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
