There was a comment left on the STEP OUTSIDE THE SILO post
by anonymous saying they knew someone that had the photos and
could they post photos from the Attleson Court file on the blog?
They are old black and white photos taken in 2006 of storage,
towels and blankets on the floor, a garage full to the ceiling,
a tub that has not drained as the filter needed unplugged to prevent
hair from running into the sewer system, storage in the yard, old
empty crates and poor housekeeping. None of these photos speak
to the excellent care and condition of the dogs.
There has been an underground movement by a few in the fancy
to smear the name of All Setter Rescue and especially Bob Attleson,
its founder. Notes and photos from the court files have been sent
to various members in the fancy by members in the fancy. They
have also been sent to the Breed Specific Clubs, the ESAA and
the ISCA as stated in another comment left by anonymous.
Bob's name has been removed from the rescue contacts for the state of
Colorado by the ESAA and yet we continue to save English Setters here
in Colorado and from surrounding states. We are the only 'game ' in town
and in nearby states that does all setter rescue. We continue to do what we
can for the dogs while continually being blasted by anonymous comments
to the blog.
Anonymous asked, "Can the photos be posted by anonymous here on the blog?"
Answer: Not hardly ... but they can be obtained by those distributing them in
emails to certain members of the fancy. Contact TRACY HILL, alias SABRINA at: irishsetter75@gmail.com or redscentmorgan@hotmail.com or thil@earthlink.net
And/or NANCY KING at REDKINGSTR@aol.com
They have been circulating information with regard to Bob's Littleton
history and will most likely be happy to oblige.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Monday, November 10, 2008
QUESTIONS OF INTENT AND AUTHENTICITY
Removal of comment
The blog administrator recently removed an anonymous comment from STEP OUTSIDE THE SILO because it was anonymous's typewritten data of notes from Mr. Attleson's court file. We question intent and authenticity. These notes will be verified for authenticity and what pertains to the dogs will be re-posted at a later date. Should you care to avail yourself of these court notes you can do so by contacting the City of Littleton.
Unfortunately, due to slanderous comments being left by anonymous posters, should you wish to leave a comment, your comment will be subject to Administration review and you will be asked to identify yourself.
The blog administrator recently removed an anonymous comment from STEP OUTSIDE THE SILO because it was anonymous's typewritten data of notes from Mr. Attleson's court file. We question intent and authenticity. These notes will be verified for authenticity and what pertains to the dogs will be re-posted at a later date. Should you care to avail yourself of these court notes you can do so by contacting the City of Littleton.
Unfortunately, due to slanderous comments being left by anonymous posters, should you wish to leave a comment, your comment will be subject to Administration review and you will be asked to identify yourself.
Saturday, November 8, 2008
RESPONSE TO NEGATIVE COMMENT
A NEGATIVE COMMENT has been left by Anonymous on November 6, 2008
STEPPING OUTSIDE THE SILO
The anonymous comment and Mr. Katz's letter are shown in GREEN. We apologize for the length.
There is a 15 year court history with this guy....
Mr. Attleson has lived at 6529 So. Windermere, Littleton, Colorado since 1973, having owned this property since 1976. Between 1973 and 2006 there is one barking dog complaint in 1975. Regular contact with Littleton Animal Control has been maintained since 1974 up to 2006 with no other problems or complaints.
Contact the Littleton Courts to get the facts and the disgusting photos.
Court files at the Littleton Municipal Court are available to the public. There is nothing to substantiate that the information found is factual or correct. That is the purpose of a trial if one is held. Photos in the file were taken by city inspectors with the hope of proving their case against Mr. Attleson. Most of these are old photos in black and white taken September 6, 2006.
He was busted in September 2006 with 22 dogs on the one property...in a 900 square foot home,
A questionable search warrant founded on false information was used to inspect Mr. Attleson’s properties at 6529 and 6519 So. Windermere. The findings at 6529 per the City count was 22 adult dogs. The CITY'S REPORT goes on to say that ALL DOGS found were in GOOD CONDITION. The only complaint filed was one count of “being over the zoning limit of allowed number of dogs.” This was the first time that City inspectors observed and counted the number of dogs in the last 30 years. This was the first time a search warrant was served on Mr. Attleson in the past 30 years. The measurement of 900 sq. ft. is incorrect. No dogs were found at 6519.
he broke his September 06 agreement with the Courts who tried
for a year and half to work with him...
This is also not correct as there was never an agreement reached with the Courts on September 06. Between September 6, 2006 and February 14-15, 2008 is approximately 18 months. From mid June 2007 to Jan. 10, 2008 the City found Mr. Attleson in compliance with Littleton Municipal Code Limit Law.
what happened in February was a parole violation not a first time offense at all....
If the anonymous writer is referring to February 2008, the issue raised was not a parole violation. It was a violation of the plea agreement reached in November 2006 of not being in compliance with Littleton Municipal Limit Law.
Why was this guy at a show instead of at home taking care of his dogs and a litter of puppies that were left alone all day until Melissa got home at 6:00 pm (by your own blog testimony).
Again, is the anonymous writer talking about February 15, 2008? The truth is that Attleson had one adult dog in 6529 and three adult dogs and four weaned 9-1/2 week old puppies in 6519 when he left for the show at about 9 am. The dogs would be left alone for not more then 8 hours with plenty of space, water, heat, and other comforts. The puppies were left secured in their puppy pen. Is the writer implying that this is improper care; that all breeders that have litters of puppies or dogs at home do not work an 8 hour real job away from their dogs?
Why was he not taking care of this mess instead? Is dog showing more important that taking care of your responsibility? After reviewing the court records and looking at the photos it is no wonder there is so much anti dog legislation. It's because of dog people like this.....
As stated above, Ms. anonymous comment poster has reviewed the court records and has seen the photos. She and others have also distributed said court documentation and pictures that they have secured from the court files. This is an underground effort to smear the character of Mr. Attleson.
Should you choose to review the documents in the Court File on this case, including the photos, ask yourself, what does the Court File say about the care or alleged care of the dogs?
The Anonymouse Comment includes a letter written by Alan Katz, City of Littleton Prosecutor:
Please note that the following letter was authored by Mr. Katz in late February, early March 2008 and had not been made public as it was sent in direct response to a letter/email sent to Mr. Katz in reaction to the illegal seizure of Mr. Attleson’s dogs and puppies. It was not made public or commented on, here on the blog, as Mr. Katz's letter was not sent to Mr. Attleson. It was never made public material by Mr. Katz or the City of Littleton. It has now been posted as an addition to a comment on the AttlesonDogDefense blog and made public by the anonymous poster.
Now, that it has been made public, The AttlesonDogDefense will respond to the outlandish accusations, false truths, half-truths, etc., contained in Mr. Katz's letter; a letter written in response to the public's negative out-cry of Littleton’s seizure of Attleson’s dogs and puppies. Obviously it is biased, especially when written by the one individual who seems to be the largest driving force within the City on this matter against Mr. Attleson.
Here is a letter from DDA Alan Katz, and I totally agree with him. What kind of idiot would believe that there were no complaints from the neighbors after looking at the photos. No one would live beside that mess and be ok with it.
Ask yourself, “what kind of idiot” would blindly believe what Mr. Katz has written in his letter without firsts checking out the claims? At the very least they could contact the professional dog people that have been to 6529 & 6519 when the dogs were kept there. The anonymous comment writer “totally” agrees with Mr. Katz and like Mr. Katz, the anonymous comment writer has not been to the two properties and has not seen the dogs there. Whether the anonymous comment writer wants to believe it or not, there is no record of any complaints filed by Mr. Attleson’s neighbors prior to 2005. There is however, a reference to one complaint of over the limit filed by someone living at 6519 prior to 2005.
In October 2006, Prosecutor Katz had City inspectors and animal control officers go around to Mr. Attleson’s neighbors trying to get them to file a complaint. They had no success. No written, signed or anonymous complaints have been discovered by Mr. Attleson or his attorneys in their careful review of Court and Prosecutor files from 2005 to present. Littleton’s Limit Law is specifically written and is complaint driven. There must be a written complaint signed by a law enforcement officer who has personally OBSERVED the numbers violation, or a written complaint signed by two citizens of legal age and not living at the same address who have personally OBSERVED the numbers violation. No such documents exist nor have any existed in the 30 plus years Mr. Attleson lived in Littleton. The Limit Law can be verified online at the City of Littleton website in the Municipal Code.
Littleton Prosecutor Alan Katz has never produced the required signed complaints to bring the limit law violations against Mr. Attleson. Rather, he has used intimidation and duress to force plea bargains on improperly brought charges. No such proper executed, signed and written complaints exist in the Court Files.
With regard to the photos mentioned, most of the areas in the photos are not visible to someone at ground level off the property. This is required by Littleton Municipal Court. The only exception would be the front of the house as seen from the street. Careful examination of some of the photos posted on the Blog and Website show a 6’ high solid cedar fence that encloses the backyards of both properties.
Hello, I am the Deputy City Attorney in the City of Littleton . I am the person who attended to the litigation involving Mr. Attleson. I appreciate the opportunity to reply to your letter.
Mr. Katz litigated the case brought against Mr. Attleson beginning in September 2006. As a prosecutor, it is Mr. Katz’s job to decide that someone is guilty AND THEN PROVE IT. His whole mindset is that the defendant IS GUILTY and that he will investigate to find “evidence” which can be used to prove his case. He will intentionally ignore any evidence that might prove innocence. Furthermore, he will fight inclusion of any evidence that might prove innocence.
Mr. Katz does not recognize the concept of innocence until proven guilty. Mr. Katz alleges the defendant is guilty and moves forward. In a trial before a judge and/or jury, the innocence or guilt is then determined. The burden of proof is upon the prosecutor. He must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The defendant is allowed AFTER the prosecution presents his case to defend himself against the charges. The defense can cross examine each witness brought by the prosecutor to try and refute or weaken the prosecutor’s case as elicited by testimony by any witness.
From September 6, 2006, to September 8, 2008 there has been no real trial held on any of the charges brought against Mr. Attleson within that two year period. On September 8, 2008 a trial began on charges brought against Mr. Attleson on February 21, 2008 from an inspection of 6529 and 6519 on February 14, 2008. These charges involved ONLY zoning and code violations and they DID NOT involve the dogs. This trial was recessed during Mr. Attleson’s cross-examination of Mr. Katz’s first witness and is still in recess waiting a new court date.
The only charges ever brought against Attleson that involve the dogs are those of the number limit violations. These consist of three complaints on or about August 14, 2006, September 1, 2006, and September 6, 2006. There were no dogs, period, observed by City employees on August 14, and September 1. The only additional charges brought by the City against Mr. Attleson are the aforementioned complaints of February 21, 2008, or 18 months later and after Mr. Attleson’s attorneys, Ms. Martin & Ms. Macolini, were retained and had filed their motion concerning the illegal seizure of the dogs.
I agree with you that dogs are a wonderful addition to the lives of people. The action the City of Littleton took in this matter was to protect the health of the dogs from a man who was not doing so.
Mr. Attleson’s dogs and puppies were, and have always been, well cared for. Their health and well being was not in jeopardy until illegally seized by Mr. Katz and hauled off to the Colorado Humane Society Shelter. Mr. Katz, Ms. Reed, and Officer Carr fabricated affidavits and warrants to convince Judge Kimmel to sign and order a forcible break in and seizure. Mr. Katz did not request professional inspection and review of the living conditions and care for the dogs, nor request professional examination of the dogs upon seizure to determine their condition and health. If Mr. Katz felt so strongly that the dogs needed protection to request that they be seized, why did he not charge Mr. Attleson with neglect, abuse, or cruelty? Rather, he convinced Judge Kimmel to order that the dogs never be returned to Mr. Attleson, thus avoiding trial and question as to his actions.
There was a hearing before a judge that established the dogs’ health was in danger.
This was an “Emergency Court Hearing” called sometime the afternoon of February 14 or the morning of February 15 following an earlier scheduled hearing the morning of February 14. There was no serious effort made to contact Mr. Attleson. No real effort was made to even advise Mr. Attleson of the hearing. Mr. Attleson was at 6529 from 11 am February 14 until about 9 am February 15. If there was to be an emergency hearing and this hearing was so important and urgent, with such serious ramifications, why wasn't a city employee, code enforcement officer, animal control officer, or police officer sent to 6529 to try and make contact with Mr. Attleson? Surely after 18 months of contact they knew where 6529 So. Windermere was. This emergency court hearing before Judge Kimmel was purposely set up by Mr. Katz to occur without Mr. Attleson’s knowledge or opportunity to attend and defend himself.
Mr. Attleson had been under the jurisdiction of the Court for more than a year. Mr. Attleson was ordered and agreed to provide access to the two residences between 7 am and 8 pm. The officers could not locate Mr. Attleson, so a warrant was sought to remove the dogs to a safe environment.
FALSE
At a scheduled Show Cause Court Hearing before Judge Kimmel at 10 am, February 14, Mr. Attleson pled “Not Guilty” to charges of violating his plea agreement. A trial was set for February 25, 2008 at 2 pm to determine guilt or innocence. Officer Carr followed Attleson back to 6529/6519 where they waited for Ms. Reed to show up about 30 minutes later.
Mr. Attleson clearly informed Officer Carr, Ms. Reed, and another police officer at around 11:30 am February 14 that he would be attending local dog shows February 15 through February 18 and that he would not be home until around 9 am February 15. Mr. Attleson offered this information after Officer Carr asked if Mr. Attleson was going to attend the local shows. Officer Carr then set up a meeting with Mr. Attleson at 10 am on February 19. These conversations took place during an inspection of 6529 and 6519 by Ms. Reed and Officer Carr on February 14. The meeting of February 19 was just a ruse and never to be kept.
No request, verbal or written, was made by the City to inspect or contact Mr. Attleson after the February 14 inspection. No explanation of this search and inspection of 6529 and 6519 was made to Mr. Attleson, except to count the dogs present and to note any zoning and municipal code violations that Ms. Reed would later come up with.
A week after the dogs were removed, I was told by Mr. Attleson’s lawyer that Mr. Attleson had moved his personal residence away from the dogs some time before the February inspections and he did not update his address or phone numbers with the Court or the officers that were responsible for inspections.
FALSE
Mr. Attleson did, immediately following the Show Cause Court Hearing the morning of February 14, personally tell Mr. Katz that he had a location out of the City of Littleton and County of Arapahoe. He told Mr. Katz that he had earlier relocated many of his dogs as ordered by Mr. Katz and that he would be relocating the remaining dogs over the coming weekend. Mr. Attleson did not state that he had moved out of Littleton or that he was intending to do so. He stated only that all the dogs would be out of the City of Littleton by the weekend.
Following the City's illegal break in and seizure of the dogs and puppies on February 15, Mr. Attleson decided he would not spend another night at his home in Littleton and he has not. His phone numbers at 6529 and cell phone numbers have not been cancelled or changed. The new phone number in Adam’s County was provided to the City when asked for.
Mr. Attleson made it impossible to locate him so the dogs could have been removed hours before and without forced entry.
FALSE
Mr. Attleson never made it impossible to be located. The City had Mr. Attleson’s cell phone number and the City was advised of Mr. Attleson’s plans on February 14. One of Mr. Attleson’s neighbors observed a police car watching 6529 and 6519 on February 15 and it remained parked and watching until after Mr. Attleson left around 9 am.
During the time I have been aware of Mr. Attleson's circumstances, he has kept up to 22 dogs on the premises.
This again is not true. On September 6, 2006 the City counted 22 dogs at 6529 and no dogs at 6519. From that day forward and until mid June 2007 the City found Mr. Attleson in compliance with three. Mr. Attleson was reducing the number of dogs kept at 6529. No dogs were ever found at 6519 during this time and Mr. Attleson was then no longer the owner of 6519. From mid June 2007 until January 10, 2008 Mr. Attleson was in compliance. On January 10, 2008 because one dog was being moved from ER vet care to Adams County, four adult dogs were found at 6529. Three adult dogs and four puppies under four weeks of age were at 6519 were Mr. Attleson was no longer an owner. Littleton Municipal Code allows for no more than three adult dogs over the age of six months per property. Mr. Attleson felt that he was in compliance as 6529 and 6519 are then two separate properties and the one extra dog at 6529 was in transit from the ER vet to Adams County.
On 2/14/08, he had 11 dogs. The Court gave Mr. Attleson leeway for months and months, because Mr. Attleson represented to the Judge that he, Mr. Attleson, was rescuing unwanted dogs and dogs in need of medical care.
FALSE
On or about September 1, 2006, Ms. Apsnes and Officer Carr informed Mr. Attleson, that the activity of “rescue” was illegal and not wanted within the City of Littleton. In Ocober 2006 Mr. Katz advised Mr. Attleson that he must not conduct any aspect of setter rescue within the City limits. By March 2007 all “rescues” had been removed from the Littleton city limits.
He never told the Judge he was a breeder, keeping the dogs for show and breeding purposes, and running a home business for grooming dogs.
FALSE
Mr. Attleson told Judge Kimmel in March 2007 that all the rescues had been removed from Littleton and that the dogs remaining were his. Prior to May 3, 2007 Mr. Attleson was never asked by anyone at the City if he was a breeder, showed dogs, or was a professional groomer. At a search by the City on May 3, 2007 Ms. Reed, Ms. Apsnes and Officer Carr represented that the Judge had ordered (never proved in writing) an inventory be taken of the dogs. Ms. Reed noted that some of the dogs were in “show clips” and she asked numerous questions about each dog. The only dogs found were Mr. Attleson’s.
Mr. Attleson represented he provided a temporary home for the dogs in order to place them with loving and caring owners. The truth finally came out after the dogs were moved to a healthy environment. Mr. Attleson stated that he provided foster care for rescued setters until they could be placed. He also explained that he fostered many of the ‘special needs’ rescues.
There is no evidence that he did not do this and that these fostered dogs were not cared for.
Over the period of more than a year, Mr. Attleson let the conditions in which he kept the dogs deteriorate.
FALSE
From October/November 2006 to June 2007, Mr. Attleson successfully relocated as many as 19 dogs outside the City to come into compliance with having only three dogs at 6529 and no dogs at 6519. From June 2007 to February 14, 2008, Mr. Attleson felt that he remained in compliance as the three adults and litter of four puppies at 6519 were still in compliance with the Municipal Code. There is no proof offered by Mr. Katz or the City that conditions in which the dogs were kept from September 6, 2006 to February 14, 2008 had in fact deteriorated. On the contrary, Mr. Attleson secured professional inspections of his property and dogs in early May 2007 by Mr. Keith Davis, State of Colorado Animal Cruelty Investigator, and on May 18, 2007 an unannounced inspection by Ms. Bonnie Guzman on behalf of All Breed Rescue Network (note her post of “STEP OUTSIDE THE SILO…” elsewhere on this blog). Both have impeccable credentials and both have been familiar with me, my dogs, the rescues and my properties for at least ten years or more. Both found housing conditions and care functions for the dogs well within or exceeding state standards as outlined by the State of Colorado Department of Agriculture, PACFA, and conditions and behavior of the dogs to be excellent.
Inspection reports within the Court and provided in the Prosecutor’s files note that the dogs’ conditions are either good or excellent. There have been no negative care or condition comments in the files until February 14 or 15, 2008. Even the report of January 10, 2008, has the dogs and puppies noted and found to be in good condition.
To the best of Mr. Attleson’s knowledge, Mr. Katz has never seen any of Mr. Attleson’s dogs or has he been inside either of the properties at 6529 and 6519 So. Windermere. The only opportunity that Mr. Katz would have had was during the illegal seizure on February 15, 2008 if he was in fact there and part of the illegal forcible entry.
In February of this year, the ammonia atmosphere, urine soaked bedding, and general unclean conditions caused immediate physical symptoms in the humans that inspected the premises. The humans were only there for minutes. The dogs were locked in; they could not get out without help.
THIS IS BLATANTLY FALSE
The only time anyone from the City was in 6529 or 6519 in February 2008 (or any other date prior) without Mr. Attleson’s presence was February 15, 2008 when the dogs were being illegally seized. These claims by Mr. Katz are totally FALSE. They are without basis of proof and are at best, fabrications aimed to support the City’s action of breaking and entering with force and without the owner’s presence. This illegal seizure of real property from the locked, secure properties at 6529 and 6519 was both barbaric and unconscionable. Mr. Attleson can provide witnesses who were in the same properties in Febtruary. 2008 who will testify to the opposite. There were no conditions that were dangerous to the dogs or puppies. The dogs and the puppies could not get to the items stored that appear in the City photographs. The dogs were not confined to crates, except when ordered to be by the City during the inspections. The adult dogs were confined and secured behind closed doors within the houses and they were prevented from entering certain rooms by baby gates. Mr. Attleson only allows the dogs outside when he or someone else is home and can monitor them. The puppies were secured in their puppy pen and separated from the adults (including their mother) by two sets of baby gates. The house where the three adults and four puppies were staying is not 900 sq ft., rather it is 1,700 sq ft.
If any of this applies to February 14, Mr. Attleson was present the whole time and there were no humans ducking in and out after 3 or 4 minutes because of any odors. All the “bedding” on the floors for the dogs and puppies was clean and it is picked up daily and washed before being put down again. Dogs in 6519 were only there from December 16, 2007 through February 14, 2008. At no other time prior to February 14 did the City observe any dogs in 6519. It would be a “stretch” to say that 6529 and possibly 6519 did not “smell like dogs” because there were dogs present.
Mr. Attleson does admit to making significant effort at cutting down air infiltration in and out of both houses as a conservative matter to cut down on heat loss. It was the middle of February with six inches of snow on the ground. This of course would cause some doggie odors but well within acceptable air quality and health standards. Both houses are heated radiantly so there isn't much air exchange and minimal air circulation.
No basis for health endangerment to humans or dogs has ever been provided by Mr. Katz or the City. There have been no complaints of air quality within the houses ever filed by Mr. Katz or others from within the City. Aside from possibly Ms. Reed, no building and/or code expert or licensed professional has inspected and/or filed written reports on adverse conditions within the houses prior and up through February 2008.
It was determined at a Court hearing that the conditions were such that the residences were unhealthy for humans and animals.
This determination by Mr. Katz refers to the Emergency Court Hearing held sometime the morning of February 15, without the notification and presence of Mr. Attleson. Therefore, no defense to the allegations of Mr. Katz, Ms. Reed, and Officer Carr could be given.
The conditions in the houses were the cause of one of 4 youth dogs to have a bacterial infection that Mr. Attleson left untreated.
FALSE
It is unclear to which dog or puppy Mr. Katz is referring to, however, no dog or puppies had a bacterial infection nor was there any proof of such ever provided by the City. Moody, the 18 month old male seized from 6529 had been hospitalized for an intestinal issue up until late February 13, he was doing pretty good and was waiting for Mr. Attleson to take him to Adams County. He was still on prescription medication and being monitored. The City was informed of this on February 14 and yet, when they seized him on February 15, they did not take along his medication.
If Mr. Katz was so concerned about the health and condition of the dogs and the puppies, why were there no provision made to have any of them looked at by a veterinarian or other professional dog person upon intake? The adults only received vet tech examination on February 22 prior to them being released to Mr. Attleson. That examination was made by an employee of the Colorado Humane Society Shelter where the dogs and puppies were taken.
None of the 4 youth dogs had any shots and all needed to be wormed.
FALSE
The puppies were 9 to 10 weeks old and were well protected from exposure to any transmittable illnesses that vaccines would have protected against. Like many breeders, Mr. Attleson has been questioning shot protocols. There is no proof and highly unlikely that all the dogs needed to be wormed. The puppies and especially Moody should not have been wormed. Mr. Attleson worms only upon positive results from fecal samples indicating the need.
The dogs received veterinary care from the Colorado Humane Society at no cost, when the dogs were taken from the homes and placed with the Humane Society until Mr. Attleson could locate the dogs in a healthy environment.
BLATANTLY FALSE
When the dogs were illegally seized February 15 and taken to the Colorado Humane Society Shelter there was absolutely no intent that Mr. Katz’s would ever return these dogs to Mr. Attleson. Check out the Judge’s or Court Orders dated February 15, 2008 that are posted on the AttlesonDogDefense website. Judge Kimmel specifically ordered ownership of Attleson's dogs and puppies be granted February 26, 2008 to the Colorado Humane Society and Ms. Mary Warren. The Emergency Court Hearing requested by Mr. Attleson was scheduled for 3 pm Friday, February 22, 2008.
To secure return of the dogs, Mr. Attleson had to pay in excess of $1,000 directly to the Colorado Humane Society which included billing for veterinary care and an addition sum to the Littleton Municipal Court. This amount was in access to the Judge's monetary court order.
Mr. Katz only agreed to ransom back the dogs and puppies to Mr. Attleson to negotiate a plea bargain. This would successfully ensure that the Motion filed by Attorneys Ms. Martin and Ms. Macolini would not see the light of day in a courtroom and/or trial.
Mr. Attleson agreed to the terms put forth by Mr. Katz that included a guilty plea and deferred three year jail sentence ONLY to get his dogs and puppies back and away from the City and the Colorado Humane Society. Who wouldn’t have wanted their dogs back and out of harms way?
The Court required documentation from an expert in animal welfare to approve the location and the conditions. With that accomplished, Mr. Attleson regained custody of the dogs.
As one of the plea bargain conditions to secure return of the dogs and puppies to Mr. Attleson, Mr. Katz demanded an inspection report by a professional of the new property location for the dogs in Adams County be submitted to the Court by Tuesday morning, February 26. This demand was made known to Mr. Attleson and his attorneys shortly after 3 pm on Friday, February 22, 2008. There was only one business day (Monday) to secure an inspection and report. None the less, Mr. Attleson was able to secure a proper and glowing inspection, and a report of approval by two professionals by the deadline of February 26, 2008.
It is inconceivable to me that any dog owner, who cared for his dog, would have given a dog to Mr. Attleson to be groomed in that environment, if the owner had actually been in the houses.
This is absolutely meaningless and just another example of the hype Mr. Katz vividly creates without proof to further his cases against defendants. There isn't any proof that Mr. Attleson groomed dogs that belonged to others at his 6529 property, let alone that he was running a grooming business. Mr. Attleson was never asked about the grooming room and about grooming until February 14. At that time he explained in detail to Ms. Reed and Officer Carr that he does not groom dogs other than his own and what grooming that he might do from time to time for others is done off the properties of 6529 or 6519. This obviously was not what they wanted to hear or believe so it was never indicated in any of their records.
The grooming room was off limits to the dogs except when grooming or bathing as it was tight quarters with no provision for dogs except while in the dog tub or on the grooming table. The aforementioned inspections by Mr. Davis and Ms. Guzman included looking at the grooming and laundry room at 6529.
There are substantial records that establish Mr. Attleson knew he was acting illegally for years.
FALSE
No “substantial records” have ever been introduced into evidence of this claim by Mr. Katz. There is no basis for this claim and no admittance by Mr. Attleson that he has been or was acting illegally for years.
There are substantial records that establish the deplorable conditions that forced the City of Littleton to take action to protect the animals. If you wish, you may order copies of the public records from the proper department and obtain the truth about Mr. Attleson.
FALSE
The public records have copies of photos from inspections on September 6, 2006 and February 14, 2008. There are very few, if any, written inspection reports and hardly any written inspection notes. The photos speak of storage, of file boxes and other items. Obviously some poor housekeeping, but the photos DO NOT speak of anything as to care of the dogs.
As to “the truth about Mr. Attleson,” this is probably more in the eyes of the beholder rather than in the old photos and documents themselve. Mr. Katz had not been to Mr. Attleson’s properties and is only looking for information that would help prove his case that Mr. Attleson is guilty. The same could be said of Ms. Reed, Ms. Apsnes, and Officer Carr, with the exception that they have been to the properties numerous times. Yet, for all their job titles and their city employment, not much can be said as to their qualifications with regard to the dogs and the care and conditions of the dogs. The most qualified as to the dogs would be Officer Carr and his reports and signatures on documents are noticeably missing.
It is my hope that he is an anomaly in the dog care world. If he is the model of a good owner, then the industry needs a serious revamping of government regulations to assure the humane care of dogs.
That Mr. Katz would actually write this is amazing. Not once has he gone outside of the City staff of Reed, Aspnes, and Carr to consult with “professionals” in dog care and welfare. Not once has he even mentioned government regulations (State of Colorado PACFA or Arapahoe County) or has he ever mentioned state or county protocol for these types of investigations. It sounds as if Mr. Katz doesn’t think much of Mr. Keith Davis, Ms. Bonnie Guzman and the Colorado Dept. of Agriculture PACFA regulations and inspectors, and anyone else in the dog world outside of Ms. Reed, Ms. Aspnes, Officer Carr, and of course Mr. Katz himself. Maybe someone should ask him about Standard Poodles?
I know there are breeders and rescue agencies and non-profit organizations created by truly caring people who take good care of dogs. In my opinion, Mr. Attleson was not among that group in February of this year.
Mr. Katz’s is expressing his opinion. Mr. Attleson has to be guilty of something. Prior to even meeting Mr. Attleson in October 2006 and probably before September 2006 something is assumed to be wrong. The first words out of Mr. Katz’s mouth to Mr. Attleson were that he was going to run him out of town; that he was going to prohibit or prevent Mr. Attleson from owning two or more properties within the city of Littleton, and that he was going to make an example of him.
Mr. Katz has asked Judge Kimmel on several occasions, in Court and it is part of public record, to order Mr. Attleson to take the All Setter Rescue Website down as he believes it is a front for illegal activities. Mr. Katz, Ms. Aspnes, Ms. Reed and Officer Carr all threatened seizure of the dogs from nearly the beginning in September/October 2006 and they actually carried it out as soon as they learned that Mr. Attleson had property in Adams County and that he was moving the dogs out of the City of Littleton.
You are a person who cares about animal welfare. To you I say, give aid only to non-profit organizations. Not only should one avoid giving to the for-profit individuals and organizations, but also every potential giver would be wise to inspect the facilities before giving.
Mr. Katz is speaking to the person that wrote to the City in defense of Mr. Attleson. Mr. Katz appears to be attacking rescue groups in general and specifically All Setter Rescue. Someone should ask Mr. Katz about him and Standard Poodles. He is fanatical about destroying the concept of breed specific or non-breed specific rescue of special needs dogs. Maybe, Mr. Katz is an Animal Rights Activist?
Now that the dogs are in a safe environment, the City of Littleton is moving forward to have Mr. Attleson repair the residences as needed for healthy human habitation.
This letter was written by Mr. Katz in late February, early March of 2008. The charges brought against Mr. Attleson on February 21, 2008, are finally in trial as of last September 8, but they have been stalled and recessed by Mr. Katz and Judge Kimmel and as of this writing, a continuing trial date has not been set.
Mr. Attleson has planned all along and has moved ahead with repairs and improvements to the property of 6529. Not because the City of Littleton is forcing it, but for economic reasons. Mr. Katz and the City have hindered and even botched progress in either their eagerness, or ignorance, to improve the property. Mr. Attleson moved to Adams County the night of February 15, 2008, and he has been working on 6529 with the intent to either use, rent or sell his property.
Even though Mr. Katz stated verbally and in writing that the property of 6519 was not habitable, in March and April 2008, the property passed all inspections prior to June 2008 and is now reserved for rent.
Yours,
Alan C Katz
Deputy City AttorneyCity of Littleton
STEPPING OUTSIDE THE SILO
The anonymous comment and Mr. Katz's letter are shown in GREEN. We apologize for the length.
There is a 15 year court history with this guy....
Mr. Attleson has lived at 6529 So. Windermere, Littleton, Colorado since 1973, having owned this property since 1976. Between 1973 and 2006 there is one barking dog complaint in 1975. Regular contact with Littleton Animal Control has been maintained since 1974 up to 2006 with no other problems or complaints.
Contact the Littleton Courts to get the facts and the disgusting photos.
Court files at the Littleton Municipal Court are available to the public. There is nothing to substantiate that the information found is factual or correct. That is the purpose of a trial if one is held. Photos in the file were taken by city inspectors with the hope of proving their case against Mr. Attleson. Most of these are old photos in black and white taken September 6, 2006.
He was busted in September 2006 with 22 dogs on the one property...in a 900 square foot home,
A questionable search warrant founded on false information was used to inspect Mr. Attleson’s properties at 6529 and 6519 So. Windermere. The findings at 6529 per the City count was 22 adult dogs. The CITY'S REPORT goes on to say that ALL DOGS found were in GOOD CONDITION. The only complaint filed was one count of “being over the zoning limit of allowed number of dogs.” This was the first time that City inspectors observed and counted the number of dogs in the last 30 years. This was the first time a search warrant was served on Mr. Attleson in the past 30 years. The measurement of 900 sq. ft. is incorrect. No dogs were found at 6519.
he broke his September 06 agreement with the Courts who tried
for a year and half to work with him...
This is also not correct as there was never an agreement reached with the Courts on September 06. Between September 6, 2006 and February 14-15, 2008 is approximately 18 months. From mid June 2007 to Jan. 10, 2008 the City found Mr. Attleson in compliance with Littleton Municipal Code Limit Law.
what happened in February was a parole violation not a first time offense at all....
If the anonymous writer is referring to February 2008, the issue raised was not a parole violation. It was a violation of the plea agreement reached in November 2006 of not being in compliance with Littleton Municipal Limit Law.
Why was this guy at a show instead of at home taking care of his dogs and a litter of puppies that were left alone all day until Melissa got home at 6:00 pm (by your own blog testimony).
Again, is the anonymous writer talking about February 15, 2008? The truth is that Attleson had one adult dog in 6529 and three adult dogs and four weaned 9-1/2 week old puppies in 6519 when he left for the show at about 9 am. The dogs would be left alone for not more then 8 hours with plenty of space, water, heat, and other comforts. The puppies were left secured in their puppy pen. Is the writer implying that this is improper care; that all breeders that have litters of puppies or dogs at home do not work an 8 hour real job away from their dogs?
Why was he not taking care of this mess instead? Is dog showing more important that taking care of your responsibility? After reviewing the court records and looking at the photos it is no wonder there is so much anti dog legislation. It's because of dog people like this.....
As stated above, Ms. anonymous comment poster has reviewed the court records and has seen the photos. She and others have also distributed said court documentation and pictures that they have secured from the court files. This is an underground effort to smear the character of Mr. Attleson.
Should you choose to review the documents in the Court File on this case, including the photos, ask yourself, what does the Court File say about the care or alleged care of the dogs?
The Anonymouse Comment includes a letter written by Alan Katz, City of Littleton Prosecutor:
Please note that the following letter was authored by Mr. Katz in late February, early March 2008 and had not been made public as it was sent in direct response to a letter/email sent to Mr. Katz in reaction to the illegal seizure of Mr. Attleson’s dogs and puppies. It was not made public or commented on, here on the blog, as Mr. Katz's letter was not sent to Mr. Attleson. It was never made public material by Mr. Katz or the City of Littleton. It has now been posted as an addition to a comment on the AttlesonDogDefense blog and made public by the anonymous poster.
Now, that it has been made public, The AttlesonDogDefense will respond to the outlandish accusations, false truths, half-truths, etc., contained in Mr. Katz's letter; a letter written in response to the public's negative out-cry of Littleton’s seizure of Attleson’s dogs and puppies. Obviously it is biased, especially when written by the one individual who seems to be the largest driving force within the City on this matter against Mr. Attleson.
Here is a letter from DDA Alan Katz, and I totally agree with him. What kind of idiot would believe that there were no complaints from the neighbors after looking at the photos. No one would live beside that mess and be ok with it.
Ask yourself, “what kind of idiot” would blindly believe what Mr. Katz has written in his letter without firsts checking out the claims? At the very least they could contact the professional dog people that have been to 6529 & 6519 when the dogs were kept there. The anonymous comment writer “totally” agrees with Mr. Katz and like Mr. Katz, the anonymous comment writer has not been to the two properties and has not seen the dogs there. Whether the anonymous comment writer wants to believe it or not, there is no record of any complaints filed by Mr. Attleson’s neighbors prior to 2005. There is however, a reference to one complaint of over the limit filed by someone living at 6519 prior to 2005.
In October 2006, Prosecutor Katz had City inspectors and animal control officers go around to Mr. Attleson’s neighbors trying to get them to file a complaint. They had no success. No written, signed or anonymous complaints have been discovered by Mr. Attleson or his attorneys in their careful review of Court and Prosecutor files from 2005 to present. Littleton’s Limit Law is specifically written and is complaint driven. There must be a written complaint signed by a law enforcement officer who has personally OBSERVED the numbers violation, or a written complaint signed by two citizens of legal age and not living at the same address who have personally OBSERVED the numbers violation. No such documents exist nor have any existed in the 30 plus years Mr. Attleson lived in Littleton. The Limit Law can be verified online at the City of Littleton website in the Municipal Code.
Littleton Prosecutor Alan Katz has never produced the required signed complaints to bring the limit law violations against Mr. Attleson. Rather, he has used intimidation and duress to force plea bargains on improperly brought charges. No such proper executed, signed and written complaints exist in the Court Files.
With regard to the photos mentioned, most of the areas in the photos are not visible to someone at ground level off the property. This is required by Littleton Municipal Court. The only exception would be the front of the house as seen from the street. Careful examination of some of the photos posted on the Blog and Website show a 6’ high solid cedar fence that encloses the backyards of both properties.
Hello, I am the Deputy City Attorney in the City of Littleton . I am the person who attended to the litigation involving Mr. Attleson. I appreciate the opportunity to reply to your letter.
Mr. Katz litigated the case brought against Mr. Attleson beginning in September 2006. As a prosecutor, it is Mr. Katz’s job to decide that someone is guilty AND THEN PROVE IT. His whole mindset is that the defendant IS GUILTY and that he will investigate to find “evidence” which can be used to prove his case. He will intentionally ignore any evidence that might prove innocence. Furthermore, he will fight inclusion of any evidence that might prove innocence.
Mr. Katz does not recognize the concept of innocence until proven guilty. Mr. Katz alleges the defendant is guilty and moves forward. In a trial before a judge and/or jury, the innocence or guilt is then determined. The burden of proof is upon the prosecutor. He must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The defendant is allowed AFTER the prosecution presents his case to defend himself against the charges. The defense can cross examine each witness brought by the prosecutor to try and refute or weaken the prosecutor’s case as elicited by testimony by any witness.
From September 6, 2006, to September 8, 2008 there has been no real trial held on any of the charges brought against Mr. Attleson within that two year period. On September 8, 2008 a trial began on charges brought against Mr. Attleson on February 21, 2008 from an inspection of 6529 and 6519 on February 14, 2008. These charges involved ONLY zoning and code violations and they DID NOT involve the dogs. This trial was recessed during Mr. Attleson’s cross-examination of Mr. Katz’s first witness and is still in recess waiting a new court date.
The only charges ever brought against Attleson that involve the dogs are those of the number limit violations. These consist of three complaints on or about August 14, 2006, September 1, 2006, and September 6, 2006. There were no dogs, period, observed by City employees on August 14, and September 1. The only additional charges brought by the City against Mr. Attleson are the aforementioned complaints of February 21, 2008, or 18 months later and after Mr. Attleson’s attorneys, Ms. Martin & Ms. Macolini, were retained and had filed their motion concerning the illegal seizure of the dogs.
I agree with you that dogs are a wonderful addition to the lives of people. The action the City of Littleton took in this matter was to protect the health of the dogs from a man who was not doing so.
Mr. Attleson’s dogs and puppies were, and have always been, well cared for. Their health and well being was not in jeopardy until illegally seized by Mr. Katz and hauled off to the Colorado Humane Society Shelter. Mr. Katz, Ms. Reed, and Officer Carr fabricated affidavits and warrants to convince Judge Kimmel to sign and order a forcible break in and seizure. Mr. Katz did not request professional inspection and review of the living conditions and care for the dogs, nor request professional examination of the dogs upon seizure to determine their condition and health. If Mr. Katz felt so strongly that the dogs needed protection to request that they be seized, why did he not charge Mr. Attleson with neglect, abuse, or cruelty? Rather, he convinced Judge Kimmel to order that the dogs never be returned to Mr. Attleson, thus avoiding trial and question as to his actions.
There was a hearing before a judge that established the dogs’ health was in danger.
This was an “Emergency Court Hearing” called sometime the afternoon of February 14 or the morning of February 15 following an earlier scheduled hearing the morning of February 14. There was no serious effort made to contact Mr. Attleson. No real effort was made to even advise Mr. Attleson of the hearing. Mr. Attleson was at 6529 from 11 am February 14 until about 9 am February 15. If there was to be an emergency hearing and this hearing was so important and urgent, with such serious ramifications, why wasn't a city employee, code enforcement officer, animal control officer, or police officer sent to 6529 to try and make contact with Mr. Attleson? Surely after 18 months of contact they knew where 6529 So. Windermere was. This emergency court hearing before Judge Kimmel was purposely set up by Mr. Katz to occur without Mr. Attleson’s knowledge or opportunity to attend and defend himself.
Mr. Attleson had been under the jurisdiction of the Court for more than a year. Mr. Attleson was ordered and agreed to provide access to the two residences between 7 am and 8 pm. The officers could not locate Mr. Attleson, so a warrant was sought to remove the dogs to a safe environment.
FALSE
At a scheduled Show Cause Court Hearing before Judge Kimmel at 10 am, February 14, Mr. Attleson pled “Not Guilty” to charges of violating his plea agreement. A trial was set for February 25, 2008 at 2 pm to determine guilt or innocence. Officer Carr followed Attleson back to 6529/6519 where they waited for Ms. Reed to show up about 30 minutes later.
Mr. Attleson clearly informed Officer Carr, Ms. Reed, and another police officer at around 11:30 am February 14 that he would be attending local dog shows February 15 through February 18 and that he would not be home until around 9 am February 15. Mr. Attleson offered this information after Officer Carr asked if Mr. Attleson was going to attend the local shows. Officer Carr then set up a meeting with Mr. Attleson at 10 am on February 19. These conversations took place during an inspection of 6529 and 6519 by Ms. Reed and Officer Carr on February 14. The meeting of February 19 was just a ruse and never to be kept.
No request, verbal or written, was made by the City to inspect or contact Mr. Attleson after the February 14 inspection. No explanation of this search and inspection of 6529 and 6519 was made to Mr. Attleson, except to count the dogs present and to note any zoning and municipal code violations that Ms. Reed would later come up with.
A week after the dogs were removed, I was told by Mr. Attleson’s lawyer that Mr. Attleson had moved his personal residence away from the dogs some time before the February inspections and he did not update his address or phone numbers with the Court or the officers that were responsible for inspections.
FALSE
Mr. Attleson did, immediately following the Show Cause Court Hearing the morning of February 14, personally tell Mr. Katz that he had a location out of the City of Littleton and County of Arapahoe. He told Mr. Katz that he had earlier relocated many of his dogs as ordered by Mr. Katz and that he would be relocating the remaining dogs over the coming weekend. Mr. Attleson did not state that he had moved out of Littleton or that he was intending to do so. He stated only that all the dogs would be out of the City of Littleton by the weekend.
Following the City's illegal break in and seizure of the dogs and puppies on February 15, Mr. Attleson decided he would not spend another night at his home in Littleton and he has not. His phone numbers at 6529 and cell phone numbers have not been cancelled or changed. The new phone number in Adam’s County was provided to the City when asked for.
Mr. Attleson made it impossible to locate him so the dogs could have been removed hours before and without forced entry.
FALSE
Mr. Attleson never made it impossible to be located. The City had Mr. Attleson’s cell phone number and the City was advised of Mr. Attleson’s plans on February 14. One of Mr. Attleson’s neighbors observed a police car watching 6529 and 6519 on February 15 and it remained parked and watching until after Mr. Attleson left around 9 am.
During the time I have been aware of Mr. Attleson's circumstances, he has kept up to 22 dogs on the premises.
This again is not true. On September 6, 2006 the City counted 22 dogs at 6529 and no dogs at 6519. From that day forward and until mid June 2007 the City found Mr. Attleson in compliance with three. Mr. Attleson was reducing the number of dogs kept at 6529. No dogs were ever found at 6519 during this time and Mr. Attleson was then no longer the owner of 6519. From mid June 2007 until January 10, 2008 Mr. Attleson was in compliance. On January 10, 2008 because one dog was being moved from ER vet care to Adams County, four adult dogs were found at 6529. Three adult dogs and four puppies under four weeks of age were at 6519 were Mr. Attleson was no longer an owner. Littleton Municipal Code allows for no more than three adult dogs over the age of six months per property. Mr. Attleson felt that he was in compliance as 6529 and 6519 are then two separate properties and the one extra dog at 6529 was in transit from the ER vet to Adams County.
On 2/14/08, he had 11 dogs. The Court gave Mr. Attleson leeway for months and months, because Mr. Attleson represented to the Judge that he, Mr. Attleson, was rescuing unwanted dogs and dogs in need of medical care.
FALSE
On or about September 1, 2006, Ms. Apsnes and Officer Carr informed Mr. Attleson, that the activity of “rescue” was illegal and not wanted within the City of Littleton. In Ocober 2006 Mr. Katz advised Mr. Attleson that he must not conduct any aspect of setter rescue within the City limits. By March 2007 all “rescues” had been removed from the Littleton city limits.
He never told the Judge he was a breeder, keeping the dogs for show and breeding purposes, and running a home business for grooming dogs.
FALSE
Mr. Attleson told Judge Kimmel in March 2007 that all the rescues had been removed from Littleton and that the dogs remaining were his. Prior to May 3, 2007 Mr. Attleson was never asked by anyone at the City if he was a breeder, showed dogs, or was a professional groomer. At a search by the City on May 3, 2007 Ms. Reed, Ms. Apsnes and Officer Carr represented that the Judge had ordered (never proved in writing) an inventory be taken of the dogs. Ms. Reed noted that some of the dogs were in “show clips” and she asked numerous questions about each dog. The only dogs found were Mr. Attleson’s.
Mr. Attleson represented he provided a temporary home for the dogs in order to place them with loving and caring owners. The truth finally came out after the dogs were moved to a healthy environment. Mr. Attleson stated that he provided foster care for rescued setters until they could be placed. He also explained that he fostered many of the ‘special needs’ rescues.
There is no evidence that he did not do this and that these fostered dogs were not cared for.
Over the period of more than a year, Mr. Attleson let the conditions in which he kept the dogs deteriorate.
FALSE
From October/November 2006 to June 2007, Mr. Attleson successfully relocated as many as 19 dogs outside the City to come into compliance with having only three dogs at 6529 and no dogs at 6519. From June 2007 to February 14, 2008, Mr. Attleson felt that he remained in compliance as the three adults and litter of four puppies at 6519 were still in compliance with the Municipal Code. There is no proof offered by Mr. Katz or the City that conditions in which the dogs were kept from September 6, 2006 to February 14, 2008 had in fact deteriorated. On the contrary, Mr. Attleson secured professional inspections of his property and dogs in early May 2007 by Mr. Keith Davis, State of Colorado Animal Cruelty Investigator, and on May 18, 2007 an unannounced inspection by Ms. Bonnie Guzman on behalf of All Breed Rescue Network (note her post of “STEP OUTSIDE THE SILO…” elsewhere on this blog). Both have impeccable credentials and both have been familiar with me, my dogs, the rescues and my properties for at least ten years or more. Both found housing conditions and care functions for the dogs well within or exceeding state standards as outlined by the State of Colorado Department of Agriculture, PACFA, and conditions and behavior of the dogs to be excellent.
Inspection reports within the Court and provided in the Prosecutor’s files note that the dogs’ conditions are either good or excellent. There have been no negative care or condition comments in the files until February 14 or 15, 2008. Even the report of January 10, 2008, has the dogs and puppies noted and found to be in good condition.
To the best of Mr. Attleson’s knowledge, Mr. Katz has never seen any of Mr. Attleson’s dogs or has he been inside either of the properties at 6529 and 6519 So. Windermere. The only opportunity that Mr. Katz would have had was during the illegal seizure on February 15, 2008 if he was in fact there and part of the illegal forcible entry.
In February of this year, the ammonia atmosphere, urine soaked bedding, and general unclean conditions caused immediate physical symptoms in the humans that inspected the premises. The humans were only there for minutes. The dogs were locked in; they could not get out without help.
THIS IS BLATANTLY FALSE
The only time anyone from the City was in 6529 or 6519 in February 2008 (or any other date prior) without Mr. Attleson’s presence was February 15, 2008 when the dogs were being illegally seized. These claims by Mr. Katz are totally FALSE. They are without basis of proof and are at best, fabrications aimed to support the City’s action of breaking and entering with force and without the owner’s presence. This illegal seizure of real property from the locked, secure properties at 6529 and 6519 was both barbaric and unconscionable. Mr. Attleson can provide witnesses who were in the same properties in Febtruary. 2008 who will testify to the opposite. There were no conditions that were dangerous to the dogs or puppies. The dogs and the puppies could not get to the items stored that appear in the City photographs. The dogs were not confined to crates, except when ordered to be by the City during the inspections. The adult dogs were confined and secured behind closed doors within the houses and they were prevented from entering certain rooms by baby gates. Mr. Attleson only allows the dogs outside when he or someone else is home and can monitor them. The puppies were secured in their puppy pen and separated from the adults (including their mother) by two sets of baby gates. The house where the three adults and four puppies were staying is not 900 sq ft., rather it is 1,700 sq ft.
If any of this applies to February 14, Mr. Attleson was present the whole time and there were no humans ducking in and out after 3 or 4 minutes because of any odors. All the “bedding” on the floors for the dogs and puppies was clean and it is picked up daily and washed before being put down again. Dogs in 6519 were only there from December 16, 2007 through February 14, 2008. At no other time prior to February 14 did the City observe any dogs in 6519. It would be a “stretch” to say that 6529 and possibly 6519 did not “smell like dogs” because there were dogs present.
Mr. Attleson does admit to making significant effort at cutting down air infiltration in and out of both houses as a conservative matter to cut down on heat loss. It was the middle of February with six inches of snow on the ground. This of course would cause some doggie odors but well within acceptable air quality and health standards. Both houses are heated radiantly so there isn't much air exchange and minimal air circulation.
No basis for health endangerment to humans or dogs has ever been provided by Mr. Katz or the City. There have been no complaints of air quality within the houses ever filed by Mr. Katz or others from within the City. Aside from possibly Ms. Reed, no building and/or code expert or licensed professional has inspected and/or filed written reports on adverse conditions within the houses prior and up through February 2008.
It was determined at a Court hearing that the conditions were such that the residences were unhealthy for humans and animals.
This determination by Mr. Katz refers to the Emergency Court Hearing held sometime the morning of February 15, without the notification and presence of Mr. Attleson. Therefore, no defense to the allegations of Mr. Katz, Ms. Reed, and Officer Carr could be given.
The conditions in the houses were the cause of one of 4 youth dogs to have a bacterial infection that Mr. Attleson left untreated.
FALSE
It is unclear to which dog or puppy Mr. Katz is referring to, however, no dog or puppies had a bacterial infection nor was there any proof of such ever provided by the City. Moody, the 18 month old male seized from 6529 had been hospitalized for an intestinal issue up until late February 13, he was doing pretty good and was waiting for Mr. Attleson to take him to Adams County. He was still on prescription medication and being monitored. The City was informed of this on February 14 and yet, when they seized him on February 15, they did not take along his medication.
If Mr. Katz was so concerned about the health and condition of the dogs and the puppies, why were there no provision made to have any of them looked at by a veterinarian or other professional dog person upon intake? The adults only received vet tech examination on February 22 prior to them being released to Mr. Attleson. That examination was made by an employee of the Colorado Humane Society Shelter where the dogs and puppies were taken.
None of the 4 youth dogs had any shots and all needed to be wormed.
FALSE
The puppies were 9 to 10 weeks old and were well protected from exposure to any transmittable illnesses that vaccines would have protected against. Like many breeders, Mr. Attleson has been questioning shot protocols. There is no proof and highly unlikely that all the dogs needed to be wormed. The puppies and especially Moody should not have been wormed. Mr. Attleson worms only upon positive results from fecal samples indicating the need.
The dogs received veterinary care from the Colorado Humane Society at no cost, when the dogs were taken from the homes and placed with the Humane Society until Mr. Attleson could locate the dogs in a healthy environment.
BLATANTLY FALSE
When the dogs were illegally seized February 15 and taken to the Colorado Humane Society Shelter there was absolutely no intent that Mr. Katz’s would ever return these dogs to Mr. Attleson. Check out the Judge’s or Court Orders dated February 15, 2008 that are posted on the AttlesonDogDefense website. Judge Kimmel specifically ordered ownership of Attleson's dogs and puppies be granted February 26, 2008 to the Colorado Humane Society and Ms. Mary Warren. The Emergency Court Hearing requested by Mr. Attleson was scheduled for 3 pm Friday, February 22, 2008.
To secure return of the dogs, Mr. Attleson had to pay in excess of $1,000 directly to the Colorado Humane Society which included billing for veterinary care and an addition sum to the Littleton Municipal Court. This amount was in access to the Judge's monetary court order.
Mr. Katz only agreed to ransom back the dogs and puppies to Mr. Attleson to negotiate a plea bargain. This would successfully ensure that the Motion filed by Attorneys Ms. Martin and Ms. Macolini would not see the light of day in a courtroom and/or trial.
Mr. Attleson agreed to the terms put forth by Mr. Katz that included a guilty plea and deferred three year jail sentence ONLY to get his dogs and puppies back and away from the City and the Colorado Humane Society. Who wouldn’t have wanted their dogs back and out of harms way?
The Court required documentation from an expert in animal welfare to approve the location and the conditions. With that accomplished, Mr. Attleson regained custody of the dogs.
As one of the plea bargain conditions to secure return of the dogs and puppies to Mr. Attleson, Mr. Katz demanded an inspection report by a professional of the new property location for the dogs in Adams County be submitted to the Court by Tuesday morning, February 26. This demand was made known to Mr. Attleson and his attorneys shortly after 3 pm on Friday, February 22, 2008. There was only one business day (Monday) to secure an inspection and report. None the less, Mr. Attleson was able to secure a proper and glowing inspection, and a report of approval by two professionals by the deadline of February 26, 2008.
It is inconceivable to me that any dog owner, who cared for his dog, would have given a dog to Mr. Attleson to be groomed in that environment, if the owner had actually been in the houses.
This is absolutely meaningless and just another example of the hype Mr. Katz vividly creates without proof to further his cases against defendants. There isn't any proof that Mr. Attleson groomed dogs that belonged to others at his 6529 property, let alone that he was running a grooming business. Mr. Attleson was never asked about the grooming room and about grooming until February 14. At that time he explained in detail to Ms. Reed and Officer Carr that he does not groom dogs other than his own and what grooming that he might do from time to time for others is done off the properties of 6529 or 6519. This obviously was not what they wanted to hear or believe so it was never indicated in any of their records.
The grooming room was off limits to the dogs except when grooming or bathing as it was tight quarters with no provision for dogs except while in the dog tub or on the grooming table. The aforementioned inspections by Mr. Davis and Ms. Guzman included looking at the grooming and laundry room at 6529.
There are substantial records that establish Mr. Attleson knew he was acting illegally for years.
FALSE
No “substantial records” have ever been introduced into evidence of this claim by Mr. Katz. There is no basis for this claim and no admittance by Mr. Attleson that he has been or was acting illegally for years.
There are substantial records that establish the deplorable conditions that forced the City of Littleton to take action to protect the animals. If you wish, you may order copies of the public records from the proper department and obtain the truth about Mr. Attleson.
FALSE
The public records have copies of photos from inspections on September 6, 2006 and February 14, 2008. There are very few, if any, written inspection reports and hardly any written inspection notes. The photos speak of storage, of file boxes and other items. Obviously some poor housekeeping, but the photos DO NOT speak of anything as to care of the dogs.
As to “the truth about Mr. Attleson,” this is probably more in the eyes of the beholder rather than in the old photos and documents themselve. Mr. Katz had not been to Mr. Attleson’s properties and is only looking for information that would help prove his case that Mr. Attleson is guilty. The same could be said of Ms. Reed, Ms. Apsnes, and Officer Carr, with the exception that they have been to the properties numerous times. Yet, for all their job titles and their city employment, not much can be said as to their qualifications with regard to the dogs and the care and conditions of the dogs. The most qualified as to the dogs would be Officer Carr and his reports and signatures on documents are noticeably missing.
It is my hope that he is an anomaly in the dog care world. If he is the model of a good owner, then the industry needs a serious revamping of government regulations to assure the humane care of dogs.
That Mr. Katz would actually write this is amazing. Not once has he gone outside of the City staff of Reed, Aspnes, and Carr to consult with “professionals” in dog care and welfare. Not once has he even mentioned government regulations (State of Colorado PACFA or Arapahoe County) or has he ever mentioned state or county protocol for these types of investigations. It sounds as if Mr. Katz doesn’t think much of Mr. Keith Davis, Ms. Bonnie Guzman and the Colorado Dept. of Agriculture PACFA regulations and inspectors, and anyone else in the dog world outside of Ms. Reed, Ms. Aspnes, Officer Carr, and of course Mr. Katz himself. Maybe someone should ask him about Standard Poodles?
I know there are breeders and rescue agencies and non-profit organizations created by truly caring people who take good care of dogs. In my opinion, Mr. Attleson was not among that group in February of this year.
Mr. Katz’s is expressing his opinion. Mr. Attleson has to be guilty of something. Prior to even meeting Mr. Attleson in October 2006 and probably before September 2006 something is assumed to be wrong. The first words out of Mr. Katz’s mouth to Mr. Attleson were that he was going to run him out of town; that he was going to prohibit or prevent Mr. Attleson from owning two or more properties within the city of Littleton, and that he was going to make an example of him.
Mr. Katz has asked Judge Kimmel on several occasions, in Court and it is part of public record, to order Mr. Attleson to take the All Setter Rescue Website down as he believes it is a front for illegal activities. Mr. Katz, Ms. Aspnes, Ms. Reed and Officer Carr all threatened seizure of the dogs from nearly the beginning in September/October 2006 and they actually carried it out as soon as they learned that Mr. Attleson had property in Adams County and that he was moving the dogs out of the City of Littleton.
You are a person who cares about animal welfare. To you I say, give aid only to non-profit organizations. Not only should one avoid giving to the for-profit individuals and organizations, but also every potential giver would be wise to inspect the facilities before giving.
Mr. Katz is speaking to the person that wrote to the City in defense of Mr. Attleson. Mr. Katz appears to be attacking rescue groups in general and specifically All Setter Rescue. Someone should ask Mr. Katz about him and Standard Poodles. He is fanatical about destroying the concept of breed specific or non-breed specific rescue of special needs dogs. Maybe, Mr. Katz is an Animal Rights Activist?
Now that the dogs are in a safe environment, the City of Littleton is moving forward to have Mr. Attleson repair the residences as needed for healthy human habitation.
This letter was written by Mr. Katz in late February, early March of 2008. The charges brought against Mr. Attleson on February 21, 2008, are finally in trial as of last September 8, but they have been stalled and recessed by Mr. Katz and Judge Kimmel and as of this writing, a continuing trial date has not been set.
Mr. Attleson has planned all along and has moved ahead with repairs and improvements to the property of 6529. Not because the City of Littleton is forcing it, but for economic reasons. Mr. Katz and the City have hindered and even botched progress in either their eagerness, or ignorance, to improve the property. Mr. Attleson moved to Adams County the night of February 15, 2008, and he has been working on 6529 with the intent to either use, rent or sell his property.
Even though Mr. Katz stated verbally and in writing that the property of 6519 was not habitable, in March and April 2008, the property passed all inspections prior to June 2008 and is now reserved for rent.
Yours,
Alan C Katz
Deputy City AttorneyCity of Littleton
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
