To Be or Not to Be - Page 2

Bump to get my above post read.

     It sure would be nice to put an end to this, not only for the sake of the dogs, but also so that Shelley and Molly can get back th their lives without this constant crap over their heads.
     I wonder if maybe Mystere would be willing to assist in this matter? She is a respected member of the schutzhund community, she is a lawyer, and a member of USA. 
     She is not in Pa., but  as was said earlier, fax and overnight's are available to all parties involved here. and as a lawyer, she knows what can or can't be done. 
       How about it Mystere, will you give it a whirl? And molly, this WOULD go a long way in restoring your reputation that you have worked hard at building (I know you don't care what I think, but there are loads of fellow German Shepherd folks that are really wanting this matter with these dogs resolved, to most, no one care about the who owes who, what's, but the welfare of the dogs. Particularly Gabi. )
     Just a suggestion!

    So, I guess Molly still don't want to resolve NOTHING!

All parties involved must love the drama.  Why else would they continue to drag this out on the board?  By the time they work this out the dogs will ge ten yeard old.  Too bad the innocent dogs have to be draged into this.  Hope they are well taken care of .  Thats all I hope for any dog.

All parties involved must love the drama.  Why else would they continue to drag this out on the board?  By the time they work this out the dogs will ge ten yeard old.  Too bad the innocent dogs have to be draged into this.  Hope they are well taken care of .  Thats all I hope for any dog.

troublelinx,

There is another explanation, if Gabi is dead, the escrow won't work. 

Michele

This shit is hilarious! If it's your dog bring proof of ownership , go with the cops and get your dog and pups, they're your property. If you're the rightful owner Molly will have to release your dog to you unless she has a written agreement the she owns the dog. It's a crminal act to steal a dog and they will be forced to arrest her. "owed rent money" is seperate from your property and Molly can get her money through civil court. If someone owes you money you can't steal something of theirs for compensation, that's a crime. So just go get your dog

Actually... from the animal control point of view, if Gabi had been legally licensed in the community she lived in (which I rather doubt as very, very few "responsible dog breeders" bother to license their dogs) she would belong to whomever she was licensed to. And yes, the police will take the dog and give it to the licensed owner.  One reason to license your dog.

Same with chip.  If your microchip is current and lists you with the registering agent you will have ability to claim your dog unless the other party can produce a sales receipt. 

All reasons to do the "little things" that make someone a responsible owner. In fact, with some chips if your dog is lost, you can alert the company and they will flag the chip and if anyone tries to change the ownership status they will alert you! Good deal.

I don't think ANYONE who has posted comments on the drama threads should hold the money. "Respected" or not. 

I sure as heck don't have a "side" in this drama, but I am now curious to see is someone wanting to be on a BOI will work to end a conflict they are involved in.

Good luck with that no curs.

Some problems can't be solved, like returning a dead dog.

Michele

Nocurs I had posted the information copied below on another thread related to this drama. No - in almost all jurisdictions that I know of what you are claiming would NOT occur precisely because this is both a civil and potentially criminal matter and the LEO was not present when the actions occured. I have worked in law enforcement, I have family members who were cops, I have numerous friends who are retired K9 officers and I train dogs with both active and retired LEOs. None of them would do as you suggest because it could land their butt in a sling!

This is what I posted earlier. Some info for those who have asked about the US Justice system and why a theft does not seem to be addressed by it.

First of all conversion is theft and in most jurisdictions it is both a crime and a tort ( a civil wrong which can be addressed between the parties). The problem in part comes from this. Our criminal justice system is overwhelmed so basically "property" crimes - and this is a property crime- are not at all addressed. For example several years ago while in an acupunturist's office, a person walked into the room I was in and stole my pocketbook ( I was attached to needles, wires etc and could not move). The acupunturist heard the commotion and grabbed the guy but his shirt ripped and off he went with my pocketbook. I was able to track him down to the apartment building he lived in ( which had 4 apts) by eyewitness testimony who saw him running. When I called the police I was told I would have to know his exact address and apt and name BEFORE they would even come out to talk to him. (note talk, not arrest not bring in for questioning etc etc)

So the reality is property crimes unless you are a well known person, politician, celebrity etc go unpunished. Even if you are in the jurisdiction ( wh/ one party here is not) and in their face - what happens is they play the pingpong game. This is a civil matter take it to court. If you try to go for an injunction the judge will say this is a criminal matter take it to the police. If you choose to go the civil route it is very very costly and time consuming - it is not a matter of one hearing and you are done. You file, they answer, there is court date to set court dates, there are required hearings, ADR, motions, discovery - it can be a process that takes 2 to 8 years and a heck of a lot of money. Usually the cost of using legal action is more than the cost of the dispute. And let me tell you if you try to this " pro per" meaning you represent yourself and are not represented by a lawyer - the system is rigged against you.

Is it no wonder that people are losing faith in our justice system. Today basically it serves the very rich who can afford representation and the very poor for whom the governement provides representation ( tho normally not in civil matters). The rest of us are SOL and left out in the cold.

This is one of the reasons I suggested mediation of this matter since mediation is cost effective and tries to find an equitable or just resolution ( the law is about the law and has nothing to do with fairness or justice). Shelley agreed. Molly did not. That says it all.