Pets.ca - Pet forum for dogs cats and humans 

-->

Legal dogfight saves Rusty, logan Council.

tybrax
October 25th, 2006, 09:14 PM
D P), Expert witness and Animal Control Officer/Trainer breed identification.
Dino Da Fre Vs Logan City Council, 1st and 2nd of March 2006, Magistrate Cornack.

(“D P)and the 22 point checklist; was she trained and how many times can she lie before she gets caught out”).

Page 23, Line 36, Stephen Fynes-Clinton, Barrister Questioning

I mean and maybe not just on paper, because we’re taught to use that point system in a different way but I’m not quite sure what he thinks is absent from the checklist

Page 40, Line 3, Stephen Fynes-Clinton, Barrister Questioning

The same thing we’ve done or the only difference is we’re trained to – to do it and trained to put on the point system and – and she isn’t.

(‘This is where she tries to blame anyone else but herself, who invented the 22 point checklist”),

Page 46, Line 16, Stephen Fynes-Clinton, Barrister Questioning

With respect to the actual document itself, this 22 point check list, do you know who was the person responsible for creating that document? I mean, who was the author of that document?---- Oh, that was – would have been members of SEQROC working committee so it would have been people from councils all over South East Queensland. It – it doesn’t belong to one person, it wasn’t created by one person. It was created by a team of people.

Page 77, Line 29, Stephen Fynes-Clinton, Barrister Questioning

All right. Let’s just stop there. So what you’re – so what you’re now saying to the Court is that you now recall that the 22 point test was developed by a working party of some sort?---Yes, I’m pretty sure I said that before.

And you were part of that working party?.---I was.

Right. Who were the other parties on that working party? -- Members from other councils. As to their names, I could probably get that information for you but I just ---and---and fairly quickly--- but I----I just can’t recall who was actually involved in that working commitment----- Do you believe that they were---sorry?----Working party.
But do you believe that they were employed officers of other councils, members of staff of other councils? -- I think so, yeah. I do think so. I wouldn’t like to say I’m 100 per cent sure but I do ----do think so.

(Who trained D P to use the 22 point checklist?)

Page 67, Line 52, Bench Questioning.

Bench: I don’t think that’s the question. How did you learn to use the 22 point scale? Who trained you to do that? -- There’s no training for exactly-----the 22 point system, the training is for the breed standards.

So, you didn’t get any specific training? -- Not on the 22 point system, no.

Page 68, Line 14, Stephen Fynes-Clinton, Barrister Questioning

What training have you done, if any, where a person put in front of you a 22 point system check list and explained to you how it was developed and how to use it?---None.

Page 84, Line 45, Stephen Fynes-Clinton, Barrister Questioning

Well, we’re here about breed identification ----?----Yeah.
-------so let’s limit it to that. So, it’s true then, isn’t it, that you have never been trained by anybody in the theory methodology or application of the 22 point test?.-----I don’t see it that way, but--------- Well, who’s trained you, when and where, please?------I’ve been----not in the -----okay, to the letter of what you’re saying, no I agree with you, I agree with you.

Is there something else you want to say, feel free to say it?-----No, no, I’ve------no, I don’t want to confuse anybody. To the answer to your question in the 22 point system, the answer no.

You’re self taught?-----No, not really.

Right, so who’s taught you about the 22 point system?------This is really difficult, like------Well, it shouldn’t be?---------- the 22 point system is breed standards, nobody’s -----as I just said, nobody’s taught me to actually use the 22 point system, but I am----- have been trained in reading breed standards, that’s what the 22 point system is.

All right. And your training in reading breed standards is three days with Ms Fox, correct?-----No, I wouldn’t put it down to just three days with----with-----
Who else has taught you in a formal way---------?----with Ms Fox.
------to read breed standards?---- In a formal way, no, the rest is from---- from research and--- and books----
You’re self taught?-----That’s correct.
And of course, you now teach the 22 point system, don’t you?----That’s correct.

Page 85, Line 42, Stephen Fynes-Clinton, Barrister Questioning

The – the materials used in that training are---are prepared by you?---That’s correct.

Right. They’re not prepared by anybody else, there’s no other person has an input into that material?-----Somebody would’ve typed it, but yeah.
Righto. I think [indistinct] clear. Professional consultant, scientist, dog reader, veterinarian?-------No, no, no, no.

The intellectual input’s entirely your own?----Mmm-hmm, that’s correct, that’s correct.

Page 93, Line 31, Stephen Fynes-Clinton, Barrister Questioning

Well, who trains you to look above and beyond the 22 points? – The breed standards tell me to do that. There’s a lot more in there than what’s on the 22 points.
Well, who trains you to do that? – I’m self-taught.

(“Then we asked her to validate using breed standards for identification of a suspected dog, well what can I say truly a great answer”).

Page 63, Line 40, Stephen Fynes-Clinton, Barrister Questioning

Well, my question to you is this. Can you identify for this Court a professional or technical text or journal written by a dog breeder, a dog judge, a dog scientist, or some other recognised animal professional that recognises or gives credence to your 22 point test. I’m looking for a single journal somewhere in the world that describes the methodology of the 22 point test and how it works? – I don’t believe there would be one.

Nowhere in the world?. --- I don’t –to my knowledge it’s only used here in Australia. So, I presume that there wouldn’t be anything else.

Page 136, Line 30, Stephen Fynes Clinton, Barrister Questioning

But I asked you the question yesterday, just so there’s been no change over night, the—you can point to no document from, for example, a body that publishes breed standards saying, “Breed standards may also be used for breeder ID”?,----No. No, I can’t point to a document that says that. You can’t point to any text book that says that that’s a valid use of breed standards?.----No.

Conclusions:

Ms D P, a self taught expert, using a theory she made up herself, could not find anyone else in the world who would validate or support it, sat on a sub-committee, invented a document called the 22 point checklist, to identify a suspected dog as an American pit bull terrier, then used this tool to justify and take peoples property and convince the courts they were all experts, then went about training other animal control officers how to do the same.

As if this is not bad enough, Logan City Council and the Gold Coast City Council has done everything they can to conceal and cover up this information, ask Geoff Irwin, Supervisor Gold Coast City Council, Animal Control, why he has done nothing about this when he was informed about it 2 years ago
• No one thought to question this.

Kylielou
Rate payers of Logan Council you just shelled out $100,000.00 cash for this, it's funny but not worth that much?







New paper report.


Legal dogfight saves RustyMichael Wray
October 26, 2006 12:00am
Article from: Font size: + -
Send this article: Print Email

FOR 14 months Rusty was a dead dog walking as a Queensland council poured $100,000 into a legal battle to defend an order to kill the family pet.

But he escaped the death sentence when a DNA test proved he had been wrongly identified as a prohibited american pit bull terrier.
His owner Dino Da Fre bought Rusty for $300 as a staffordshire terrier cross from a pet store five years ago.

"This was one of the worst times of my life. I stopped working and I pretty much couldn't sleep at all," he said.

The legal dogfight has called into question the methods used by Australian councils to identify and destroy thousands of dangerous dogs. A submission is now being prepared for the CMC, in which allegations will be made that Queensland councils have engaged in official misconduct and misused their power to seize and destroy dogs.

"We believe that they have given misleading evidence to magistrates courts," said Linda Watson, president of the Endangered Dog Breeder's Association of Australia.

Eighteen southeast Queensland councils use the same 22-point checklist that wrongly identified Rusty. In her decision last week, Beenleigh magistrate Sheryl Cornack deemed the checklist was "subjective" and "not created for the purpose of identification of dog breeds".

"The system has not been subjected to independent scientific testing or scrutiny," she said.

While stopping short of ruling on the legality of the test, Ms Cornack has ordered Logan City Council to pay Mr Da Fre's costs of $20,833. The council's legal bill totalled $74,000. Rusty's 450 days on death row cost it $8388 in sustenance fees plus $500 in veterinary care.

Council officers seized Rusty in April 2005 and determined he was a pit bull-type dog, liable for destruction.

Mr De Fre immediately appealed the council ruling and the case was twice deferred.

The council revoked its destruction order after DNA testing traced Rusty to his mother Peggy and concluded he was a staffordshire terrier cross.

A big thankyou to Tango owners Jon and Kylie.


tybrax

babyrocky1
October 25th, 2006, 10:08 PM
Right On Rusty!!!!! You go doggy!:D :D :D
Every Victory now is part of a WORLD wide struggle....! Wahooooooo!