Sad Sheltie story...hope he makes it out

Town Attorney defaults on filing deadline

As the legal battle to Save Jack grinds on in agonizing slowness (and the kennel bills continue to mount, and Jack continues to be held in solitary jail), the deadline for the Town Attorney for the Town of New Hartford (suburb of Utica, NY) has missed the deadline to file a Reply Brief. To understand how this goes together, you have to go back to 2010, when a new "Town Supervisor" was elected, and he promptly appointed as the Town Attorney a certain Herb Cully, now about age 63, to a salary of $50,000 a year to deal with the town's legal matters. Cully is a partner in a law practice physically in Utica, yet seems to be a chum of the Supervisor, and my hunch is he lives in New Hartford and is part of the political backroom there.

While missing a filing deadline "might" lead to a default Ruling by the County Court hearing the Appeal of the Kill Order of Magistrate Judge Van Slyke, I am dubious that in the context of this case, it will matter much (unless the town strategy is to simply default so that the whole affair will go away, another possibility, yet unlikely). In theory, the Oneida County Court in Utica could issue a Ruling defaulting the Town, grant the Appeal, and vacate Van Slyke's Order. In practice, I suspect the County Court will wait until Herb Cully gets around to writing his Brief.

The Brief will require Cully to set forth the "case law" or legal precedent on why Van Slyke's Order should be upheld, and why the arguments set forth by the dog's owner family, through their counsel from NYC, should be disregarded. As I have not seen that Brief, I have no idea what has been set forth (although I speculate that due-process arguments are in there). After the town Brief is in there, then it goes to Hearing, although in theory the Appellant owners could file a Reply Memorandum to whatever the town has written.

I will be attempting to get copies of those Briefs, although the obvious factor that is going to sway this case is public pressure. Folks, don't let this one fade away, Jack's very life is in the balance! I plan to head to Utica and see Jack and dig further, and will report back. Anybody closer, head on over to the courthouse and dig out the Filings; need to see what has been said so far.
 
The more I read of the plight of Jack (here, in the sparsely offered news feeds, Facebook and various forums), the more I am convinced (personally, only personally) that the confrontation is no longer about Jack. Perhaps it never really was about Jack.

For the record, let me say that it is deplorable to think that Jack should be euthanized or even held in seclusion for this time period. For me, from the onset, I was troubled by the unilateral decision of the judge, but I was/am still troubled by some elements published and attributed to Jack's family.

To be honest, I had prepared to list a few of the elements that I find most egregious about this case, but quite frankly that would serve no real positive purpose. From the outside, it simply seems that nearly everyone who "speaks" for Jack (anyone remember that this is supposed to be about Jack?), has a interest perhaps beyond the dog. The officials involved, who could end this debacle quickly, have (seeming) chosen to drag this situation out for God knows what reason. When this is all over (however it plays out), I hope that both sides are sufficiently ashamed of their parts in this melee.
 
I am thinking that no one in the legal system is placing much importance on this because it is an animal. Even for humans the legal system can leave people hanging for extremely long times without making a decision 1 way or another unless forced to. The owners need a really fired up attorney to keep pushing to get this resolved. Isn't there some attorney animal lover that would do it for free? My father was an attorney & I know he would have helped if this happened when he was alive. He would have filed a motion or whatever to have Jack released on "bail" to a mutually agreeable "halfway house". Maybe a rescue up there would step up & offer to keep him for just the donation for food. If it were down my way I would.

Has the HSUS or ASPCA been contacted for advice or support? It might be time to blast an email off to as many prominent people as possible. The more attention it gets the more they will want to resolve it ASAP while looking good.

Keeping Jack in my prayers. This is cruel all the way around.
 
This is different then Jack's story, but its about a bite. This dog has been aggressive, pinned a guy visiting this house against the door.

The owners of this dog had a picnic, and one of the little ones about 8 opened up a cooler to get a pop out, and the dog for no reason bit the little girl in the leg. She had to have multiple stitches. This little girl adores dogs.

The little girl had to go to the hospital. The dog was checked out, owners showed that the dog had the shots. The dog was quaranteened in the house, but the owners were not ordered to put the dog down.

This is a proven aggressive dog, and what happened to Jack was protecting himself. The judge must not own a dog, and understand what a dog would do when its startled by a child falling on top of this sheltie.

Because the owners could show that all the shots on this dog were up to date, they didn't have to put the dog down. This dog did not have a good reputation. It is sad for Jack.
 
Obstacles to resolution

To attempt to clear up some foggy areas: the family [ as"Defendant-Appellant"] is being represented "pro bono," i.e. without charges for legal services, by an attorney named "Louis," who apparently grew up in Utica and now practices law in NYC. The Town of New Hartford as the "Plaintiff-Appellee" is represented by one Herb Cully, an attorney in a law firm of Calli, Calli & Cully located in Utica (not New Hartford). The Town pays Herb Cully a retainer fee of $50,000 a year, so it is not clear that the Town is facing any financial pressure at all in this legal fight, as it would seem the town is in there "flat rate" for the year. The family's big exposure is in "costs," hundreds in filing fees, and the biggie, the huge kennel bills.

In looking at the background of the Town's law firm, it appears dismal. The elder "Calli" seems to be disbarred for fraudulent representation (although his name continues on the masthead). The other lawyers including Cully remain defendants in a legal malpractice suit brought by a town policeman; it appears the firm accepted the policeman in a serious workplace injury claim and then never filed the lawsuit, and covered it up by attempting to pay a supposed "settlement" out of a trust-funds account. For lawyers, this is disastrous, both malpractice and fraudulent representation as an officer of the Court. So I am not convinced that appeals to Mr. Cully's better instincts are going anywhere.

One problem Jack faces is that his family never bothered to purchase a dog license for him. Not Jack's fault, of course, but it moves Jack from the status of a protected animal to unprotected, a sort of "legal outlaw." With a current (valid) license, a dog remains under protected status (sadly a cat does not). Unless the Town Supervisor, feeling the heat, instructs Cully to default the case (an elegant solution for the Town that gets them out from underneath), you can anticipate that some part of the legal argument will rest on Jack being an outlaw dog. If the Town Supervisor is defending the Appeal (I.e. attempting to maintain and enforce the Kill Order), then it would not seem to cost the Town any out-of-pocket cash, as Herb Cully is paid a flat fee for his work for the town. He faces political and social heat, not cash heat.

What does work in favor of Jack, albeit fortuitously, is that local politics is so tortured and has deep enmities. The political opponents of the Supervisor (effectively, a Mayor) are using this disaster as political grist.

Realistically, the legal battle for poor Jack has shifted to the Oneida County Court, situated in Utica itself (and thus outside the fray). What works in favor of Jack is that the Judges of the County in Utica assuredly know all about Judge Van Slyke (age 84) and since Van Slyke has zero legal training, are not going to be constrained in overturning him. This is not going to be the first case coming to them from a ruling by Van Slyke. Remember that in NY, these local judges are part of the political machine, elected, and you do not have to be in a law school class for even one day to be a Judge. The locals elected Van Slyke as the party-machine "candidate," and now the wisdom of doing that has come back to hurt them. Meanwhile, the bills for Jack's prison stay continue to mount up, at $1,250 a month.

The other vulnerable point in this disaster is the Stevens-Swan Humane Society, now holding Jack. I point out that they are not under any Court Order, are not answerable to Van Slyke, are not even in New Hartford, and their ties to New Hartford are solely in that "contract," a civil agreement. The Society Directors could, if they wanted to, have their vet (an expert) examine Jack, write an Opinion that he is not a vicious dog (an unassailable position to take), and send him home to his family. Yes, that might be a breach of their contract with New Hartford, but so what? The Town considers Jack to be valueless (remember, they want to Kill him), so there are no money damages the Town can claim. At worst, the Town cancels its contract with the Society (which they won't, as nobody else wants that Town's work). The Society cuts its political fallout by sending Jack home. An elegant solution, one the Directors have to be convinced of.

It is a huge mess. If you want to keep Jack from being murdered, then sign his Facebook and Change.org petitions, and write the Oneida County Court politely. You can also send letters to the Utica Chamber of Commerce expressing your distaste with the lack of leadership (a sensitive area) and push them to step up to the plate. The more you do, the more push there is to free Jack.
 
lasheltie said:
I am thinking that no one in the legal system is placing much importance on this because it is an animal. Even for humans the legal system can leave people hanging for extremely long times without making a decision 1 way or another unless forced to...
Click to expand...

My guess is that you are correct about the inactivity of the local community legal system. But, I think it goes even deeper than Jack just being an animal. The "judge" made a knee jerk reaction and if the reported accounts are correct, the somewhat homogeneous political makeup of the town leaders allowed them to close ranks and line up behind a poor decision. When you add to that, knee jerk reactions on the part of individuals outside of the community, it's a cocktail for disaster and even if it ends well (with Jack alive), on balance, this is a war with few winners.

I still say however, if you read accounts and watch relevant videos closely, you might just see that the story from Jack's side isn't as clean and clear cut as many would have us believe. All that said - let the dog go home!
 
Something for everyone to take away from this: If your own dog bites you, intentionally or not, and you have to seek medical attention, blame the bite on a stray dog. That way no one can come after your fur family. In most states dog bites have to be reported by medical personnel to police just as gun shots have to be reported.
 
Wow! You know, as one who prides himself on rarely being surprised, I will admit that the turn in this conversation was truly a surprise to me. Agree or disagree with the opinions put forth here, I always felt that the discussions were honest, good faith offerings....

celloyogi said:
Something for everyone to take away from this: If your own dog bites you, intentionally or not, and you have to seek medical attention, blame the bite on a stray dog. That way no one can come after your fur family... .
Click to expand...

As bad as I think Jack's situation is, I would never think to blame someone else's dog (stray, lost or otherwise) for a transgression of my companion. I wonder how different this particular discussion would be tracking if the "offending" dog was a Pit Bull or one of the other so-called "Bully Breeds" rather than a beloved Sheltie?

While I wallow in my surprise, let me ask the following: (1) Am I the only one who is a bit disturbed that whenever anyone from Jack's "family" speaks on his behalf, it's always the child's grandmother (Jack's owner) or the grandfather (husband of the owner) or the aunt? I have never seen a comment from either the child's mother or father that this biting incident should be considered a non issue? I'm not sure what that says, but it is a bit troubling to me. (2) Most Jack supporters point out that he was either startled or defending himself and therefore was just "doing what dogs do". Is it troubling to anyone else that the dog's owner told the court that no-one actually saw what happened? In the clip linked in this very thread, the only one present at the time of the incident (the grandfather) said he was walking beside the child with Jack behind. Even he didn't see anything and only heard a growl from the dog. How could the child have done anything? I do not say the dog should be put down. I just say there is enough poor behavior here for all to share.
 
What would you prefer?

JLSOhio51 said:
I have never seen a comment from either the child's mother or father that this biting incident should be considered a non issue? I'm not sure what that says, but it is a bit troubling to me. ------- I do not say the dog should be put down. I just say there is enough poor behavior here for all to share.
Click to expand...

As to the parents not speaking publicly, let us remember that by all accounts they are very average folks with a heavy array of Officialdom set against them. Being terrified by abusers will silence all but the most sturdy.

As to "poor behavior," then what would you prefer? Whatever the circumstances swirling about the humans, poor Jack remains the victim. A dog that has been about a family for 7 years and never ever nipped before is not a vicious dog. Period. Surely everybody here knows that to be true.

My intention is to get Jack out from underneath a Death Sentence and away from his intended killers. Once he is safe, the rest can be sorted out. To accomplish that, the pressure has to be put on the players in Utica. Anything less, and Jack dies. Let us all try to focus on the task at hand.
 
Jan van Eck said:
As to the parents not speaking publicly, let us remember that by all accounts they are very average folks with a heavy array of Officialdom set against them. Being terrified by abusers will silence all but the most sturdy.
Click to expand...

I can certainly understand that some of the principles would be reluctant to speak out, and that is just as certainly their right. I would also hope that someone involved would consider that there will be those who read all of the associated reporting and question why the child's parents make no comments. I wouldn't expect everyone to want to speak out publicly, but a simple "we agree" quoted from the parents would probably go a long toward removing questions from some of those folks that they also want to help them apply pressure. But, I do respect their right to remain silent.


Jan van Eck said:
As to "poor behavior," then what would you prefer?...
Click to expand...

What I would expect is for all involved to say "we don't know what happened" if that is the case. In the video the owner says, "The child fell on or startled Jack." The only witness said "I'm not sure what happened." I don't see saying "we're not sure" as materially changing either side's position, but for some of us (at least for me) if something doesn't fit, I begin to look for why.

I do agree, keeping Jack alive is the focus.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top