Setting Things Straight

General Forum for Danville Topics

Postby JC » Tue Jul 01, 2008 11:02 am

Wanda wrote:

Also on Thursday, June 26, 2008 prior to the start of the Selectmens meeting they did not realize it but they were being broadcast and a very fat gentlemen who I believe to be Shawn O'Neil made some comments that were heard by the public


Was the comment about the man's weight necessary?

Also, I have a question why did the puppies starve, why didn't you bring them to the SPCA????
JC
 
Posts: 204
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 11:14 am

Postby momof3 » Tue Jul 01, 2008 11:04 am

Now for you Curt Springer, I know the difference between a lie and perjury, Chief Wade Parsons gave inconsistent testimony while on the stand.

Chief Parsons stated he was "unaware that the dog was to be released from the Brentwood Veterinary Emergency Clinic on the same day she was brought in," but later also testified that "we all made the decision to keep the dog at the clinic."

When asked under oath who he meant by "we" Chief Parsons stated, Sheila Johannesen, ACO, Dale Childs, Hampstead ACO, Stephanie Dube, Assistant ACO, and himself."

If Chief Parsons was unaware that the dog was to be released then why did they need to hold a meeting to discuss it.

Under Oath Stephanie Dube, Assistant ACO and the Doctor from the Brentwood Veterinary Emergency Clinic testified under oath that they both knew and were aware that the dog was to be released. Therefore these two individuals did not commit perjury.

However, Sheila Johannesen, ACO, Dale Childs,Hampstead ACO, and Chief Wade Parsons all stated under oath that "no the dog was not to be released."

if you lie under oath then you can be charged with perjury, when you lie under oath it is a crime. The three individuals listed above went against doctor's orders in spite of the decision just to be hurtful to me and my family, this dog was taken on September 3, 2007 almost 10 months ago now.
Last edited by momof3 on Tue Jul 01, 2008 5:05 pm, edited 3 times in total.
momof3
 
Posts: 125
Joined: Sun Jun 22, 2008 6:19 pm

Postby momof3 » Tue Jul 01, 2008 11:15 am

Once again as I stated before I tried to hand over the puppies to Dale Childs, Hampstead ACO through numerous phone conversations both my husband and I asked that either the dog be returned or the puppies reunited with their mother.

Dale Child's stated that her concern was for the dog, "she could always have more puppies." Nice attitude for an ACO officer.

Also the NHSPCA also refused to take the puppies. I even called the Department of Agriculture and tried to get Dr. Crawford The State of NH State Vet involved to get the puppies reunited with their mother whether at my home or the SPCA, Dr. Crawford refused to get involved.

My husband and I tried desperately to bottle feed the puppies every two hours as instructed by my veterinarian, and one by one we were bringing them back and forth to the clinic for medical treatment but unfortunately they did not have their mother and all suffered horrible seizures followed by death.

This was all witnessed by my children, how horrible of a thing for kids to have to see.

I mentioned the mans weight because like I said I believe it to be Shawn O'Neil but am not sure.
Last edited by momof3 on Tue Jul 01, 2008 1:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
momof3
 
Posts: 125
Joined: Sun Jun 22, 2008 6:19 pm

Postby JC » Tue Jul 01, 2008 11:34 am

Wanda wrote:

Dale Child's stated that her concern was for the dog, "she could always have more puppies." Nice attitude for an ACO officer.



I know and have worked with Dale Childs in the past and the welfare of animals is very important to her.

Your comment about Sean was just rude.
JC
 
Posts: 204
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 11:14 am

Postby curt » Tue Jul 01, 2008 12:55 pm

Wanda,

Congratulations on your acquittal.

You have my email and phone #s, so let me know as soon as possible when I can get the CD or DVD of the trial for posting here on SoD.

My request not to make allegations of perjury here was as much as anything a personal request. I go through the wringer when any question of censorship arises. Right now I'm just too swamped at work to deal with it, just as well. I'm inclined to let it stand because you immediately follow the allegation with what you think supports "perjury". People can draw their own conclusions as to whether Wade was lying or just didn't recollect accurately. In any case, neither he nor anybody else who testified on behalf of the town could possibly be convicted of perjury, because it is not enough to lie intentionally, the lie has to affect the outcome of the proceeding. Since you were found not guilty, obviously any lies on behalf of the town did not make any difference.
Curt Springer
curt
 
Posts: 5713
Joined: Mon Jan 16, 2006 1:19 am
Location: 228 Sandown Road, North Danville

Postby momof3 » Tue Jul 01, 2008 1:19 pm

here is the NH laws on perjury and false swearing
641:1 Perjury. –
I. A person is guilty of a class B felony if in any official proceeding:
(a) He makes a false material statement under oath or affirmation, or swears or affirms the truth of a material statement previously made, and he does not believe the statement to be true; or
(b) He makes inconsistent material statements under oath or affirmation, both within the period of limitations, one of which is false and not believed by him to be true. In a prosecution under this section, it need not be alleged or proved which of the statements is false but only that one or the other was false and not believed by the defendant to be true.
II. "Official proceeding'' means any proceeding before a legislative, judicial, administrative or other governmental body or official authorized by law to take evidence under oath or affirmation including a notary or other person taking evidence in connection with any such proceeding. "Material'' means capable of affecting the course or outcome of the proceeding. A statement is not material if it is retracted in the course of the official proceeding in which it was made before it became manifest that the falsification was or would be exposed and before it substantially affected the proceeding. Whether a statement is material is a question of law to be determined by the court.

641:2 False Swearing. – A person is guilty of a misdemeanor if:
I. He makes a false statement under oath or affirmation or swears or affirms the truth of such a statement previously made and he does not believe the statement to be true if:
(a) The falsification occurs in an official proceeding, as defined in RSA 641:1, II, or is made with a purpose to mislead a public servant in performing his official function; or
(b) The statement is one which is required by law to be sworn or affirmed before a notary or other person authorized to administer oaths; or
II. He makes inconsistent statements under oath or affirmation, both within the period of limitations, one of which is false and not believed by him to be true. In a prosecution under this section, it need not be alleged or proved which of the statements is false but only that one or the other was false and not believed by the defendant to be true.
III. No person shall be guilty under this section if he retracts the falsification before it becomes manifest that the falsification was or would be exposed.
Source. 1971, 518:1, eff. Nov. 1, 1973.
momof3
 
Posts: 125
Joined: Sun Jun 22, 2008 6:19 pm

Postby Tigger4 » Tue Jul 01, 2008 5:23 pm

I think the key phrase here is
he does not believe the statement to be true


How do we or anyone else know for sure whether the Chief or anyone else knowingly made a false statement. Maybe they did believe what they said. Maybe it was their perception of the events going on.

As for the puppies, did you ever consult a no kill shelter for their help? It is very difficult for me to believe that every vet, the SPCA, or an animal shelter would not help. Is it because the only choices you gave them was give me my dog back or reunite the puppies with the mother? If I could save the puppies by handing them over to someone else, I would have taken that route.

I have tried to keep my two cents out of this, but unless you (Wanda) have led a life free of lies, completely on the up and up, and did not resort to name calling I wouldn't throw stones at others.
Tigger4
 
Posts: 98
Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2006 10:24 am

Postby momof3 » Tue Jul 01, 2008 5:44 pm

Curt do not think that I am congratulating myself on the acquittal because I will never be vindicated.

The articals by the Lawrence Eagle Tribune have all been one sided.

I sell my puppies in NY, RI, MA, CT and now for people to "google" my address, it brings up all the abuse allegations. Even with the acquittal, anyone looking up my address will always wonder when they see the history of being accused in the past. My puppy sales have plummented to almost nothing.

The slander by the Town of Danville has caused enourmous grief within my family, my children were harrassed and humiliated at school, my husband and I have had to go through therapy and one of the kids has sufferred severe emotional trauma at the thought of her mother having to go to prison and her to foster care.

Breeding the dogs and selling the puppies was a way for me to be able to afford my medical costs. A surgical procedure which I am suppssd to have every three months for the rest of my life has now not been done for a year because all my money had to go towards attorney fees.

My medical prognosis now looks good for a possible organ transplant, but now I will not be able to afford the payment on the transplant costs.

My repputation has been tarnished, my puppy sales are pretty much non-existent, my medical status right now is not good because I was unable to afford the surgery every three months and the organ transplant is now not in the near future because of all the stress and financial strain that I have been under.

So Curt on behalf of the Town of Danville why don't you tell me, when will I be vindicated????
momof3
 
Posts: 125
Joined: Sun Jun 22, 2008 6:19 pm

Postby JC » Tue Jul 01, 2008 5:53 pm

Wanda wrote:
So Curt on behalf of the Town of Danville why don't you tell me, when will I be vindicated????


Now you are angry at Curt? and why would Curt be speaking for the town of Danville?
JC
 
Posts: 204
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 11:14 am

Postby momof3 » Tue Jul 01, 2008 6:01 pm

well guess what Tigger4, I did not lie about a thing.

I have ordered the CD for all to hear. Yes Chief Parsons saw the dogs medical chart from the Brentwood Veterinary Emergency Clinic and even filled out his own statement stating that "we" took that information into their little secret meeting where he, Dale Child's, Sheila Johannesen and Stephanie Dube came to their conclussion.

As for the puppies, I have said many times that I offerred to relingquish them to the SPCA so that they could be with their mother. Dale Child's the Hampstead ACO made the decision to not reunite the mother and puppies.

As a matter of fact Dale Child's herself should be charged with animal cruelty for letting three week old puppies die a senseless death.
momof3
 
Posts: 125
Joined: Sun Jun 22, 2008 6:19 pm

Postby curt » Tue Jul 01, 2008 6:07 pm

I wrote:Congratulations on your acquittal.


It was a sincere statement on a personal level. That's all. I can only imagine the stress of being accused of a crime and going on trial, and then having to wait days to learn the outcome.
Curt Springer
curt
 
Posts: 5713
Joined: Mon Jan 16, 2006 1:19 am
Location: 228 Sandown Road, North Danville

Postby momof3 » Tue Jul 01, 2008 6:21 pm

I am only asking Curt because all the other Town of Danville officialls have either dodged my questions or flat out lied to me.

At least Curt is giving intelligent answers. Whether I agree with him or not, he has not lied to me. That is the only reason why I asked Curt his perspective.

Chief Wade Parsons knew why I bred the dogs and sold the puppies, I did not gain a lot financially from doing this.

You know a lot of people may be able to pass judgement but when it comes down to being able to afford medical care, you do what you need to do.
momof3
 
Posts: 125
Joined: Sun Jun 22, 2008 6:19 pm

Postby Tigger4 » Tue Jul 01, 2008 7:03 pm

I guess I didn't make myself clear when I said: but unless you (Wanda) have led a life free of lies, completely on the up and up, and did not resort to name calling I wouldn't throw stones at others.
The key word was in your life not just this incident.

I also said:
It is very difficult for me to believe that every vet, the SPCA, or an animal shelter would not help. Is it because the only choices you gave them was give me my dog back or reunite the puppies with the mother?

I agree the best place was probably with the mother, if the mother was healthy. There are places that would have cared for the puppies without the mother's presence. If the mother was not in good health then reuniting the puppies with her might have done more harm than good. Other puppies have survived with the proper care without a mother.

It sounds like several people went into a room and made a decision based on the evidence in front of them. I, for one, do not believe they were targeting anyone, I think they were acting in the best interest of the dog. If the mother did not look like she was in good health then I believe the right thing was done. Like you, the dog is a living breathing creature. The only difference is domestic animals rely totally on humans for their survival.
Tigger4
 
Posts: 98
Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2006 10:24 am

Postby momof3 » Tue Jul 01, 2008 7:36 pm

Tigger4 I obviously have no idea what you are referring to and you obviously refuse to acknowledge that I and my husband tried to do everything that could be done. We called the Department of Agriculture and the NHSPCA, pleaded and begged with both Chief Parsons and Dale Child's to either take the puppies or give the dog back.

Wadleigh Falls Veterinary Clinic treated and tried to also get the puppies to survive. If you do not believe me then you must also not believe both Doctor's Salkovitz and Baker from Wadleigh Falls Veterinary Clinic.

You know each person will reach their own conclusion, most people though look at all the facts before basing their decision on the one that does not seem to make sense.

Sorry that sense is something you seem to lack.
momof3
 
Posts: 125
Joined: Sun Jun 22, 2008 6:19 pm

Postby formerlurker » Tue Jul 01, 2008 7:38 pm

WandaCote wrote:The decision is that I Wanda Cote am NOT GUILTY of animal abuse as the Town of Danville has charged.

Now let's see how much of a fight I have to go through to get the dog back.

First, my condolences on your loss. Watching helplessly as those puppies starved to death must have been terrible. That the town forced you to endure continued harassment and a trial is an embarrassment to me and, I'm sure, most residents.

Contratulations, too, on your acquittal. A speedy acquittal saved you and the taxpayers a lot of money.

Sounds like the town is headed towards another lawsuit. I can't blame you but ask that you refrain from settling and target the individuals as well as the government. This will be the third suit against our PD in five (or so) years. I believe the BOS was complicit in all cases. One of the three was a civil rights infringement. So far, only taxpayers have been punished. In each case, the BOS closed the doors and got dirty with our tax money. Tough to blame people for settling, but, if you can afford to, let this go to court -- you can still get damages.

Curt has posted the first defense of the plaintifs already. Expect the usual suspects to attack you and defend the government despite knowing nothing of the incident except that you were not found guilty. I warned you that you would find no love here.

Good luck!
"Otis, I hope you get out of jail in time to vote!!"
formerlurker
 
Posts: 46
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 5:39 pm
Location: 215 City Hall St.

PreviousNext

Return to Danville General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron