The woman obviously was trying to do what was right and was overwhelmed. For the court to now assess her $100K in fines is indicative of a judicial branch --- and jurist --- wholly out of touch with reality. Grinding her into financial ruin is hardly what "justice and mercy" means.
Where in the world do you think SHELTERS put bodies of dead cat and dogs after they have killed them? IN THE FREEZER - they go in the freezer until the garbage truck hauls them to the land fill. ........ doglover, Elkins WV
....... The elitest pig judge was wrong & I hope Ms Koczur proves her so. ....Ricbee, Danbury CT
....... Is there a law against having a cluttered and dirty house in CT? Just curious, because there isn't one here.
I really wish people would learn what a hoarder is and is not. Hoarders, by definition, do not adopt out animals, and often resist attempts by others to help them get animals adopted. Therefore, anyone who is doing rescue on any serious level cannot possibly meet the definition of a hoarder. If this woman is a hoarder (which I doubt, just from reading the description, but can't be sure with so little information) she is mentally ill. Why would one fine a person $100,000 for being mentally ill?
What seems to be being debated in the comments section is whether or not she is a "hoarder." The animals of "hoarders" by definition are being kept in horrible conditions. If you have 200 cats but keep them all in pristine conditions you are not a hoarder. People seem to have picked up on this "buzzword" of hoarder and use it to apply across the board to mean "person who has more animals than I think is appropriate".
It seems likely to me that she was keeping the sicker cats at her home to ready them for being taken to the store to be adopted out. You can't take sick cats there. When you get cats from a shelter, they are often in horrible shape to begin with. They have been exposed to coronavirus, possibly giardia, ringworm, URI, fleas, etc etc, just from having been in the shelter. Rescuers realize this, but the general public does not.
It doesn't cost $100,000 to care for 47 cats over several months, or possibly even several years, unless they are all gravely ill and need massive amounts of vet care, so I am sure there were punitive damages thrown in there. I just did the math and could board 47 cats at my vet's office for $15,510 per month (not that I would want to do so, but that is what it would cost).Animal rescue is the only charity I can think of where one runs the risk of being jailed, fined, etc. Cases like this are putting rescue in grave danger, IMHO. I hope this does go to the Supreme Court and I hope it is reversed.
Actually, having gone back and read the article again, it says the $100,000 was "fines and other penalties." It says nothing about care of the cats whatsoever. Of course the news article could be incorrect. So basically this woman was fined $100,000 for doing charity work and saving animals from deaths in shelters or on the streets. Very scary!
I would likely be against such a bill (the proposed shelter inspection bill). If it meant some legal entity could go into people's homes at any hour of day or night without a warrant and "inspect" them I would definitely be against it.
Unlike animal rescuers, polygamous cult members have lots of money, and are able to hire lots of good lawyers and PR firms. Therefore, unlike animal rescuers, they get their stolen children back.
They love to steal people's animals under color of law and sell them in TX (and apparently in CT as well). John Stossel did a piece on it. (http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Story?id=817494) I can only imagine what they would do with such a bill here. ......... Kelley, Austin TX
.......It sounds to me as if Christine Koczur was convicted of CGA 53-247a, the misdemeanor portiion of the Ct. cruelty to animals statute. The misdemeanor portion of the statute is a continuous 191-word, run-on sentence. It is vague and broad, and difficult to read and comprehend. What exactly is it that is or is not forbidden?
It is therefore, as attorney Palmieri points out, "unconstitutional." The language is so archaic, from a careful reading, it would seem to be regarding a farm economy which certainly no longer exists in Ct. today.Who was the trial judge in this case? Where was the court? When was it decided? Was Koczur convicted by jury trial or by the bench? Which statute was she appealing the convictin of? Inquiring Minds want to know.
If Koczur was in fact convicted of 53-247a, she is only the second to be so convicted by trial in the history of Ct. jurisprudence. I am the first: Ct. v. Doriss, New Haven, 2002. This statute was apparently written for me and Christine Koczur! This law and these types of proceedings are abusive exercises of power by the sovereign State of Ct. They are used for no other purpose than to punish someone the state does not like for other reasons, but are unable to prosecute because the defendant has broken no laws which would hold up in a court of law.
This statute needs to be re-visited and updated by the legislature. Rep. Diana Urban, according to recent stories in the Courant, has been appointed to head a "task force" designed for this very purpose. Let's hope her committee looks at all of the issues in an unbiased, non-hysterical manner.
The Supreme Court was wrong here, and attorney Palmieri's concerns are legitimate and entirely correct. The State of Corrupticut cares not one whit about cruelty to its subjects committed under color of the sovereign.
Although Mass. is home to some notable judicial fiascos, things may in fact be better here. Anecdotally, the courts seem to be easier to negotiate and the sentencing more lenient. On Cape Cod, there are three courts. Every single docketed case is duly reported in the Cape Cod Times, so that the citizenry can be apprised of the who, what, where, when, the disposition, and sometimes the why of every case. I don't believe this is done anywhere in Ct. at this time, and is a tremendous disservice to the public.
The public actually has no idea what goes on its courthouses outside of high-profile cases which may be reported in the press. For example, the State of Ct. hit me with 13 criminal charges and 69 years prison. I went thru a full-blown criminal trial in New Haven and never received one public notice. I have been in federal court over the same matters for over three years, and still have received not one public notice, in spite of my trying to draw attention to myself and the outrageous abuse of power by the Ct. state judiciary in Ct. v. Doriss.
Yesterday, The New Haven Independent posted a video of Justice Borden of the State Supreme Court calling for expanded videotaping of court proceedings in Ct. I wholly support any move in that direction. Shine the light of day into every corner of the courthouse and the judicial process, and maybe there will not occur the rampant abuses that pass for "justice" in Ct.
Borden is quoted as saying, "The judiciary belongs to the public, not to the judges and lawyers." Indeed, you could have fooled me. This is a tacit admission that the judiciary is out of control. How and when did these situations come about. The system certainly was not designed that way. And how and when do we correct it?
With respect to cruelty to animals, in Dennis a couple of years ago, a young boy was attacked and injured by a bull mastiff. 2nd offense, the owner was not arrested. It seems like he might have been, but I don't know all of the details. Was this good or bad? Who knows?
The CDC reported there were 4.7 million dog-on-human incidents in '06 nationwide. If you prorate that for 50 states, you get some large number, and if you then prorate that for each of the 169 cities and towns in Ct., you get another number in the hundreds. If the sovereign prosecuted each and every one of these incidents, it would not have time for any other business.
Notorious examples of judicial misconduct certainly exist in Mass. Leaving aside the Salem witch hunts, you have Sacco and Vanzetti, in the twenties. You have the Amirault/Fells Acre Day Care Center fiasco of the '80' and '90's, which has been definitively chronicled by Dorothy Rabinowitz in "No Crueler Tyrannies."
Recently I attended the miscarriage of justice in Mass. v. McCowen, which resulted in three questionable guilty verdicts. But overall, Mass. has a roughly 15% lower incarceration rate than Ct.(Unlike Ct., some Mass. prisoners are incarcerated on civil charges,... story in today's Globe.)
Does Ct. have a higher crime rate than Mass., or is it the case that Ct. is better at solving crime? Answer: Neither. The real answer is that Ct. has a better oiled Prison-Industrial Complex. It is fifth nationwide in terms of incarceration rate, which gives lie to the commonplace belief that the most of the "law and order" states are in the South.
For a thorough investigation and review of these matters, see Sasha Abramsky's book, "American Furies," 2007. It is a good read. I hope I answered some of your questions. ...... Mr. William Doriss, MA
..... My previous comments here were apparently received like a bucket of warm spit. Hey, I worked hard on those, and I believe I have something important to contribute to the dialogue outside of the issue of "hoarding."
Although I agree with the posters who say or imply that hoarding is not a crime, my main point--not touched on by anyone above--is that I view Ms. Koczur also a "victim," a victim at least as important as her victim-cats. After all, my father-in-law "hoarded" cows. He had 200 in another, midwestern state. He also "hoarded" cars. When he died, he left about 100 antique cars behind.(He was never arrested.)
Some people hoard antiques, jewelry, clothes, plants, paintings, etc. I suppose Warren Buffett could be accused of "hoarding" stocks and bonds--and in Russia under Putin, no doubt would be.
What was Ms. Koczur a victim of? A victim of a rogue law enforcement action and an overzealous, aberrant judiciary which did not consider the costs of this prosecution to society, neither to the defendant nor to the taxpayers of Ct. who are ultimately footing the bill.
Hey,$100,000 is a lot of money, no matter how you slice it. Is it real money? Or is it judicial fiat money, with no basis in reality or to the marketplace, invented by some pie-in-the-sky, arrogant judge who never performed a hard day's work in his life? Will this fine/restitution ever get "paid"? By whom and to whom will it ever be paid?
As Andrew Jackson famously said regarding a decision he did not like, "Justice Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it."I do not believe Ms. Koczur is a wealthy woman or married to a wealthy man. I predict the "fine" will never be paid by anyone in her lifetime. This case reminds me of the Judith Scruggs case of a few years ago. Scruggs was convicted in Meriden Superior Court of "keeping a messy house," which allegedly endangered the "health and welfare of a minor," her teenage son who had been bullied at school and who ultimately committed suicide.
If I recall, her neighbors and friends rallied to her cause, marched in the street to the courthouse, where they demonstrated against this unjust ruling/verdict. The judgment was subsequently overturned at the very same courthouse, and not on appeal.
Maybe Ms. Koczur similarly kept a messy environment for her cats, which (apparently) annoyed the starched-shirt, anal-retentive judge in the case. With no sense of humor I might add. Perhaps that was her real crime: keeping a messy house.
It seems to me that some persons and/or agencies (the so-called Agriculture Dept., which surely has a lot to do in the non-agricultural State of Ct.) were out to get her.
And then, when the **** hit the fan, her friends and neighbors failed to rally to her defense. All of the animal rights people of one color or another made thmeselves noticeably scarce. Maybe she didn't have any friends, and that is indeed a serious crime in Connecticut.
Her cats were her friends. God knows, my dog which the City of New Haven executed, illegally and unlawfully on Nov. 26, 2002, was my best friend. He barked, but he didn't talk back. He licked my face, and he slept on my bed. My dog never attacked or hurt anyone in the six years of his life.
I had exactly the same problem in New Haven as Ms. Koczur had in Torrington. My family, my so-called friends, neighbors, associates and activists in the community (except Sally) failed to rally for me.No one could believe that the State could or would hit me with 13 criminal charges and 69 years prison over two dog accidents.
Wake up people! They could, and they did. These are the types of situations you wind up with when you have an unregulated, unaccountable police state acting in concert with a rogue judiciary. Ct. is also the "nanny state,"... another topic. Read Kathleen Dickinson's comments for further insight. I do not believe she is completely crazy at all. There exist a common thread between Dickinson, Scruggs, and now Koczur.
It's not about cruelty to animals or endangering their welfare at all. It's about the state victimizing its own vulnerable citizens and eating its young. These types of situations could have, and should have, been dealt with in a less invasive, more compassionate--and yes, more "Constitutional"--manner.
Less expensive as well. Unintended consequences and gross miscarriages of justice are what you get--and what you deserve--when you have a do-nothing legislature and an out-of-control judiciary. And you pay for it too,... far in excess of the $100,000 charged to Ms. Koczur.
Who says the squeaky wheel doesn't get the grease? You asked about the "other side" to my story? There is no other side which is credible and not manufactured. Trust it! I know wherefore I speak. Thousands of pages,... and counting. (The "other side" can be googled, which you are disinclined to do. Ignorance is bliss.)
I still disagree with the ruling in Koczur. I do know which thread I'm on. I tried to take this dialogue in a certain direction, and failed. Parsing of the word, "hoarding," is interesting,... in Linguistics 101, but has little, if any, relevance to 53-247a and the Supreme Court Ruling upholding the conviction and fine.
I do not know who the trial judge was, but is of course a matter of public record. I did speak to Koczur's attorney, Wm. Palmieri, and could have asked him but did not.
Since Ms. Koczur and I are (apparently) the only two people in the history of Ct. jurisprudence to have been convicted of 53-247a, I agree with you completely. Thanx for your input. I wish more people would have posted on this important and very bizarre story.
I have made yet another move in federal court over my own situations, but it does not look good. Check out the current Courant story regarding Avery Doninger, and comments, whose petition for immediate relief was denied by the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in N.Y.
See previous comments by me. Once again, this is a gross miscarriage of justice in Ct. And I am able to name a few more, which would be eliminated in short order if I were to post them on this forum.
... a tragic waste of public safety and judicial resources,... your taxpayer dollars at work. I hope everybody is happy that the true issues in this case have not been properly addressed or resolved. Not only that, but it is unlikey they ever will be, as everyone moves on without acknowledging or correcting past mistakes, errors and gross miscarriages of justice which is par for the course in Connecticut these days. ...... Mr. William Doriss, MA
http://www.topix.net/forum/source/hartford-courant/T22KKUOHOF0BPRPLR/
