Contra Costa Collies
News Link to us Injunction CC5 Amicus Curiae

June 24, 2000   Chauncey Wilson Out of Contra Costa County

News Updates June 24, 2000 December 27, 1999 November 8, 1999 October 13, 1999 October 2, 1999 May 14, 1999 Links Link to us 1995 Injunction CC5 Pictures Amicus Curiae

Gretchen Alaniz, who has worked tirelessly on behalf of the Contra Costa Collies, has created an excellent webpage with more details on Chauncey Wilson! Click here to access it! This next update is based on a post made by Mike Love of Central Valley Collie and Sheltie Rescue on the CCAMembersOPEN list. Chauncey Wilson has moved to Yolo County, California, several counties away from Contra Costa County, near Napa County. Wilson has applied for a kennel permit when he bought the kennel where he is now, but has not been granted one as yet. At the time of Yolo County Animal Control's last visit, Wilson had fifty (50) or more collies and at least three (3) litters younger than three (3) months of age. These collies were all running free in a horse corral. Wilson was informed that he needed to keep the collies in kennel runs, but he has refused to do so, violating a direct order from Animal Control. It bears repeating that none of these collies have been spayed or neutered.

December 27, 1999   Chauncey Wilson Allowed to Move

News Updates June 24, 2000 December 27, 1999 November 8, 1999 October 13, 1999 October 2, 1999 May 14, 1999 Links Link to us 1995 Injunction CC5 Pictures Amicus Curiae

This update is based on a 12/15/99 post by jmel@netcom.com on Collie-L. Chauncey Wilson appeared before the Contra Costa County Superior Court on the 15th, Judge Trembath, the same judge who issued the original injunction against Wilson in 1995, presiding. CW began by stating that he had moved his collies to an unspecified rural location on land that he was in the process of purchasing. This is in direct violation of the latest injunction, a fact that was pointed out by Wayne Nishioka. Unfortunately, after a brief conference in the corridor and in the judge's chambers, CW was again allowed to go free without any form of punishment. The location will not be made public until the 5th of January, and only one inspection of the site will be made. If the location passes muster, the case is ended for the local authorities. When (if?) the results of the investigation and location of the collies are finally disclosed to the public, this page will be updated with all pertinent information.

November 8, 1999   AMICUS CURIAE DENIED

News Updates June 24, 2000 December 27, 1999 November 8, 1999 October 13, 1999 October 2, 1999 May 14, 1999 Links Link to us 1995 Injunction CC5 Pictures Amicus Curiae

Chauncey Wilson was in court on November 8 in Dept. 17 under JUDGE JAMES TREMBATH. Judge JAMES TREMBATH denied the amicus curiae (link forthcoming) and would not allow Mike Love (Representative of Sacramento Valley Collie and Sheltie Rescue) to speak on behalf of the 53 collies now being kept in a kennel in California. Channel 7 News was there to interview as well as another press person. Deputy City Attorney WAYNE NISHIOKA (of the City of Richmond) was unprepared with the list of agreements to be made with Wilson. Judge James Trembath ordered an agreement to be made (between Wilson and Nishioka... another "deal"). Keep in mind that CHAUNCEY WILSON is in contempt of several injunctions and WAYNE NISHIOKA made a "deal" with him so as to avoid Wilson undergoing a contempt of court trial. This "deal" included four major points: Any dog over the limit of 3 at Wilson's house will be confiscated (the zoning permits only three dogs, and Wilson has 53). (If Wilson brings home four from the kennel, one will be confiscated, if he brings home five, two will be confiscated, etc.) A hearing will be held on Wednesday (11/10/99) to verify that the collies are in a kennel. Also included in the hearing will be a review of the cost to the City, as Wilson did NOT show up on October 2nd as required by the injunction. Wilson must notify the City of any relocation of the dogs. If Wilson does not comply, the Court will "seriously consider" dispossession of the dogs. To ensure his compliance, several review dates have been set: Dec. 5, Jan. 19, March 1 and April 19. We are all furious that Mike Love was not able to speak under the amicus curiae (which he spent $200 to file). I personally am angry with Nishioka because he 'settled' with Wilson and did not force him to undergo a contempt of court hearing (which he should have! he's been in contempt TWICE, if not more!)

October 13, 1999   DOGS FOUND

News Updates June 24, 2000 December 27, 1999 November 8, 1999 October 13, 1999 October 2, 1999 May 14, 1999 Links Link to us 1995 Injunction CC5 Pictures Amicus Curiae

Today I got a call from a lady very involved in this rescue-- Chauncey Wilson's collies have been found (all 53 of them). PLEASE take the time to begin a letter-writing campaign to MALCOLM HUNTER (the City Attorney). It looks as if the City of Richmond is not interested in pursuing this at the present time....! The letter-writing campaign is intended to spur the City of Richmond into action against Chauncey Wilson and get a warrant for his arrest so he can't break the law anymore. He HAS broken the law repeatedly in the past, and continues to do so with the City of Richmond being extremely lax in their prosecution of him! Below are ways to contact Malcolm Hunter, the City Attorney of Richmond: Phone: 510-620-6509 FAX: 510-620-6518 Here is the contact info of Mayor Rosemary Corbin: FAX: 510-620-6542 E-mail: Rosemary_Corbin@cormail.ci.richmond.ca.us I should be sending out a sample letter ASAP. I'll try and send more news/update the web page when stuff happens.

October 2, 1999   CHAUNCEY WILSON DISAPPEARS

News Updates June 24, 2000 December 27, 1999 November 8, 1999 October 13, 1999 October 2, 1999 May 14, 1999 Links Link to us 1995 Injunction CC5 Pictures Amicus Curiae

Chauncey Wilson has DISAPPEARED with ALL 53 Collies in direct violation of the recent injunction "Stipulated Amended Judgement for Permanent Injunction" #C94-03748 issued by Judge Dolgin at the court hearing in May. Key excerpts from this document include: (From p.3, Sec. 5): "On October 2, 1999, at 10:00AM, Defendant CHAUNCEY WILSON must be personally present on the Premises to allow ASD staff and the City to enter the Premises in order to count the number of adult dogs and to take possession of all adult dogs upon the Premises in excess of the three permitted adult dogs...."Defendant CHAUNCEY WILSON's removal of said dogs in excess of three adult dogs from the Premises after October 1, 1999, shall be ongoing and permanent." From p.4 Sec. 8: DEFENDANTS ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT DISOBEDIENCE OF THIS COURT'S ORDER BY ENGAGING IN, COMMITTING, OR PERFORMING, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, ANY OR ALL OF THE ABOVE ACTS MAY RESULT IN CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THIS COURT AND IF DEFENDANTS ARE FOUND GUILT OF CONTEMPT, PUNISHMENT MAY BE IN THE FORM OF A FINE, IMPRISONMENT, OR LOSS OF OWNERSHIP OF THOSE ADULT DOGS IN EXCESS OF THREE ADULT DOGS." Channel 7, ABC TV from San Francisco was there to film the event. In the case that the authorities don't choose to prosecute Wilson, PLEASE stand by for a letter/fax writing campaign. Thank you to MARILYNNE for the above and for doing such a good job reporting

May 14, 1999   CHAUNCEY WILSON COURT DATE

News Updates June 24, 2000 December 27, 1999 November 8, 1999 October 13, 1999 October 2, 1999 May 14, 1999 Links Link to us 1995 Injunction CC5 Pictures Amicus Curiae

Chauncey Wilson, the man who turned in 5 collies for euthanization to a shelter in Pinole during February of this year, went to court on Friday, May 14 because he was in violation of an injuncton filed in 1995 against him (signed by himself, Judge Trembath, and Deputy City Attorney Wayne Nishioka). Wilson had a defense lawyer who immediately moved to dismiss the case. Why? Because Wilson "didn't willingly violate the injunction." How can one can go from 33 collies in 1995 to 59 collies in 1999 and not willingly violate the injunction? The motion did not pass. Wilson's lawyer then dismissed all witnesses in the case out of the room (or got the judge to, rather, I didn't quite catch the legality involved, but then, I'm not a lawyer, I'm an 18 year old college student). So all witnesses in the case had to go sit outside. The basic point of going to court was because the injunction was violated. Wilson's lawyer tried to dismiss the case again by saying the injunction was "nonspecific, vague, and unconstitutional" and that Wilson "didn't understand" it. The person who represented the City of Richmond against Wilson was Deputy City Attorney Wayne Nishioka. His first witness was a man from the Planning Department who spoke about zoning. The second witness was Ken Potts, who was from the Contra Costa County Animal Services Department. Potts said he saw "9 blue merle collies" several years ago. "They appeared healthy," he said BUT they were NOT licensed. So he issued a notice of non-compliance. The next witness was Lt. Nancy Lundeen from CC Animal Services Dept as well. "I observed 50 plus collies" she said. (Hmm. Unless you are licensed for a kennel, one is NOT supposed to have more than THREE dogs in the city of Richmond...) Lt. Lundeen described the conditions. (She ALSO issued a license non-compliance for not having the dogs licensed). She described 20 collies in a room in the house and "30-34" on a "large deck" She described their age as "6 months to several years." She described the room the dogs were in "It was on the lower floor of the home. There was a strong odor in the room, possibly of urine and feces... There were stains on the wall... In my opinion the stains had been there a long time." The next witness called was a neighbor. She'd lived in her house since 1961, about 100 yards away from Wilson's house. She described the incessant barking and mentioned that she had seen at least 20 collies on Wilson's premises (keep in mind he is NOT supposed to have more than THREE). The next witness called was another neighbor. He had lived in his house, about a half a block away from Wilson's, since about 1963. "You could tell there were a lot of dogs," he said. He described being woken up in the middle of the night by barking. The next witness called was the Deputy Director of Animal Services. He testified that Wilson had FINALLY licensed his dogs. And that he had "31 citations for failure to license" his dogs (I need to check this fact again but that's what I heard him say). Several people were interviewed by the West County Times (a newspaper in Contra Costa County) This was while Dep. City Attorney Wayne Nishioka, Wilson, and his attorney were out "compromising." Nishioka came back in to talk to us about the compromise. What he was proposing: Give Wilson 4 and a half months to get the dogs off his property (DOESN'T MATTER where they do as LONG AS IT'S OUT OF THE COUNTY (read: off HIS shoulders)) FORGET the fines (thousands of dollars). If the collies are still there at the end of 4.5 months, Wilson has to surrender them to Animal Services. The upshot? The dogs don't win. They're still there. The neighbors don't win. They still have to live with the smell and the noise. Who wins? Chauncey Wilson. The man who works in a high school as a special education teacher. He gets a nice reprieve, and a break from the thousands of dollars the INJUNCTION STATED HE OWED. In short, he broke the law and he won.