonest behavior)
In the execution of the search and seizure warrant, the officers:
Violated CT statute Chapter 959 Sec. 54-33c… “A copy of such warrant shall be given to the owner or occupant of the dwelling”…and….”Within forty-eight hours of such search, a copy of the application for the warrant and a copy of all affidavits upon which the warrant is based shall be given to such owner” (After 10 weeks, court motions, requests by letter, phone and fax, still awaiting majority of……)
Despite the absence of exigent circumstances, officials did not knock and announce, but rather attempted breaking down the front door to no avail. They (admittedly) gained entry breaking a (new) window.
violated CT statute Chapter 959 Sec. 54-36f. Receipt for seized property to be given by law enforcement officials. Whenever property is ...seized pursuant to a search warrant without an arrest, the law enforcement agency seizing such property shall give a receipt ….at the time of such seizure
seized personal financial documents and personal prescription medication not pertaining to the case
destroyed personal articles and damaged several areas of my home
coerced a city official into making false claims
Refused to allow me to match health records with the correct animal, so that the handicapped and those needing medication could receive proper care.
Following the seizure of my animals until present, the officers:
refuse to disclose the condition or location of my animals
will not disclose important information needed to properly prepare defense
shared private, detailed evidence about case with complainants (have reason to believe actively coached prior to official statements
The officers, in the course of their investigation, clearly illustrate malfeasance by their:
Failure to substantiate validity of any statements made in complaints
Blatant disregard for the totality of the circumstances, specifically all relevant evidence advantageous to defendant, no matter how credible
Trespassing defendant’s property repeatedly without disclosure
Demanding immediate entry to defendant’s home for mandatory inspection
Denoting any failure to comply with demands, no matter how unconstitutional, or unreasonable would be perceived as admission of guilt to indeterminate crime
Unprofessional, inappropriate, disrespectful, threatening, manipulative, dishonest, cruel, and excessively forceful conduct toward defendant and her animals
Threatening and executing severe, excessive retaliation for non-compliance
Refusal to disclose the nature, cause, or source of the complaint, what law was violated, or any information in writing, (despite defendant’s repeated requests)
Refusal of defendant’s numerous good faith efforts to prove compliance with the law and establish open communication in an effort to resolve the issue in accordance with the law, in the best interest of the animals, and with respect for her civil rights.
Failure to interview multitude more likely credible readily available sources
Failure to consider evidence (which they originally requested) submitted by primary care veterinarian detailing conditions of all animals (personal and org.)
In the application for the search and seizure warrant, the officers, (with the explicit intent to mislead the judge and defame the defendant:)
improperly cite complainants statements-implying they are factual information derived from proper investigation rather than unsubstantiated hearsay (constituting the substance of the content in the application for warrant)
Purposefully omit any relevant evidence in support of defendant
Creatively spun summation of trespassing encounter with defendant
Misrepresent highly questionable sources as “credible and prudent” (volunteers recently dismissed from minor roles with the non-profit org. run by the defendant due to issues involving their incompetent, manipulative, dishonest behavior)
In the execution of the search and seizure warrant, the officers:
Violated CT statute Chapter 959 Sec. 54-33c… “A copy of such warrant shall be given to the owner or occupant of the dwelling”…and….”Within forty-eight hours of such search, a copy of the application for the warrant and a copy of all affidavits upon which the warrant is based shall be given to such owner” (After 10 weeks, court motions, requests by letter, phone and fax, still awaiting majority of……)
Despite the absence of exigent circumstances, officials did not knock and announce, but rather attempted breaking down the front door to no avail. They (admittedly) gained entry breaking a (new) window.
violated CT statute Chapter 959 Sec. 54-36f. Receipt for seized property to be given by law enforcement officials. Whenever property is ...seized pursuant to a search warrant without an arrest, the law enforcement agency seizing such property shall give a receipt ….at the time of such seizure
seized personal financial documents and personal prescription medication not pertaining to the case
destroyed personal articles and damaged several areas of my home
coerced a city official into making false claims
Refused to allow me to match health records with the correct animal, so that the handicapped and those needing medication could receive proper care.
Following the seizure of my animals until present, the officers:
refuse to disclose the condition or location of my animals
will not disclose important information needed to properly prepare defense
shared private, detailed evidence about case with complainants (have reason to believe actively coached prior to official statements
CT Dept. of Agriculture practices
A state agency requiring closer scrutiny for unscrupulous activity is the CT Department of Agriculture. Years of zero accountability have culminated in a department fraught with negligence and incompetence, to say the least.
This agency’s Animal Control office has a history of harassment, deception, slander, manipulation, and gross negligence targeted against animal rescue organizations whom they label as ‘hoarders’ in order to justify their actions; all the while failing to address real cases of animal abuse. I am but one of many of their recent victims. I believe their overzealousness was fueled by revenge for my repeated complaints made about their lack of response in many reported severe animal abuse cases. Asserting my civil rights and refusal to take their abuse further exacerbated their invasion.
Due to Connecticut’s system of political patronage, this department lacks necessary accountability to any authority for their actions. The Governor’s office - supposedly concerned with fighting corruption, and the only authority this department is accountable to - is merely forwarding complaints to the very department under scrutiny! We have found references to similar complaints, and similar lack or action, dating back to the late 1980’s. Many persons and organizations have stated that they fear speaking out, due to possible retribution; some cite direct threats and/or odd, coincidental occurrences.
Is this how our taxpayer dollars should be spent? Salaries for individuals who waste funding on fruitless pursuits and execution of personal vendettas are not the only cost. Innocent animals executed, good Samaritans lives annihilated and deterioration of our moral standards are priceless commodities.
Following is a summary, including several Connecticut state statute violations. Upon request, additional detailed materials will be provided. Your assistance is essential in order to help prevent another gross miscarriage of justice, further waste of taxpayer money, and the suffering and torment of the animals at the hands of the very department responsible for their protection.
The officers, in the course of their investigation, clearly illustrate malfeasance by their:
* failure to substantiate validity of any statements made in complaints;
* blatant disregard for the totality of the circumstances, specifically all relevant evidence advantageous to defendant, no matter how credible;
* exclusively targeting defendant’s personal pets, despite complaint supposedly being related to pet adopted from the organization;
* complete and willful failure to examine or investigate pets at pet store or in custody of other organization members;
* demand for immediate release of confidential veterinary records by phone;
* complete and willful failure to pursue officially published “long standing policy of attempting to work with animal owners;”
* trespassing defendant’s property repeatedly without disclosure;
* demanding immediate entry inside defendant’s home for “mandatory” inspection;
* claiming any failure to comply with demands, no matter how unconstitutional or unreasonable, would be perceived as admission of guilt to indeterminate crime;
* unprofessional, inappropriate, disrespectful, threatening, manipulative, dishonest, cruel, and excessively forceful conduct toward defendant and her animals;
* threatening and executing severe, excessive retaliation for non-compliance;
* refusal to disclose the nature, cause, or source of the complaint, what law was violated, or any information in writing, (despite defendant’s repeated requests);
* refusal of defendant’s numerous good faith efforts to prove compliance with the law and establish open communication in an effort to resolve the issue in accordance with the law, in the best interest of the animals, and with respect for her civil rights;
* failure to interview much more credible and readily available sources; and
* failure to consider evidence (which they originally requested) submitted by primary care veterinarian detailing conditions of all animals (personal and org.)
-In the application for the search and seizure warrant, the officers,
(with the explicit intent to mislead the judge and defame the defendant:)
* neglected to mention their motivating factor for urgently obtaining the warrant was an effort to preempt primary care veterinarian’s disclosed upcoming house call visit;
* purposefully mislead-improperly cited complainants statements, implying they were factual information derived from firsthand knowledge rather than unsubstantiated hearsay (constituting the substance of the content in the application for warrant);
* purposefully omit any relevant evidence in defendant’s favor;
* creatively misrepresented summation of trespassing encounter with defendant;
* misrepresented highly questionable sources as “credible and prudent” (volunteers recently dismissed from minor roles with the non-profit org. run by the defendant due to issues involving their incompetent, manipulative, dishonest behavior).
-In the execution of the search and seizure warrant, the officers:
* violated CT statute Chapter 959 Sec. 54-33c… “A copy of such warrant shall be given to the owner or occupant of the dwelling”…and….”Within forty-eight hours of such search, a copy of the application for the warrant and a copy of all affidavits upon which the warrant is based shall be given to such owner” (After 10 weeks, court motions, requests by letter, phone and fax, we are still awaiting the majority of this information);
* despite the absence of exigent circumstances, officials did not knock and announce, but rather attempted breaking down the front door to no avail, then (admittedly) gained entry by breaking a new window;
* violated CT statute Chapter 959 Sec. 54-36f. Receipt for seized property to be given by law enforcement officials. “Whenever property is ...seized pursuant to a search warrant without an arrest, the law enforcement agency seizing such property shall give a receipt ...at the time of such seizure” ;
* seized personal and financial documents and personal prescription medication not pertaining to the case and not permitted by the warrant;
* destroyed personal articles and damaged several areas of defendant’s home;
* coerced a city official into making false claims; and
* thwarted defendant’s attempt to match health records with the correct animal (so that the handicapped and special needs animals could receive proper care.)
Following the seizure of the animals until present, the officers:
* refuse to disclose the condition or location of the animals;
* refuse to disclose information necessary to properly prepare defense;
* may have concealed or destroyed vital evidence in order to prejudice the case;
* shared private, detailed evidence about case with complainants (and may have actively coached them prior to official statements);
* have made multiple false and defamatory statements to the press about the case, in what can only be considered a smear campaign; and
* may have used illegally seized private information to damage defendant’s financial status.
In summary, the Connecticut State Animal Control Office of the Department of Agriculture has repeatedly denied me the right to face my accusers, the right to due process, the right to privacy, the right of free expression, the right to equal protection under the law, and the right to petition for redress of grievances. In addition, they have engaged in slander, conversion of private property, and the intentional infliction of emotional distress. Both I and others who would support me have been harassed, intimidated, and threatened into silence.
http://www.geocities.com/helpcatrescuer/index.html
This agency’s Animal Control office has a history of harassment, deception, slander, manipulation, and gross negligence targeted against animal rescue organizations whom they label as ‘hoarders’ in order to justify their actions; all the while failing to address real cases of animal abuse. I am but one of many of their recent victims. I believe their overzealousness was fueled by revenge for my repeated complaints made about their lack of response in many reported severe animal abuse cases. Asserting my civil rights and refusal to take their abuse further exacerbated their invasion.
Due to Connecticut’s system of political patronage, this department lacks necessary accountability to any authority for their actions. The Governor’s office - supposedly concerned with fighting corruption, and the only authority this department is accountable to - is merely forwarding complaints to the very department under scrutiny! We have found references to similar complaints, and similar lack or action, dating back to the late 1980’s. Many persons and organizations have stated that they fear speaking out, due to possible retribution; some cite direct threats and/or odd, coincidental occurrences.
Is this how our taxpayer dollars should be spent? Salaries for individuals who waste funding on fruitless pursuits and execution of personal vendettas are not the only cost. Innocent animals executed, good Samaritans lives annihilated and deterioration of our moral standards are priceless commodities.
Following is a summary, including several Connecticut state statute violations. Upon request, additional detailed materials will be provided. Your assistance is essential in order to help prevent another gross miscarriage of justice, further waste of taxpayer money, and the suffering and torment of the animals at the hands of the very department responsible for their protection.
The officers, in the course of their investigation, clearly illustrate malfeasance by their:
* failure to substantiate validity of any statements made in complaints;
* blatant disregard for the totality of the circumstances, specifically all relevant evidence advantageous to defendant, no matter how credible;
* exclusively targeting defendant’s personal pets, despite complaint supposedly being related to pet adopted from the organization;
* complete and willful failure to examine or investigate pets at pet store or in custody of other organization members;
* demand for immediate release of confidential veterinary records by phone;
* complete and willful failure to pursue officially published “long standing policy of attempting to work with animal owners;”
* trespassing defendant’s property repeatedly without disclosure;
* demanding immediate entry inside defendant’s home for “mandatory” inspection;
* claiming any failure to comply with demands, no matter how unconstitutional or unreasonable, would be perceived as admission of guilt to indeterminate crime;
* unprofessional, inappropriate, disrespectful, threatening, manipulative, dishonest, cruel, and excessively forceful conduct toward defendant and her animals;
* threatening and executing severe, excessive retaliation for non-compliance;
* refusal to disclose the nature, cause, or source of the complaint, what law was violated, or any information in writing, (despite defendant’s repeated requests);
* refusal of defendant’s numerous good faith efforts to prove compliance with the law and establish open communication in an effort to resolve the issue in accordance with the law, in the best interest of the animals, and with respect for her civil rights;
* failure to interview much more credible and readily available sources; and
* failure to consider evidence (which they originally requested) submitted by primary care veterinarian detailing conditions of all animals (personal and org.)
-In the application for the search and seizure warrant, the officers,
(with the explicit intent to mislead the judge and defame the defendant:)
* neglected to mention their motivating factor for urgently obtaining the warrant was an effort to preempt primary care veterinarian’s disclosed upcoming house call visit;
* purposefully mislead-improperly cited complainants statements, implying they were factual information derived from firsthand knowledge rather than unsubstantiated hearsay (constituting the substance of the content in the application for warrant);
* purposefully omit any relevant evidence in defendant’s favor;
* creatively misrepresented summation of trespassing encounter with defendant;
* misrepresented highly questionable sources as “credible and prudent” (volunteers recently dismissed from minor roles with the non-profit org. run by the defendant due to issues involving their incompetent, manipulative, dishonest behavior).
-In the execution of the search and seizure warrant, the officers:
* violated CT statute Chapter 959 Sec. 54-33c… “A copy of such warrant shall be given to the owner or occupant of the dwelling”…and….”Within forty-eight hours of such search, a copy of the application for the warrant and a copy of all affidavits upon which the warrant is based shall be given to such owner” (After 10 weeks, court motions, requests by letter, phone and fax, we are still awaiting the majority of this information);
* despite the absence of exigent circumstances, officials did not knock and announce, but rather attempted breaking down the front door to no avail, then (admittedly) gained entry by breaking a new window;
* violated CT statute Chapter 959 Sec. 54-36f. Receipt for seized property to be given by law enforcement officials. “Whenever property is ...seized pursuant to a search warrant without an arrest, the law enforcement agency seizing such property shall give a receipt ...at the time of such seizure” ;
* seized personal and financial documents and personal prescription medication not pertaining to the case and not permitted by the warrant;
* destroyed personal articles and damaged several areas of defendant’s home;
* coerced a city official into making false claims; and
* thwarted defendant’s attempt to match health records with the correct animal (so that the handicapped and special needs animals could receive proper care.)
Following the seizure of the animals until present, the officers:
* refuse to disclose the condition or location of the animals;
* refuse to disclose information necessary to properly prepare defense;
* may have concealed or destroyed vital evidence in order to prejudice the case;
* shared private, detailed evidence about case with complainants (and may have actively coached them prior to official statements);
* have made multiple false and defamatory statements to the press about the case, in what can only be considered a smear campaign; and
* may have used illegally seized private information to damage defendant’s financial status.
In summary, the Connecticut State Animal Control Office of the Department of Agriculture has repeatedly denied me the right to face my accusers, the right to due process, the right to privacy, the right of free expression, the right to equal protection under the law, and the right to petition for redress of grievances. In addition, they have engaged in slander, conversion of private property, and the intentional infliction of emotional distress. Both I and others who would support me have been harassed, intimidated, and threatened into silence.
http://www.geocities.com/helpcatrescuer/index.html
letter from Dr. Edward A. Dimmick, DVM
I am writing to request your assistance in addressing a case which I believe involves significant misconduct by public officials in violating the rights of a private citizen. Specifically, the matter involves Christine Koczur of Torrington and the conduct of the state Animal Control office, in particular the behavior of Officer Richard Gregan. Previous letters to Sen. Prague, Rep. Olson, and other officials have gone unanswered, and/or been handed to the Department of Agriculture to no constructive effect. The following is a summary of the significant events leading up to the raid on her home on February 15 of this year. I apologize for the length, but there are many points to cover.
For several years Christine has been taking in, caring for, and where possible adopting out homeless and unwanted animals in the Torrington area. She founded an organization called Alliance for Animal Rescue Society (AARS) to extend and promote these activities in coordination with foster homes and volunteers. In October of 2005, AARS received permission to work with the newly finished West Hartford PETCO by showing cats for adoption at the store; this required regular veterinary checkups be performed. As a mobile service veterinarian I have been examining and treating these cats; from October 7, 2005 through February 10, 2006 I made 13 visits to examine incoming and resident pets, administer vaccinations, run blood tests, and where necessary administer or prescribe medical treatment. All cats shown at the store have been vaccinated, tested for feline leukemia and FIV, de-wormed and treated for fleas; all relevant medical issues have been addressed as needed. At no time did PETCO receive any complaints or reports of problems from adoptive owners.
On February 9, 2006 Christine was visited at her home by Officer Richard Gregan and Officer Barbara Goodejohn from the Animal Control office of the Department of Agriculture. During this visit Officer Gregan demanded immediate entry to search her home, making threats when she failed to comply. Officer Gregan refused to state the nature of the problem despite numerous requests. Without going into too much detail here, suffice it to say that the behavior of Officer Gregan was sufficiently upsetting to make Christine physically ill. Based upon past experience with Officer Gregan and his behavior, it was immediately obvious to me that he was not interested in a peaceable solution, but was setting the stage for a raid and seizure.
On the afternoon of Friday, February 10, 2006 at 3:09 PM a message was left on my cellular phone from Officer Richard Gregan; the caller ID had been blocked to conceal the origin point of the call. Officer Gregan requested information about Christine’s personal veterinary records, without stating any reason for wanting this information. No mention was made of AARS or any specific complaint. Based upon consultation with the Connecticut Veterinary Medical Association and AVMA Code of Ethics, I determined that this information was covered by confidentiality rules. A letter to this effect was hand-delivered to the Department of Agriculture on Monday, February 13; as this was a state holiday the letter was given to the custody of the security detail who took it to Gregan’s desk. At 9:34 AM on Tuesday, February 14, Officer Goodejohn left a message on my office line that she had an ‘urgent’ matter to discuss. At 9:41 AM I called the number given, at which point she handed the phone, without warning, to Officer Gregan. Officer Gregan demanded information and refused to discuss the letter he had been given, claiming he had the right to any information he wanted on demand.
Officer Gregan was informed that I would be able to examine the cats and the premises with Christine’s consent, and that he could receive a written report of any deficiencies noted. He demanded to know when this would occur so that he could be present to ‘supervise’ my inspection; he was told that he would not be welcome due to his previous behavior and known history. He threatened to have me arrested and have my license revoked if I ‘interfered’ in state cases. He also expressed a specific intent to resolve the case by raid and seizure rather than by cooperation of any kind. I believe that Officer Gregan artificially accelerated the obtaining of the search warrant in an attempt to preclude actions which might serve in Ms. Koczur’s defense.
Officer Gregan claimed that the case stemmed from a kitten which had been adopted from AARS at PETCO and later died of FIP. He refused to provide any details; and when engaged on specific facts, he claimed to understand the disease better than I do. It must be stressed that at this point in time no mention of such an event had been made to Christine or to the PETCO; that Animal Control had made no effort to contact PETCO or investigate the matter through AARS; and that Officer Gregan had repeatedly refused to reveal the nature of the complaint to anyone else. There was no attempt made, and no opportunity provided, for any party to address the incident and pursue a non-confrontational resolution. The fact that Animal Control has not made any inquiries into the cats at PETCO indicates that this action was targeted specifically at Christine, and had no relationship whatsoever to her adoption activities.
On the afternoon of February 14, 2006 I made an extended visit (over 5½ hours) to Christine’s home, which included the examination and vaccination of numerous cats, a review of her veterinary records, and an inspection of the premises. At least 30 cats were given physical exams and all were visually inspected; all but one appeared to be well-fed, clean, and well cared for; all have been spayed or neutered and all have been vaccinated at some point. Only a single cat seemed to be in less than good health, an older cat who had been losing weight; this cat already had an appointment for further examination. It is true that some cats were overdue for vaccination and some showed mild but treatable conditions such as ear mites. Some older cats also had dental problems, a virtually universal condition among senior pets. While the house was very cluttered, I found no evidence of unsanitary conditions threatening human or animal health; all food and water dishes were clean and kept full, litter boxes were cleaned regularly and there was no offensive odor. The claims of odor, filth, and inadequate feeding, made under oath by Officer Gregan, were clearly not true. No fleas were seen during the entire visit; while the presence of a few could have gone unnoticed, claims of severe infestation are clearly false.
If such conditions are going to be considered ‘neglect’ sufficient to justify raids and seizure, then roughly 500,000 pet owners in the state are at risk. To reiterate: As an animal care professional, I did not find evidence of neglect, and Ms. Koczur was able and willing to address all issues found. The standard for animal care is not perfection, nor excellence, but adequacy (CGS 53-247(a), and Ms. Koczur met that standard. On the morning of Wednesday, February 15, 2006 a notarized letter to Officer Gregan was prepared summarizing my findings. Before this could be delivered, Officer Gregan had already served a search and seizure warrant at Christine’s home and was in the progress of taking her cats and personal papers. Officer Gregan was handed the notarized letter; he refused copies of rabies certificates offered to him.
Some issues surrounding this event are detailed below, but in summary: Officer Gregan willfully failed to follow the law and due process, refused to recognize or respect Christine’s rights and personal dignity, took items not authorized in the warrant, intentionally caused cats to suffer needless stress and trauma, was seen handling cats roughly, may have concealed or destroyed evidence, and appears to have vandalized the house. He refused to permit any observation or recording of his actions, and threatened persons with arrest for attempting to assist or assert Christine’s rights under the law. The treatment of Ms. Koczur by the officers, specifically Officer Gregan and the Torrington ACO, was consistently rude, arrogant, abusive, condescending, and at times threatening. In addition to unprofessional behavior, there were specific and egregious violations of her civil rights, her personal dignity, and the lawful requirements of official procedure. Ms. Koczur was not given adequate time to read the warrant before her house was stormed. When I asked the Torrington ACO about this, his response was that I was not an attorney and therefore had no right to ask such questions. He also said to Ms. Koczur, “If you can’t understand it that’s not my problem.” There is no excuse for such condescension from a public official. Both the Torrington ACO and Officer Gregan repeatedly gave this kind of response any time Christine attempted to assert her rights, claiming that she had no legal knowledge of her rights and therefore they were not required to respond. Officer Gregan threatened to arrest her for claiming her legal rights under the law.
The copy of the warrant given to Christine, and it does not state the “grounds or probable cause for its issuance” as required by CGS 54-33a(c). Either the warrant is incomplete to begin with, or she was intentionally given an incomplete copy. Christine asked repeatedly for a detailed receipt of all items taken, as specified in CGS 54-36f. She was told by Officer Gregan that she had no such right; the Torrington ACO said she would get a receipt ‘if and when we feel like it.’ Again, not only is this a direct violation of her rights, but an inexcusable display of unprofessional behavior by public officials.
It is worth noting that some of the local Animal Control officers called in to assist were considerably more professional and – perhaps not coincidentally – showed far greater care and gentleness in the actual handling of the cats. Christine offered to help identify the cats and match their medical records, which was initially accepted by the assisting ACO; Officer Gregan ripped the records from Christine’s hand, threatened her with arrest and ordered her out of the house.
Since the raid the state has conducted a smear campaign against Christine, relating false and defamatory statements about the case to the press for the sole purpose of causing her further humiliation. For example, Officer Gregan stated on the record that the house had an ‘overwhelming’ odor. I was there for over 5 hours, and found no such problem. It has been published in newspaper that Christine had ‘flea nests’ in her hair, a sensationalist claim which is not merely untrue but medically impossible. This constitutes outright slander. The state has willfully refused to follow the law or proper procedure in pursuing the case, including repeated failure to hand over documents required by law and essential to Christine’s defense in a timely manner. We have reason to believe Officer Gregan has been using illegally seized personal papers to damage Christine’s financial status and to cause the cancellation of her insurance; coaching witnesses; altering or fabricating documents; and has concealed or destroyed evidence. Information about the cats is leaked to the public but kept from Christine. There are discrepancies and falsehoods in documents produced by Officer Gregan and the state.
There is reason to believe that Christine is being persecuted and prosecuted as a political favor to Joel Gordes, who sits on the state’s Energy Conservation Management Board. Mr. Gordes’ wife adopted the kitten who later died, and some evidence suggests that her note to Officer Gregan is what started this entire case. The fact remains that Mr. & Mrs. Gordes never made any attempt to resolve his complaint by the means that ordinary people would use. Officer Gregan made no attempt either to fully and properly investigate the case, or to reach a cooperative arrangement as is the published policy of the Department of Agriculture.
Based upon this and past incidents of similar nature, I believe that there is a systematic pattern of abuse of power and willful failure to follow the law by Officer Gregan and other persons at the Animal Control Division. Based upon past encounters and communication with Officer Gregan, I find him to be one of the rudest, most arrogant, and quite frankly malicious people I have ever met. He demonstrates, in my considered opinion, the approximate reasoning ability and emotional maturity of a high school bully.
On a previous occasion I called Animal Control to ask about standards of care in order to provide counsel to my clients. I specifically asked for Dr. Bruce Sherman; instead, Officer Gregan picked up the phone, identifying himself with, “This is Bruce;” he proceeded to maintain that pretense for the remainder of a 25-minute conversation, twice referring to himself as a ‘fellow veterinary professional.’ During the conversation in question and at other times he has made the following comments: that his ability to evaluate animal health exceeds that of a veterinarian; that he believes actions of his office are exempt from public scrutiny; that he is free to judge the condition of animal care on an entirely arbitrary basis following nothing but his personal whims of the moment; and that all private rescuers are actually ‘hoarders’ whom he appears to view as criminals on the level of drug dealers and child molesters. It is impossible to attempt any form of reason with Officer Gregan, as he seems incapable of any form of discussion beyond the endless repetition of previous statements, usually those centered around his assumption of absolute and infallible authority.
An item posted at the Department of Agriculture website dated Jan 30 and inexplicably removed Feb 13 (copy attached), reads as a statement of policy that the Department plans to conduct a concerted effort to find and raid those they identify as ‘hoarders.’ I should point out that, having studied with the nation’s leading authority on the hoarding phenomenon, I believe the DoA and Officer Gregan have a false and simplistic view of the issue. Even where hoarding occurs, raid and seizure – absent ‘long-term and comprehensive’ action - is not appropriate. By contrast, the Department has shown little interest in pursuing more significant offenders such as dog fighters who might require such an aggressive approach.
More chilling, at least twice in recent years Officer Gregan and others from the Animal Control Division have attempted to get legislation passed which would allow them to enter and ‘inspect’ private homes without a warrant, based solely on their own discretion. At a time when even the civil rights of terrorists are a public concern, this proposal is absolutely indefensible.
It is my considered impression that Officer Gregan and the Animal Control office are not interested in any approach except raiding homes and seizing animals, inflicting emotional distress on their targets and terrorizing other rescuers. At this time several of my clients have stated that they are afraid to speak out on this matter for fear they will be targeted and raided next; given past events, their fears are justified. American citizens should not have to live in fear of having their house raided by an unchecked agency based upon anonymous denunciations.
I believe the cause of the problem is that due to Connecticut’s system of political patronage, this department lacks necessary accountability to any authority for their actions. The Governor’s office - supposedly concerned with fighting corruption, and the only authority this department is accountable to – does nothing but forward complaints to the very department under scrutiny. Clearly, the Governor is not interested in doing anything except sweeping the problem under the rug. If ethics in government is to be a real issue in Connecticut, it has to include more than questions of where someone got an invitation to a fundraising dinner.
http://www.geocities.com/stop_corruption_now/please_help_us.html
For several years Christine has been taking in, caring for, and where possible adopting out homeless and unwanted animals in the Torrington area. She founded an organization called Alliance for Animal Rescue Society (AARS) to extend and promote these activities in coordination with foster homes and volunteers. In October of 2005, AARS received permission to work with the newly finished West Hartford PETCO by showing cats for adoption at the store; this required regular veterinary checkups be performed. As a mobile service veterinarian I have been examining and treating these cats; from October 7, 2005 through February 10, 2006 I made 13 visits to examine incoming and resident pets, administer vaccinations, run blood tests, and where necessary administer or prescribe medical treatment. All cats shown at the store have been vaccinated, tested for feline leukemia and FIV, de-wormed and treated for fleas; all relevant medical issues have been addressed as needed. At no time did PETCO receive any complaints or reports of problems from adoptive owners.
On February 9, 2006 Christine was visited at her home by Officer Richard Gregan and Officer Barbara Goodejohn from the Animal Control office of the Department of Agriculture. During this visit Officer Gregan demanded immediate entry to search her home, making threats when she failed to comply. Officer Gregan refused to state the nature of the problem despite numerous requests. Without going into too much detail here, suffice it to say that the behavior of Officer Gregan was sufficiently upsetting to make Christine physically ill. Based upon past experience with Officer Gregan and his behavior, it was immediately obvious to me that he was not interested in a peaceable solution, but was setting the stage for a raid and seizure.
On the afternoon of Friday, February 10, 2006 at 3:09 PM a message was left on my cellular phone from Officer Richard Gregan; the caller ID had been blocked to conceal the origin point of the call. Officer Gregan requested information about Christine’s personal veterinary records, without stating any reason for wanting this information. No mention was made of AARS or any specific complaint. Based upon consultation with the Connecticut Veterinary Medical Association and AVMA Code of Ethics, I determined that this information was covered by confidentiality rules. A letter to this effect was hand-delivered to the Department of Agriculture on Monday, February 13; as this was a state holiday the letter was given to the custody of the security detail who took it to Gregan’s desk. At 9:34 AM on Tuesday, February 14, Officer Goodejohn left a message on my office line that she had an ‘urgent’ matter to discuss. At 9:41 AM I called the number given, at which point she handed the phone, without warning, to Officer Gregan. Officer Gregan demanded information and refused to discuss the letter he had been given, claiming he had the right to any information he wanted on demand.
Officer Gregan was informed that I would be able to examine the cats and the premises with Christine’s consent, and that he could receive a written report of any deficiencies noted. He demanded to know when this would occur so that he could be present to ‘supervise’ my inspection; he was told that he would not be welcome due to his previous behavior and known history. He threatened to have me arrested and have my license revoked if I ‘interfered’ in state cases. He also expressed a specific intent to resolve the case by raid and seizure rather than by cooperation of any kind. I believe that Officer Gregan artificially accelerated the obtaining of the search warrant in an attempt to preclude actions which might serve in Ms. Koczur’s defense.
Officer Gregan claimed that the case stemmed from a kitten which had been adopted from AARS at PETCO and later died of FIP. He refused to provide any details; and when engaged on specific facts, he claimed to understand the disease better than I do. It must be stressed that at this point in time no mention of such an event had been made to Christine or to the PETCO; that Animal Control had made no effort to contact PETCO or investigate the matter through AARS; and that Officer Gregan had repeatedly refused to reveal the nature of the complaint to anyone else. There was no attempt made, and no opportunity provided, for any party to address the incident and pursue a non-confrontational resolution. The fact that Animal Control has not made any inquiries into the cats at PETCO indicates that this action was targeted specifically at Christine, and had no relationship whatsoever to her adoption activities.
On the afternoon of February 14, 2006 I made an extended visit (over 5½ hours) to Christine’s home, which included the examination and vaccination of numerous cats, a review of her veterinary records, and an inspection of the premises. At least 30 cats were given physical exams and all were visually inspected; all but one appeared to be well-fed, clean, and well cared for; all have been spayed or neutered and all have been vaccinated at some point. Only a single cat seemed to be in less than good health, an older cat who had been losing weight; this cat already had an appointment for further examination. It is true that some cats were overdue for vaccination and some showed mild but treatable conditions such as ear mites. Some older cats also had dental problems, a virtually universal condition among senior pets. While the house was very cluttered, I found no evidence of unsanitary conditions threatening human or animal health; all food and water dishes were clean and kept full, litter boxes were cleaned regularly and there was no offensive odor. The claims of odor, filth, and inadequate feeding, made under oath by Officer Gregan, were clearly not true. No fleas were seen during the entire visit; while the presence of a few could have gone unnoticed, claims of severe infestation are clearly false.
If such conditions are going to be considered ‘neglect’ sufficient to justify raids and seizure, then roughly 500,000 pet owners in the state are at risk. To reiterate: As an animal care professional, I did not find evidence of neglect, and Ms. Koczur was able and willing to address all issues found. The standard for animal care is not perfection, nor excellence, but adequacy (CGS 53-247(a), and Ms. Koczur met that standard. On the morning of Wednesday, February 15, 2006 a notarized letter to Officer Gregan was prepared summarizing my findings. Before this could be delivered, Officer Gregan had already served a search and seizure warrant at Christine’s home and was in the progress of taking her cats and personal papers. Officer Gregan was handed the notarized letter; he refused copies of rabies certificates offered to him.
Some issues surrounding this event are detailed below, but in summary: Officer Gregan willfully failed to follow the law and due process, refused to recognize or respect Christine’s rights and personal dignity, took items not authorized in the warrant, intentionally caused cats to suffer needless stress and trauma, was seen handling cats roughly, may have concealed or destroyed evidence, and appears to have vandalized the house. He refused to permit any observation or recording of his actions, and threatened persons with arrest for attempting to assist or assert Christine’s rights under the law. The treatment of Ms. Koczur by the officers, specifically Officer Gregan and the Torrington ACO, was consistently rude, arrogant, abusive, condescending, and at times threatening. In addition to unprofessional behavior, there were specific and egregious violations of her civil rights, her personal dignity, and the lawful requirements of official procedure. Ms. Koczur was not given adequate time to read the warrant before her house was stormed. When I asked the Torrington ACO about this, his response was that I was not an attorney and therefore had no right to ask such questions. He also said to Ms. Koczur, “If you can’t understand it that’s not my problem.” There is no excuse for such condescension from a public official. Both the Torrington ACO and Officer Gregan repeatedly gave this kind of response any time Christine attempted to assert her rights, claiming that she had no legal knowledge of her rights and therefore they were not required to respond. Officer Gregan threatened to arrest her for claiming her legal rights under the law.
The copy of the warrant given to Christine, and it does not state the “grounds or probable cause for its issuance” as required by CGS 54-33a(c). Either the warrant is incomplete to begin with, or she was intentionally given an incomplete copy. Christine asked repeatedly for a detailed receipt of all items taken, as specified in CGS 54-36f. She was told by Officer Gregan that she had no such right; the Torrington ACO said she would get a receipt ‘if and when we feel like it.’ Again, not only is this a direct violation of her rights, but an inexcusable display of unprofessional behavior by public officials.
It is worth noting that some of the local Animal Control officers called in to assist were considerably more professional and – perhaps not coincidentally – showed far greater care and gentleness in the actual handling of the cats. Christine offered to help identify the cats and match their medical records, which was initially accepted by the assisting ACO; Officer Gregan ripped the records from Christine’s hand, threatened her with arrest and ordered her out of the house.
Since the raid the state has conducted a smear campaign against Christine, relating false and defamatory statements about the case to the press for the sole purpose of causing her further humiliation. For example, Officer Gregan stated on the record that the house had an ‘overwhelming’ odor. I was there for over 5 hours, and found no such problem. It has been published in newspaper that Christine had ‘flea nests’ in her hair, a sensationalist claim which is not merely untrue but medically impossible. This constitutes outright slander. The state has willfully refused to follow the law or proper procedure in pursuing the case, including repeated failure to hand over documents required by law and essential to Christine’s defense in a timely manner. We have reason to believe Officer Gregan has been using illegally seized personal papers to damage Christine’s financial status and to cause the cancellation of her insurance; coaching witnesses; altering or fabricating documents; and has concealed or destroyed evidence. Information about the cats is leaked to the public but kept from Christine. There are discrepancies and falsehoods in documents produced by Officer Gregan and the state.
There is reason to believe that Christine is being persecuted and prosecuted as a political favor to Joel Gordes, who sits on the state’s Energy Conservation Management Board. Mr. Gordes’ wife adopted the kitten who later died, and some evidence suggests that her note to Officer Gregan is what started this entire case. The fact remains that Mr. & Mrs. Gordes never made any attempt to resolve his complaint by the means that ordinary people would use. Officer Gregan made no attempt either to fully and properly investigate the case, or to reach a cooperative arrangement as is the published policy of the Department of Agriculture.
Based upon this and past incidents of similar nature, I believe that there is a systematic pattern of abuse of power and willful failure to follow the law by Officer Gregan and other persons at the Animal Control Division. Based upon past encounters and communication with Officer Gregan, I find him to be one of the rudest, most arrogant, and quite frankly malicious people I have ever met. He demonstrates, in my considered opinion, the approximate reasoning ability and emotional maturity of a high school bully.
On a previous occasion I called Animal Control to ask about standards of care in order to provide counsel to my clients. I specifically asked for Dr. Bruce Sherman; instead, Officer Gregan picked up the phone, identifying himself with, “This is Bruce;” he proceeded to maintain that pretense for the remainder of a 25-minute conversation, twice referring to himself as a ‘fellow veterinary professional.’ During the conversation in question and at other times he has made the following comments: that his ability to evaluate animal health exceeds that of a veterinarian; that he believes actions of his office are exempt from public scrutiny; that he is free to judge the condition of animal care on an entirely arbitrary basis following nothing but his personal whims of the moment; and that all private rescuers are actually ‘hoarders’ whom he appears to view as criminals on the level of drug dealers and child molesters. It is impossible to attempt any form of reason with Officer Gregan, as he seems incapable of any form of discussion beyond the endless repetition of previous statements, usually those centered around his assumption of absolute and infallible authority.
An item posted at the Department of Agriculture website dated Jan 30 and inexplicably removed Feb 13 (copy attached), reads as a statement of policy that the Department plans to conduct a concerted effort to find and raid those they identify as ‘hoarders.’ I should point out that, having studied with the nation’s leading authority on the hoarding phenomenon, I believe the DoA and Officer Gregan have a false and simplistic view of the issue. Even where hoarding occurs, raid and seizure – absent ‘long-term and comprehensive’ action - is not appropriate. By contrast, the Department has shown little interest in pursuing more significant offenders such as dog fighters who might require such an aggressive approach.
More chilling, at least twice in recent years Officer Gregan and others from the Animal Control Division have attempted to get legislation passed which would allow them to enter and ‘inspect’ private homes without a warrant, based solely on their own discretion. At a time when even the civil rights of terrorists are a public concern, this proposal is absolutely indefensible.
It is my considered impression that Officer Gregan and the Animal Control office are not interested in any approach except raiding homes and seizing animals, inflicting emotional distress on their targets and terrorizing other rescuers. At this time several of my clients have stated that they are afraid to speak out on this matter for fear they will be targeted and raided next; given past events, their fears are justified. American citizens should not have to live in fear of having their house raided by an unchecked agency based upon anonymous denunciations.
I believe the cause of the problem is that due to Connecticut’s system of political patronage, this department lacks necessary accountability to any authority for their actions. The Governor’s office - supposedly concerned with fighting corruption, and the only authority this department is accountable to – does nothing but forward complaints to the very department under scrutiny. Clearly, the Governor is not interested in doing anything except sweeping the problem under the rug. If ethics in government is to be a real issue in Connecticut, it has to include more than questions of where someone got an invitation to a fundraising dinner.
http://www.geocities.com/stop_corruption_now/please_help_us.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
