- Pet forum for dogs cats and humans 


Finally of to the Supreme Court For Tango Case

August 7th, 2007, 03:21 AM

I posted Tango storey back in Sep 2005, we have finally done it we are of to the Supreme court on the 9th August 07. :thumbs up

Weekend Bulletin July 28-29 2007 page 20

Court to rule on 'pit bull'

The Supreme Court in Brisbane is set to decide what exactly makes a dog a pit bull terrier.

Parkwood woman Kylie Chivers, who has been battling the Gold Coast City Council about her dog Tango for years, lodged an application for judicial review this week.

Ms Chivers is asking the court to review the council's method of identifying dogs, a process that saw Tango classed as an american pit bull despite Ms Chivers claiming his parents were american staffordshire terriers.

Tango, who has been living in exile in NSW because of a threat to seize and destroy him if returned to the coast, was classed as a dangerous breed when council officers inspected him.

In her application Ms Chivers claims the visual criteria used to judge if a dog had characteristics of a pitbull were scientifically flawed.
__________________________________________________ __________

Debra Pomeroy Aco officer is a self proclaimed expert that taught herself of the internet and went on to teach all ACO in Qld.

Barrister questioning DP in the De Fre Case V Logan Council. ( what a great win against the council)

Debra Pomeroy’s training in the use of the 22 point checklist.

Debra Pomeroy, Expert witness and Animal Control Officer/Trainer breed identification.
Dino Da Fre Vs Logan City Council, 1st and 2nd of March 2006, Magistrate Cornack.

(“Debra Pomeroy 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 Ms Pomeroy 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 is 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.


Ms Pomeroy, 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.

• Would this not be theft by fraud? Conspiring to commit fraud?


August 16th, 2007, 01:36 AM
How about an update Tybrax ?

October 27th, 2007, 09:34 PM
Update on Tango's story.



THE ongoing saga of a Gold Coast dog troubled a Supreme Court Judge so
much yesterday that she ordered the parties to put aside passion and be
practical to save money on endless litigation.

As Justice Roslyn Atkinson started reading the material she suddenly realised
that instead of the usual human matters, the Court was being asked to consider a canine case.

"Is this an argument about a dog?" She asked.

When told it was, she noted the case contained a large amount of passion and sending the parties to mediation would be of no use.

Yesterday was the third time Lawyers for the dog owner and Gold Coast City Council has gone to the Supreme Court in Brisbane recently because they couldn't
agree on basic preliminary matters.

The Legal fuss over Tango, a pet dog who lived on the Gold Coast with owner
Kylie Chivers until the Council determined he was an American pit bull.

As pit bulls are classed as dangerous breeds, he was destined to be put down
when Kylie Chivers agreed to compromise with the Council. She had to send Tango out of the Gold Coast until she could prove he was not a pit bull.

Ms Chivers argues Tango is an American Staffordshire Terrier, but has yet to convince the Council. Years had passed and a search for Tango's pedigree certificates was fruitless, the Court was told, because the pet shop owner who sold the dog was no longer in business.

On top of that, Mrs Chivers contends the original way the council assessed Tango
was flawed and she hoped a Supreme Court Judge would overrule the decision.
Whether that happens will depend on how both parties conform to Justice Atkinson's new orders.

Judge Atkinson said both parties should sit down, work out a way forward and not go back to Court until the final hearing. "This is terrible that you keep coming back
to this Court for directions," said Justice Atkinson, who sometimes has a guide dog in her courtroom to assist her associate.

"You no people love their dogs," she said. "Its an issue where emotion ... gets involved. "This is the third time you have been here. I don't want to see you again
(until the hearing )."

Under the new order it is expected Ms. Chivers will now have to allow two Council appointed experts to inspect Tango, who is being kept in Tweed pending a final decision .