As the public may or may not be aware the trial for Angel White and Phyllis Williams started a couple weeks ago. I decided I would go and show support for the women I value as friends. I was also asked to bring a paper that would be entered into evidence. This paper had a quote from Director Rob Miller asking the public to donate funds, and was printed off of the Animal Services website in June. The interesting thing about this quote was not that he was asking for money because with the new fancy shelter that costs about 20 million dollars it is apparent they will be needing money and from what I understand the amount they need is about $50,000 PER MONTH to run this new facility. Anyway…he was asking for the public to donate not to “the Danes” or “July seizure” but to animals in need. The reason Mr. Miller gave on the stand? So Animal Services can use the money for any case not just the Danes in general. Apparently if they money donated for the Danes wasn’t used entirely then it would have to be returned to the donating public- and we can’t have that! Animal Services would lead the public to believe that they do not have the funds to care for all of the animals in their care so they need YOUR money to help out. My thinking: if you don’t have the money to care for these extra animals STOP SEIZING ANIMALS THAT DON’T NEED TO BE SEIZED. The way the media is present at these seizures goes straight to the heart of the issue that Animal Control is pulling at the heartstrings of the public to gain funds. Since no one else wanted to say it….I did. And im sure the Great Dane Club of America wouldn’t mind having their $10,000 donation returned! I feel it necessary to share with the public that Riverside County Animal Services received $13,000 for the care of these Great Danes.
Now as I sat in the audience during the trial I became confused. Angel was given a bill for $50,000 (that magic number again) for the “care” of her dogs. I don’t think I need to remind anyone about the care that was given to Nikki and what about the care of the other dogs who were allowed to fight. Rob Miller was asked if any dogs were injured while in the care of animal control he said no. He was reminded of a dog that was allowed to escape from its kennel and killed by other dogs during a fight. While it looks like Mr. Miller lied on the stand he just said “oh that dog” and gave his usual comeback of “I was unaware.” Phyllis was dismissed from the case due to lack of evidence against her. The fact that Animal Control was not on trial was brought up many times, but maybe they should be. These are the “foremost authorities” telling the public how to care for animals and prosecuting those that make mistakes yet even Animal Control makes mistakes. Rob Miller will pass the blame off onto anyone so he does not have to take responsibility for what goes on in HIS shelter.
Mr. Miller you are the ONLY person in authority I know that is allowed to get away with being completely clueless as to what goes on in your department and/or facility. A leader you are NOT sir!
Moving on to a more interesting topic of discussion, Mr. Steve Merrill, the prosecuting D.A. You gawked at the fact of a “grand conspiracy” by animal control. Im sure you would be interested to know that many friends of Angel have been harassed by animal control. Even more frightening now that this blog is up and running there are more people coming out of the woodwork also claiming to being harassed by officers of Riverside County Animal Services. Even worse, the exact day I turned in that important piece of evidence in Angel White’s case, 12/8/09, I was visited by animal control in my county. I have lived in this county for over a year and a half, so this visit is more than coincidence. I hope, sir, that you were not involved because it is apparent this visit was an act of retaliation.
I have 2 definitions for you although I am sure you don’t need them.
PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT- In jurisprudence, prosecutorial misconduct is a procedural defense; via which, a defendant may argue that they should not be held criminally liable for actions which may have broken the law, because the prosecution acted in an "inappropriate" or "unfair" manner. Such arguments may involve allegations that the prosecution withheld evidence or knowingly permitted false testimony. This is similar to selective prosecution.
You knowingly put people on the stand that would lie, Carol Sampson was proof of that, even OJ was able to use prosecutorial misconduct to help earn himself a not guilty verdict. You also showed a picture of a black Great Dane that was taken 8/20/07 showing the dog was in horrible condition. The dogs were taken in July so Animal Control had the dog for a month and was also UNABLE to put weight on the dog, yet you lead the jury to believe the picture was taken in Angel’s care…..shame on you. From the back of the room I noticed the date and I hope they did too! And the tampered vet records? Oh that’s no big deal either…..Animal Controls vet should be turned into the veterinary board for changing records I learned in my Veterinary Office Procedures class that changing records is not allowed a line should be drawn through the wrong information and new information is added under the CORRECT date…..not knowing the system is a poor excuse! They lied and YOU tried to cover it up!
TAMPERING WITH A WITNESS - Title 18, U.S.C., Sec. 1512, makes it a Federal crime or offense for anyone to use intimidation or physical force to threaten another person with intent to influence the testimony of a witness in any Court proceeding.
A person can be found guilty of that offense only if all of the following facts are proved beyond a reasonable doubt: First: That the witness was scheduled to be a witness in court; Second: That the person used intimidation/physical force against such witness; and Third: That the person did so knowingly and willfully with the intent to influence the testimony of the witness.
To act with intent to "influence" the testimony of a witness means to act for the purpose of getting the witness to change or color or shade his or her testimony in some way; but it is not necessary to prove that the witness' testimony was, in fact, changed in any way.
Like I said …….I hope you were not involved because as you could see from my presence in the remainder of the trial…..I was not shaken by attempts to cover up the truth. I am more disgusted by the actions of animal control than ever.
The moral of the story: If you had a case you would not have to put witnesses on the stand that would lie, you would not have to intimidate witnesses for the defense and you would not have to twist the truth. Mr. Merrill, you are a puppet for Animal Control’s cause I hope you sleep well at night knowing that YOU are just like THEM. Also how many other people will have their animals seized as a ploy to fund this new shelter and the others in Riverside County that are still under construction?