SAVING SHEBA
The Ongoing Saga of Trouble at Devore Animal Shelter and the Callous Disregard by a County Board of Supervisors that has divested itself of responsibility and accountability.
QUICK SUMMARY
Sheba, a ten year old female GSD was let out of her home at least two times over a years’ time and got into trouble the first time by getting in a dog fight. Getting loose the second time triggered the animal control department to confiscate her. Sheba’s 80 year old owner was required to keep Sheba in a safe, secure home and he didn’t. There was a hearing in July, 2019 and the hearing officer sentenced Sheba to death because, he said, “Going back to the owner would represent a danger to the community.” The problem is that, there was never a finding that Sheba was unadoptable thereby nullifying the rationale for the county decision to kill her. Well wishers, hired an attorney for the owner. All she had ever done in ten years was to get into a dog fight once and had another “near incident” on the second time out of the house but she respected the owner of the other dog and did not engage.
Little has happened in the past year and Sheba has lingered in a tiny cage, never let out for the entire time. Final briefs have been filed and the final meeting of the attorneys and judge is scheduled for September 11, 2020. May 13 of this year, the owner communicated to his attorney that he would be willing to dismiss the law suit if the county would just release Sheba to a 501(c)3 dog rescue. This was communicated to the county attorney who refused to consider it or even talk about it. Their reason for the death sentence is based on a false argument and they know it and don’t want to have to try to defend it so they cut off communications.
Multiple attempts to discuss an administrative resolution with administration and with the board have been met with the mantra “This matter is in litigation and it is not appropriate to talk about it.” Efforts to get the Sheba out continue however. The board and administration remain defiant.
The following pages provide a complete discussion of the facts and issues. A table of contents follows for easy navigating. Be sure to note a set of tables Law, Issues and County Violations breaks down the case from the beginning to present day in a very “digestible” way. Appendices address other specific issues.
Table of Contents
ANIMAL CONTROL TAKES POSSESSION OF SHEBA 3
CLEAR PROBLEMS WITH THIS DECISION 4
RECONCILING COUNTY AND STATE POLICY AND CURRENT 5
“PRACTICE” WITH SHEBA’S CASE 5
A VIRTUAL COMMUNICATION BLACK OUT 5
UNDERLYING COUNTY LEGAL STRATEGY 6
THE COST TO THE COUNTY TO KILL A DOG 6
EGO DRIVEN VINDICTIVE ACT OF SADISTIC REVENGE 7
SO WHAT ARE THE COUNTY’S MOTIVES 9
APPENDIX 1 – SELECTED APPLICABLE STATUTES 10
Section 17005 of the California Code states in the first sentence of the first sub section (a) 10
San Bernardino County Animal Control Policy III 6.1 dated August 18, 2017 Issue #2 Page 1: 10
§ 32.1407 Conditions for Destroying Animal Found Vicious or Potentially Dangerous. 11
APPENDIX 2 – CONTACTS AND REFERENCES 12
San Bernardino County Contacts 12
APPENDIX 3 - ACTIONS AGAINST OWNER AND SHEBA 13
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY POSITION 14
LAWS BEING VIOLATED BY SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY 15
THE COUNTY STRATEGY IN GETTING TO COURT AND KILLING SHEBA 17
BACKGROUND
This is a story that San Bernardino County is trying to keep under wraps. It’s both a human interest story and a story of governmental malfeasance. It is a story of an ego-driven Deputy Counsel responsible for Animal Control at San Bernardino County in concert with Animal Control and officials within the Department of Public Health.
It has to do with a dog, an 11 year old female German Shepherd named Sheba that has been kept in confinement in a cage for over a year. Sheba belonged to an elderly man, 81 years old, named Jose Sanchez in Running Springs. Sheba had a perfect ten year history in the small town and had never bitten a person or even ever demonstrated any aggression towards anyone. However, Sheba who he had had since she was seven weeks old was not securely kept at home. That is to say, Jose, otherwise known as “Pepe”, could have been more attentive and Sheba was found on two separate occasions to get out and stray around the neighborhood.
The first time was in 2018 during which Sheba became involved in a dogfight resulting in a $200 vet bill for the owners of the other dog. The second outing in July of 2019, Sheba encountered the same neighborhood dog and while the dogs’ interactions were leading to another incident, Sheba respected the owner of the other dog and relented.
Animal Control was informed and contacted Mr. Sanchez and sent warnings and notices including conditions which required compliance to keep Sheba. The second outing violated the conditions given and Sheba was confiscated. It’s noteworthy at this point to say that Mr. Sanchez is English illiterate and requires help to read and understand what is sent to him.
ANIMAL CONTROL TAKES POSSESSION OF SHEBA
The time Sheba got out, there was a near re-occurrence of the previous dog incident but both owners kept anything from happening. When Animal Control learned of this owner violation, they communicated with Mr. Sanchez and indicated they would be confiscating Sheba within 72 hours. This was back in July, 2019. Sheba has been contained in a 5x10 cell since then. She has never been let out the entire time.
HEARING CONVENED
Following the second event, there was a Hearing and the hearing officer, Greg Beck, wrote in his letter to Mr. Sanchez, “ I am ordering Sheba to be destroyed per San Bernardino County Code., Title 3, Division 2, Chapter 14, Section 32.1407(a) because allowing you to maintain custody of Sheba would create a significant threat to the public health, safety and welfare.”
CLEAR PROBLEMS WITH THIS DECISION
While the hearing officer declared Sheba a “vicious dog” based on a quasi legal hearing, there was never a finding that Sheba could not be adopted, nor was there any actual credible evaluation of her.
Secondly, returning Sheba to her owner was never the only alternative for Sheba, especially since she has never had any negative behavior problems with people and only ever gotten into two skirmishes in ten years. In fact, she often played with children and there is a petition signed by community citizens vouching for Sheba.
The county’s shelter has active relationships with around 300 non-profit rescue organizations with which they place dogs with dramatically greater behavioral issues, even dogs with significant bite histories, all of which Sheba completely lacks. So Sheba has been singled out.
All of this leads to the fact that 1.) not only was the hearing officer sentencing Sheba to death based on a false assumption that the only “live” alternative was to return Sheba to her former owner and 2.) Sheba’s only “crime” was to have been in a dogfight and she wasn’t found to be unadoptable.
Following this hearing officer proclamation, well wishers donated money to hire a lawyer, Geordie Duckler of Tigard, OR, who immediately issued a Writ of Mandamus to keep Sheba from being killed pending the outcome of the law suit.
On September 22, 2019, Mr. Duckler, attorney in the last paragraph of his letter wrote to Michele Blakesmore, Chief Legal Counsel and Matthew Marnell, Deputy Legal counsel, in charge of the case, “ I would be very interested in privately resolving this matter rather than litigate it and I have a very reasonable proposal to have the dog placed in an animal rescue shelter out of state as a solution to this issue if you are interested in discussing that option with me in exchange for my dismissal of the writ and stay motion. To discuss that possibility, I ask that you please call me at (971) 295-2433 as soon as you have a moment on Monday morning. I look forward to hearing from you and to working with you on a mutually acceptable resolution of this case.” They never responded except to say that Mr. Marnell once stated to Mr. Duckler, “This county will never let that dog go.”
RECONCILING COUNTY AND STATE POLICY AND CURRENT
“PRACTICE” WITH SHEBA’S CASE
It is clear that county and state policies embrace the utilization of non-profit rescue organizations and the view that euthanasia should be avoided. As pointed out earlier, they routinely and regularly release dogs labeled “rescue only” or “RO” with behavior histories and some with significant bite histories to rescue organizations. For the most part when in the homes of responsible owners and in a new safe, secure setting, past problems fade away with a modicum of training and reinforcement.
SO WHY HAS SHEBA BEEN SINGLED OUT TO DIE? Clearly their statutes allow them to kill animals but they are not required to do so. In actuality, she has only been in a dog fight once and the biggest violator has been the owner who is an elderly man who lives on his own since his wife died near the times Sheba got out. His daughter believes he is having some “senior moments” and being illiterate has played a part in this as well.
In 32.1407(a) above, there are even provisions for releasing “vicious” dogs to owners with certain provisos which further supports the rationale for allowing a dog with a minor behavior record to be released.
A VIRTUAL COMMUNICATION BLACK OUT
I became involved in the “Saving Sheba” movement in early May and whenever I have tried to communicate with anyone at San Bernardino County, each person has immediately said, “This matter is in litigation and it would be improper to talk about it.” They have all been coached. A total and complete communication black-out has been in place since sometime before May, 2019.
If the “Its in litigation so we cannot talk about it” excuse was a valid point, no one would ever settle out of court. Court cases would be stacked to the ceilings. The county lawyers’ object has been to edge administration and the Board of Supervisors out of the picture and they have willingly complied. The phrase to not comment could be translated to “Stay out of our sandbox. Don’t mess up our case. We alone will handle this our way.”
UNDERLYING COUNTY LEGAL STRATEGY
Their underlying focus is to keep the clock running down until the final lawyer and judge hearing/trial occurs on September 11 at which time the county will likely prevail because the plaintiff (owner) was, in fact, delinquent in not maintaining Sheba secure. The flawed hearing officer’s reasoning to kill Sheba will not come up.
We understand that such legal maneuvering might be palatable in the private sector but this is a public agency. It’s supposed to be public administration and a county serving the public and honoring transparency and above board administration and legal. It should not include county lawyers being cagey with taxpayers and insisting on a communication black-out to advance an ill-conceived plan to kill and old dog.
THE COST TO THE COUNTY TO KILL A DOG
Tax payers might like to know how their tax dollars are being spent to kill an old dog. Mr. Marnell, according to publicly available data had a compensation package of approximately $250,000 in 2019. We know he had others working on the case as well. One individuals reported that there were six lawyers working on this case although I have not been able to confirm that. When so many other needs are screaming for scarce resources one wonders how this level of effort could or should be considered reasonable and a prudent use of tax payer dollars.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
I have personally commented twice during public comments at Board meetings, June 2, and July 28 along with several others for Sheba’s release. Most notable speaking along with me on July 28 was Priscilla Presley, an animal advocate. Both of these speaking opportunities did not result in an acknowledgement or response, per the entire county ban and commenting on Sheba.
I inquired about getting on the regular board agenda but agenda items can only come from a department so once again, there is a dead end to communicating with this county supervision. Between the communication black out with not only the administration and board meetings it continues at the individual board member level. There is no way to get an audience for fairness except through law suits. They simply won’t entertain suggestions, offers,
BOARD MEMBERS COMMENTED
In a conversation with others before the ban on communication with board members occurred, board members were said to say, “Our hands are tied.” In fact, as fiduciaries, theirs are the only ones whose hands are not tied. They need to learn that county employees work for them and not the other way around. As the ultimate responsible ones for everything that goes on in the county, they are the ultimate decision makers, not the lawyers or the animal control officers.
The county lawyers believe they have us locked out. This is what gives rise to our reaching out to the media to let people know what is going on. For many years Devore Shelter has had a bad reputation. This is yet one more example of not only how Animal Control but the whole administration and even the Board neglected to think for themselves and have bowed exclusively to their legal department which refuses to act fairly, responsibly and in good faith to problem solve and find.
OWNER VISITS SHEBA
While he was a negligent owner in allowing Sheba to roam, Mr. Sanchez visits Sheba three times a week bringing her treats, usually late mornings. Earlier in the pandemic he was not allowed to see her for three months. He is the only one allowed to visit her. They allow him ten minutes with her but with the bars between them. There is no opportunity for him to give her a hug or caress her. (I have a video of one visit in July which I will send upon request).
EGO DRIVEN VINDICTIVE ACT OF SADISTIC REVENGE
It’s no secret that Mr. Sanchez was very difficult for Animal Control to deal with over the course of a year. He filed warnings and notices and was slow to comply with conditions for keeping Sheba secure. Many people familiar with the case believe that the county “powers that be” were greatly frustrated with Sanchez and so when they had an opportunity to “stick it to him”, they stretched the facts (claiming multiple bite attacks instead of one and did not distinguish that no humans were ever involved) and threw the book at him and Sheba. Her crime was one dogfight but Mr. Sanchez’ compliance violations grew over time. Mr. Marnell, deputy attorney for the county told the plaintiff attorney, “The county will never let Sheba go” even though they release dogs with far greater behavior histories every week.
ANIMAL CRUELTY
We believe that on top of all the foregoing unfairness there is the case of animal cruelty. Perhaps one of the worst is not allowing Sheba to set foot outside her small cell for over a year. Imagine being confined in a cage which is 5 feet by about 9 feet and they are partitioned in half for a sleep and feeding side and a second side of about 5x4.5 feet to stand up and turn around in. Section 597t of the Penal Code of California requires that animals “confined in enclosed areas be provided with an adequate exercise area.”
This law is not defined further but most reasonable people would agree that not allowing a large dog to step outside a 5x4.5 for over a year area is not enough room to do anything but turn around is not “adequate”. Beyond a physical wellbeing requirement, the mental impact is likely equally or more mentally painful.
Most dogs do not have anything soft to lay on. It has been said that there is no heating or air conditioning in the cages so in the hottest days and the coldest, some dogs that are most susceptible are in danger of freezing or getting heat stroke. One person knowledgeable of the facilities indicated they have “misters” but they are not always working.
The animals are given a solid “platform” on something like plywood to sleep on. Employees say the platforms are cooler in hot temperatures and warmer in cold temperatures. That is to be determined. Sheba had two blankets however.
IN SUMMARY
First, this case has one victim, Sheba. The owner has been inconvenienced but it is Sheba who will bear the brunt of an unfair, trumped up case by San Bernardino County Animal Control to get even with an elderly Hispanic man who, sadly, did not have the mental wherewithal to keep his dog secure. The violations of law and conditions were human violations not canine violations yet the county’s plan is to kill the real victim here.
It must be emphasized that Sheba’s crime was to get in a dog fight once with the only dog she ever fought with in her decade of life. She and the same other dog had a subsequent near incident but for both owners being present being able to control their dogs. To justify their position, county authorities, say Sheba has a multiple instance bite record. That is a lie. There was only one dogfight and one bite episode which debunks their finding on Section 32.1407 (a) and (b). Besides that, if it was necessary to kill every dog that was ever in a dogfight, there would not be many dogs around.
Strategically, the county lawyers are doing everything they can to block all communication to resolve this situation in a reasonable way and they have refused to cooperate since the plaintiff’s attorney came on board in September, 2019.
This infraction does not warrant death for Sheba because others with far worse histories are passed along to rescue organizations without hesitation. Devore shelter has over 300 rescue organizations which are all possible alternatives for Sheba and some are waiting right now to rescue her.
SO WHAT ARE THE COUNTY’S MOTIVES
What can be the possible reason for the county wanting Sheba dead when numerous humane life saving solutions abound? Dogs with far more aggressive and even have bite histories that Sheba doesn’t have are released all the time. There is only one reason. They are approaching this case in a mean-spirited, vindictive way to teach to an old Hispanic man they don’t like because he was not responsive and gave them a hard time for a year and then he sued them.
County lawyers, public health and animal control refuse to talk about their decisions because they simply cannot justify them when all the laws, normal practice/precedents, policies and facts are on the table. Their arguments cannot stand up.
Their focus now is to stay below the radar, let the clock run down and avoiding hard questions or inquiries that might jeopardize their chase to the September 11 hearing when they will hopefully get their desired result and kill Sheba before the day’s end.
It cannot be viewed any other way but a dark stain on the entire board and administration for permitting this unjustifiable trumped up case against an eleven year old dog with a pretty mild behavior history.
This is another story of how something can go terribly wrong when guided by dishonest intentions of people in power and how local government can fail just and humane. Gandhi said, “The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”
APPENDIX 1 – SELECTED APPLICABLE STATUTES
Section 17005 of the California Code states in the first sentence of the first sub section (a)
“It is the policy of the state that no adoptable animal should be euthanized if it can be adopted into a suitable home. Sub section (b) reads, “It is the policy of the state that no treatable animal should be euthanized. A treatable animal shall include any animal that is not adoptable but that could become adoptable with reasonable efforts.
San Bernardino County Animal Control Policy III 6.1 dated August 18, 2017 Issue #2 Page 1:
“It is a goal of SBC Animal Care and Control to reduce the number of companion animals euthanized in the animal shelters. As such, SBC Animal Care and Control cooperatively releases animals to both partner and non-partner non-profit animal rescue groups in an attempt to achieve this goal.”
San Bernardino County Animal Control Policy III 18.1.0 Regarding Rescue Groups dated October 30, 2014 Issue #3 Page 3
“Approved rescue groups are a viable alternative to euthanasia and many will accept animals of all types regardless of their condition. These groups should be utilized whenever practical and appropriate.”
The law cited by the Hearing Officer for the destruction of Sheba is as follows:
§ 32.1407 Conditions for Destroying Animal Found Vicious or Potentially Dangerous.
(a) An animal determined to be a vicious or potentially dangerous animal may be destroyed by the Animal Care and Control Program when it is found, after proceedings conducted under § 32.1403, that the release of the animal would create a significant threat to the public health, safety and welfare. If it is determined that a vicious or potentially dangerous animal may be released, the Chief Officer shall impose conditions upon the ownership of the animal, including, but not limited to, the conditions set forth in § 32.1405 in order to protect the public health, safety, and welfare.
(b) An animal previously determined to be a vicious or potentially dangerous animal may be destroyed by the Animal Care and Control Program when it is found, after proceedings conducted under § 32.1403, that the owner or keeper of the animal has failed to comply with the provisions of § 32.1405(a).
(Ord. 3804, passed - -2000)
APPENDIX 2 – CONTACTS AND REFERENCES
Sheba Advocates
Geordie Duckler | Attorney for Mr. Sanchez | 503-546-8052 |
Traci Foreman | Advocate and CEO, Non-profit Animal Rescue Organization | 870-904-9492 |
Bruce Krider | Advocate | 760-612-9156 |
Marla Taescher | Advocate and Animal Law Attorney | 626-345-5777 |
San Bernardino County Contacts
Brian Cronin | Chief , Animal Control | (909) 387-9152 |
Corwin Porter | Director of Public Health Department | |
Gary McBride | Chief Executive of County | (909) 387-5417 |
Dawn Rowe | Board Member | |
Janice Rutherford | Board Member | |
Josie Gonzales | Board Member | |
Curt Hagman | Chairman of the Board | |
Robert Lovingood | Board Member | |
Matthew Marnell | Deputy Legal Counsel (prosecuting Sheba) | |
Michelle Blakesmore | County Chief Legal Counsel | |
Greg Beck | Hearing Officer and Program Manager for Animal Control, Department of Health | (909) 382-3926 |
APPENDIX 3 - ACTIONS AGAINST OWNER AND SHEBA
Elements of the Case | Clarification | Explanation |
Between 2018-2019, Sheba was found to be outside her property two times. | The first time Sheba was involved in a dog fight there was a $200 veterinary cost for the other dog.
The second time there was an impending dog fight with the same dog but one of the owners was present to preclude it and Sheba obviously used discretion and didn’t do anything and respected the owner. | There is ample evidence that Sheba’s home was not secure and that she was periodically wandered.
In ten years she got in dog fight because her home was not appropriately secured by the owner and Sheba was confiscated and taken to San Bernardino’s Devore Shelter where she has been for a year. |
There Were two Hearings on Sheba and her owner. One after the first incident and the second one after the last outing. | The first hearing related to the dogfight incident and gave rise to conditions for keeping Sheba (to keep her from roaming).
The second hearing occurred after she was out a second time and encountered the same dog when nothing physically happened but the free roaming violated the conditions for keeping Sheba. | Two hearings were held. Both related the inability of the owner to contain Sheba in his home. |
Letter to the Owner Following the Second Hearing Declaring Sheba a Vicious Animal and Ordering Her Destroyed. | On July 18, 2019, Greg Beck, Hearing Officer in his determination letter to Jose Sanchez, summarizes, “Therefore as of this date, you are hereby notified that Sheba is declared to be a Vicious Animal as defined by San Bernardino County Code. Further I am ordering Sheba to be destroyed per San Bernardino County Code., Title 3, Division 2, Chapter 14, Section 32.1407(a) because allowing you to maintain custody of Sheba would create a significant threat to the public health, safety and welfare.” | The first major flaw in this case is that returning Sheba to the owner was never the only option per Section 17005 of the California Code and San Bernardino County Animal Control Policy III 6.1 and most of all San Bernardino County Animal Control Policy III 18.1.0. (See these laws discussed below.)
The second flaw is that she was never properly evaluated to be unadoptable. So the entire decision to kill was based on critically flawed criteria.
This case boils down to whether it is fair and right for the county to kill an adoptable or re-homed animal caught in the middle of a case because of owner non-compliance instead of the actual nature of a dog’s behavior. |
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY POSITION
Law | Language | Why County Violated |
San Bernardino County § 32.1407 Conditions for Destroying Animal Found Vicious or Potentially Dangerous (a) This is the law the county is leaning on to kill Sheba.
| (a) “ An animal determined to be a vicious or potentially dangerous animal may be destroyed by the Animal Care and Control Program when it is found, after proceedings conducted under § 32.1403, that the release of the animal would create a significant threat to the public health, safety and welfare. If it is determined that a vicious or potentially dangerous animal may be released, the Chief Officer shall impose conditions upon the ownership of the animal, including, but not limited to, the conditions set forth in § 32.1405 in order to protect the public health, safety, and welfare.” | There was never any legitimate finding that Sheba was actually vicious. There was never any professional evaluation by any animal behaviorist to properly or professional make that assessment. This is especially outrageous since all there is, is only one actual dogfight documented for any kind of negative behavior.
This county law also leaves the door open to release a vicious dog if conditions for release are met meaning, the dog does not need to be destroyed. |
San Bernardino County § 32.1407 Conditions for Destroying Animal Found Vicious or Potentially Dangerous (b) | (b) “An animal previously determined to be a vicious or potentially dangerous animal may be destroyed by the Animal Care and Control Program when it is found, after proceedings conducted under § 32.1403, that the owner or keeper of the animal has failed to comply with the provisions of § 32.1405(a).” (Ord. 3804, passed - -2000)
| Sheba had been designated a potentially dangerous animal and by virtue of her getting out a second time, the owner was found to have failed to comply and Sheba was confiscated.
This is a sanction on the owner but rather than punish the owner they kill the dog. It should result in the animal being confiscated as she was but properly evaluated and released to a rescue organization to remain compliant with state law and their own policies. |
LAWS BEING VIOLATED BY SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY
Law | Language | Why County Violated |
Section 17005 of the California Code states | Subsection (a) “It is the policy of the state that no adoptable animal should be euthanized if it can be adopted into a suitable home.” Sub section (b), “It is the policy of the state that no treatable animal should be euthanized. A treatable animal shall include any animal that is not adoptable but that could become adoptable with reasonable efforts.”
| Sheba is highly adoptable. There are rescue organizations waiting in line to rescue her. Plus there was never a verifiable finding that Sheba was not adoptable and hence be a strong candidate for re-homing. She has never bitten anyone or even acted aggressively towards a human. She was in one dog fight when not secured in her home. A second near incident was building but an owner was present and nothing happened. Sheba respected the other dog’s owner’s commands and her own and backed away. |
San Bernardino County Animal Control Policy III 6.1 dated August 18, 2017 Issue #2 Page 1:
| “It is a goal of SBC Animal Care and Control to reduce the number of companion animals euthanized in the animal shelters. As such, SBC Animal Care and Control cooperatively releases animals to both partner and non-partner non-profit animal rescue groups in an attempt to achieve this goal.” | With no human aggression history in ten years in her community, Sheba is highly adoptable and available to interested dog rescue organizations. Devore has at least 200 regular rescue organizations it conveys dogs to. |
San Bernardino County Animal Control Policy III 18.1.0 Regarding Selection of Animals for Euthanasia dated October 30, 2014 Issue #3 Page 3 | Rescue Groups – “Approved rescue groups are a viable alternative to euthanasia and many will accept animals of all types regardless of their condition. These groups should be utilized whenever practical and appropriate.”
| Dogs with far greater behavior histories, even with significant bite histories are conveyed to rescue organizations and are successfully re-homed weekly, if not daily, not only in this county but others around California and likely the United States. The arbitrary death sentence on Sheba is out of line with everything.
|
§ 32.1406 Removal of Designation as Potentially Dangerous or Vicious.
| “If the owner or keeper demonstrates changes that mitigate the risk to public safety to the satisfaction of the Chief Officer, the designation of potentially dangerous or vicious shall be removed.” (Ord. 3804, passed - -2000)
| The county’s own laws allow for and recognize that dogs designated vicious may be removed from the list. Therefore, changing owners by releasing to a rescue organization that would screen potential adopters to be able to provide safe, secure, loving homes could remove the vicious designation applied at the last home.
Sheba’s long (a decade) history is unassailable. Even the owners of the dog that Sheba was involved in the one dogfight she was in have written and asked that she not be killed. As well, Sheba has a signed list of community supporters vouching for her behavior. So, above all, why should Sheba be denied this opportunity for a compliant home?
|
THE COUNTY STRATEGY IN GETTING TO COURT AND KILLING SHEBA
Strategy | Background |
|
County Legal Department Refuses to Communicate with the Plaintiff Counsel Regarding the Case. |
The plaintiff attorney from the outset offered a solution to resolve the problem: Dismiss case and release dog to an out of state rescue. There was and has never been any response whatsoever. Their silence has been deafening.
| OBJECTIVES
|
Lawyers Tell the Board of Supervisors To Refuse to Speak with Anyone About It. |
Multiple private individuals have tried to communicate their displeasure with the way the board has been handling this matter, allowing legal, public health and animal control departments to be unaccountable to the Board of Supervisors by ignoring their tax payers and constituents. |
The Board of Supervisors have a duty to supervise. They are highly paid public officials and they are abrogating their responsibilities and they have chosen to turn a blind eye to this case preferring instead to punt it to the legal department and ignore everything else. |
Lawyers Tell the Administration To Refuse to Speak with Anyone About It. |
The Chief Executive has also been uncommunicative in the same way. His staff has been trained to say, “This matter is in litigation and it would be improper to say anything.” His office was said to have quoted the CEO saying. “The matter is in the superior court and he has not authority in it.” |
This chief executive doesn’t understand his role. He is over the legal department. He can tell the legal department and animal control to make the same typical arrangement for Sheba to go to a rescue organization that they do for literally 95% of dogs if the plaintiff agrees to drop the case. |
SUMMARY
This is a story of abuse of power, malfeasance of office and inhumane treatment of an animal caught in the middle of a case between a non-compliant owner and a vindictive, unapproachable legal department. It’s about an intransigent local county government that does not hold departments accountable and allows vindictiveness and the mischaracterization of truth and conveniently dismisses other relevant policies and facts.
Because the original lawsuit for the plaintiff was to get his dog back and but because of his record of non-compliance it seems unlikely to succeed. Coupled with the unwillingness by the county to allow any other reasonable problem solving to occur or to even consider the laws and policies they are supposed to be governed by, the county is on track to keep this case narrowed down a “non-compliant owner case” which will result in a death barring any unforeseen developments.
None of the irregularities or diversions from state law or the county’s own policies and practices will come into play because they were not part of the case at the beginning.
Sheba is the most innocent of all the parties here. She has already been incarcerated for a year without even having offered the kindness to be let outside her tiny cage which is tantamount to animal abuse. She has been denied her family and love.
Everyone failed her. The 81 year old owner failed to provide a secure home. The county failed to properly evaluate her and then failed to treat her fairly and condemn her to death because she couldn’t go back to a home she didn’t need to go back to be re-homed anyway.
This small case of a dog’s life is not a major issue for a big county like San Bernardino but not having the decency to fairly and administratively solve an easy case like this is profoundly unacceptable and should give pause to the consideration of how they approach big decisions and how fit they are for office.
This board needs to direct the Administration to direct the legal department to meet with the plaintiff’s attorney to release Sheba to a rescue organization like they should have a year ago and for the plaintiff to dismiss the lawsuit.
Please call the following people and ask them to negotiate a release of Sheba to a rescue organization per
1. Section 17005 of the California Code and
2. San Bernardino County Animal Control Policies III 6.1 and 18.1.0.
APPENDIX 5 – SHEBA BEFORE AND AFTER
Sheba for Ten Years Before
|
|
|
