Monday, June 28, 2010

Brenda Barnette - Will the real BB please stand up??

UPDATE: About a month ago the committee members released their e-mails. It is speculated the committee members were threated with additional legal action by King County if they didn't. There are over 1000! The case is still pending and further action will take place most likely after the e-mails are reviewed. The ACO Guild will be going for a summary judgement motion, but no decisions have been made.

Seems that Barnette resigned her seat on the commission when this lawsuit was filed. Keep in mind the timing here too. Just a few days before learning she would come to LA, the announcement was made that Barnette and the Seattle Humane Society would not be using taxpayers money to expand their shelter. Wonder if she would be here if the decision was made otherwise.

http://kcanimalcontrol.blogspot.com/2009/12/acog-files-pdr-complaint-in-snohomish.html

Friday, December 11, 2009
ACOG Files PDR Complaint in Snohomish County
NOTICE OF PRESS CONFERENCE TODAY, 10:30 AM
KING COUNTY COURTHOUSE STEPS, 4TH AVENUE ENTRANCE

ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICER’S GUILD FILES LAWSUIT AGAINST KING COUNTY, KING COUNTY EXECUTIVE

LAWSUIT DEMANDS RELEASE OF PUBLIC RECORDS



"(SEATTLE) – Officers of the Animal Control Officer’s Guild want justice – and they want emails that could prove improper maneuvering between the newly elected King County Executive and some former members of an animal-control citizen’s advisory committee. The email demand was filed as a lawsuit late this morning in Snohomish County Superior Court.

According to plaintiffs, recommendations made by advisory committee members will likely result in closure of the current animal shelter, and transfer the responsibility to the Seattle Humane Society that could benefit financially from the decision, costing King County’s taxpayers millions.

According to Michael Brannan, attorney for the Animal Control Officers Guild, “It is time for the truth to come out, and
the truth is those who pushed most strongly for the services to be handled by non-county run shelters appear to have the most to gain.”

One of the advisory committee members heads the Seattle Humane Society, and resigned after the emails were requested via a Public Records Request.


King County’s prosecuting attorney chose to ignore the issue thus far, and an attorney hired by five Citizen’s Advisory Committee members communicated that because the advisory group was comprised of non-government members, they were under no obligation to comply with the public records request.

The Attorney General’s Open Government Ombudsman, attorney Tim Ford, didn’t accept that argument. According to information contained in the legal complaint filed late yesterday afternoon, Ford sided squarely with the Animal Control Officers Guild, stating in a letter to all parties that “the (citizen’s advisory) committee and its members have a duty to comply,” and must “disclose the requested public records.” He stated the actions should be taken “immediately.” Thus far, the emails have not been relinquished. "

WHAT ARE IN THOSE EMAILS, BARNETTE, THAT YOU WOULD RESIGN FROM COMMITTEES/COMMISSION/ STAKEHOLDERS COUNCIL? WHAT ARE IN THOSE EMAILS THAT YOU WOULD DO THAT RATHER THAN RELINQUISH THOSE EMAILS, BARNETTE? ANYTHING INCRIMINATING??
Stay tuned, more on this.

Also, here is Brenda Barnette in all of her AKC glory, supporting the AKC whose income relies on the suffering of puppy mills. I bet her kennel club, the Seattle Kennel Club, sends money to the AKC, thus Barnette is part of the problem instead of being part of the solution. When push comes to shove, which side with Barnette chose? How will she defend ordinances already on the books that go against something she has done all of her life, bred and show AKC dogs? Wanna make bets? I know what I will bet on.

http://www.kirotv.com/news/18677601/detail.html
""SEATTLE -- State lawmakers are considering a crackdown on the ownership of dogs that haven’t been fixed – after nearly 500 dogs, many of them pregnant, were seized from a Skagit County puppy mill.

The proposal would regulate ownership of dogs that haven’t been spayed or neutered -- so that if someone owns ten or more such dogs, they would have to live in humane conditions.

It would also be illegal to own more than 25 dogs that haven't been spayed or neutered and animal control officers would have the right to inspect breeding facilities without a warrant.

The proposal is aimed at preventing the same scene in Skagit County several weeks ago.

But other licensed dog breeders testified Tuesday that the proposed law goes too far.

“Under this law I could be charged with misdemeanor merely for refusing a warrantless search. I think that this violates my civil rights,” said breeder Sylvie McGee.

Seattle Humane Society Director Brenda Barnette is as concerned as the breeders about the proposed new law.

“I think the whole thing is a jumble of words but it's not, it really doesn't get at the intent. And the intent is for anyone who has dogs whether they have a few or whether they have a lot to take care of them,” Barnette said.

The puppies seized from the Skagit County puppy mill are at animal shelters throughout the region. Most can’t be adopted out yet because they are still being held by the courts."

11 comments:

Anonymous said...

So it is all coming out, Barnette's involvement in trying to destroy her local animal control in order for her gain at SHS. Was this why she was hired by LA, to destroy their animal control? It's the only reason I can think of, she certainly wasn't hired because she was qualified.

trigger said...

I believe it is Barnette with the "jumble of words" in attempt to hide her intent! A longtime AKC breeder and breeding proponent, Barnette was hired in LA, which adopted a mandatory pay/neuter ordinance for all pets, to what? Enforce the law?

HonestyHelps said...

When asked about her affiliation with the AKC, she responded it was nothing more than a click on the keyboard. What a liar she is, lied right to our faces!!! She knows she is much more than that to the AKC and the Seattle Kennel Club. She is a breeder with a breeder's mentality. She was sent to destroy LA shelters just like she tried to do in King County. Destroy animal control so it would be privatized.

cravendesires said...

jumble of words? only the most evil people can defend puppy millers. LA will regret this move.

there is an insane trend towards privatization of a lot of government services. BAD IDEA!!

HonestyHelps said...

You know that if the ADL-LA supports her then she has to be evil.

Anonymous said...

I'm confused. I thought that the new plan that made Davis so angry meant that animal control officers would still be running animal control, and the shelters would stay open.

There would be some private "rescues" to take some animals to place, but the animal control shelters would remain in place.

And more towns would be handling animal control on their own, instead of the county, using their own animal control officers.

What's the deal?

Anonymous said...

It was very obvious through this that Dow Constantine and that woman on the council with him were colluding with these Winograd No Kill to hurt the county's animals, the public, animal control officers and the shelters with lies and smear.

Constantine was telling THEIR lies, right out in public and to the media, and directly supporting them, repeating THEIR words, and these were people who had histories of lying, falsifying, lawbreaking, involvement in animal abuse, threatening and stalking people, and business lobbying for a corrupt puppy mill company like AKC (and hiding it, and she's STILL lying about it)

These Winograd lobbyists are DISHONEST with poor histories, and they are a tiny minority.

With a plan that is a failure and hurts animals and people and costs more, but helps puppy mills and dog fighters, etc

So then the Claire Davis email explicitly states that Dow Constantine was working with them to perpetrate this terrorist-like activity.

The perpetrators revealed their co-conspirator and co-perpetrator, Dow Constantine!

Constantine should be getting charged with a crime. He's supposed to be an unbiased county leader, looking out for the interests and welfare of the general county citizenship, and he's involved in a sordid Winograd affair with Winograd people, helping the private business that is Winograd No Kill to take over animal control.

The question I have is, is any Rick Berman money flowing to Dow Constantine, through donations, politocal contributions, gifts, favors, stipends, or whatever.

Because Rick Berman and Center for Consumer Freedom rewards his workers and propagandists, and enablers, and those who furter his clients financial interests, with money from his clients, the animal profiteer industries.

Berman and CCF lobby for the AKC, with and for AKC BOARD MEMBERS who are on the puppy mill committee at AKC and run front groups lobbying for AKC puppy mill interests, Berman lobbies for Petland and the puppy mill industry that have a direct business deal with AKC, No Kill wants to an AKC lobbyist in charge of animal control.

Berman redistributes some of the money he gets from his clients, like the puppy mill industry, and hands it out to his lobbyists and those who lobby for him, and help that industry or those industries (because even the dog fighters say Berman represents them, and has links to his propaganda on their websites, and pass around Berman's propaganda to each other)

Winograd No Kill is now hand in hand with Berman, NAIA, and the AKC etc breeders.

Davis and Sgro stated they want to wipe out animal control laws and wipe out animal control and investigations, a stated goal of AKC breeders and puppy mills.

WHY would Dow Constantine help this? WHY, when No Kill has failed everywhere, cost more, killed animals, hurt people, and collapsed, is Dow Constantine telling their lies and working with them to put them in power and do what they want?

It doesn't help the people of the county, it doesn't help the animals of the county, does No Kill benefit Dow Constantine?

Anonymous said...

As for Seattle's crackdown on puppy mills, and Barnette's opposition,

Brenda Barnette is a LEGISLATIVE LIASION for AKC, a LOBBYIST, as stated by AKC themselves.

SHE WORKS FOR AKC AND FOR AKC PUPPY MILL REGISTRATION BUSINESS INTERESTS, AND AGAINST REGULATIONS LIKE THESE AND ANY OTHERS.

Indirectly, Barnette works for the puppy mill industries to lobby for their interests, because AKC makes its income from PUPPY MILL REGISTRATION MONEY.

And Barnette profits from the puppy mill money as a breeder, for instance, puppy mill money pays for the dog shows she has stated she participates in.

Without puppy mill registration money, there wouldn't be dog shows, and everything else because the AKC would go bankrupt.

AKC board member and puppy mill committee chairman Patti Strand
http://www.
sourcewatch.
org/index.php?
title=
Patti_Strand
and her fellows in NAIA are also AKC legislative liasions. All these legislative liasions (lobbyists) work together in every state doing exactly the same thing, opposing regulations for puppy mills, so puppy mills can flourish and keep bringing in money for the AKC through registrations and other subsidiary business deals, like microchipping.

Brenda Barnette's Seattle Kennel Club lobbies WITH NAIA on this issue and similar ones, like opposing BSL so the pit bull breeders keep making money!

Barnette is commenting on puppy mill regulation in an official capacity, and not revealing she is a puppy mill lobbyist and has connections to the industry?

Do Seattle legislators know that Barnette is a business lobbyist? Do they know AKC is in the puppy mill business? Do they know why AKC and all these breeders and "responsible dog owners" (breeders) oppose puppy mill regulation?

Do they know about the tax fraud with a huge percentage of these breeders, another reason they don't want regulation?

I guess that as long as politicians are kept in the dark about how lobbyists like Barnette, and the AKC operate, they have no clue they are getting duped by forprofit business that makes money from abusing dogs and ripping off consumers, and tax fraud.

And even worse, because the DOG FIGHTERS oppose puppy mill and breeder regulation, too, and hide the fighting by lobbying as "responsible dog owner" group members.

Anonymous said...

Here's another of Barnette's like-minded fellows, another lobbyist who is doing the dirty lobbying for the breeders and puppy mills in California, using the San Francisco Chronicle (home of AKC and puppy mill lobbyist Christie Keith also) as her front

http://www.
sourcewatch.
org/index.
php?
title=
Debra_J._
Saunders

These people are all interconnected, they are all lobbying together for the same businesses, the same things, and that is financial gain for breeders and organizations like AKC, that they directly or indirectly profit from.

And many of them are lying about their lobbyist activity and their gain from things like puppy mills, and using the media to pursue their interests while posing as "reporters" and "columnists."

How can the SF Chronicle be this stupid and this corrupt?

Or the Miami Herald and USA Today, with its breeder partner Patty Khuly DVM?

And even more of them?

HonestyHelps said...

First of all Anon, check the paper and if it is Gannett media, then it is understandable. This media group is definitely no killers. They are in Indy and Reno, I know. Therefore they don't say bad things that surround no kill. USA Today is Gannett and they did a fluff piece on the Whino.

Felony said...

Will the real Brenda Barnette please go to hell.