On the morning of Wednesday Feb 15th the State of Connecticut Department of Agriculture violently raided the private residence of quiet, law abiding citizen Christine Koczur. Ms. Koczur, a college educated professional and avid animal rights activist, was prominent in her role as founder and president of the non-profit organization the Alliance for Animal Rescue Society (AARS). She was not suspected of committing a violent offense, kidnapping children or dealing drugs, yet was treated with the harsh standards of conduct reserved for such offenders. She was inappropriately labeled an animal "hoarder" or collector ... catch phrase for the latest in popular shocking scandalous tabloid/news trends.
According to the letter of the law at the time, no-knock warrants were considered quite extreme and contrary to appropriate police conduct. Not only did the authorities violate the required knock-and-announce stipulation, they never gave Christine a copy of the 13 page warrant. After much insistance by Christine, she finally obtained one illegible page which only contained the address of the location to be searched. When she asked where the remainder of the document was, she was told "shut the f*ck up and get out before I decide to arrest you. I don't need a reason, so you'd better f*cking do whatever I say while I am still in the mood to be a nice guy"
They tore her home to shreds, ripping cabinets and radiators out of the wall, toppling furniture, breaking family heirlooms, destroying or stealing important paperwork and personal items, and breaking new window after the unsuccessful use of a batterring ram on her front door. They used unnecessary violence and excessive force terrorizing all of the elderly, handicapped, frightened cats, wrangling and stuffing them into the filthy, contaminated carriers they came with.
Christine personally saved each of the cats from near death. Struggling to survive in the harshest of conditions, alone in the elements - starving, injured, handicapped, abused, tortured, tormented, abandoned...each of these animals had suffered and was in desperate need. She adopted out all of the viable candidates and the "undesirables" (the elderly, handicapped, or grossly disfigured, those with chronic medical conditions requiring constant care, or behavioral issues) that no one else wanted came to live with her because they had no where else to go. Most other organizations euthanize these types of cats because of the financial and laborsome burden they imposed, despite the quality of life the animals are still able to enjoy as they acclimate to their limitations under proper treatment and care.
All of the cats was spayed or neutered, vaccinated (well beyond the requirement of the law)tested (repeatedly) for feline FeLv, FIV, and all other relevant feline conditions. They were fed a high quality diet and there was a plentiful supply of fresh food and water available at all times throughout the home. One dozen litterboxes were freshened several times a day. All medical conditions were addressed and undergoing prescribed treatment. Supplements and medications were administered as directed by veterinarians.
Despite evidence of these facts provided to the Connecticut Department of Agriculture days before, during and after the raid, that agency continued to make statements to the press and claims to the court not only to the contrary of the facts and evidence, but deliberately and maliciously defamatory. Not only were some of their outrageous claims completely false, but medically impossible ("flea nests throughout the home, in the couch, bed, and even in the hair of the woman" http://www.pet-abuse.com/cases/7552/CT/US/)
FACTS:
~ There were NO FLEAS found on ANY of the cats while in the home or upon examination by the veterinarian who examined them immediately after leaving.
~ Animal control tried to blame Koczur for conditions they developed (including fleas) from several weeks to six months after they were no longer under her care. These were either documented pre-existing conditions that the animal control chose to ignore and let go untreated (that were being treated by Ms. Koczur) or conditions that developed due to the hideously unsanitary, inappropriate conditions the cats were kept in and the neglect they were subject to under animal control supervision, the gross negligence of ignoring their medical needs.
This was particularly evident in the Harwinton shelter under the direction of Diane Dodge. She is good friends with Gregan as he and her husband regularly go hunting together (how she obtained and maintains her position). She gave perjurous testimony repeatedly, which was refuted with photographic and documented evidence. She admitted to being "afraid" of many of Ms. Koczur's cats and lacked even a remedial understanding of the nature and proper treatment of feline health.
Yet there is no system in place to hold these authorities liable for their perjury (PROVEN WHILE THEY WERE ON THE STAND, with DOCUMENTED EVIDENCE and their recanting prior testimony or having sudden loss of memory) .... yet the court chose to ignore it and no one seems to care about the truth.
~ An independent Veterinarian visited the house only hours earlier examined the cats and found them to be in good health, and the living conditions to be sanitary.
~ Officer Gregan spoke to Dr. Dimmick prior to obtaining the search warrant and was aware of this fact, yet totally ignored and disregarded his findings.
~ Officer Gregan made repeated unannounced WARRANTLESS inspections of the residence between October and February 2006 without the consent of Ms. Koczur. He attempted to gain unauthorized access to the premisis by "trying" the doors and windows. He testified the fact that the doors were locked and the shades were drawn constituted "obvious signs of guilt".
His tresspass on the property was thwarted twice by Ms. Koczur. On the first occasion, he ran to his vehicle and sped off. On the second, both he and Ms. Godejohn (his assistant) attempted to physically push their way past Ms. Koczur to enter the residence after she caught them attempting to gain access to her home through the basement door. They threatened and harrassed her, never stating why they were there or what offense she supposedly committed. Luckily, her neighbor arrived home, and with the eye witness present, the pair made a quick retreat.
Gregan even contacted the Torrington Area Health District. In an unprecidented breach of proper and ethical procedure, he asked them to investigate an "anonymous complaint" of odor due to 75-100 cats in the residence. When the sanitarian reported back to him that there were no such violations and the case would be closed, he became irate and insisted that it remain open until they "find something".
~ Ms. Koczur was on the CTDOA "hit list" - the list of people who were "do-gooders" who did not "play the game", "respect (their) absolute authority", "shut up and not make waves", "understand (their) place". Ms. Koczur had made complaints about some of the most severe abuse cases she came across in her rescue work. After numerous contacts and evasions by Mr. Gregan, Ms. Koczur went over his head. Still, Mr. Gregan continued to shirk his responsibilities.
Then she was threatened outright by Bruce Gresczyk and informed of her status on their "hit list". He made it clear that they (the department) wanted "her kind", the "know-it-all pathetic bleeding heart animal lovers" out of business and out of the state. It was only a matter of time before they (the department) would "make an example" of her. Maybe if she was "good" and kept her "big mouth shut" they would decide to leave her alone for the time being. He made it very clear that they could execute their absolute authority at any time they chose, without a reason. They were "God", free to arbitrarily set and enforce the standard of care.
Furthermore, they could make up anything they wanted to "finish" me in every way from being able to conduct business or live in the state. He gave the example, that if they decided that one can of food was enough food for fifty cats for the lady down the street and 50 cans was not enough for my one cat, then that was final. If they decided to paint the picture of me as the torturer of animals, just like the people I had reported, they could do it. "We know how to get to you people, through your animals. It is all that you care about. We take those away and you are nothing".
~ Ms. Koczur regularly traveled hours transporting every animal in her (and the organization's care) to obtain the best medical care available, including:
Tufts Small Animal Hospital (one of the best veterinary teaching hospitals in the country) http://www.tufts.edu/vet/sah/about.html,
The Cat Hospital of Auburn http://www.thecathospital.com/
CT Vet Center http://www.ctvetcenter.com/
Old Canal Veterinary Clinic http://www.vetcarepc.com/
VCA Northside Animal Hospital http://www.vcanorthsidect.com/
She could have just gone to one of the many local veterinarians in her town as she did when she first started rescuing animals in the early 90's. But Christine ws not an advocate of adequate, but superior care. If that meant driving over two hours each way to get one cat the help that it needed so be it. There were no lengths she was not willing to go to for helping one creature, making such a huge difference to one innocent needy life. If that fact made her "obsessed" then she proudly wore that label as a badge of honor.
The animal control officer was aware of this as the massive files of veterinary records which were seized from her home filled up three boxes. The prosecutor was made aware of this fact with the submission of these documents to him by the defense. Mr. Suarez even complained about the massive amounts of paperwork provided to him. The court was aware of this, yet the judge, for some unknown reason, did not allow these records to be submitted as evidence.
However, Dr. Dimmick's were. Yet for some reason even the Supreme Court of Connecticut chose to disregard this evidence as well as the numerous of pages of testimony proving that the cats did have medical care and were in compliance with the state law for rabies vaccinations. The cats were not "diseased" but had a wide range of chronic challenging medical conditions for which they all were being medicated and treated by veterinary specialists. Most were disabled, elderly, had behavioral issues, or required special care (special needs cats). Despite the best care and conditions in Ms. Koczur's home, years scavanging for scraps, being without shelter or medical treatment living out on the street without the basic necessities wreak havoc on the body, rendering the animals with many lifelong health challenges. These animals were not "adoptable" yet they led quality lives because of the exemplory care provided to them.
~ These are obvious facts to ANYONE seriously involved in rescue. However, the judges were obviously not well-versed with any knowledge of animals. The trial judge stopped several times to clarify what a cat carrier was. Several people explained, but he still seemed baffled and asked again a few minutes later. By the time any technical questioning was going on, he was dozing off, looking out the window, or peering down the blouse of the ample intern seated in front of him.
8/2/08
Comments following story on Koczur case in Hartford Courant online forum
....... Cat rescue folks are the NEW targets of animal rights groups who want to take away our right to share our lives with pets. I guarantee you folks that if you went to ANY shelter at the right time of the day, you would find feces, filth, trash, smells, worms and god knows what else. A raid can be orchestrated to occur at just the worst time of the day, such as early in the morning. Don't judge people so harshly. You don't know the entire circumstances of this persons life.
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
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/
Letter from Dr. Edward A. Dimmick, DVM
I am writing to request your assistance in addressing a case which I believe involves significant misconduct by public officials in violating the rights of a private citizen. Specifically, the matter involves Christine Koczur of Torrington and the conduct of the state Animal Control office, in particular the behavior of Officer Richard Gregan. Previous letters to Sen. Prague, Rep. Olson, and other officials have gone unanswered, and/or been handed to the Department of Agriculture to no constructive effect. The following is a summary of the significant events leading up to the raid on her home on February 15 of this year. I apologize for the length, but there are many points to cover.
For several years Christine has been taking in, caring for, and where possible adopting out homeless and unwanted animals in the Torrington area. She founded an organization called Alliance for Animal Rescue Society (AARS) to extend and promote these activities in coordination with foster homes and volunteers. In October of 2005, AARS received permission to work with the newly finished West Hartford PETCO by showing cats for adoption at the store; this required regular veterinary checkups be performed. As a mobile service veterinarian I have been examining and treating these cats; from October 7, 2005 through February 10, 2006 I made 13 visits to examine incoming and resident pets, administer vaccinations, run blood tests, and where necessary administer or prescribe medical treatment. All cats shown at the store have been vaccinated, tested for feline leukemia and FIV, de-wormed and treated for fleas; all relevant medical issues have been addressed as needed. At no time did PETCO receive any complaints or reports of problems from adoptive owners.
On February 9, 2006 Christine was visited at her home by Officer Richard Gregan and Officer Barbara Goodejohn from the Animal Control office of the Department of Agriculture. During this visit Officer Gregan demanded immediate entry to search her home, making threats when she failed to comply. Officer Gregan refused to state the nature of the problem despite numerous requests. Without going into too much detail here, suffice it to say that the behavior of Officer Gregan was sufficiently upsetting to make Christine physically ill. Based upon past experience with Officer Gregan and his behavior, it was immediately obvious to me that he was not interested in a peaceable solution, but was setting the stage for a raid and seizure.
On the afternoon of Friday, February 10, 2006 at 3:09 PM a message was left on my cellular phone from Officer Richard Gregan; the caller ID had been blocked to conceal the origin point of the call. Officer Gregan requested information about Christine’s personal veterinary records, without stating any reason for wanting this information. No mention was made of AARS or any specific complaint. Based upon consultation with the Connecticut Veterinary Medical Association and AVMA Code of Ethics, I determined that this information was covered by confidentiality rules. A letter to this effect was hand-delivered to the Department of Agriculture on Monday, February 13; as this was a state holiday the letter was given to the custody of the security detail who took it to Gregan’s desk. At 9:34 AM on Tuesday, February 14, Officer Goodejohn left a message on my office line that she had an ‘urgent’ matter to discuss. At 9:41 AM I called the number given, at which point she handed the phone, without warning, to Officer Gregan. Officer Gregan demanded information and refused to discuss the letter he had been given, claiming he had the right to any information he wanted on demand.
Officer Gregan was informed that I would be able to examine the cats and the premises with Christine’s consent, and that he could receive a written report of any deficiencies noted. He demanded to know when this would occur so that he could be present to ‘supervise’ my inspection; he was told that he would not be welcome due to his previous behavior and known history. He threatened to have me arrested and have my license revoked if I ‘interfered’ in state cases. He also expressed a specific intent to resolve the case by raid and seizure rather than by cooperation of any kind. I believe that Officer Gregan artificially accelerated the obtaining of the search warrant in an attempt to preclude actions which might serve in Ms. Koczur’s defense.
Officer Gregan claimed that the case stemmed from a kitten which had been adopted from AARS at PETCO and later died of FIP. He refused to provide any details; and when engaged on specific facts, he claimed to understand the disease better than I do. It must be stressed that at this point in time no mention of such an event had been made to Christine or to the PETCO; that Animal Control had made no effort to contact PETCO or investigate the matter through AARS; and that Officer Gregan had repeatedly refused to reveal the nature of the complaint to anyone else. There was no attempt made, and no opportunity provided, for any party to address the incident and pursue a non-confrontational resolution. The fact that Animal Control has not made any inquiries into the cats at PETCO indicates that this action was targeted specifically at Christine, and had no relationship whatsoever to her adoption activities.
On the afternoon of February 14, 2006 I made an extended visit (over 5½ hours) to Christine’s home, which included the examination and vaccination of numerous cats, a review of her veterinary records, and an inspection of the premises. At least 30 cats were given physical exams and all were visually inspected; all but one appeared to be well-fed, clean, and well cared for; all have been spayed or neutered and all have been vaccinated at some point. Only a single cat seemed to be in less than good health, an older cat who had been losing weight; this cat already had an appointment for further examination. It is true that some cats were overdue for vaccination and some showed mild but treatable conditions such as ear mites. Some older cats also had dental problems, a virtually universal condition among senior pets. While the house was very cluttered, I found no evidence of unsanitary conditions threatening human or animal health; all food and water dishes were clean and kept full, litter boxes were cleaned regularly and there was no offensive odor. The claims of odor, filth, and inadequate feeding, made under oath by Officer Gregan, were clearly not true. No fleas were seen during the entire visit; while the presence of a few could have gone unnoticed, claims of severe infestation are clearly false.
If such conditions are going to be considered ‘neglect’ sufficient to justify raids and seizure, then roughly 500,000 pet owners in the state are at risk. To reiterate: As an animal care professional, I did not find evidence of neglect, and Ms. Koczur was able and willing to address all issues found. The standard for animal care is not perfection, nor excellence, but adequacy (CGS 53-247(a), and Ms. Koczur met that standard. On the morning of Wednesday, February 15, 2006 a notarized letter to Officer Gregan was prepared summarizing my findings. Before this could be delivered, Officer Gregan had already served a search and seizure warrant at Christine’s home and was in the progress of taking her cats and personal papers. Officer Gregan was handed the notarized letter; he refused copies of rabies certificates offered to him.
Some issues surrounding this event are detailed below, but in summary: Officer Gregan willfully failed to follow the law and due process, refused to recognize or respect Christine’s rights and personal dignity, took items not authorized in the warrant, intentionally caused cats to suffer needless stress and trauma, was seen handling cats roughly, may have concealed or destroyed evidence, and appears to have vandalized the house. He refused to permit any observation or recording of his actions, and threatened persons with arrest for attempting to assist or assert Christine’s rights under the law. The treatment of Ms. Koczur by the officers, specifically Officer Gregan and the Torrington ACO, was consistently rude, arrogant, abusive, condescending, and at times threatening. In addition to unprofessional behavior, there were specific and egregious violations of her civil rights, her personal dignity, and the lawful requirements of official procedure. Ms. Koczur was not given adequate time to read the warrant before her house was stormed. When I asked the Torrington ACO about this, his response was that I was not an attorney and therefore had no right to ask such questions. He also said to Ms. Koczur, “If you can’t understand it that’s not my problem.” There is no excuse for such condescension from a public official. Both the Torrington ACO and Officer Gregan repeatedly gave this kind of response any time Christine attempted to assert her rights, claiming that she had no legal knowledge of her rights and therefore they were not required to respond. Officer Gregan threatened to arrest her for claiming her legal rights under the law.
The copy of the warrant given to Christine, and it does not state the “grounds or probable cause for its issuance” as required by CGS 54-33a(c). Either the warrant is incomplete to begin with, or she was intentionally given an incomplete copy. Christine asked repeatedly for a detailed receipt of all items taken, as specified in CGS 54-36f. She was told by Officer Gregan that she had no such right; the Torrington ACO said she would get a receipt ‘if and when we feel like it.’ Again, not only is this a direct violation of her rights, but an inexcusable display of unprofessional behavior by public officials.
It is worth noting that some of the local Animal Control officers called in to assist were considerably more professional and – perhaps not coincidentally – showed far greater care and gentleness in the actual handling of the cats. Christine offered to help identify the cats and match their medical records, which was initially accepted by the assisting ACO; Officer Gregan ripped the records from Christine’s hand, threatened her with arrest and ordered her out of the house.
Since the raid the state has conducted a smear campaign against Christine, relating false and defamatory statements about the case to the press for the sole purpose of causing her further humiliation. For example, Officer Gregan stated on the record that the house had an ‘overwhelming’ odor. I was there for over 5 hours, and found no such problem. It has been published in newspaper that Christine had ‘flea nests’ in her hair, a sensationalist claim which is not merely untrue but medically impossible. This constitutes outright slander. The state has willfully refused to follow the law or proper procedure in pursuing the case, including repeated failure to hand over documents required by law and essential to Christine’s defense in a timely manner. We have reason to believe Officer Gregan has been using illegally seized personal papers to damage Christine’s financial status and to cause the cancellation of her insurance; coaching witnesses; altering or fabricating documents; and has concealed or destroyed evidence. Information about the cats is leaked to the public but kept from Christine. There are discrepancies and falsehoods in documents produced by Officer Gregan and the state.
There is reason to believe that Christine is being persecuted and prosecuted as a political favor to Joel Gordes, who sits on the state’s Energy Conservation Management Board. Mr. Gordes’ wife adopted the kitten who later died, and some evidence suggests that her note to Officer Gregan is what started this entire case. The fact remains that Mr. & Mrs. Gordes never made any attempt to resolve his complaint by the means that ordinary people would use. Officer Gregan made no attempt either to fully and properly investigate the case, or to reach a cooperative arrangement as is the published policy of the Department of Agriculture.
Based upon this and past incidents of similar nature, I believe that there is a systematic pattern of abuse of power and willful failure to follow the law by Officer Gregan and other persons at the Animal Control Division. Based upon past encounters and communication with Officer Gregan, I find him to be one of the rudest, most arrogant, and quite frankly malicious people I have ever met. He demonstrates, in my considered opinion, the approximate reasoning ability and emotional maturity of a high school bully.
On a previous occasion I called Animal Control to ask about standards of care in order to provide counsel to my clients. I specifically asked for Dr. Bruce Sherman; instead, Officer Gregan picked up the phone, identifying himself with, “This is Bruce;” he proceeded to maintain that pretense for the remainder of a 25-minute conversation, twice referring to himself as a ‘fellow veterinary professional.’ During the conversation in question and at other times he has made the following comments: that his ability to evaluate animal health exceeds that of a veterinarian; that he believes actions of his office are exempt from public scrutiny; that he is free to judge the condition of animal care on an entirely arbitrary basis following nothing but his personal whims of the moment; and that all private rescuers are actually ‘hoarders’ whom he appears to view as criminals on the level of drug dealers and child molesters. It is impossible to attempt any form of reason with Officer Gregan, as he seems incapable of any form of discussion beyond the endless repetition of previous statements, usually those centered around his assumption of absolute and infallible authority.
An item posted at the Department of Agriculture website dated Jan 30 and inexplicably removed Feb 13 (copy attached), reads as a statement of policy that the Department plans to conduct a concerted effort to find and raid those they identify as ‘hoarders.’ I should point out that, having studied with the nation’s leading authority on the hoarding phenomenon, I believe the DoA and Officer Gregan have a false and simplistic view of the issue. Even where hoarding occurs, raid and seizure – absent ‘long-term and comprehensive’ action - is not appropriate. By contrast, the Department has shown little interest in pursuing more significant offenders such as dog fighters who might require such an aggressive approach.
More chilling, at least twice in recent years Officer Gregan and others from the Animal Control Division have attempted to get legislation passed which would allow them to enter and ‘inspect’ private homes without a warrant, based solely on their own discretion. At a time when even the civil rights of terrorists are a public concern, this proposal is absolutely indefensible.
It is my considered impression that Officer Gregan and the Animal Control office are not interested in any approach except raiding homes and seizing animals, inflicting emotional distress on their targets and terrorizing other rescuers. At this time several of my clients have stated that they are afraid to speak out on this matter for fear they will be targeted and raided next; given past events, their fears are justified. American citizens should not have to live in fear of having their house raided by an unchecked agency based upon anonymous denunciations.
I believe the cause of the problem is that due to Connecticut’s system of political patronage, this department lacks necessary accountability to any authority for their actions. The Governor’s office - supposedly concerned with fighting corruption, and the only authority this department is accountable to – does nothing but forward complaints to the very department under scrutiny. Clearly, the Governor is not interested in doing anything except sweeping the problem under the rug. If ethics in government is to be a real issue in Connecticut, it has to include more than questions of where someone got an invitation to a fundraising dinner.
For several years Christine has been taking in, caring for, and where possible adopting out homeless and unwanted animals in the Torrington area. She founded an organization called Alliance for Animal Rescue Society (AARS) to extend and promote these activities in coordination with foster homes and volunteers. In October of 2005, AARS received permission to work with the newly finished West Hartford PETCO by showing cats for adoption at the store; this required regular veterinary checkups be performed. As a mobile service veterinarian I have been examining and treating these cats; from October 7, 2005 through February 10, 2006 I made 13 visits to examine incoming and resident pets, administer vaccinations, run blood tests, and where necessary administer or prescribe medical treatment. All cats shown at the store have been vaccinated, tested for feline leukemia and FIV, de-wormed and treated for fleas; all relevant medical issues have been addressed as needed. At no time did PETCO receive any complaints or reports of problems from adoptive owners.
On February 9, 2006 Christine was visited at her home by Officer Richard Gregan and Officer Barbara Goodejohn from the Animal Control office of the Department of Agriculture. During this visit Officer Gregan demanded immediate entry to search her home, making threats when she failed to comply. Officer Gregan refused to state the nature of the problem despite numerous requests. Without going into too much detail here, suffice it to say that the behavior of Officer Gregan was sufficiently upsetting to make Christine physically ill. Based upon past experience with Officer Gregan and his behavior, it was immediately obvious to me that he was not interested in a peaceable solution, but was setting the stage for a raid and seizure.
On the afternoon of Friday, February 10, 2006 at 3:09 PM a message was left on my cellular phone from Officer Richard Gregan; the caller ID had been blocked to conceal the origin point of the call. Officer Gregan requested information about Christine’s personal veterinary records, without stating any reason for wanting this information. No mention was made of AARS or any specific complaint. Based upon consultation with the Connecticut Veterinary Medical Association and AVMA Code of Ethics, I determined that this information was covered by confidentiality rules. A letter to this effect was hand-delivered to the Department of Agriculture on Monday, February 13; as this was a state holiday the letter was given to the custody of the security detail who took it to Gregan’s desk. At 9:34 AM on Tuesday, February 14, Officer Goodejohn left a message on my office line that she had an ‘urgent’ matter to discuss. At 9:41 AM I called the number given, at which point she handed the phone, without warning, to Officer Gregan. Officer Gregan demanded information and refused to discuss the letter he had been given, claiming he had the right to any information he wanted on demand.
Officer Gregan was informed that I would be able to examine the cats and the premises with Christine’s consent, and that he could receive a written report of any deficiencies noted. He demanded to know when this would occur so that he could be present to ‘supervise’ my inspection; he was told that he would not be welcome due to his previous behavior and known history. He threatened to have me arrested and have my license revoked if I ‘interfered’ in state cases. He also expressed a specific intent to resolve the case by raid and seizure rather than by cooperation of any kind. I believe that Officer Gregan artificially accelerated the obtaining of the search warrant in an attempt to preclude actions which might serve in Ms. Koczur’s defense.
Officer Gregan claimed that the case stemmed from a kitten which had been adopted from AARS at PETCO and later died of FIP. He refused to provide any details; and when engaged on specific facts, he claimed to understand the disease better than I do. It must be stressed that at this point in time no mention of such an event had been made to Christine or to the PETCO; that Animal Control had made no effort to contact PETCO or investigate the matter through AARS; and that Officer Gregan had repeatedly refused to reveal the nature of the complaint to anyone else. There was no attempt made, and no opportunity provided, for any party to address the incident and pursue a non-confrontational resolution. The fact that Animal Control has not made any inquiries into the cats at PETCO indicates that this action was targeted specifically at Christine, and had no relationship whatsoever to her adoption activities.
On the afternoon of February 14, 2006 I made an extended visit (over 5½ hours) to Christine’s home, which included the examination and vaccination of numerous cats, a review of her veterinary records, and an inspection of the premises. At least 30 cats were given physical exams and all were visually inspected; all but one appeared to be well-fed, clean, and well cared for; all have been spayed or neutered and all have been vaccinated at some point. Only a single cat seemed to be in less than good health, an older cat who had been losing weight; this cat already had an appointment for further examination. It is true that some cats were overdue for vaccination and some showed mild but treatable conditions such as ear mites. Some older cats also had dental problems, a virtually universal condition among senior pets. While the house was very cluttered, I found no evidence of unsanitary conditions threatening human or animal health; all food and water dishes were clean and kept full, litter boxes were cleaned regularly and there was no offensive odor. The claims of odor, filth, and inadequate feeding, made under oath by Officer Gregan, were clearly not true. No fleas were seen during the entire visit; while the presence of a few could have gone unnoticed, claims of severe infestation are clearly false.
If such conditions are going to be considered ‘neglect’ sufficient to justify raids and seizure, then roughly 500,000 pet owners in the state are at risk. To reiterate: As an animal care professional, I did not find evidence of neglect, and Ms. Koczur was able and willing to address all issues found. The standard for animal care is not perfection, nor excellence, but adequacy (CGS 53-247(a), and Ms. Koczur met that standard. On the morning of Wednesday, February 15, 2006 a notarized letter to Officer Gregan was prepared summarizing my findings. Before this could be delivered, Officer Gregan had already served a search and seizure warrant at Christine’s home and was in the progress of taking her cats and personal papers. Officer Gregan was handed the notarized letter; he refused copies of rabies certificates offered to him.
Some issues surrounding this event are detailed below, but in summary: Officer Gregan willfully failed to follow the law and due process, refused to recognize or respect Christine’s rights and personal dignity, took items not authorized in the warrant, intentionally caused cats to suffer needless stress and trauma, was seen handling cats roughly, may have concealed or destroyed evidence, and appears to have vandalized the house. He refused to permit any observation or recording of his actions, and threatened persons with arrest for attempting to assist or assert Christine’s rights under the law. The treatment of Ms. Koczur by the officers, specifically Officer Gregan and the Torrington ACO, was consistently rude, arrogant, abusive, condescending, and at times threatening. In addition to unprofessional behavior, there were specific and egregious violations of her civil rights, her personal dignity, and the lawful requirements of official procedure. Ms. Koczur was not given adequate time to read the warrant before her house was stormed. When I asked the Torrington ACO about this, his response was that I was not an attorney and therefore had no right to ask such questions. He also said to Ms. Koczur, “If you can’t understand it that’s not my problem.” There is no excuse for such condescension from a public official. Both the Torrington ACO and Officer Gregan repeatedly gave this kind of response any time Christine attempted to assert her rights, claiming that she had no legal knowledge of her rights and therefore they were not required to respond. Officer Gregan threatened to arrest her for claiming her legal rights under the law.
The copy of the warrant given to Christine, and it does not state the “grounds or probable cause for its issuance” as required by CGS 54-33a(c). Either the warrant is incomplete to begin with, or she was intentionally given an incomplete copy. Christine asked repeatedly for a detailed receipt of all items taken, as specified in CGS 54-36f. She was told by Officer Gregan that she had no such right; the Torrington ACO said she would get a receipt ‘if and when we feel like it.’ Again, not only is this a direct violation of her rights, but an inexcusable display of unprofessional behavior by public officials.
It is worth noting that some of the local Animal Control officers called in to assist were considerably more professional and – perhaps not coincidentally – showed far greater care and gentleness in the actual handling of the cats. Christine offered to help identify the cats and match their medical records, which was initially accepted by the assisting ACO; Officer Gregan ripped the records from Christine’s hand, threatened her with arrest and ordered her out of the house.
Since the raid the state has conducted a smear campaign against Christine, relating false and defamatory statements about the case to the press for the sole purpose of causing her further humiliation. For example, Officer Gregan stated on the record that the house had an ‘overwhelming’ odor. I was there for over 5 hours, and found no such problem. It has been published in newspaper that Christine had ‘flea nests’ in her hair, a sensationalist claim which is not merely untrue but medically impossible. This constitutes outright slander. The state has willfully refused to follow the law or proper procedure in pursuing the case, including repeated failure to hand over documents required by law and essential to Christine’s defense in a timely manner. We have reason to believe Officer Gregan has been using illegally seized personal papers to damage Christine’s financial status and to cause the cancellation of her insurance; coaching witnesses; altering or fabricating documents; and has concealed or destroyed evidence. Information about the cats is leaked to the public but kept from Christine. There are discrepancies and falsehoods in documents produced by Officer Gregan and the state.
There is reason to believe that Christine is being persecuted and prosecuted as a political favor to Joel Gordes, who sits on the state’s Energy Conservation Management Board. Mr. Gordes’ wife adopted the kitten who later died, and some evidence suggests that her note to Officer Gregan is what started this entire case. The fact remains that Mr. & Mrs. Gordes never made any attempt to resolve his complaint by the means that ordinary people would use. Officer Gregan made no attempt either to fully and properly investigate the case, or to reach a cooperative arrangement as is the published policy of the Department of Agriculture.
Based upon this and past incidents of similar nature, I believe that there is a systematic pattern of abuse of power and willful failure to follow the law by Officer Gregan and other persons at the Animal Control Division. Based upon past encounters and communication with Officer Gregan, I find him to be one of the rudest, most arrogant, and quite frankly malicious people I have ever met. He demonstrates, in my considered opinion, the approximate reasoning ability and emotional maturity of a high school bully.
On a previous occasion I called Animal Control to ask about standards of care in order to provide counsel to my clients. I specifically asked for Dr. Bruce Sherman; instead, Officer Gregan picked up the phone, identifying himself with, “This is Bruce;” he proceeded to maintain that pretense for the remainder of a 25-minute conversation, twice referring to himself as a ‘fellow veterinary professional.’ During the conversation in question and at other times he has made the following comments: that his ability to evaluate animal health exceeds that of a veterinarian; that he believes actions of his office are exempt from public scrutiny; that he is free to judge the condition of animal care on an entirely arbitrary basis following nothing but his personal whims of the moment; and that all private rescuers are actually ‘hoarders’ whom he appears to view as criminals on the level of drug dealers and child molesters. It is impossible to attempt any form of reason with Officer Gregan, as he seems incapable of any form of discussion beyond the endless repetition of previous statements, usually those centered around his assumption of absolute and infallible authority.
An item posted at the Department of Agriculture website dated Jan 30 and inexplicably removed Feb 13 (copy attached), reads as a statement of policy that the Department plans to conduct a concerted effort to find and raid those they identify as ‘hoarders.’ I should point out that, having studied with the nation’s leading authority on the hoarding phenomenon, I believe the DoA and Officer Gregan have a false and simplistic view of the issue. Even where hoarding occurs, raid and seizure – absent ‘long-term and comprehensive’ action - is not appropriate. By contrast, the Department has shown little interest in pursuing more significant offenders such as dog fighters who might require such an aggressive approach.
More chilling, at least twice in recent years Officer Gregan and others from the Animal Control Division have attempted to get legislation passed which would allow them to enter and ‘inspect’ private homes without a warrant, based solely on their own discretion. At a time when even the civil rights of terrorists are a public concern, this proposal is absolutely indefensible.
It is my considered impression that Officer Gregan and the Animal Control office are not interested in any approach except raiding homes and seizing animals, inflicting emotional distress on their targets and terrorizing other rescuers. At this time several of my clients have stated that they are afraid to speak out on this matter for fear they will be targeted and raided next; given past events, their fears are justified. American citizens should not have to live in fear of having their house raided by an unchecked agency based upon anonymous denunciations.
I believe the cause of the problem is that due to Connecticut’s system of political patronage, this department lacks necessary accountability to any authority for their actions. The Governor’s office - supposedly concerned with fighting corruption, and the only authority this department is accountable to – does nothing but forward complaints to the very department under scrutiny. Clearly, the Governor is not interested in doing anything except sweeping the problem under the rug. If ethics in government is to be a real issue in Connecticut, it has to include more than questions of where someone got an invitation to a fundraising dinner.
