TYRA'S STORY

Reply from Geoff Irwin Fax 15^th November 2006

Dear MsC..

                             RESTRICTED DOG KEPT

Thank you for your letter dated the 9^th November 2006 relating to the above matter.

Council does not deem the original assessment invalid. The re assessment was offered to you in response to your request to have the matter reviewed.

Council advises that the re-assessment of your dog “Tyra” will be conducted by a veterinarian, using a method considered satisfactory to that veterinarian. Please be advised that the Local Government Act 1993 section 1193ZZP provides that.

A certificate purporting to be signed by a veterinarian surgeon stating, or to the effect, the dog is of a breed or type mentioned in section 1193)1)   evidence that the dog is a restricted dog.

The re assessment will be conducted at a time and date suitable to you. As it may not be possible to arrange the re assessment prior to the expiry dates of your current permit.

Council will grant an extension until the 24^th November 2006. It is imperative that the re assessment is completed prior to the due date.

If it is more convenient Council will be happy to conduct this re assessment at the animal Welfare league facility, shelter Coombabah . Please note that at no time during the re assessment will you be required to leave your dog unattended and you are welcome to observe the procedure. 

Should you have any further queries in relation to this matter please contact the Teem leader Animal Management (investigations pest species on 07-5581 7647.

Geoff Irwin.

Acting Coordinator Animal Management

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

LETTER TO JASON TYRER

To Jason Tyrer

Team Leader Animal Management

(Investigation & Pest Species)

Please make copies for:

Dale Dickson

CEO Gold Coast City Council

Colette McCool

Director Community Services

To the Law firm directed to give the Gold Coast City Council advice on this matter.

28^th December 2006

Dear Sir / Madam

Gold Coast City Council, Local Government Act 1993 Chapter 17A Section 1193ZR.

Proposed Restricted Dog Declaration Notice

To whom this may concern.

In response to the “TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that you (Christina) may within (14) days of the date of this notice make written representation showing cause why Council should not proceed in declaring your dog (Tyra) a restricted dog.”

Your representation can include written opinion from a veterinary surgeon or other evidence about the dog’s breed or type.

1. My dog Tyra is a Rhodesian Ridgeback Terrier cross. Had the two ACO’s bothered to conduct the assessment by wakening my dog up or by physically examining her back they would have seen she carries the ridge down her back only common for one breed of dog known as the Rhodesian Ridgeback. Read Document D106.

2. How can my dog Tyra, having a Rhodesian Ridgeback as one of her parents, then substantially comply to the breed standards from the 22 point checklist as Tyra must be 50 per cent Rhodesian Ridgeback. Since the cut off for prohibited breeds is 70 per cent, logical deduction means the score of 48 and 49 out of 66 (70%) could not be achieved therefore casting doubt on the (22 point checklist) assessment. Read Document D117.

3. If you can grow a ridge down the back of a dog by not crossing a Rhodesian Ridgeback then please inform me as many in the dog world would find this very interesting.

4. The identification tool was developed by Ms Pomeroy, a self taught expert, using a theory she made up herself, who could not find anyone else in the world who would validate or support it, sat on a sub-committee, put together by a group called SEQROC, who hold no appointment by any government department, 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. Play DISC Review of Dino Da Fre Case, Page 88, 1^st March 2006, line 24. 

5. The ACO who conducted this sham, on the 25^th of August 2003, were Lester Soloai ACO 47 and Mark Pavey ACO 30. These officers were trained by Selina Neill, who was the GCCC’s Education and Public Awareness Officer training the Breed identification course during 2003. Read Document D104 and D105.

6. 5^th November 2004, Taylor Vs GCCC, Magistrate Batts declared Selina Neill not an expert in Breed Identification and all other animal control officers trained similarly also not experts in Breed identification, therefore making their identification invalid from this date regardless. Play DISC Transcripts Justin Taylor Case, Page 45 to 49.

7. To offer me the use of a veterinarian, Dr Jacqueline Perkins, to conduct an independent assessment of my dog Tyra, after spending 6 days in the court room Dino Da Fre Vs Logan City Council, two of these days listening to the attempts of Dr Jacqueline Perkins to mislead and make up fantasy remarks in court, then be told by the Magistrate Cornack “Dr Perkins only road to specialisation is about animal behaviour and it’s her opinion that animal behaviour is the closest thing to breed ID. Now, that is not an area that she can really give evidence about. That is her opinion but she’s not an expert to give that opinion. And she is not a fellow yet, so it’s irrelevant. Play DISC Review of Dino Da Fre Case, Page 605

8. “there’s no way anyone in Australia can get specialisation in breed identification at this stage. If there was, the council wouldn’t be thinking up 22 point plans they just ship off their people down there to get their –diploma or certificate in breed ID and things would be a lot happier, that’s as I understand Dr Perkins. It is her opinion that that is the closest thing to breed identification. Breed identification is part of veterinary work for some purposes and a part- oh, animal behaviourists probably use it for some purposes as well. But she certainly is not going to be a specialist in breed identification”. Play DISC Review of Dino Da Fre Case,  bottom of the Page 605.

9. Then watch Dr Perkins make a complete fool out of herself, in the same trial by her own admission while sworn under oath, discrediting the 22 point checklist and herself by changing it at will to suit the needs to perform a TV identification of a dog called Peggy, now able to use the 17 point checklist and her special ability of the bifocal three dimensional vision to assess three dimensional images from a two dimensional screen? Play DISC Review of Dino Da Fre Case, Day 6_210606.pdfHalfway down page 590.

10. To give me this offer was both clearly ridiculous and insulting.

11. The identification made by Mr Gary Blain is the only one brought forward that holds any possible resemblance of common sense and logic attached to it, so I tender it and him as a more reliable and credible expert witness than any other you have brought forward. Read Document D106.

12. As for my ability to contest this in a magistrates court and to put together a similar defence as that of the Dino Da Fre Vs Logan City Council. I have been assisting the case Morris Vs GCCC, Mr John Mokomoko, in preparing the experts for the Supreme Court and have been informed they would make themselves available for a warm up run to assist me should I need assistance.

As this letter and following content will be forwarded to the law firm advising the Gold Coast City Council, should you require any further information or any offers to settle this case outside the court please contact Mr John Mokomoko, C/o Aegis Protection Services Pty Ltd, PO Box 156 LABRADOR or phone 0421 326 408 and he would be more than happy to discuss any arrangements.

As for the news and television reporting this case throughout Qld, I will wait until you have formalized you decision.

Thank you

  Christina

Ashmore.

Qld 4214

• A copy of this has been forwarded to Ms Donna Roberts, Local Government Collaboration of department of Local Government, Planning, Sport and Recreation as per her instruction.

• To the Ombudsman’s Office C/o David Barakin.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

LETTER TO GEOFF IRWIN

Christina

Ashmore 4214

QLD

February 8, 2007.

Dear Mr. Irwin,

                        Thank you for your response regarding Proposed Restricted Dog Declaration on the 7^th Feb 2007.

“To not avail yourself of the opportunity of having “Tyra” reassessed will effectively be denying yourself of the opportunity to present evidence as to why a Restricted Dog Declaration should not be made.

  The request herein is being made in the utmost good faith and so as to assure you of due process and Natural Justice.”

I reject your proposal to have Tyra reassessed by the Gold Coast Council’s Authorized Officers.

  Officers are not qualified nor do they have any accreditation to go around identifying innocent dogs. The 22 point checklist was exposed in a Court of Law as having no scientific or other technical basis at all.

  The identification tool to be used by your Authorized Officers of Council, (the 22 point checklist) was developed by Ms Pomeroy, a self taught expert, using a theory she made up herself and could not find anyone else in the world who would validate or support it.

  (stated by herself Page 88, 1^st March 2006, line 24. Stephen Fynes-Clinton, Barrister Questioning. “All right.  So, you simply assert from the witness box that you can look at a cross bred dog and your experience allows you to identify it’s breed components by looking at it and that that’s got a level of scientifics - a-- a level of reliable certainty to it?---It’s evidence---what I’m giving is evidence to assist the Court. I have never once claimed that it’s scientific. I’m claiming it’s the best we’ve got.  It’s---the evidence I’m giving is, in my opinion, as honest as I can give it and I’m not suggesting it’s scientific but it is ---all I can give you is evidence. I can give you the ---the --- we use breed standards and its not scientific, its evidence.

  But you’re claiming that it’s reliable, aren’t you?--- I do believe it is reliable---- To what ---?--- in my opinion I believe it’s reliable. Maybe I can’t explain that to you well enough, but I’ve been using it for a long time and I do believe it’s reliable----You---?----- that’s my personal opinion.

  The difficulty we have is that you’re here as an expert witness?)

Ms Pomeroy sat on a sub-committee, put together by a group called SEQROC, who hold no appointment by any government department, 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 people’s property and convince the courts they were all experts, then went about training other animal control officers how to do the same.

  Tyra was assessed by dog expert, Mr. Gary Blain, with the highest accreditation in the Commonwealth on the request of David Barakin the Qld Ombudsman.

  The most important outcome of Mr. Gary Blain’s assessment, which clearly cannot be disputed, is that Tyra is a Rhodesian Ridgeback cross:

1. My dog Tyra is a Rhodesian Ridgeback Terrier cross. Had the two ACO’s bothered to conduct the assessment by awakening my dog or by physically examining her back, they would have seen that she carries the ridge down her back only common for one breed of dog known as the Rhodesian Ridgeback.

2. How can my dog Tyra, having a Rhodesian Ridgeback as one of her parents, then substantially comply to the breed standards from the 22 point checklist as Tyra must be 50 per cent Rhodesian Ridgeback. Since the cut off for prohibited breeds is 70 per cent, logical deduction means the score of 48 and 49 out of 66 (70%) could not be achieved therefore casting doubt on the (22 point checklist) assessment.

3. If you can grow a ridge down the back of a dog by not crossing a Rhodesian Ridgeback then please inform me as many in the dog world would find this very interesting.

4. This alone proves that the 22 point checklist is clearly inaccurate and false.

Tyra was assessed by Lester Soloai and Mark Pavey on the 25-8-2003, the first assessment your department lost, then again on the 27-9-2003 by Lester Soloai. Explain to me as to why my dog Tyra has to be reassessed for what will be the fourth and fifth time. What was wrong with the first two assessments, have they been deemed invalid? I have attached the photos with the date and time they conducted their assessments, photos show the position Tyra was in when the assessments were carried out.

I want a decent explanation.

5. The ACO’s who conducted this sham, on the 25^th of August 2003, were Lester Soloai ACO 47 and Mark Pavey ACO 30. These officers were trained by Selina Neill, who was the GCCC’s Education and Public Awareness Officer training the breed identification course during 2003.

6. 5^th November 2004, Taylor Vs GCCC, Magistrate Batts declared Selina Neill not an expert in Breed Identification and all other animal control officers trained similarly also not experts in Breed identification, therefore making their identification invalid from this date regardless.

7. Your previous offer to me of the use of a veterinarian, Dr Jacqueline Perkins, to conduct an assessment of my dog Tyra, after spending 6 days in the court room Dino Da Fre Vs Logan City Council, two of these days listening to the attempts of Dr Jacqueline Perkins to mislead and make up fantasy remarks in court, then be told by the Magistrate Cornack, “Dr Perkins only road to specialization is about animal behavior and it’s her opinion that animal behavior is the closest thing to breed ID. Now, that is not an area that she can really give evidence about. That is her opinion but she’s not an expert to give that opinion. And she is not a fellow yet, so it’s irrelevant, “there’s no way anyone in Australia can get specialization in breed identification at this stage. If there was, the council wouldn’t be thinking up 22 point plans they just ship off their people down there to get their –diploma or certificate in breed ID and things would be a lot happier, that’s as I understand Dr Perkins. It is her opinion that that is the closest thing to breed identification. Breed identification is part of veterinary work for some purposes and a part- oh, animal behaviorists probably use it for some purposes as well. But she certainly is not going to be a specialist in breed identification”

Mr. Irwin, you have not responded to my letter in a dignified way, you have answered nothing regarding my questions. Jason Tyrer couldn’t respond either saying it was sent to the Legal Section of the GCCC. Please at least have the decency to respond to my letter in a dignified way; your job is to serve the public. Your letter sent on the 7^th Feb 2007 clarifies nothing but bullying tactics again.

  Tyra has been my therapeutic therapy for 11 years due to my illness, and my mothers now for the last 8 months, she is my mother’s backbone, she keeps her alive.

  “To not avail yourself of the opportunity of having “Tyra” reassessed will effectively be denying yourself of the opportunity to present evidence as to why a Restricted Dog Declaration should not be made.

  The identification made by Mr. Gary Blain is the only one brought forward that holds any possible resemblance of common sense and logic attached to it, so I tender it and him as a more reliable and credible expert witness than any other you have brought forward

  The request herein is being made in the utmost good faith and so assure you of due process and natural Justice.”

  Your need to have Tyra re-assessed is in no way my best interest, having nothing at all to do with Natural Justice or due process, but only an attempt to allow you to obtain some resemblance of credible evidence to proceed with in court.

“You assert you must prove”

I will fight this in Court and will also be contacting the media. I have had enough.

Christina

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it"  

Upton Beall Sinclair, 1878–1968

“The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.”’

Ronald Reagan

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

And the certificate of non restricted dog breed?

Dear Jason Tyrer
Team Leader Animal Management (Investigations and Pest Species)
Animal Control.
Gold Coast City Council.

28th of February 2007.

Dear Jason

After reviewing the correspondence dated 20th February 2007, Ref.No. PN42580/16(P1) I feel there are several matters that still need clarification and other points that still have not been addressed and in the interest of finalizing this whole matter, it is better to put all the points on the table so as to find closure for Mrs C.

The letter:
1. In making this decision Council had regard to the following information:
a) The original assessment carried out by Council officers in 2003 using the 22 point checklist.• Please elaborate; were the officers found to be badly or poorly trained?
• Had the person who trained these officers also been badly or poorly trained?
• Was this standard of assessment at that time deemed to be acceptable?
• Are you ready to concede that the 22 point checklist is, as Mrs. C and myself have been saying and proving over and over again, a totally misleading document holding no validity at all?
• Are you prepared to take the advice of the QLGA and the advice from Kings & Co Solicitors regarding their interpretation of the outcome of the Dino Da Fre Vs Logan City Councils court case and the use of the 22 point checklist in any future court trials?

Evidence provided by you by way of photographs and comments indicating doubt about some points in the 2003 assessment.

• Please elaborate; As you first dismissed Gary Blain (permission was given to enable other dog owners to use his expertise) as having no qualifications, not an expert regarding dogs, I had to go to great lengths to prove you were wrong. The Neville Brown Vs GCCC, if you recall it was Gary Blains experts advise and evidence that was the main reason this case went Mr. Browns way and he was given back his dogs.
• After a few challenges regarding his qualifications you say you are now willing to accept his report and findings based on what new information?

c) As the dog was not made available for re-assessment the only avenue remaining for Council to perform an assessment to substantiate your claim would have been to obtain a warrant and seize the dog. Council was not prepared to take such serious action in this case.
• This dog was made available under the condition that you validate the qualifications of either the ACO conducting the test or the Vet and the document they would be using. We both know you could not do this, as through exhausted court cases Qld councils have no admissible evidence once again supported by QLGA and the advice from Kings & Co Solicitors.
• To obtain a warrant would have taken an hour of your time, due to the fact that the two females who were in possession of the dog Tyra, one suffering from Dementia and around 80 years old and the other having to rely on a walking stick with numerous medical problems, I do not see that you would have needed a small army to obtain this dog. However once you had seized this dog what would you have done with it? We both know you could do nothing.

Council has reviewed the assessment and based on the opinion of a qualified and trained officer
• You must be joking, or are delusional, do you think just because you write something on a Gold Coast City Council Letterhead it magically becomes the truth?
• The only way this statement can become true is if you have employed an ACO with qualifications so new with world ground breaking technology that no one else has. I think not.
• Who is this qualified and trained officer, what are his or her qualifications, we both know this statement is simply untrue.
• If and when this goes back to court, I will enjoy watching your attempts to validate this statement
• I will put this as simply as I can: There is no ACO in Qld that has the necessary qualifications to perform Breed Identification with or without the use of the 22 point checklist that will stand up in court. Please contact your QLGA or Kings & Co Solicitor’s as you will never believe me publicly but you have no other choice but to take the advice of your own legal council.

Therefore, your dog was afforded the benefit of the doubt and the decision was made
• Benefit of the doubt: definition: A favorable judgment granted in the absence of full evidence. In a case where some doubt remains: to assume that they are telling the truth, or are innocent, because there is not enough evidence to be certain that they are not.
• It has taken Mrs. C since the 03/05/2000 till contacting me on the 3rd of October 2006 then to date to prove what she has indicated all along that her dog Tyra was not a Pit bull terrier.
• I have supplied a mountain of factual evidence, proof that has stood up in court and now has been acknowledged by your own legal representative law firm as unshakeable in any court, in other words a judgment or decision, based on full irrefutable evidence would be a more correct term.
• You know you cannot prove beyond reasonable doubt, in fact at all, that Tyra is what you say she is.
• If you were to try and we set up the same defense as the Dino Da Fre case you would be found to be acting with Malfeasance, subjecting you yourself, your head of department and the members of the GCCC to civil law suits which you would lose.
• Show me what doubt you have if you can and I would be more than happy to prove you wrong in court.


Council has adjusted its registration records
• Mrs. C has been subjected to paying restricted dog registration fees from 2003, this has been clearly proven as being wrong and the error was fully councils fault. The GCCC now has an obligation to reimburse Mrs. C the balance, less the normal dog registration fees, Mrs. C is a pensioner which also must come into account.

The CERTIFICATE OF NON PRHIBITED BREED?
1) What qualifies you, Jason Tyrer (as I only have a signature to go by), to be able to give out dog breed certificates?
2) Has this been approved by the GCCC?
3) The document is not numbered, one would believe that this was made up on your computer in a hope that this would act as payment for the 3 and a half years of harassment pain and suffering.
4) I have sent this to several councils and shires throughout Qld asking if anyone has seen one of these or would accept this as proof, the reply after laughing was no.
5) Has this document even been seen by anyone from the state government, let alone approved, no!
6) A little more effort would have included:
• A better photo of the dog other than of Tyra sleeping.
• The document should be numbered.
• The dogs Micro chip number for better identification should also be included for a positive identification.
• The comical lettering may be funny to you but is rather insulting to the dog owner, but then you probably think you have gotten away with this and do think it is funny.
• No VTEC or NTA approval.

To put it simply this document is not worth the paper it is written on[i].

I await your reply to this letter as this is only a letter of intent to enable you the GCCC to be able to afford the opportunity to settle this matter without further litigation and cost, I’m hoping you stay true to character and litigate.

It is the duty of the Council to fairly inform the Court about both sides of an issue when it is seeking to exercise statutory powers against an individual who may not be able to properly represent him or her self.

This is the principle of the "duties of a model litigant" which apply to all levels of government in legal enforcement proceedings (as distinct from ordinary civil disputes where the general law applies and the Council has no special advantage, and hence no special duty).

The duty, which applies to local governments as well as State and Federal, is referred to in 100 years worth of case law and quite clearly identified, as an example, in Cantarella Pty Ltd v Egg Marketing Board (NSW) [1973] 2 NSWLR 366 at 383–4 as follows:-

“The duty of the executive branch of government is to ascertain the law and obey it. If there is any difficulty in ascertaining what the law is, as applicable to the particular case, it is open to the executive to approach the court, or afford the citizen the opportunity of approaching the court, to clarify the matter. Where the matter is before the court it is the duty of the executive to assist the court to arrive at the proper and just result.”

A Council acts improperly at law if it conceals relevant information from the Court which would not help its case, and which might adversely affect a proper and just outcome, when it knows of that information, and knows that the affected citizen is not adequately able to present it. The duty has less significance when the individual is competently represented and sufficiently resourced, but how often does that happen in SEQ?

Jon Mokomoko.