Lifestyles of the Rich and Terrified: Part 4, The Brief - Lies, Exaggerations, Illogical Conclusions, Inconsistencies and Speculations

"There she is relaxing in the sun in her bed, like any dog should be doing." BRUCE WAGMAN

Those are the words of a vegan animal rights lawyer, defending a pit bull that killed a cat relaxing in the sun. Apparently dogs, even killer dogs, are entitled to that luxury but not cats.

Why doesn't this vegan animal rights lawyer have any concern for the cat? How can anyone claiming to be a defender of animals, take the case of a killer pit bull? Wouldn't that be the equivalent to a feminist lawyer defending rapists and wife beaters and the pigs who sexually harass their employees?

The following is "the Shyster's" verbatim description of the savage death of Hercules "Gracie was deemed "vicious" by the Department of Animal Rescue and Control based on the events of November 14, 2012 ("the Incident")." WAGMAN refers to the savage mauling as "the Incident" over 20 times in his brief. There are many psychological defense mechanisms utilized throughout this freak show but this one I find especially disturbing. Maybe that's the only way this vegan animal rights lawyer can defend these savages.

"The Shyster's" brief is not terribly dazzling for such a heavy hitter who plays with big boys like the HSUS.

"Gracie is well socialized, friendly, good with children and other animals, and never has been known to show anything close to aggression. Aside from the sad event which has brought her to this hearing, she has had a perfect quality of character and longstanding good behavior record."

GRACIE'S 30+ fans all provided anecdotes to how good she was with people and dogs, "The Shyster" transformed good with people and dogs into good with people and animals. The fact is there is no mention of GRACIE'S behavior with cats, birds, wildlife or livestock. And he completely ignores GRACIE'S aggressive behavior towards humans just seconds before she locked and loaded on poor Hercules.

"Tom Jorgensen presents to this tribunal as a dog owner of the highest caliber, who has endeavored above and beyond the normal call of duty to ensure that Gracie was well-trained, safe with respect to all members of the community, and that she was no threat or danger to any of his neighbors."

A dog owner of the HIGHEST caliber would not have at least three escapes, at least one dangerous menacing of humans and at least one kill under his belt.

"Mr. Jorgensen had informed this man, and all his visitors, of the importance of keeping the front doors closed so that Gracie was contained in the house."

IF GRACIE was in fact "well-trained, safe with respect to all members of the community" why impose such a strict protocol about the importance of ensuring that she remain contained in the house? I don't practice that protocol at my house and I know of no owners of normal dogs that do.

"At no time did Gracie ever escape while being watched by Mr. Jorgensen. At no time has he let her run free in the neighborhood."

I feel like I am watching a rerun of Slick Willy pick apart the meaning of "is". JORGENSEN was home when she escaped and menaced Ms Meyers and then killed Hercules. She escaped under his watch, although he obviously wasn't watching her at the split second that she crossed the threshold of an open door. And JORGENSEN was never accused of purposely allowing her roam the neighborhood, any of the THREE times GRACIE roamed the neighborhood looking for "companionship".

"Once Gracie was let out, she went first to Mr. Jorgensen's immediate neighbor's house, who completely misunderstood and misinterpreted Gracie's actions, and therefore became fearful of Gracie's behavior."

There were no eyewitnesses supporting "the Shyster's" speculation. There were however, two eyewitnesses supporting the neighbor's interpretation of GRACIE'S behavior.

"It is important to note that Gracie did not at any time exhibit any signs of aggression towards any people or any other animals, and that the experts who have evaluated her (discussed below) have unanimously concluded that she was exhibiting a normal (but not strong) prey drive which almost all dogs possess. In fact, when the owners of the cat saw what was happening, one member of the family was able to rapidly approach Gracie, take the cat from her mouth, and then lead Gracie away from the scene, tying her to a nearby tree. In other words, even while she was in the heat of the Incident, Gracie was responsive to a strange human's intervention, in a strange environment with undoubtedly significant noise and distraction. Yet she was easily stopped, and there was no effort on her part to resist being moved away from the cat or to act in any way aggressive to the stranger who was interceding."

Does anyone remember that cult classic movie "Guide for the Married Man"? Robert Morse advises Walter Matthau on how to cheat on his wife and get away with it. The advice comes in the form of vignettes featuring various big name movie stars from the 1960's. Deny, Deny, Deny perfectly encapsulates WAGMAN'S approach to the menacing of Ms Meyers. "The Shyster" also exaggerates the ease at which the "strangers" intervened and broke GRACIE off from her prey in a strange environment. First, the son of Vicky Wesendunk is a big burly former HS wrestler and he struggled to free the cat from GRACIE'S gaping maw of doom. Second, neither people nor the environment were strange to GRACIE. She had been there BEFORE. Recall from the news clip that she had even been in the house. Normal but not strong prey drive? Well thank goodness that! Should the reader conclude that a STRONG prey drive would have resulted in more death and injury? Significant noise and distraction? Mostly just the sickening screams of Hercules.

"And it is a foremost fact that Mr. Jorgensen takes absolute and full responsibility for what happened. He is heartbroken over the Incident, especially for the Wesendunk family. And he terribly regrets letting down Gracie, who never should have escaped in the first place. He knows that the fault, if any, is all his. He had created a protocol to keep Gracie in, and he knows that he was not as vigilant as he could and should have been about ensuring that even if a forgetful guest came by, that Gracie could not escape. He is willing to do anything and everything to make things right- for the cat's human family, for Mr. Jorgensen's neighbors and neighborhood, and for Gracie. And he has already made moves in that direction."

ESPECIALLY the Wesendunk family? WTF does that mean? Is this yet another jab at Ms Meyers? And I thought JORGENSEN was a responsible pit bull owner of the HIGHEST CALIBER? That is quite a leap from highest caliber owning nutter to it's all my fault, sorry. How do you make it right for the victim's? How do you erase that tape loop of your cat being savaged from your head? The only way to even come close to making this right is to dirt nap the culprit.

"Mr. Jorgensen moved in to 30 Terrier Place on April 17, 2012. Although the property seemed to have a solid fence in its backyard, shortly after he moved in, Gracie managed to slip under the back fence, and she made her way to the same house where the Incident later occurred. At that time, Gracie actually went into the house, undoubtedly looking for companionship, as she is very much a "people dog." When she was found in the house, she was easily brought outside by the occupants, where she tried to play with a tethered dog at the house, and was then taken home by Mr. Jorgensen who had discovered her absence and come out to retrieve her."

GRACIE was living there for a whole 7 months and she had at least three escapes and at least one other time, GRACIE was at the WESENDUNKS, she was familiar with it and the people. A "people dog" in search of a cat snack. And WHY on earth would GRACIE be looking for companionship IF her owner was of the HIGHEST CALIBER? Wouldn't that indicate that she was not having her needs met by TOMTOM?

After that escape, JORGENSEN made the following improvements:

I. Added pressure-treated 2x 12 kick boards to entire bottom perimeter of the chain link fence.
2. Buried all kick boards 6" into soil.
3. Attached barrier kick boards to the inside of the entire fence.
4. Filled in the gate spaces where chain link met wood fence.
6. Extended the entire chain link fence height by 12" (even though Gracie almost surely could not jump over the fence).
7. Added 45 degree barbed "arms" so that the extended height tilts inward.
8. Ran 5 strands of 9 gauge tension wire through the barbed am1s for extra reinforcement.
9. Extended the end posts with 15" of 2 3/8" coated black tube.
10. Modified the three existing chain link gates so that they are self closing.
11. Added 12" gate springs to the gates.
12. Added new self-locking latches to the gates
13. Closed gap on latch side of lower rear gate.

"Mr. Jorgensen also installed self-closing spring hinges into the entryway door of his home that leads to the non-fenced front yard, and also put self-closing spring hinges on the door to the garage."

These improvements were made in May and STILL "the Mutant" managed to escape, menace Ms Meyers and kill Hercules.

"Mr. Jorgensen cares very much about being a good neighbor and ensuring both the safety of the neighborhood and the approval of his neighbors with respect to his efforts."

The previous escapes that didn't result in the death of a pet were not sufficient enough to motivate JORGENSEN to be a good neighbor. JORGENSEN'S promise to further fortify his containment if the killer is returned is self serving. Too little, too late. Three strikes your out in my book TOMTOM.

"As discussed in Footnote 1, on the same day as the Incident, Ms. Meyers called the police
because Gracie was unattended in her yard, but there was at that time no danger to any persons or animals. No attack, bite, or any harm occurred there."

"No bite or any harm occurred." This is the aspect of the law that enrages me the most. The police, animal control, prosecutors, judges all seem to feel that if no harm was done by the dog, then no foul was done and everyone should go home happy.  FEAR IS HARM.  Threatening behavior is harmful and illegal. Waving a gun, a knife, a club, a fist or just threatening words at someone is ILLEGAL and there is a name for it: ASSAULT.

From a legal on-line dictionary
"Assault is an act that creates an apprehension in another of an imminent, harmful, or offensive contact. The act consists of a threat of harm accompanied by an apparent, present ability to carry out the threat. Battery is a harmful or offensive touching of another."

Standing outside someone's house and threatening harm will lead to arrest. Attempting to gain entry into someone's home, will lead to arrest. I don't see any difference between dogs and people.

"Mr. Jorgensen is very sorry that Ms. Meyers is so upset. He is very sorry that she thinks Gracie was acting aggressively or viciously towards her on November 14 because, as established above, nothing could be further from the truth and nothing could be more inconsistent with Gracie's temperament. And he can guarantee that Gracie will never again leave his home unleashed and unattended. But nothing in Ms. Meyer's statement establishes anything except the sole fact that Gracie did get out of her house unattended on November 14, and her fantasy fears that represent most of her statement should be ignored."

"Nothing in Ms Meyers' statement establishes anything except...." grrrrr. Nothing except that she was PRESENT during "the Incident" unlike GRACIE'S owner of the highest caliber or anyone of his hired guns or misfit friends. Ms Meyers' eyewitness account of the "the Incident" was corroborated by TWO contractors. So, to recap, ignore the testimony of EYEWITNESS statements aka FANTASY FEARS but please pay close attention to what the barrista who relies on TOMTOM'S business and tips and the Whole Foods cashier have to say about GRACIE.

Gracie's History is Otherwise Clear of Offense  San Mateo Code section 6.04.060 defines a "Vicious Animal." The definition requires evidence to support the designation; and according to the ordinance, the definition of "Vicious Animal" is based on a finding of "any or all" of the criteria. While this does suggest that just one of the criteria will trigger, it also implies that a hearing officer should look at just how many of the qualifying acts occurred in a given situation. So despite qualifying based on the Incident, Gracie's prior "record" is completely clean, which should be an important consideration for the County in making its determination.

Gracie's History is Otherwise Clear of DOCUMENTED Offense  Actually, I don't read anything in 6.04.060 that implies the hearing officer must or should consider GRACIE'S history of DOCUMENTED offenses. And I am not convinced that GRACIE'S record is clean. The facts don't add up. Here's what we know besides the fact that GRACIE savaged a cat that was sunning on its own property:

• GRACIE'S first owner, SUSAN ACKERMAN mother of 3 small children, gave her to JORGENSEN after only one month of ownership.
• Since JORGENSEN has owned her, GRACIE has been in a perpetual state of training.
• The dog trainers JORGENSEN sought out specialized in aggression and problem behaviors.
• The people who care for GRACIE when JORGENSEN travels admit that she is "a bit off" when he is away.
• JORGENSEN has a strict protocol in his house regarding GRACIE and access to the world. 
• JORGENSEN told the Wesendunks and ACO BAGGETTA that "Gracie has a high prey drive". This is info he would only know if GRACIE had previously attacked another living creature.
• Three people were eyewitnesses to GRACIE menacing behavior just prior to killing Hercules.

"The Shyster's" entire argument hinges on JUST the death of Hercules. THIS is why it is so important for "The Shyster" to discredit Ms Meyers and why "The Shyster" completely ignores the statement of the other two eyewitnesses who corroborate Ms Meyers statement. Succeeding at impugning her character and ignoring the other eyewitnesses allows "The Shyster" to cite some old dog fighter San Mateo county case law to help save GRACIE.

WAGMAN'S Grand Finale: "Gracie's Breed Is Irrelevant to this Determination."
It's not about pit bulls for the people who live near GRACIE the frankenmauler and her half witted owner. It certainly didn't help that GRACIE is a pit bull but their outrage would be the same if the dog was a rottweiler, malamute or a german shepherd. (Any of these large powerful dogs is capable of killing the cat, although I have yet to hear about a rottweiler, malamute or GSD menacing the occupants of a home and attempting to get in.) It's about feeling safe in your home. It's about the enforcement of existing laws when that safety is violated. "The Shyster" is projecting this onto the victims because this is really what it's all about for WAGMAN and all of pit nutter america. Whenever a pit bull gets the opportunity to flex their DNA and reinforce that hideous reputation they earned, nutters swoop in to mitigate the damages.


Hillsborough  6.04.010
Definitions

"Vicious animal" means any animal, except a trained dog assisting a peace officer engaged in law enforcement duties, which meets any or all of the following criteria:
1. Any animal previously designated as "dangerous," that after investigation by an animal control officer and/or peace officer is found under conditions which constitute a violation of this title or applicable dangerous animal permit and which demonstrates a significant danger to the public health or safety;
2. Any animal seized under Section 599aa of the Penal Code and/or upon the sustaining of a conviction of the owner or caretaker under subdivision (a) of Section 597.5 of the Penal Code;
3. Any animal which inflicts severe injury on or kills a human being or another animal;
4. Any animal which has engaged in any aggressive behavior which demonstrates that the animal represents a clear and present substantial danger to the public health and safety and that due to substantial risk to the public health or safety, it is unlikely that the animals could be safely maintained under a dangerous animal permit.

"Dangerous animal" means any animal, except a trained dog assisting a peace officer engaged in law enforcement duties, which because of its disposition, behavior, training or other characteristic, constitutes a danger to persons or property, or which demonstrates any or all of the following behavior:
1. Any attack or other behavior which require a defensive action by any person to prevent bodily injury or property damage or that results in an injury to a person or property;
2. Any aggressive attack or other behavior that constitutes a substantial threat of bodily harm to a person or animal, where such attack, injury or behavior occurs in a place where such person or animal is conducting himself or herself peaceably and lawfully;
3. An attack on another animal or livestock which occurs off of the property of the owner of the attacking animal;
4. Any animal that has been deemed by another governmental jurisdiction as "potentially dangerous," "dangerous,: "vicious," or any similar designation.

Attorney Deceit Statutes: Promoting Professionalism Through Criminal Prosecutions and Treble Damages

False Pleading

A lawyer will be suspended for submitting a false pleading even though there is no evidence of malice, intentional deception, or motivation for personal gain. Giovanazzi v. State Bar (1980) 28 Cal.3d 465, 169 Cal.Rptr. 581, 619 P.2d 1005. Also, there is no requirement that actual harm must result in order to impose discipline. Garlow v. State Bar (1988) 44 Cal.3d 689, 244 Cal.Rptr. 452, 749 P.2d 1307.

See also: Dixon v. State Bar (1985) 39 Cal.3d 335, 216 Cal.Rptr. 432, 702 P.2d 590 (false declarations filed with the court); Young v. Rosenthal (2nd Dist. 1989) 212 Cal.App.3d 96, 260 Cal.Rptr. 369 (misrepresentation of a client's financial condition in a debt collection matter); Woodard v. State Bar (1940) 16 Cal.2d 755, 108 P.2d 407 (use of a false default judgment against a defendant); Weir v. State Bar (1979) 23 Cal.3d 564, 152 Cal.Rptr. 921, 591 P.2d 19 (lawyer's repeated custom of filing fraudulent applications with the Immigration and Naturalization Service justified disbarment based upon a finding that the conduct constituted moral turpitude); Snyder v. State Bar (1976) 18 Cal.3d 286, 133 Cal.Rptr. 864, 555 P.2d 1104 (in addition to a multiplicity of other violations, false allegations contained in involuntary bankruptcy petitions designed to harass and delay proceedings); Garlow v. State Bar (1982) 30 Cal.3d 912, 180 Cal.Rptr. 831, 749 P.2d 1307 (forged client signature on documents signed under penalty of perjury, coupled with a subsequent representation to the court that the signature was genuine).

Lawyer disciplined & sanctioned for half-truths, speculative allegations in brief

hmmm....



Lifestyles of the Rich and Terrified: Part 1, "the Incident" 

Lifestyles of the Rich and Terrified: Part 2, The Appeal

Lifestyles of the Rich and Terrified:Part 3, "The Professionals"

Lifestyles of the Rich and Terrified: Part 4, The Brief - Lies, Exaggerations, Illogical Conclusions, Inconsistencies and Speculations 

Lifestyles of the Rich and Terrified: Part 5, The miscreants, science whores, dirty hippies, kidults and philanthropic robber barons