Save Ato !!

Fellow Animal Lovers,

I recently made the acquaintance of an elderly Japanese couple in Ann Arbor, Michigan, who--together with their pet 7-year-old chow-chow--appear to be victims of cruel, vicious, cowardly, and unjust persecution and prosecution. I am writing to ask if anyone has any ideas as to how we in the animal-caring Internet community might help them achieve justice and the release of their pet back to their loving and responsible care.

My understanding of the facts is as follows:

On August 27, 1998 (yes, this has been going on for a long time) a 13-year-old news carrier, substituting for the regular carrier, opened the unlocked but latched storm door of the couple’s house, walked right in without permission, and dropped the heavy Sunday newspaper on the hall floor. The boy later admitted he saw the dog in question--Otto*--sleeping some ten feet from the front door. He saw it through the storm door before he even opened it to go inside. The sound woke the dog, which chased the boy back through the storm door, onto the front walkway, and bit him on the left buttock. The boy's father, who was accompanying his son on the newspaper round to help carry the heavy newspapers in his car, was able to pull the dog away without being harmed himself.

The commotion alerted the lady of the house, who was gardening in the side yard. All her offers of assistance were refused by the boy’s father, who drove away with his son. He took the boy to a hospital to see a physician who was both a neighbor and a friend of the family. This doctor later gave evidence in court suggesting that the boy’s injuries were severe and traumatizing, but the hospital records contradicted him: they stated the wounds were superficial. 

The boy appears to be perfectly OK and has not missed a day of school as a result of the incident, though his family and certain friends have continued to maintain that his injuries were severe and traumatic. Why would they do that? Lawsuit and big bucks, perhaps? Surprise, surprise, the family’s lawyer has let it be known that they will be filing suit for a million dollars in damages now that the judge has ordered the dog’s destruction. The jury will never know all the facts. All they will be allowed to hear is that the dog was vicious enough to be killed by a zealous city prosecutor and judge (both probably up for re-election next year) therefore the lawsuit must have merit, right? 

Wrong, but we all know that the Law seldom allows Justice to disrupt its cozy living. The facts that the boy's injuries were his own fault (and his father's--who did nothing to stop the boy entering a house without permission), and were not (contrary to discredited testimony, which I thought was known as perjury) life threatening, traumatizing, or badly disfiguring, may be of little avail in the face of a wily plaintiff's lawyer on target for a huge contingency fee if s/he can convince the judge or jury that the pesky facts don't matter; that the Law, and not Justice, must prevail.

It is true, and on the face of it very damaging to the defendants' case, that the dog has bitten other people. It snapped at the hand of a woman (a stranger) who went to pet the dog, uninvited, through the window of the owner’s car in a shopping center parking lot. It also bit a dog trainer called to make an assessment of the dog’s trainability, who later testified in court that the dog’s reaction was natural, the bite was superficial, and the dog was indeed trainable. A second dog trainer who specializes in working with dogs that bite disagreed with the first dog trainer's methods and said that the first trainer brought the attack upon herself.

No-one was seriously hurt in these two cases. The parking lot lady filed a complaint but presented no evidence of her injury, the reasonable assumption being there was no injury or it was very superficial. In both cases the dog was behaving naturally, out of natural defensive instinct and most definitely NOT out of a vicious temperament.

Indeed, a jury found the chow-chow's owners NOT guilty of "harboring a vicious dog knowingly and intentionally." There was and is plenty of evidence that the dog in question is a good dog, friendly with kids and visitors; and has only ever bitten when presented with a threat to its owners or their property. Nevertheless, the Ann Arbor city prosecutor made so much of these other incidents that the judge in the case ordered the dog be held in kennels pending a further trial; this time, to determine whether the dog should be destroyed.

The dog was held in a tiny cage at private kennels, at the owners' (willing) expense, for a year. The kennel staff were forbidden from having any contact with the dog. The owners (both in their 60s) have driven 30 minutes to the kennel every day for the past year to feed, exercise, and clean their beloved pet, and drive 30 minutes home. The kennel staff do not let it out to do its business, and do not clean its cage. The owners must do that, despite paying full boarding fees to the kennel.

The second court case concluded last week (October 15, 1999 I believe). This time, there was no jury; just the judge, and the decision was not as fair. The judge found against the dog, and has ordered it destroyed. The owners immediately lodged an appeal, so the dog is on "stay of execution." To heap injury upon injury, however, for some as yet unknown reason the kennel moved the dog to the Huron Valley Humane Society on October 19. The owners were NOT told of the move, and apparently there was no court order approving it. The owners only found out about it when they went for their daily visit. 

At the Huron Valley Human Society, what was already a miserable situation has been rendered utterly heartbreaking. The owners are no longer allowed to so much as touch their dog, in what may be its final hours. This poor, innocent, condemned creature is entirely at the mercy of those who would be its executors, if an uncaring Law, a greedy family, and certain politically ambitious officials succeed in perverting the course of Justice for their own selfish ends.

The owners are honest and honorable people, and apart from exercising their right to defend themselves and their dog in the courts, they have done nothing to try to influence the outcome of the due process of law. They have shunned publicity, trusting in common sense and American justice to prevail.

The plaintiffs, however, have known better.

From day one, they have actively and successfully courted the local press, television, the prosecutor's office, the animal control office, the defendants' neighbors, and in some cases near total strangers in order to . . . well . . . what, exactly? Perhaps the plaintiffs have less faith in American justice than the defendants do, and would like to give it a hand to reach the "right" decision. Either that, or they are attempting to obstruct the course of Justice by prejudicing opinion against the defendants and their equally innocent pet.

Whatever their motives, the plaintiffs' tactics are tawdry and shameful, and are almost certainly connected to a recent spate of acts of petty, cowardly vandalism conducted against the defendants (shaving cream sprayed on their car, broken eggs left in their mailbox and thrown at their house, etc.)

Most sad and disturbing of all, the recent decision to destroy the dog is evidence that these tactics seem to have the intended effect on the judicial system.

Remember, this is a dog with (demonstrably) no vicious traits, acting to defend the interests of his best friends in the only way he knows how. In the nearly seven years Otto lived peaceably in his neighborhood, until a foolish boy trespassed noisily on his territory, the dog had never threatened the regular newspaper carrier (and several other occasional substitutes), the mail carrier, the garbage men, the meter readers, the telephone repair people, the carpenters who spent some time remodeling the house, and the friends of the family--ranging from the very young to the very old--who visited from time to time.

But Otto and his loving owners are up against a cold-hearted family hot on the trail of big bucks from a minor injury to an immature teenager who ignores instructions. The dog's destruction would, presumably, "prove" the plaintiff's contention that the attack was vicious (else, why would the judge have ordered its execution?) and result in an even bigger award of damages.

The dog's cold-blooded murder at the hands of a cold-hearted system would also, of course, devastate its poor owners in and of itself. The financial damage would be secondary to the loss of their pet and the destruction of their innocent--let's face it, naive--faith in American justice. As it is, the owners have declared their intention to continue

the fight, whatever the cost, and have already lodged an appeal. They are also preparing to sell their home of over 30 years to finance their appeals. They are not rich people, and being retired are unlikely to be able to spend their twilight years in a home of their own. They are prepared to risk everything material for their dog. The money-grubbing plaintiffs may end up with pots of money, but the defendants will possess something worth immeasurably more: Honor, Dignity, and Principle. They’ll just have to get along without Justice.

If you have any ideas as to how to help these good people, please write to me. Perhaps you know of similar cases that have been successfully defended, or of organizations/individuals who volunteer support. Even a simple message of sympathy and support would go a long way to sustain them in their current anguish. If you write to me, I will get your message to them. (They are about to get connected themselves, so may have an email address in a couple of weeks.)

I am posting this in several of the rec.pets newsgroups--please forgive me if I offend against Netiquette, and thank you for listening.

David

* The dog’s name is not really Otto. It has a Japanese name romanized as "Ato." In the American dialect, there is very little difference in sound between "Ato" and "Otto," and since to we Westerners "Otto" is more recognizable as a male name that "Ato," I have chosen to use the former. I hope its owners are not offended.