The court structure here in Michigan finds that there is an appeal of right from the trial court to the next higher court. Generally the four levels of state courts from the lowest are as follows: The District Court, the Circuit Court, the Court of Appeals and finally, the highest, the Michigan Supreme Court. In this case the trial court was the District Court. The next higher court is the Washtenaw County Circuit Court. Since the Circuit Court affirmed the trial court, Seiko does not have an appeal of right to the Court of Appeals. We must ask for the appeal. I am hopeful that they will grant the request. Once granted, the appeal will be treated the same as an appeal of right.

Issues to be considered by the court on our request for leave to appeal include the following:

(1) Whether it was proper for the court to use the Dog Law of 1919 to order the execution of Ato.
It is my client's position that the more modern Dangerous Animal Act of 1988 should control the entire case. This position is backed up by Michigan case law, which provides that later more detailed legislation covering the same topic as an earlier topic, repeats the a prior law by implication, if the later legislation is silent on the topic. In the present case, the Dangerous Animal Act of 1988 covers the disposition of an animal that bites a person. It is fairly detailed and defines when an animal is to be put to death. The 1919 Dog Law is general and merely provides that if a dog bites a person, it can be be put to death after an order to show cause hearing.
In the present situation, Michigan case law that deals with statutory construction provides that a law like the Dangerous Animal Act of 1988, although it is silent as to the 1919 Dog Law, i.e. it does not specifically repeal the earlier law, does repeal the earlier law by implication because of its scope and date. See Wayne Co Prosecutor v Dept' of Corrections, 451 Mich 569, 575-577; 548 NW2d 900 (1996) and Travelers Ins v U-Haul, 235 Mich App, 273, 280; 548 NW2d 900 (1999).

(2) Whether it was clear error for the trial judge to find that Ato was a dangerous animal.
It is my client's position that the proofs at the hearing do not support the finding by the trial judge that Ato was a dangerous animal. There are several reasons; the primary one being that the biting incident which initiated the present controversy was initiated by a trespasser. The Dangerous Animal Act actually gives some consideration to the owners as well as to accused animals. For example, a dog cannot be classified a dangerous animal if it was provoked into biting a person. Further, a dog cannot be destroyed unless it kills a dog or a human, or inflicts a serious injury on a person, i.e. serious impairment of a health or bodily function or permanent serious disfigurement. The injuries inflicted on the paperboy were described as superficial and suprafacial, i.e. minor wounds.

(3) Whether the trial court committed an abuse of discretion when it failed to grant Seiko's motion to dismiss the case because she had been previously tried in a criminal case in the same court, but by a different judge regarding the same incident.
Seiko Ikuma was charged with owning a vicious animal. The jury returned a not guilty verdict. The city not to be out done sued my client in civil court under the claim that Ato had bitten four persons. The evidence produced showed that Ato bit one person, Alex Newton, not four. 

Evidence of the biting involved the trespasser Alex Newton.

It is my client's position that the plaintiff, City of Ann Arbor, had generally one chance to try Seiko on the issue of the dangerousness of her dog. The City lost on that matter, hence, the matter should have ended. The legal matters are fairly complicated, but the legal concepts of Res Judicata, [i.e. the matter has been decided] and Double Jeopardy, even though the present case is a civil case, should have barred the City of Ann Arbor from pursuing the case again. If these principals are not upheld, a governmental unit can always win a case against a defendant simply by wearing him or her down financially.

(4) Whether the trial court in failing to dismiss the case breached Mrs. Ikuma's Constitutional protections against double jeopardy.
Here again, as with the prior issue, a person should not have to defend him or herself more than once out of matters growing from a single incident. Although the present case is classified as a civil case, the remedy, the death of an animal, places the proceedings in the category of being a criminal case to the extent to which the constitutional guarantees against double jeopardy, and other individual rights come into play. I have cited authority to support this position in my client's request for leave to appeal.

(5) Whether the 1919 Dog law's death penalty provision is unconstitutional.
It is my client's position that the statute is unconstitutional under the United States Constitution and the Constitution of the State of Michigan because the statute by not applying any standards for determining when a dog can be killed, violates the Due Process clauses of the aforementioned constitutions and thereby unlawfully negates Seiko Ikuma's constitutionally protected civil rights.

(6) Whether the Appellate Circuit Court per Judge Connors erred in refusing to consider additional issues raised by the undersigned.
The ultimate purpose of a judge or the judiciary is to resolve disputes between parties. This is done by gathering as much competent, relevant and material evidence as possible, weighing the evidence and interpreting the law. The ultimate goal is to ascertain the truth. Judge Connor's ruling clearly indicates that he is not interested in the truth or rendering justice in this case. This is evidenced by the fact that Judge Connors refused to hear and consider new issues that I raised on my client's behalf. It must be remembered that Attorney Donald Perkins started the appeal to the Circuit Court. He only raised one issue, to wit: Whether the trial court committed reversible error in finding that Ato was a dangerous animal. When I replaced Perkins, I asked Judge Connors to consider the issue that Perkins raised as well as the issues of Res Judicata, the constitutionality of the 1919 Dog Law, the applicability of the 1919 Dog Law in ordering the destruction of Ato, a request to remand to correct and supplement the record and a request to remand the case because the Ikumas' trial counsel was ineffective.

The transcript of the Order to Show Cause hearing indicates that Mrs. Ikuma was inside of her house at the time Ato bit Alex. The correct statement of fact is that Mrs. Ikuma was outside of her house tending to her garden, which is in the front and to the west of the house, when the biting incident occurred. The transcript in this case indicates that the newsboy, Alex, testified that he slipped the Sunday newspaper just inside of the house, by cracking the door and placing the paper where the doormat would be, i.e. adjacent to the door. However, the newspaper was found neatly placed 5 feet inside of the house. Plus there was another newspaper found in disarray just outside of the front door. Two inserts from the second newspaper were found just inside of the storm door. This evidence suggests that Alex entered the Ikumas' house, dropped the newspaper five feet from Ato, got scared, turned and ran from the house. Alex testified that he did not enter the house. His statements and the facts of the case don't match.

The front of the Ikumas' house consists of a main front door and an outer storm door. The outer door is sometimes referred to as a screen door. The storm door has a snubber installed on it. This snubber prevents the storm door from slamming shut; however, it methodically closes the door once it is opened. Once the door closes a latch attaches to prevent the door from being opened until the latch is disengaged. Testimony about the mechanical operation of the door was not brought out at the trial by anyone, most notably by the Ikumas' attorney.

Alex's testimony that he tried to close the door but the latch would not engage flies into the face of logic because the door snubber will not engage unless the door is opened wider than would be required to slip a paper inside. Keep in mind that Alex has testified that he did not enter the house. [There is evidence that he did tell the hospital social worker that he did enter the house.]

Alex testified that he closed the door, walked down the walkway about ten feet, when Ato pushed the door opened, chased him down as he was now running away and bit him. The evidence suggests that if the door was closed and the latch engaged, Ato could not have opened the closed storm door.

The only logical conclusion to be drawn from the evidence is that Alex Newton lied.

Also, Alex's father Roger Newton who was assisting his son in delivering the Sunday newspapers, each one of which weighed 3.5 pounds, testified that he was near his car which was adjacent to the Ikumas' driveway, when he heard screaming and ran to the location of his son. Because of the foliage, he stated that he could not see his son at the time of the attack. He then said he saw Ato on top of his son with his teeth in his son's left buttocks shaking his head back and forth and growling. Roger then testified that he then got down on his knees grabbed this allegedly vicious 90-pound dog from the back and choked the animal. He then stated that when Ato released his son, Ato was trying to get at him. He then picked up this allegedly wild 90-pound dog and threw him as hard as he could against the pavement. The City of Ann Arbor has reported that Roger was bitten in the process. However, he testified that he was not bitten. Roger further testified that he took his son's pants down at the scene to look at his wounds.

Seiko Ikuma at the time of the biting was approximately the same distance from the front door of the house as Roger was, but in a different direction. Upon hearing a commotion, but no screaming, she came to the scene of the incident. She arrived at the scene at approximately the same time as Roger and saw Ato sitting on the front walk pavement, innocently looking at the sky and next to Roger and Alex. She did not see a wrestling match between Ato and Roger, she did not see Alex with his pants down, and she observed that Ato exhibited no symptoms of being choked or injured from being thrown to the pavement. The attack was over upon her arrival. Thus there was no intervention on the part of Roger to end the attack on his son.

From Linda Morin's testimony, Ato may chase a moving object that in or near his territory per his instinct. Once the threat has abated or object has been caught, the attack will end. Ms. Morin in her evaluation of Ato tested Ato's prey instinct. She stated that Ato plays in prey drive. Thus he will chase a ball thrown but once he catches it, will drop and ignore it. Another example given by Ms. Morin in her evaluation is that Ato would be more interested in a squirrel running across the street than one sitting quietly at the same distance. She further reported that this behavior is common in most dogs, regardless of breed and that Ato's reactions were within the normal ranges.

Based on the evidence, I believe Ato's attack on a fleeing Alex was partly due to his normal prey instinct. However, once the chase had ended, Ato ceased his assault. This is the reason that Alex had been told at his news carrier orientation and in his newspaper manual not to run from a dog he encounters.

Roger’s story about the attack is a complete fabrication. The fact that the 90-pound wild animal did not bite him suggests something about Ato. That is, he is not, "a wild and crazy dog." I wonder if the result would have been the same if a wolf had attacked his son? Could Roger have rescued his son without being bitten? I think not. Further, we can not believe Roger's, testimony because his involvement as told by him could not have transpired in the time before Mrs Ikuma arrived at the scene. When she arrived, she observed a very passive scene.

In Short, Roger Newton lied.

If Judge Connors or Judge Creal-Goodridge were interested in the truth, they would have permitted additional testimony. A further hearing is needed to correct and clarify the existing record. Any such hearing should be held before an unbiased or competent jurist.

(7) Whether the case should be remanded because Seiko Ikumas' trial attorney was inefficient.
It is clear that Mrs. Ikuma's attorney's performance was less than the standards expected of an attorney in this case. Among other things, Mrs. Ikumas' attorney failed to get the transcript of Alex Newton who testified previously at her criminal trial. Alex testified that he placed the paper inside of the Ikumas' house. If this is the case, his story differed from his testimony in the present case. It would have been impossible for an attorney from conducting an effective cross examination of Alex, the most important witness in the case without such a transcript. Also, Mrs. Ikumas' attorney failed to call Seiko herself to testify in the case. To me this is totally inexcusable. The City of Ann Arbor has suggested that we sue the attorney for malpractice, however, that will not save Ato's life.

It is my clients' position that the evidence shows that on August 23, 1998, Alex Newton, the 13 year old paperboy, actually entered the Ikumas' home. He has testified that he saw Ato through the Plexiglas front door before he opened the door. That is, he opened the door and went into the house. Alex testified in the present case that he merely cracked the storm door and placed the paper inside of the door where the doormat would be. The evidence suggests that he could not have done that because the newspaper was five feet inside of the house. Ato was resting ten feet inside of the house.

My personal theory, based on the evidence of the case, is that Alex actually went into the Ikumas' home to get closer to Ato. He dropped the paper in the foyer approximately five feet from Ato. That startled Ato. Alex panicked, turned and ran out of the Ikumas' house. Ato, because of his normal and innate prey instinct, chased Alex and bit him in his left buttock. The bite occurred either in the Ikumas' house or as Alex was running out of their front door.

Alex in entering the Ikumas' home was trespassing. Further, he violated all instructions that he had received from the Ann Arbor News when he opened the storm door to either slip the paper into the home, or actually went into the house. He violated his instructions when he provoked Ato, and ran from him. There are other acts of indiscretion on the part of Alex.

The most important point of this case is that if Alex had never opened the door to the Ikumas' home, we all would not be here. None of the terrible things that have happened to the Ikumas would have occurred.

Judge Creal-Goodridge actually found that Alex did commit a trespass, but she stated that it was not a "knowing trespass." I guess that Alex in opening the Ikumas' door was sleepwalking. If Judge Creal-Goodridge had found that Alex knowingly trespassed, she could not have found, under the Dangerous Animal Act, that Ato could be classified as a dangerous animal.

The City of Ann Arbor has alleged that Ato has bitten four people. The facts regarding these allegations are as follows:

On June 21, 1997, at the Plymouth Mall of Ann Arbor, Heidi Goldberg was 'bitten'  when she reached into the Ikumas' unattended car to pet Ato. Ato snipped her ! Ms. Goldberg has admitted the incident was her fault. She did not testify in the present case.

On July 31, 1997, while chained to a gate at the home of an acquaintance of the Ikumas, a 17-year-old girl startled Ato when she opened that gate suddenly. He jumped and put his paws on her and she was scratched. Ato did not bite her. The City of Ann Arbor claims that Ato "bit at her rib cage and arm." There was no bite at all. She did not testify in the case.

On October 3, 1998, during a test of his temperament by Linda Morin, an experienced, professional animal trainer, and after he had been intentionally provoked by Ms. Morin, Ato in the process of defending himself by attacking her. Contrary to many prior false reports, Ato only attempted to bite her. Further, Ms. Morin testified that Ato's reaction to this test was normal.
It must be noted that in the present civil case, Ms. Morin was called as a witness by the City of Ann Arbor. She affirmatively testified that Ato should not be euthanized. She also expressed the opinion that Ato would not have bitten Alex Newton unless Alex had provoked him.

On August 23, 1998,  Ato bit Alex Newton in his left buttock when he trespassed the Ikuma's house.
 

THE IKUMAS V THE CITY OF ANN ARBOR, ET AL

On May 30, Dr. and Mrs. Ikuma filed a lawsuit in the Washtenaw County Circuit Court against the City of Ann Arbor, the City Manager, the Animal Control Officer, Alex Newton, his father Roger Newton and his mother.

The lawsuit alleges violations of their civil rights by the city and its officials, trespass on the part of Alex Newton, defamation and negligence on the part of Roger and Coco Newton and Malicious prosecution on the part of all defendants. It is the Ikumas' position that the city officials both negligently and intentionally failed to investigate the scene of the bite, and maliciously, but unsuccessfully, prosecuted Mrs. Ikuma because her dog bit a trespasser. The jury refused to go along with the City's position and returned a not guilty verdict. The Newtons have defamed the Ikumas in several ways. First by lying about the incident, petitioning the neighborhood with inaccurate accounts of the biting and lobbying with the City of Ann Arbor to kill Ato. Because of their collective efforts, Ato's life has been put in jeopardy, the civil rights of the Ikumas have been violated and they have been made to suffer, greatly.

One would only think what would have happened if the paperboy was Black, Hispanic or Asian and the owners of the Chow were white. I surmise that the paperboy may have been taken to juvenile court for trespass, the City might have commended the owners for having a wonderful animal which protects their property and the insurance company, The Auto Club Group Insurance company, commonly called the AAA of Michigan, would not give the boy a dime and would vigorously contest any claim by him or his family.

It must be noted that in this case, that an agent of the Ikumas' insurance company, the AAA of Michigan settled the case after talking to the Newtons, in the presence of their attorney. The Ikumas were not contacted or consulted what so ever. According to the Ann Arbor News, the AAA agreed to pay the paperboy $51,000 and his parents, $4,845.00.

My clients are demanding a jury trial.

On June 1, 2000, the Ikumas filed a lawsuit against the Humane Society of Huron Valley [hereinafter HSHV], Barbara Levine, its Interim Executive Director and its board of directors. The suit alleges several abuses committed by the HSHV against Dr. and Mrs. Ikuma. For example, for a period of time, and until the undersigned complained, Dr and Mrs. Ikuma were locked in the cage with Ato during their visits. The cage is roughly four feet by five feet. The attendant would lock them in the cage with this "so-called dangerous 90-pound Chow" and leave the area. When the Ikumas wanted to leave, they could not do so until an attendant came and took the padlock off the cell. Because of this action the Ikumas are alleging false imprisonment.

Several times, the HSHV has scheduled the euthanasia of other dogs within earshot of the Ikumas during their visits. The horrific sounds of a dog being put to death is heart wrenching at best, but to persons like the Ikumas, who are visiting the HSHV daily to be with their dog who is wrongfully on death row, and may be put to death, the sounds are even more painful. Their visits are generally scheduled for fifteen to twenty minutes, and usually occur between 6:00 and 6:30 p.m.. Because the management and staff of the HSHV knew that Ato was on death row and the times that the Ikumas arrive for their daily visits, the killing of the other dogs in earshot of the Ikumas during their visits were acts done deliberately, knowingly and purposefully to hurt the Ikumas psychologically.

My clients are genteel, honorable and proud people. They have two fully-grown children. Dr. Ikuma is a retired professor from the University of Michigan and Mrs Ikuma is also a very well educated professional. However, the HSHV and their agents have treated them like children. This action against the Ikumas by the HSHV by way of their agents and others are shockingly outrageous. Accordingly, the Ikumas are claiming that the HSHV and its directors are liable for intentional infliction of emotional distress.

After the undersigned complained to the Humane Society of Huron Valley about the treatment of the Ikumas, the HSHV raised the Ikumas' daily fees from $10.00 to $25.00 a day. The HSHV's normal fee for boarding animals after the first day is $15.00 a day. The HSHV do not feed Ato, the Ikumas feed him. 

The Ikumas are demanding a jury trial.

I anticipate other lawsuits to protect the Ikumas' rights and to compensate them for the many outrageous acts perpetrated against them by so many people.

I have noticed the great many messages of support for Ato and the Ikumas.
Its recommended that the supporters send a petition to the City of Ann Arbor.By clicking here "Petition" a form can be downloaded or copied/pasted and completed. The petition should be addressed to; "Save Ato the Dog, P.O. Box 130825, Ann Arbor, MI 48113-0825, U.S.A.".
Supporters also might want to send messages of support to the website by signing Ato’s Guestbook, but sending a petition to the above mentioned address is most effective.

See for more details and interesting addresses "Important Addresses".

On Tuesday, May 30, 2000, the Ikumas, with my assistance, conducted a press conference. The Ann Arbor News appeared as well as Detroit TV Channel 50. A fifty-four second clip was played on Channel 50 for the entire Southeastern Michigan area. Seiko did an outstanding job in explaining her position. On Thursday, June 1, 2000, I went on the WAAM radio here in Ann Arbor on Thursday morning. I also conducted an interview for WWJ; Detroit's only all news station. Later I was interview by Mike Gallagher, who has a nationally syndicated show originating on ABC in New York. Hiroshi acquitted himself in an outstanding manner during the week of May 21, 2000 on Detroit WXYZ TV, Channel 7. Prior to this time Ato’s saga aired on Channel 2, The Fox network affiliate in Detroit. Our message is the truth. We are getting our message out. However, more marketing of the facts is needed in this area.

My clients have suffered and are continuing to suffer undue persecution. The lawsuits are designed to address the wrongs that have been and are being committed against them, and to seek justice. It is hoped that the litigation will lead to an end of the persecution of Dr. and Mrs. Ikuma.

Of course, the primary objective of the litigation is to save the life of Ato and to return him home. However, a second but equally important objective is to protect the civil rights of Dr. and Mrs. Ikuma from being denied by the City of Ann Arbor Michigan, which has treated them in a most oppressive manner, and a court system which thus far has completely ignored their pleas for justice.

This case has future implications on the City and the courts, because there are and probably will be other minorities [the Ikumas are Japanese], poor people and people with less education than the Ikumas, who either do not have the ability, or will choose not to challenge city hall and the courts, when their civil rights will be taken or ignored, even though they will be just as angry, humiliated and otherwise injured as Dr. and Mrs. Ikuma have been in this case, because, (1) they will be overwhelmed by the power of the system, and/or, (2) they will not have the finances to pursue their rights.

If the courts do not protect a citizen's rights, who will?

On May 30, 2000, my clients filed an Application for Leave to Appeal with the Michigan Court of Appeals. She raised the same issues as stated above. On July 21, 2000, the Court of Appeals denied the Application.

On June 1, 2000 my client, Seiko Ikuma and I appeared before Judge Julie Creal-Goodridge, the judge who ordered the euthanasia of Ato, on their Motion to continue the Stay of the Execution of Ato Pending the completion of the Appellate process, and on their motion to disqualify judge Creal-Goodridge from further hearings on this case. First to be considered was our motion to have the judge disqualify herself. She denied the motion. The motion, according to the Michigan Court Rules, was initially referred to Judge Elizabeth Hines, the Chief Judge of the 15th District Court. However, the motion for Judge Creal-Goodridge's disqualification was mysteriously scheduled before Judge Connors. We objected because the court rules say otherwise. My client also moved to have Judge Connors removed from this case.

On Friday, June 16, Seiko and I appeared before Judge Connors. After restating my client's position with legal citations, Judge Connors refused to remove himself from the case. He then stated that the Michigan Supreme Court's, State Court Administrators told him that he was the proper person to hear motion regarding the motion for Judge Creal-Goodridge's disqualification. He stated that this is because of the experimental trial court that is being implemented in Washtenaw County. The Washtenaw County Trial Court consists of the 14th District Court, the 15th District Court, the former Probate Court and the Circuit Court. He is the Chief Judge of the Trial Court. I did raise the point that if the 15th District Court is a part of the Trial Court, then the appeal of Judge Creal-Goodridge's order for euthanasia should have been appealed as a matter of right to the Court of Appeals and not to him. I did not get a favorable reaction from Judge Connors. Thus, on Monday, June 19, 2000, I called the State Court Administrators. As of this date I have not received a satisfactory answer.

A further motion was made for Judge Connors to rescind his ruling, which affirmed Judge Creal-Goodridge. The motion was based on the fact that it was Judge Connors' prior interlocutory [after the case had begun, bur prior to the Order to Show Cause Hearing] Opinion and Order which allowed the trial judge to use the ancient 1919 Dog Law to order the euthanasia of Ato in stead of using the 1988 Dangerous Animal Act to govern the entire case. He rejected this argument. In essence, he as an appellate circuit judge is affirming his own decision. "Something aint right." Stay tuned.

After Judge Connor's ruling my client immidiately went back to Judge Creal-Goodridge's court where she heard two motions, i.e. (1) to stay the execution of Ato and (2) to reopen the proofs in the case. After I reiterated the issues stated above, she denied both motions.

Upon obtaining a written order denying the Motion to Stay the execution and a transcript of the proceedings, which were held before Judge Creal-Goodridge, my client, pursuant to the Michigan Court Rules, filed a Motion to Stay the execution in the Michigan Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals on July 21, 2000, denied the Stay.

On August 10, 2000, Mrs ikuma filed an Application for Leave to Appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court, a Motion for Immediate Consideration and a Motion to Stay the execution. On August 22, 2000, the Michigan Supreme Court denied the Application for Leave to Appeal.  The Motion to Stay was deniet moot.

Being denied as moot is a statement that there is nothing to be decided. This ruling, which is erroneous, resulted from Ato being stolen from the Humane Society of Huron Valley (HSHV ) by persons unknown on July 16, 2000. It is Mrs. Ikuma's position that, since the dog's body has not been found, the matter is not moot.

Because Alex Newton trespassed into the Ikuma's home they have lost their pet Ato. This is the fact, regardless of the status of Ato.

There are two possible scenarios to be considered. The City of Ann Arbor, conspiring with the Courts and the Newtons, paid to have Ato taken from the HSHV. Once taken, the courts could rule that the matter is moot. A second theory is that persons who were concerned that Robert West (assistant City Attorney ), in conspiracy with the Ann Arbor News published erroneous statements, that Ato was going to be killed prior to Seiko Ikuma exhausting her appeals. As a result, they violated the law in response thereto by taking Ato.

The Ikumas had been visiting Ato on a daily basis since August 1998. They have scrupulously respected and followed the law. They have never asked for more than the law be applied fairly as to them.

Because of the whole incident beginning with the first criminal trial, and culminating with the taking of Ato, the Ikumas on July 19, 2000, filed a complaint with the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan. A request was made to investigate all the parties, entities and judges involved with this case.

FEDERAL REMEDIES

The Ikumas have exhausted their state remedies as is mandated by law. Accordingly, they now are in a position to persue their case in Federal Court.

On Tuesday, June 27, 2000, 7:30 p.m. at the Amistad Community Church of God, 2730 Carpenter Road, Ann Arbor. MI, the first meeting of the support group for Ato and the Ikumas was held. Very constructive ideas were discussed and an action plan elaborated.

CONCLUSION

The continuous maltreatment by the City of Ann Arbor, Judge Creal-Goodridge and Judge Connors of my clients, will only make us stronger. We will pursue the matter until justice is done.

Respectfully submitted,
Raymond G. Mullins
Raymond G. Mullins
Attorney for
Dr. Hiroshi and Mrs. Seiko Ikuma.