Home » News » Pablo's Trial: A Spectator's View

News

Pablo's Trial: A Spectator's View

March 15, 2007, 12:0AM MT

By Francis Battista

March 15, 2007 : 12:00 AM

March 15, 2007 : 12:00 AM
I was in the courtroom throughout the trial over who should have possession of Pablo, the dog.

Best Friends Animal Society and Paula Duming brought an action for conversion against Wendy Shieh and Dustin Jones, the people who had been caring for Pablo since December 6, 2006. The only relief requested was an injunction for the return of the dog. Animals Benefit Club, the shelter where Best Friends placed the dog in foster care after his rescue from a home flooded after Katrina, was initially named as a defendant. Best Friends and Paula Duming dropped ABC from the suit once its attorneys named the people with whom they had in turn placed the dog.

It’s difficult for anyone to imagine how they would react to a once in a lifetime catastrophe like Katrina. Few people live their lives with the kind of planning and foresight some in hindsight have expected from the people of Louisiana and the Gulf Coast. No one aside from the politicians expected the levees to break.

Also, there was nowhere for thousands of people to take their pets. Many people had no friends or family where they could stay with pets. They had no money for a motel on higher ground. Without the benefit of hindsight, they did not take their pets or, as in Paula’s case, they stayed with them.

Paula Duming loves her dog, Pablo. She brought him home as a six week old puppy on Christmas Eve, 2004. She called him her “best friend”. She refused to leave him when the few belated warnings about Katrina were issued. She had nowhere to take him.

As Dr. Karen Dashfield stated in a posting below one of the stories on the Best Friends site about the case, it made sense for Paula to get help, to get out, when the levees unexpectedly broke and filled the first floor of her house in Chalmette, Louisiana with water. Not really water. Toxic soup. Paula hoped rescue crews would take her dog as well.

When a rescue helicopter approached Paula's house nearly a week after Katrina, the friend staying with her grabbed the American flag and ran out, waving it. The helicopter crew spotted them and sent a rescuer in to evacuate them. Despite Paula’s pleas, he refused to allow her to take Pablo.

Paula did not leave Pablo tied to the railing or the roof as some have reported. She left him in the second floor of her house with food and as much water as she had.

Paula was airlifted to a couple of different shelters and within a few days found a place to stay in a mobile home north of Baton Rouge. The person who opened her home to Paula took her immediately to the Lamar Dixon and LSPCA animal shelters where they walked the aisles, looking at every dog, hoping against hope that one of them would be Pablo.

Paula had no internet access at that time. She was able to get back into her home in October, 2005. The place was covered in muck so deep she sunk to her knees in it. Nonetheless, she made it to the second floor. She retrieved photos of Pablo in the hopes they might help her search. Pablo’s vet records were in her car which was so filled with toxic muck, she could not get inside. Anything in there would have been ruined anyway.

Paula did find some check registers in a drawer upstairs. She found records of checks she had written for Pablo’s neuter in August, 2005, just 3 weeks before the hurricane. She also found a record of a check she had written for surgery for Pablo on his eyes that summer. She had recorded on the check records the number of the rabies tag issued to Pablo by St. Bernard's parish.

Paula has a very limited income. But Pablo wanted for nothing including good veterinary care.

While she was in Chalmette at that time, she went to the local animal shelter, but all the animals had been taken by rescuers.

Paula lost everything in Katrina and left her ruined house that day basically with some photos, mostly of Pablo.

Throughout her testimony, there was not a dry eye in the courtroom. Even some pretty tough reporters covering the trial ran out, their eyes filled with tears.

Paula did not know where else to look until December 11, 2005 when someone showed her petfinder reports on the Internet. She had not heard about petfinder. She saw petfinder reports of animals rescued by Best Friends Animal Society. She spotted Pablo’s picture on a Best Friends petfinder report. Paula was ecstatic.

She immediately called the Animals Benefit Club in Phoenix where the report indicated he had been placed in foster care. Paula finally reached the director, Dee Kotinas, on December 12, 2005.

Kotinas had given Pablo away, though, just 6 days earlier to a couple under a contract called “Companion Animal Adoption Contract”. Kotinas, testified she believed she had the right to adopt out the dog after 90 days. But the evidence was she only kept him for about 6 weeks before placing him with Wendy Shieh and Dustin Jones.

It was obvious Kotinas then did everything she could to protect the adoption. She had no interest in helping the poor victim searching everywhere for her “best friend”.

Curiously, Kotinas testified she had never seen the petfinder report for Pablo. She then said her assistant might have put information on the report to help an owner find the dog. She later said she was not sure anyone at the shelter had looked at the report or posted any information there about this dog. Yet, ABC was supposed to be helping to try to find the owner.

It was clear Kotinas began putting off Paula with misstatements about the dog’s appearance and behavior. In the hopes of encouraging her to allow a reunion with her dog, Paula sent Kotinas pre-Katrina photos of Pablo.

One reason Kotinas then said they were not the same dog is that Paula told her Pablo has pink in his ears. Bright pink. Light pink. Pink. She changed Paula’s description when she felt it was appropriate to bolster her argument the dogs were not the same. Kotinas claimed repeatedly even through trial that the dog sent to her by Best Friends had black inside his ears. She persisted in saying this even though intake photos shown to her by Wendy Roberts, a volunteer helping Paula at the time in December and January, 2006, revealed quite a bit of pink inside the dog’s ears.

When Russ Mead, Best Friends general counsel, picked up Pablo on Wednesday, March 14, after the court ordered him returned to Paula, he noticed immediately the pink inside the dog’s ears. “The pink inside his ears actually glows,” said Mead. “It’s a noticeable feature. It makes sense Paula told Kotinas about the pink in the ears because it was a good way to identify him.”

I cannot help but think that Kotinas’ denial the dog had pink inside his ears was a purposeful deception.

Kotinas also said at the time the dog did not recognize Paula from a photo! She claimed Pablo had black spots on his back legs and the dog she had did not have such spots. Yet the photos of Pablo and the dog rescued by Best Friends show both have black back legs with no spots. Kotinas obviously felt she could say anything to this poor woman in her effort to get rid of her.

To try to establish other alleged differences, Kotinas would compare, for example, the photo of the right inner leg of Pablo and a photo of the right outer leg of the dog rescued by Best Friends. Because the dog’s right inner leg was different from his right outer leg, she would tell Paula they were different dogs!

She would also point to photos of the dog where a feature in one photo might not be visible in another because of the way the dog was facing or posing and then claim it was a different dog.

Kotinas claimed the dog she had “sits differently” than Pablo.

Kotinas refused initially to confirm the gender of the dog she had or whether it was altered. She finally conceded the dog was male and had been neutered prior to Katrina.

Though she initially said the dogs might be littermates, Kotinas later said the dog she had adopted out to Shieh and Jones was much older than Pablo. She claimed two veterinarians and an animal behaviorist would testify at trial to the age difference. No such experts appeared at trial, however.

When Paula remained unconvinced the dog was not hers, Kotinas snapped to the effect, “It’s over. It’s adopted and it’s legal. Move on. Get over it.” This was in late December, 2005.

Kotinas never called Best Friends during this time to let anyone there know an owner had come forward to claim the dog. She never bothered to get the file Best Friends had for this dog to determine if there was other information in order to make a match.

When Best Friends Animal Society learned of Paula’s effort to be reunited with her dog, Pablo, Amy Hogg, the Best Friends Katrina Foster Care Coordinator, contacted Kotinas. Kotinas refused to discuss the matter very much and said as far as she was concerned they were not the same dog, that she had adopted out the dog rescued by Best Friends.

Here is what Kotinas as well as Jones' and Sheih's attorney knew well before the lawsuit was filed in June, 2006: The dog rescued by Best Friends was found at the same house where Paula left Pablo. The dog rescued by Best Friends was wearing a choke collar and twine, just like Pablo was wearing in a photo taken 2 days before Paula was evacuated. The dog rescued by Best Friends has identical markings to Pablo. The dog Best Friends rescued is the same size as Pablo. The dog rescued by Best Friends was neutered pre-Katrina, just like Pablo. The dog rescued by Best Friends had a rabies tag with same number as Pablo’s.

Before ever filing suit, Best Friends implored Kotinas and Jones and Shieh's attorney several times to return Paula's dog to her. Kotinas as well as Shieh and Jones not only refused; they insisted through trial these were two different dogs.

Amy Hogg testified at trial that foster groups were expected to keep the animals rescued after Katrina for a minimum of 90 days. The goal was and is always to reunite animals with their owners. Kotinas finally more or less admitted under questioning during trial that under the foster contract with Best Friends, there was no right to adopt out or give away Pablo as she did.

Nor could there be. Best Friends had authority from the National Guard and St. Bernard’s Parish to rescue and care for animals in that parish. Best Friends only had the right of a temporary custodian. Even if it released its interest in the dog, Best Friends could convey no greater rights than that of a temporary custodian. Best Friends could never give away ownership of these animals. And, Hogg was adamant Best Friends never even released its interest in Pablo.

It bears mention that Best Friends donated $7,500 to ABC for the care of these animals. It is unfortunate ABC chose to use the money towards legal fees to keep one of the animals, Pablo, from his person.

Judge Christopher Whitten concluded in this case that Pablo and the dog rescued by Best Friends were one and the same. The judge found as owner of the dog, Paula Duming, was entitled to possession of him.

Under both Louisiana and Arizona law, a dog is property. Under Louisiana law an owner has 3 years to make a claim for a lost dog. In Arizona the time limit is 2 years.

It is not Paula Duming’s fault that the law views dogs as property. It also does not mean that the best interests of the dog would be served by keeping him with Shieh and Jones. Shieh and Jones knew in mid-December, 2005 that Paula Duming had let Kotinas know that this was her dog. Anyone who is truly a foster knows they must be able to give up a dog often after more time than this. Yet, they refused to let Paula know who or where they were. She had to file this suit to get that information. They claimed during trial that they told Paula in January, 2006 she could “fly out” and see the dog. They testified they told her to get in touch with Kotinas to arrange that trip. What they forgot is that just an hour earlier, Kotinas acknowledged during her testimony she had said at the time it would be “pointless” for Paula to travel there and see the dog.

There was no intention to return Paula’s dog to her. Kotinas did not want to upset the adoption.

It’s hard to imagine they would have even let Paula see the dog had she gone there. After all, she had to get a court order to require them to let her see the dog during this case.

Dustin Jones claimed at trial the dog did not know Paula during the court ordered visit. It’s hard to say. Despite the court's order that the time and place should be mutually agreeable, Jones and Shieh would only bring the dog to a dog park near their home in San Diego. According to Russ Mead who was present for the court ordered visit, the dog was clearly distracted by all the other dogs there in the park. He had not seen Paula for 14 months because they hid him from her. Also, I’m sure the dog felt the tension between the parties.

What Jones didn’t need to add during his trial testimony was that the dog tried to get away from Paula during that visit. That was not true. It only hurt Paula.

What they didn't say at trial is that during the court ordered visit, Jones and Shieh made clear they are far better off finanically than Paula and that is why they were keeping the dog.

When the judge ordered Pablo to remain in Phoenix pending his decision rather than return with Shieh and Jones to San Diego following the trial on Monday, they were upset, of course. But Jones loudly demanded to know who would pay their expenses to return to pick up the dog in the event they prevailed. It is a 6 hour drive between San Diego and Phoenix.

One other thing. Jones and Shieh appear to have kept the dog at least at times in a cage they called a “playpen”. They claimed they trained him, but when Russ Mead picked him up and as he has spent time with Pablo since Wednesday morning, he said the dog cannot walk on a leash and knows no commands. Even though Pablo weighs only 17 pounds, he is so poorly trained, he needs a gentle leader. He also does not appear to have been socialized very much during his time away from Paula. How much attention did Jones and Shieh really provide?

What makes some of you so certain it was in the dog’s best interest to remain with them and not with the person who has loved him since he was a baby, the person who raised him and the person who has never stopped searching for him? Especially when you consider the lawyer for Jones and Shieh wanted to explore the possibility of Best Friends paying $10,000 for the return of the dog. Yes, that did happen though it’s not clear Jones and Shieh knew about that.

According to Russ Mead, Pablo is a little character, a playful, loving dog who has already made friends with him. I just believe Paula Duming had a lot to do with how this little guy has turned out. They deserve a chance to be together again.

Comments

Posted March 22, 2007, 7:36PM by jkrause

I was asked to keep in touch with Russ Mead, General Counsel for Best Friends, who received Pablo from Animal Benefit Club after the trial ended, as he made his way from Arizona to Louisiana to reunite Pablo with Paula.

I also stayed in touch with Paula, mostly just keeping her up-to-date on the whereabouts of Pablo, when she would get to see him, and the details of the days that lie ahead.

I felt very comfortable with her the first time we spoke. Aside from being sharp, and intuitive, she was very warm, naturally. She seemed like one of those people who would have invited you in for a cup of tea and a chat, (especially if it was to talk about her dog, Pablo). There was a sense of “home” in her that made you feel like you were connected, somehow, without having met at all. It kept me very present, and in the moment, each time we talked.

Paula seems to think that it was her faith in God, strength and determination that led her to back to Pablo, who she refers to as “her boy.” Paula made a comment, “We are very strong people, where I come from.” I’m assuming this meant, her friends and family that went through the devastations of Hurricane Katrina, but also beyond that.

Without knowing much about Paula or her history, aside from her experience with Pablo, somehow that statement translated very powerfully for me. It was as if I was almost zapped over the phone line, with a momentary feeling, of her courage, and her experience, and it came from somewhere outside of myself, something much larger than I know.

I was really touched by Paula’s excitement each time I called, “I get to see my boy soon. I can’t wait! It’s been so long, and know he’s going to’ come home now. It’s because I never stopped believing!” But never losing site of the help and encouragement she's received from Best Friends, and all of the friends she's made along the way. "It's been a tough battle, but Pablo's worth every moment."

But you could tell that despite her happiness, she felt a sadness for the family who were losing Pablo. Apparently, being around this little dog is pretty special. And she knows this, firsthand. “Pablo is full of love, generosity, and kindness”, and I raised him like this, since he was a puppy. This is what I know, and this is what I've shared with him.” Paula said. “That’s why he’s the way he is now.”

Posted March 17, 2007, 7:37PM by mangolynn

Thank you Kemmich! I did more than email ABC and Ms. Kotinas. Her DONATION link is Paypal, so I sent the donation that was formerly a monthly contribution to Best Friends. I also urge people to visit the ABC website and get, as Paul Harvey would say, THE REST OF THE STORY!

Furthermore, kemmich, as someone else pointed out on another page regarding this story, Best Friends is a very well organization and other animal rescue associations are often judged by what organizations like PETA and Best Friends do. I believe their action in this matter will detract from all the hard work that people all over the country do for animals every day. I was waivering for a minute this morning and ALMOST ready to give them the benefit of the doubt. They had the nerve to be critical of PETA in their last magazine issue. I think they shouldn't be pointing any fingers.

Posted March 17, 2007, 6:47PM by kemmich

my email to ABC/Kotinas (please email if you are so moved! animalsbenefitclub@att.net):

Ms. Kotinas and ABC:

May the powers that be save you from a fate like that which befell the victims of
Katrina. Ms. Kotinas, if you hope to salvage the reputation of your organization,
step down immediately. The injustice you have attempted (and FAILED) to commit
has completely negated any indication that the best thing for pets or pet owners
is sought on behalf of ABC.

Respectfully,

a rescue dog lover and owner, a louisianian, and a decent human being

"Children and dogs are as necessary to the welfare of the country as Wall Street
and the railroads." - Harry S Truman