Rating is available when the video has been rented.
This feature is not available right now. Please try again later.
Published on Jun 25, 2012
The prosecutor said I "was not complying", but she did not provide evidence, apart from one single instance when Brindi got out of a window I thought was open only one inch. TO say "not complying" means I never complied. The burden of proof is on the prosecutor. But if I can show even one time where I did comply, I can disprove her statement. I also gave the judge copies of letters I wrote to the previous judge, asking her to clarify the confusing wording of her order, with regard to the muzzle. It makes no sense to muzzle a dog everywhere, including in my own home; the law says she does not have to be muzzled on my property. And why would any judge require a dog to be muzzled while it is inside a dog run built especially for her, and approved by the city??? That is the kind of twisting that has gone on in this case.
And the sad thing (among sad things) is that the muzzle actually provoked other dogs to attack Brindi. Imagine that: she did nothing to deserve it; it was a deal motivated by money on one side, power on the other, but forever afterwards, she lives with a noose literally around her neck, her beautiful face forever obscured. And now they claim she must wear a muzzle even indoors, and if I question that, I must be violating the "order". Somebody's violating something, but it isn't me.