Since this website opened, we have received a few suggestions and comments like "change the ownership of Ato", "get Ato adopted out of state," and other suggestions similar to these. We have even agreed to part with our beloved Ato and relocate him elsewhere, but the prosecutor, pursuant to the urging of the Animal Control Officer Cheryl Christopher, flatly refused this idea. It is our understanding that Officer Christopher, who has never come to our house to investigate our side of the story, will not stop at anything short of euthanizing our beloved dog. Instead, she has met with the trespasser’s family and their attorney, but has refused to hear our story. We summarize some proposals we made and the prosecution’s refusals, as follows: 1. Shortly after the criminal charge against Seiko was filed by the City of Ann Arbor (September of 1998), the prosecutor suggested as part of the plea bargain that the city was prepared to drop the charge if Ato was relocated outside of Ann Arbor (even Ann Arbor Township was acceptable). We vigorously searched for many potential locations outside of Ann Arbor. 5 days later, we found a possible new home about 10 miles from our present home. We were prepared to sign a lease contract and to move with Ato into this home. We contacted our attorney of our actions, but received no response. On October 13, 1998, the hearing took place in the 15th District Court before Judge Ann Mattson. It was at this time, we were told that Ato was not even allowed to be transferred from the Dexter Animal Clinic (which was 40 miles round trip from our home) to an another animal clinic closer to our home, other than the Humane Society of Huron Valley.In retrospect, the prosecutor, the Animal Control Officer, and the parents of the newspaper boy were all after euthanization of Ato from the very beginning. This has been not a real trial, but rather a political trial. We have been simply trapped in their manipulation of the entire case. They successfully persuaded Judge Julie Creal Goodridge to label Ato as a dangerous dog (according to the 1989 Michigan law) and to destroy him on the basis of the 1919 Michigan law. Our side read the 1989 law differently because we felt that law stated that an animal is not considered dangerous where it bites when provoked (ie. trespass occurs). Notably, the three alleged incidences of biting occurred only after provocation. However, this law was cast aside and the old "one bite and gone" policy of the 1919 law was applied. Why then was the 1989 law enacted? --Seiko and Hiroshi, December 20, 1999 |