Now THIS Is Brazen: A Woman Brings a Fake Service Dog to Court -- and Fools the Judge

Lots of people have fake service dogs. This unsavory practice is bad for folks who truly rely on service dogs to get through the day, and it erodes the goodwill of the public toward service dogs. And every day we hear about more people running around with the fake certificates, confronting anyone who dares to question that the dog eating garlic twists from their lap at the Sbarros is anything but a medically needed hearing dog -- or therapy dog. Uh, I mean, seeing-eye dog. Wait, what was it again? 

Then we hear this, courtesy of PhillyBurbs.com. A Pennsylvania lady -- a Bonehead? Yes, lets call her that -- goes into court, in front a judge, with her little fake service dog. 

Bucks County District Judge Daniel Baranoski regrets to inform the court that he got bamboozled by the bold women, who waltzed into his courtroom with her Dachshund and sat down in the gallery. She was there for a hearing on a traffic ticket. The dog was there because the woman is a Bonehead. As she was waiting for her case to be called, Baranoski piped up. 

The judge questioned her about the dog. 

The woman responded that he was a service dog. 

Judge: "What service does the dog provide?"

The woman: "Psychological!"

And then she swept a business card from her purse and presented it to the judge with a flourish (which is to say, we like to think it was a flourish). The paper said the dog was “properly registered” with the “United States Service Dog Registry.” 

Hah! Have you seen the United States Service Dog Registry? It looks official, sure. But for $50, you can buy whatever credentials you like, including a "documentation package" with a fancy certificate. (One PetsAdviser writer who did just that said, "We’re talking digital watermark, security foil hologram, color-shifting printing, the whole works.") 

You'll also note the fine print on the Service Dog Registry home page: "Not affiliated with any government agency. Registrant data is based on assertions by dog owner. Registration is not required by the ADA [Americans with Disabilities Act]."

Our judge, about as knowledgeable of the United States Service Dog Registry as a salesperson at Anne Taylor, let the woman stay with her dog. 

But he took the woman's case next, to get the dog out of the courtroom. Yes, he gave preferential treatment to a woman who brought a fake service dog into a court of law.

Later, because the judge was in a place full of people busy figuring out laws, he found out that he had been (probably) bamboozled. His staff told his honor that the Americans with Disabilities Act does not require such "documentation" (namely, a fake business card that says your dog is "properly registered") and that the United States Service Dog Registry is considered "questionable" by people who know such things. 

It looks like our Bonehead was just another brazen person who is uses the delicate nature of the law to circumvent the hell out of it. 

The problem with this, of course, is that your typical fake service dog is not an expertly trained machine who's undergone years of study to behave like a pro in public. Your typical fake service dog is just a dog the owner really wants to be around all the time. Kind of like most dogs.

As the article says, "Such deception is making life harder for people with disabilities who rely on service dogs and face additional scrutiny and skepticism from business owners." 

At least Judge Baranoski won't be fooled again. He has told colleagues to be on the lookout for this crap. 

Via PhillyBurbs.com

View the original article here

"Miracle Dog" Patrick the Pit Bull's Alleged Abuser Is Back in Court

The Newark, NJ woman whose alleged abuse of a Pit Bull named Patrick made this resilient dog into a national celebrity is in the news again.

Kisha Curtis, who pleaded not guilty last year to four charges of animal cruelty after her dog was discovered nearly dead of starvation at the foot of a 22-story trash chute, appeared in court last Wednesday after being threatened with arrest for having missed a court appearance the previous day. 

Kisha Curtis, smiling in court. Photograph courtesy of the New Jersey Star-Ledger.

Curtis is now applying for a pretrial intervention program. Its completion "would eventually wipe the criminal charge from her record. She has previously rejected the state's plea offer that calls for up to 18 months in prison, a $5,000 fine and 30 days' community service," reports the New Jersey Star-Ledger. 

This is sparking outrage, as has nearly every other aspect of a drama that began on March 16, 2011, when Patrick was found at the foot of the chute in shocking condition. Weighing only 19 pounds, the year-old dog could not walk or lift his head and had seemingly not eaten in months. 

The news went viral. As Patrick began his remarkable road to recovery, thousands of letters and gifts -- treats, toys, clothes, cash -- poured in from all over the world. As the new face for anti-animal-abuse activism, the plucky pittie inspired "The Patrick Movement," whose branches in many states hold rallies and other events.

Arrested just over a week after Patrick was found, Curtis was charged with with "torture and torment of a living creature," according to Fox News, which added that the 550-unit Garden Spires apartment building where Curtis lived is "notorious for drug trade and other crimes."

Curtis denied having thrown the dog down the chute, but admitted having abandoned and starved Patrick, leaving him tied to a railing at the Garden Spires. She pleaded not guilty to the charges in May 2011.

Patrick in November, looking healthy and happy.

As support for Patrick has soared, so has loathing for Curtis.

"Hopefully she's found in a dumpster, wrapped in a plastic bag, at the bottom of a trash chute where she belongs. This disgusting mutant needs to be put to sleep," reads a typical comment on a Star-Ledger article about the alleged abuser, who on a now-deleted Facebook page claims to be a Duke University student and former employee of a porn company. 

Protests have accompanied all of her court dates, as many feel the state legal system is being too easy on Curtis and is moving too slowly -- in hopes, some say, that the public will lose interest in this case. 

That hardly seems likely. Patrick's transformation from sad starveling to healthy hero has spawned not only good wishes, Twitter accounts, and Facebook pages but also money-seeking scams and a bitter custody battle. 

When Curtis appeared in court on January 20 to reject the plea offer, she was visibly pregnant. It's impossible not to ask: If Patrick is an example of how Curtis treats animals, how will she treat her own child?

Sources: New Jersey Star-Ledger, Fox News

View the original article here

Groundbreaking Court Ruling Takes Dogs Beyond “Property” Status; Major Pet Industry Groups Not Happy

A Texas appeals court ruling has given dogs increased status over other forms of property. The dog in this photo may actually be worth more than the table he is sitting on now. (Photo from the Flickr photostream of geevee41)

A Texas appellate court has made the bold move of effectively taking dogs out of the “property” category and giving them increased legal status. It provides an updated reinterpretation of the law, which traditionally views pets as worth only their market value — like a table or a car.

The Second Court of Appeals in Fort Worth overturned a lower court’s ruling that a couple whose dog was wrongfully euthanized was entitled to damages for only the dog’s monetary worth. The new ruling allows for a dog’s true worth to be considered.

“Dogs are unconditionally devoted to their owners. Today, we interpret timeworn supreme court law in light of subsequent court law to acknowledge that the special value of ‘man’s best friend’ should be protected,” the Court’s opinion stated.

With the ruling, the owners of the dog, Avery, could be entitled to damages for “sentimental” or “intrinsic” value. Avery escaped from his yard and was brought to an animal shelter. They went to claim him, but didn’t have enough money, so they made arrangements to return when they had it. Despite a “hold for owner” tag on Avery’s cage, a shelter employee euthanized him days before his number was up. When the couple came back to pay for Avery’s fee, they got the terrible news.

Ironically, in some instances dogs have not been given the same value even as some forms of property. If someone destroys family heirlooms that are of great sentimental value, even though the heirlooms may be nearly financially worthless, damages can be awarded because of their sentimental value. The new court ruling, for which the appellate justices cited a 120-year-old Texas Supreme Court decision as precedent, gives pets at least the same value as other items that are of negligible monetary value but great intrinsic worth.

“Because of the special position pets hold in the family, we see no reason why existing law should not be interpreted to allow recovery in the loss of a pet at least to the same extent as other personal property,” Justice Lee Gabriel wrote.

The shelter worker who ended Avery’s life will appeal the decision. She will be in some pretty powerful company. Surprisingly — at least at first glance — some of the top pet-industry organizations in the nation are adamantly opposed to the court’s decision. The American Veterinary Medical Association (whose well-done newsletter article is the main source for my post), American Kennel Club, the Cat Fanciers’ Association, Animal Health Institute, American Pet Products Association, and Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council are among those who filed briefs asking the justices to reconsider.

These groups say they fear that the liability from “pain and suffering” claims would cause pet service fees to have to increase greatly and make veterinary care unaffordable for many people with pets.

“If this becomes the law of the land, it will lead to higher costs to own a pet, disproportionally hurting middle-class and low-income pet owners. Who will pay for those higher damage awards? The rest of us pet owners, of course,” said Adrian Hochstadt, AVMA assistant director of state legislative and regulatory affairs. “The obvious consequences will include fewer people being able to own pets and, unfortunately, more animal abandonment.”

Opponents say the verdict “isolates the Second Court of Texas in American jurisprudence and … violated Texas Supreme Court law.” Legal experts say the case will likely end up in Texas Supreme Court. It will be interesting to watch this unfold. I f the Supreme Court upholds the appeals court’s decision, what will the implications be across the nation and across animal law? Could it be the start of a sea change as to how dogs are considered and treated? Could it lead to stiffer punishments of those who abuse animals?

I was initially disillusioned when I learned that such major pet industry organizations were opposed to what seemed like something they’d support: that the value of a pet goes beyond its market worth. But they see this as opening the doors to all kinds of pricey lawsuits, so I guess I should not be surprised that they’ve come out swinging. I’m very interested in your thoughts on this, Dogsters. Also, if there are any legal experts out there who can weigh in, or who can offer some perspective on the case, I’d love to hear from you.

View the original article here