Tammy Grimes Sentenced

Although I don't know for sure I would suspect that Tammy, like most of us, have expended lot of her own money in rescue & was maybe just tring to recoup some & maybe help more. I e-mailed Gov. Rendell. I used to work for the DA's Office in Philly when he was an ADA & when I viist family there, they tell me they have heard that he is an animal lover & is trying to affect some positive changes in the very bad animal welfare laws in Penna. Geri

We love you, Tammy, and the whole animal rights communite is standing with you. Fight the good fight and we all got your back.

I e-mailed Governor Rendell today. I encourage each of you who support Tammy to do the same and spread the word. She has 10 days to remove any and all online references to Doggie from any internet site over which she has authority or control. That isn't much time. I know she plans to appeal but if Governor Rendell is serious about reform in PA, he can start with this case. My comments appear below. I'm sharing in hopes of inspiring others to write and not to force feed my beliefs on others so I mean no offense to anyone.

**********

Re: Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Tammy Grimes; Case No. 2006CR-2060; Blair County

Governor Rendell: I write for the second time regarding this case to encourage you to intervene and pardon Ms. Grimes by commuting her sentence imposed by Judge Doyle on Friday, February 22nd. Ms. Grimes' sentence is: 1 year probation, 300 hours of community service, removal of online references to the "property" she took (the dog), court costs of $1,700 and community service fees of $1,500.

I do not believe Judge Elizabeth Doyle has the authority to order Grimes to remove online references about the dog. Grimes was charged, tried and convicted as an individual. The internet references to the dog are those of a 501c(3) non-profit organization which is a separate legal entity from Grimes. This is almost Orwellian in a "non person" kind of way. Would Judge Doyle order the Altoona Mirror to remove all references about the dog? I think not. And she surely cannot order me as a private person to not refer to the dog as if he never existed. If Judge Doyle wants to order Grimes to henceforth receive no personal financial gain regarding the facts of her case, I can understand that. Judge Doyle cannot control the free speech of other persons or entities.

These were summary offenses. The dog had a "property" value of less than fifty dollars. Yet the Blair County District Attorney, Richard Consiglio, aggressively pursued the case when he could have "nipped it in the bud" early on. I believe Grimes was ultimately convicted because she refused to return the dog, thus demonstrated her "intent to deprive" the owners of their property and incurring the wrath of local authorities. I know why she refused but that is a moot point now. The DA could have, at any time, filed a motion with the court ordering the return of the property and if Grimes refused to do so, he could have sought an order to show cause and Grimes could have been jailed before the case even went to trial. I believe this would have led to resolution of the case. The DA also could have taken the high road and tried to negotiate an owner-surrender of the dog (since the owners said they planned to have the dog euthanized anyway) or could have negotiated a conditional surrender of the dog to the owners with terms which would ensure the proper care of the dog. The DA did neither. He devoted and incredible amount of time and resources to the case for whatever reason and turned a blind eye to the criminal acts and omissions of the owners which created the circumstances in the first place.

I understand that Grimes broke the laws of your state as written. The laws are archaic and inconsistent - a dog is property. A dog cannot be treated cruelly. Which is it? I do not believe dogs should have the same rights as people. But surely there must be some protections for them under the law and some leniency for those to try to stop an abused animal from suffering. The defense of justification may only apply to people; I propose it should apply to companion animals in very limited circumstances. Sentences like that imposed by Judge Doyle only serve perpetuate the image of your state as the puppy mill capitol of the world where animal abuse is tolerated because dogs are "simply property." Please intervene.

Why not go see and hear a wonderful music slideshow about Tammy and Doogie. It's music by my Brit friend Maria Daines (music and lyrics), a banner by Mary Alice Pollard of Cornwall's Voice for Animals in the UK, and produced by "Kathy."

Here's the link: http://www.onetruemedia.com/otm_site/view_shared?p=51e9356bdf4c09838fe5fb&skin_id=601&utm_source=otm&utm_medium=text_url

She initially offered to give him back. She would have to answer as to why she refused later. My suspicion is that she was angry with the treatment she received and she genuinely believed if she returned the dog, he would be put back on a chain outside to die on the cold ground.

What I want to know is this: how can a state court judge, who sentences an individual person, dicate what a non-profit organization has on the internet? Tammy and the non-profit are two separate entities under the law.

Any of you legal types out there care to educate me on this? I see it as limiting free speech beyond the scope of the court's authority. The non-profit wasn't charged, Tammy was.

I wonder why Tammy didn't give the dog back to the authorties so they could use it as evidence of abuse if she really wanted the owners prosecuted instead of using the dog to raise money for herself through her artwork?

Tammy Grimes' sentencing is a heinous travesty of justice. Doogie was being tortured and held like a slave, not a pet. Tammy deserves a medal and her name to be completely cleared and herself to be exonerated and her actions vindicated. It also is disgusting that the judge categorized Tammy's publicizing of Doogie's case & her own related legal situation as "profiting" It is of particular concern that this judge has censored Tammy's supposed right to freedom of expression on her own website, regarding her personal opinions and explanations about Doogie and about her own actions to save poor suffering Doogie from a hellish lonely death, chained outside in all weathers, and lying in freezing muck and in his own waste.

The appeal must go forward. Tammy Grimes must be supported; her case is precedent-setting in a BAD way, unlike Michael Vick's sentencing having been precedent-setting in a GOOD way. Dogfighting criminals must love this judge. Makes me wonderful who this judge's friends are....