Sad Sheltie story...hope he makes it out

thanks for the update Jan. I wrote a letter to the judge as soon as I saw this. I'm pretty taken aback by the remark the judge is quoted as saying to the owners from the beginning, 'the money clock is ticking.' I really hope that isn't true, because if it is, I think we may have a local judge abusing his power for financial reasons (for the town? I guess).

I just don't understand them taking a dog for such a minor bite. Small towns, big egos? Maybe Boss Hogg is in charge. I check fb daily to see if they have a court date. If after all this, they try to quietly return the dog, I really hope the family sues or can recover some of the money spent on boarding the dog. And I'm not a sue-happy person, but in this case, there seems to be more than meets the eye.
 
I too hope that Jake is spared such a horrible fate because no matter how you view this situation, euthanasia seems to be an over-the-top solution, given the range of potential solutions that are available. But, I may be the only one who sees questionable behavior, not only on the part of the city's legal representatives, but there are some questionable issues (in my mind) on the part of poor Jack's owners. In either case, my prayers are with Jack.
 
Jack vs. ego of James Van Slyke

To understand the dynamics of the drama that is playing out in the suburb of Utica, NY, appreciate that "town judges" or magistrates are elected from the general population in the village, so anybody can run for office, no legal training required. The "Village of New Hartford" is effectively a one-party town, and the "Republican" party controls the outcome, as they have an overwhelming voter registration. James Van Slyke was the former, retired, Principal of the village Middle School, and first ran for "judge" some twenty years ago on the Republican ticket. He has been effectively unopposed until the 2010 election and still handily defeated his opponent, a function of "straight ticket" voting in upstate NY. I am not going to go into an introspection of his personality, although in general I observe that age 84-plus is where people lose objectivity and emotional flexibility, characteristics that are in my view a requirement for being a Judge.

The Judge is thus effectively being challenged as to his Order (the kill order). Keep in mind that Van Slyke never met Jack the Sheltie; it was a Ruling in the first hearing from the bench. Van Slyke is not going to back down, so appealing to his conscience or morals is going nowhere.

The pressure points in that town lie elsewhere. Members here are urged to write and call to the Town Supervisor, and to the Chamber of Commerce, the Visitors Bureau, the Stevens-Swan Humane society (under contract to New Hartford and where Jack is caged), and the Economic Development Commission, if you, like me, have a factory that needs siting. You could also write a letter to Judge Dwyer over in the Oneida County Court in Utica who will be hearing the matter in about two weeks. And if you live nearby, go paint up a picket sign and go picket outside city hall if that suits you.

Remember: the Village of New Hartford has formally declared Jack to be valueless: a "dead dog" has no money value. Thus, in terms of Standing, they have no money claim. Also, both the dog and the owner are outside the Village: the Stevens-Swan facility is inside the City of Utica, and the owners live in another suburb, Ilion. There is thus some question as to "Standing" of New Hartford to continue its abuse of Jack, as everybody is outside their jurisdiction.

At this point, the Directors of the Stevens-Swan facility are under considerable pressure, and feeling the public's wrath, would dearly like to have Jack leave. As the Shelter is contribution-sensitive, I say with some confidence (not total, but some) that the Directors are not going to carry out any Kill Order on their premises; that much has been accomplished. So that leaves the local New Hartford Chief of Police and his pistol, assuming he is prepared to be so crass.

What you collectively need to do is make Jack the Sheltie politically radioactive, so that no matter what the outcome in Court, nobody is going to carry out that Kill Order. You do that by writing angry letters and making phone calls. Think about it.

After his Ruling, the family said they would go to the Court of Appeals, in this case the County Court that sits as an appellate venue to the village magistrate court. I think it sits de novo on the case, although I am not sure of that. It was in that context that Van Slyke made that "the money clock it ticking" remark, in that the board would be $40 a day and since months would go by for the judicial machinery to grind onward, it would bankrupt the family. He knows that, and thus is using (or abusing, depending on your point of view) the delays in the court system to punish jack's family. The Board money does not go to the town; it goes to the Stevens-Swan facility. However, the costs of the legal appeal fall on the shoulders of the family (fortunately, an attorney is working pro-bono on this).

You all have a collective interest in changing the attitude of mendacious government officials away from killing our pets to placement as the solution. This does not happen in a vacuum; it happens when you turn up the heat. Si start writing those letters (by email is easy enough) and work the phones. Don't forget to call the directors of the Stevens-Swan Humane Society; they need to know their contributions will be choked off if they do not turn Jack over to his family (and they can do that tomorrow, as the Order does not flow to the shelter, it is only on the Town Officials. the Shelter is not a Party before the Court and nothing Van Slyke says or orders is binding on the Shelter, which is outside the Village). GTurn up the heat!
 
Correct Town of Jack's imbroglio

I have been reporting events as occurring in the Town of New Holland." That should properly be the "Village of New Hartford."

With all these Dutch people involved (including me), I have transposed "Hartford" into "Holland." Sorry for the error.
 
Forum Members - Please Read

Here is some important information to remember:

1. If you want to get involved, please PM Jan van Eck for the contact information for the government officials that need to be contacted. If you do call, email or snail mail them, BE POLITE!.

2. Per the forum rules, we do not permit fundraising from anyone other than a 501(c) rescue group. Otherwise, there is no way to for this forum to verify the funds are going to be used in the way they are being advertised.

3. Discussions need to remain factual and respectful. Slanderous statements about any persons involved on either side of this issue will not be tolerated.
 
...The pressure points in that town lie elsewhere. Members here are urged to write and call to the Town Supervisor, and to the Chamber of Commerce, the Visitors Bureau, the Stevens-Swan Humane society...

At this point, the Directors of the Stevens-Swan facility are under considerable pressure, and feeling the public's wrath, would dearly like to have Jack leave. As the Shelter is contribution-sensitive...

Don't forget to call the directors of the Stevens-Swan Humane Society; they need to know their contributions will be choked off if they do not turn Jack over to his family...

After reading accounts of this issue here, in various news accounts and the "Save Jack" FaceBook page, I will admit that I don't get the reason people are being instructed to direct their political activism toward the Stevens-Swan shelter. By all accounts I have read, the shelter has provided a clean, well ordered facility for Jack to be housed. Further, it would seem that the facility has treated Jack well.

Stevens-Swans seems to be stuck in the middle of a no win situation for them. They are providing a service (by contractual agreement) that they know is destined to damage their business with a service that I am sure that they do not want to provide, but they are living up to what they contractually agreed to. The ultimate end for them (probably regardless of the outcome of the Jack situation) is a reduction of contributions (their life's blood), potentially resulting in the closing of yet another facility to provide a haven for homeless pets. I'm not sure that I get this. It sounds like cutting off your nose to spite your face.
 
I live in a smallish town & we have Justices of the Peace that can decide minor things. This story of Jack sounds like one of the things that can happen in a small setting. I do agree respectful but emphatic is better. Maybe mention something like the judge must have a hard job making these difficult decisions but you feel sure he is considering the dog's past history of good behavior, expert opinions by vets & animal people familiar with the breed, etc. I'm sure the judge is getting hammered by negative feedback so he might tune out more of that. Appealing to him that way might get your letter read at least.

The judge who made the initial decision probably now regrets ever being involved but I have rarely seen one back down. They tend to try & bluster through it & hope it gets appealed to another guy who can take the heat for a while.

Has anyone sent this story to CNN or one of the big news outlets? How about Ellen Degeneres? Maybe having someone bring the spotlight on Jack will help speed his release. People may not like Cesar Milan's methods but having him appeal might be a plus too.

I have a sheltie named Jack & I know I'd do anything to save him. Keeping my fingers crossed for the poor sheltie & hope we hear good news soon.
 
The role of the Stevens-Swan Society directors

They are providing a service (by contractual agreement) that they know is destined to damage their business with a service that I am sure that they do not want to provide, but they are living up to what they contractually agreed to.

To analyze this, remember that the Stevens-Swan Society [not a "business," but a charitable humane society] contracted with the Village of New Hartford to house dogs picked up by their Animal Control Officer and board them, for a fee. It would appear they also have agreed to "euthanize" (polite word for kill) dogs as requested by the town. In my mind, that is incompatible with any shelter's role as a Humane Society - with the sole exception possibly for a truly vicious dog, that is beyond rehabilitation (probably a rare situation). The Directors of the Society are not before the Court and are not under any Order of the Court, and the Court has no jurisdiction over them. The Directors, in this situation, have a number of options: (1) since they probably have a vet on staff or on call, they can do their own independent evaluation of Jack; (2) inform the Village "Animal control officer" (or the town attorney, for that matter), that in their opinion Jack is not a threat, and send him home to his family - which is also outside the town limits and beyond the jurisdiction of the Town magistrate; (3) keep Jack there and waive the fees to the family, so as not to appear to be profiteering out of misery; (4) keep Jack but grant extended visitation including having Jack out for (leashed) walks with his family members, or a staffer, or others; (5) file an "amicus curiae" Brief with the Utica County Court to express their professional view that Jack is not a threat to anybody and the whole mess is a terrible mistake, and Jack needs to go home.

As far as their "contract" is concerned, do not read more legalisms in there than exists. All contracts contain implied promises of good faith and fair dealing, inherent in all contracts. Is the Village of New Hartford engaged in "good faith and fair dealing," when it turns Jack into some political football? Not exactly. Further, let us assume the Directors find the current state of affairs one that "shocks the conscience," itself grounds for unilateral abrogation of any portion of any contract, without vitiating the entire contract. The Directors have the ability to simply send Jack home, without consequence. What is the Town going to do? The town cannot sue for damages, as the Town already takes the position that Jack is without value - they want to destroy Jack for all time. The Town could take the position that the Directors have abrogated the contract, and end it - but nobody else at this point is going to touch that town's animal control, the town officials are now radioactive. So the reality is: the Directors can do whatever they want, and end this mess, without any repercussions.

Since the Directors have the ability to end the mess, and yet so far have chosen not to, in my view they are open to criticism from the public. Pressuring the Directors to do the right thing is entirely reasonable.
 
the "Judge"

Maybe mention something like the judge must have a hard job making these difficult decisions but you feel sure he is considering the dog's past history of good behavior, expert opinions by vets & animal people familiar with the breed, etc. I'm sure the judge is getting hammered by negative feedback so he might tune out more of that. Appealing to him that way might get your letter read at least.

The judge who made the initial decision probably now regrets ever being involved but I have rarely seen one back down.

This case is no longer before Judge James Van Slyke of the village court. The Kill Order has been appealed, and now rests before the Oneida County Court located in Utica, where Judge Dwyer will review. This is where Letters can be focused.

James Van Slyke, who apparently issued the Kill Order after a five-minute Hearing and without meeting Jack is apparently at least 84, has no legal training, and retired two decades ago as a Middle School Principal. I have not met him and cannot speak to his personality; however, old posts found around the Internet are not encouraging. Realistically, appealing to him is not going anywhere. If he was going to be dissuaded from his Kill Order, it would have been vacated by his court long ago.
 
Back
Top