Pets.ca - Pet forum for dogs cats and humans 

-->

Negative Email from a Laywer

pitbulliest
March 15th, 2006, 12:41 PM
Hi guys. Just thought I'd share the email that I received from some lawyer regarding my pitbullproject website. This is what he wrote:

As a lawyer with 33 years at the Ontario Bar, I am disturbed that lawyer Clayton Ruby would want to endanger the public by pursing an effort to overturn laws deemed needed by Ontario's democratically-elected Legislature to protect the public.

I have narrowly escaped serious injury by these very vicious dogs in the City of Toronto on 2 occasions.

I support the ban on these dangerous dogs that have maimed so many people and so many children.

------------------
And here is my response to his email:

Dear Mr. Evans:

That is your opinion and you have a right to it. But I ask that before you make an uneducated opinion based on your passionate feelings due to unfortunate events that have occured in your past, I strongly suggest that you look at the other side of the argument and do your research. I strongly sympathize with attack victims, but at the same time, it is unfair to base laws on opinions rather than facts. As a lawyer, I am sure that you will agree with me.
Fortunately, we do have a very well known and excellent lawyer working for us in order to fight this unjust and ignorant law in the supreme court of Canada.

Banning has proven over and over again NOT to protect the public from dog attacks. In Winnipeg, since pit bulls were banned, german shephard attacks have gone up dramatically. Just recently, as I am sure you know, Ohio has overturned its decision to ban certain breeds; they realized it was unconstitutional.

Banning one breed does not always just stop there either. Italy has over 100 dog breeds banned, including the Corgi (a dog which is owned by the Queen herself).

If I were to explain and use facts to help enlighten you about the nonsense of banning a specific breed of dog, I would have to write a book. However, I do hope that you have managed to take a look at my website and read some of the articles and links that are provided about pit bulls and about breed specific legislation. There are also some links and a great book recommendations on my site that talks about the bias of statistics and how very important facts are omitted: was the dog raised in a stable environment, was it chained, was it spayed/neutered, was it male/female, how many homes did it go through, was it abused, was it unsocialized by its owner, etc etc etc.....these are all important facts that are omitted when submitting reports for statistical use, and facts that make a world of difference. Furthermore, dogs are very often misidentified - victims or a police officer is usually the one left to GUESS what kind of dog was responsible for the attack. Let me show you how incredibly easy it is to misidentify a breed:

http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/findpit.html

There is a great deal of information about Bill 132, and a great deal of professional organizations and individuals (of which Michael Bryant refused to listen to) that completely disagree with banning dogs, including the Veterinary Association of Ontario, the Canadian Kennel Club, the Ontario Health and Safety Board, the Control for Diseases, all Humane Societies across Canada, the Dog Legislation Council, and yes, even an individual that had her daughter, Courtney, mauled by NOT A PIT BULL, but a mastiff.

If politicians believe that banning pit bulls will make communities safer, than maybe they should ask the victims of doberman, german shephard, labrador, golden retriever, chow chow, great dane, mastiff, etc attacks if they will feel any safer. And yes, there are plenty of attacks by these dogs yearly. However, the media does not bother covering them as they are simply not as eye catching as "Evil Pit Bull Mauls Baby".... Irresponsible individuals that breed their dogs for guarding and attacking and fighting are the ones that need to be punished, not the dogs and responsible individuals. Any dog can be made into a monster if put into the wrong hands. Pit bulls were bred to be extremely human friendly and dedicated to people - not vice versa as many of the politicians would like you to believe. Pit bulls are one of the most popular breeds in North America, but also the most abused. I highly recommend that you watch the video "Off the Chain" (There is a link provided on my site). It shows how these dogs are faced with terrrible abuse and neglect and exploitation. It is very heartbreaking - it is these individuals that should be paying for their crimes. They are the monsters, yet nobody bothers to do anything about them.

I am very glad that there are lawyers out there like Clayton Ruby that are fighting for the rights of individuals that are being wrongly targetted. Breed specific legislation is a form of discrimination. I just wish there were more laywers like him, which is why I am studying very hard to become a lawyer myself, so that in the future I can take interest in similar cases. Thankfully, there are states and provinces in North America that are realizing the faults of BSL and looking towards smarter alternatives. I wish Michael Bryant would have listened to all the professionals that gave him such excellent suggestions. Unfortunately, politicians are interested in their political agenda and making themselves to look the heroes. I am currently an undergraduate student studying a major in political science and am writing about the political strategies used by actors in order to "get things to go their way"...if you are interested, I would be glad to pass along my essay as soon as I am finished.

Thank you for your email, and I hope you do some more research in order to better educate yourself on this issue and on pit bulls. Punish the deed, not the breed. Have yourself a good day.

Sincerely,
Violet

Luvmypit
March 15th, 2006, 02:46 PM
WOOO girl. That was goooood! I think you should post the emails and letters you get and the responses you send to them.

You did great, you were no confrontational nor condescending using facts and pointing to the fact that often laws like this are made on emotion.

I am so proud!

jesse's mommy
March 15th, 2006, 02:58 PM
Woo Hoo -- Rock On!! You go girl! :thumbs up

chico2
March 15th, 2006, 04:13 PM
Pitbulliest,watching the news last night I saw Clayton Ruby and was a little confused hearing him say,his client was a woman fighting to breed her pit-bull.
I thought he was representing more than one pit-bull owner and was mainly fighting BSL,not one specific owner who wants the right to breed:confused:

twodogsandacat
March 15th, 2006, 04:43 PM
There are those who will oppose any challenge to the law, especially those who have been attacked by a put bull. A girl I know who received over two hundred stitches from a shepherd attack thinks the law is stupid,,,, because she thinks shepherds are the worst dogs out there. Don’t try and change the minds of those who have been attacked....it's really hard to do.

However his argument lends support to the cause when he said: overturn laws deemed needed by Ontario's democratically-elected Legislature to protect the public

It is because we are a democracy that we can challenge laws that are unfair and biased.

“Thank you for your support in the exercising of our legal rights to challenge undemocratic laws.”

Schwinn
March 15th, 2006, 05:13 PM
Good answer!

Oh, and the fact that he says he's a lawyer with 33 years of experience...yea...

If he says it in an e-mail, it must be true. Sounds to me like an idiot with a stupid argument trying to fake credentials to back it up. I'd be more disturbed that a lawyer with 33 years of experience can't comprehend the unconstitutional basis of the law, regardless of his personal position. Lawyers are supposed to judge based on the fact of the law, regardless of the underlying motives. Either this guys a bad lawyer, or a big stinky liar.

Your response was probabably much better than mine...

"I'm a psychiatrist with 100 years of experience, and you're an idiot". (Okay, I probabably would be a LOT more diplomatic, but I think you see my point...)

If you do a google for his name, I'd be willing to bet that either you won't find him at any law firm, or that, upon further research, he also either did a google for local lawyers, or opened the phone book.

At any rate, kudos to you!

seeker
March 15th, 2006, 05:37 PM
33 years as a custodian at the local Points office doesn't count LOL
Great response Violet !

BullLover
March 15th, 2006, 07:33 PM
Nice job V!!

babyrocky1
March 15th, 2006, 08:38 PM
Thats a great letter Vi, good practice for your essay Im sure, how did you find this loser???? Oh I aee, he found you....I wonder if he is the lawyer that tried to volunteer for the government during the Pit Bull Hearings. Evans is his name. Im going to check it out.

CyberKitten
March 15th, 2006, 09:42 PM
I so agree with Schwinn - when ppl start out their emails or communication of any kind listing their alledged expertise and number of yrs in the profession (which in this case has NOTHING to do with the issue), it makes me wonder about their competence and ability. Even if he had noted that he had worked in the area of animals rights legislation and advocacy (which is likely the opposite reading his rather short communication), it would not be meaningful unless he could state some work that had accomplished something - like the lifting of a ban.

He gives himself away by pointing to his personal experience. One of the first lessons at law school or even in social work or any area where one works with people, we are instructed not to use personal experience. It may work in melodramatic trials by lawyers who are good at thar kind of advocacy but usually even there, the lawyer cites OTHER cases and precedents, not his own.

I like your letter tho if I had to change one thing, it would be the reference to the Queen. I would just say many prominant people own corgis including Queen Elizabeth (I am careful about mentioning the monarchy because it can be a controversial issue with some ppl where I live - people are either total monarchists or else the very idea of that office aggrevates them )I always check to see who the person is when referencing a person in a letter/brief/etc but it may not matter given that this person has already has his mind made up and presumes that his profession will impress you - has he not heard all those lawyer jokes, lol? Maybe you should leave it in and hope he is an anti monarchist and aggrevate him some more, lol

On a side note, the immediate former speaker of the New Brunswick Legislature has three corgis (He is TOTAL monarchist and was a history teacher before reitirement and being re- elected to the egislature). He brings the dogs to work and they are well mannered and behaved and just great dogs!!! (Needless to say, had that ill prepared idea advanced by an opposition MLA made it as far as the Legislature floor (It was only ever debated in committee) and had the vote been a tie, the dogs would have won, lol

(I wish I could find pix of him and his corgis - they are wonderful ambassadors for their breed).

I am glad you took the time to write him in a manner that did not lecture but managed to educate him and forward the significant issues at the same time. Bravo! :thumbs up

Watchdog
March 21st, 2006, 09:54 AM
Its hard to believe that with all the education to become a lawyer and 33 years experience that this guy is so narrow and simple minded.Perhaps he would have better success being a member of the Mcguinty liberals.He sounds like the perfect candidate. Im sure they would love to have him on their team of trained seals.

mastifflover
March 21st, 2006, 12:56 PM
Great response you go Violet you were brilliant. Just because someone is intelligent it does not make them socially smart. We see it everyday in our lives. I have a cousin she is a genius but carry on a conversation about anything that does not involve her education you might as well be talking to a wall. Socially a misfit.

Cymba's friend
March 21st, 2006, 02:00 PM
I found it strange that a lawyer with 33 years experience would be so simple minded, and would direct his position based on a very personal (and unfortunate) experience. Banning a breed (and I admit I know little or nothing about Pitbulls) would be like banning all teenagers from the country, because a few of them comitted a crime, beat up an old lady, or pushed drugs. I assume that pitbulls are subject to good or bad breeding and training like many other breeds. I have a German Shepherd and they also sometimes get a bad reputation. Good response!

LM1313
March 27th, 2006, 02:23 AM
I found it strange that a lawyer with 33 years experience would be so simple minded, and would direct his position based on a very personal (and unfortunate) experience.

You'd be surprised . . . Our city has been plagued with a council member who's been a lawyer for 40+ years and he is just nuts. I think he must be bipolar or something . . . He tries to sue everyone, thinks everyone's against him, etc.

Oh, oh, I just googled and came up with a great example! This is him in action:

Spokane, Wash., City Councilman Steve Eugster is suing The Spokesman-Review over articles published about a lawsuit he filed against a county commissioner. But what's so unusual about this case is that Eugster is also suing readers who commented about the articles in eight messages posted on the newspaper's Internet site and one letter to the editor that was published, according to The Associated Press.

Yes, that's right . . . first he tried to sue the newspaper for printing news, then he tried to sue the public for commenting on the news. Of course it was tossed out of court and he got fined because the judge said it was a frivolous lawsuit.

So there you have it . . . Just like every profession, some lawyers are just stupid. ;)

~LM~