I know this is not normal for me to stray from my normal subject matter but I have been following this case for quite a while and I felt the need to spread the word and let people know exactly what is happening. I have copied and pasted the following from a fellow supporter of Chum and Champ by the name of Jessie B Tyson, please take the time to read it and check out their Facebook page if you want to read more ( link given below).
Saturday, December 8, 2012
The Truth about Chum and Champ. A dog lovers nightmare!
Although my blog is usually for my novel WHITE HEAVEN WOMEN, I needed to let the world know what is happening to more innocent dogs in Canada, mainly CHUM & CHAMP, two Newfoundlands. I’m a supporter of Chum and Champs permanent release. They did no wrong. RIP Edith Mansea. Good neighbours help eachother, like this first picture…not like JT and cronies. Their shockingly disturbing story is in the copy and paste below.
Sheila Krenz wrote this in support of Jacques Manseau and posted it toNewfsOnTheNet today 8th December, 2012. It was deleted soon after. What is with all the deletions on facebook? CVRD have done it to C & C supporters too.
 |
| Jacques Mansea the surviving Newfies owner Protesting outside court 6th Dec 2012 |
Anyway, this is Sheila Krenz post to NewfsOnTheNet copied and pasted here:
“Hi Newfs on the Net fb group patrons. As you, many love these wonderful dogs and passions run high when we see any dog at risk.
I ask that you read this statement with an open mind – as my intent is to inform you so that you, dog-loving souls that you are, may understand with knowing and compassionate hearts.
We, in BC, have seen quite a few dogs being taken from their homes by BC Regional District Animal Control personnel and in most cases, when you peel away the layers of the mysterious onion, the underlying factor is neighbour angst – and the dogs have not done the deeds they have been accused of that caused their incarceration. Besides neighbour angst, the other commonality in these similar cases is the Regional Districts’ lawyer (TDS) – who makes a fine living by prosecuting responsible dog owners and attempting to get a ruling on destruction for the sake of “public safety”. “This is for public safety” is this lawyer’s first stance and he carries it through to the end – even when the dog has not been ruled by the judge as being dangerous.
We, in BC, have seen quite a few dogs being taken from their homes by BC Regional District Animal Control personnel and in most cases, when you peel away the layers of the mysterious onion, the underlying factor is neighbour angst – and the dogs have not done the deeds they have been accused of that caused their incarceration. Besides neighbour angst, the other commonality in these similar cases is the Regional Districts’ lawyer (TDS) – who makes a fine living by prosecuting responsible dog owners and attempting to get a ruling on destruction for the sake of “public safety”. “This is for public safety” is this lawyer’s first stance and he carries it through to the end – even when the dog has not been ruled by the judge as being dangerous.
I urge you to visit the“Diesel vs RDCO” group fb page. TDS was very successful in obtaining a destruction order on Diesel by taking up all the court time with his side of the story leaving little room for the dog’s owner to fight for his dog’s life and (TDS) convincing the judge that the judge only had 2 options: release (no conditions) or destroy.
Rebeka Breder, a wonderful dog lawyer based in BC, is now appealing this ruling at the Supreme Court level – and this court case will change laws in BC and Canada – to prevent this situation from happening ever again on Canadian soil. I am telling you this so you understand that what the Black Creek Newfs are going through right now is not a unique case – it is a situation that is endemic in BC right now.
Now to the Black Creek BC Newfs, Chum and Champ … here is their story:
Now to the Black Creek BC Newfs, Chum and Champ … here is their story:
Please know that because of the ongoing investigations and the current court case, some information cannot be made public and I will be using people’s initials.
For many years Jacque and Edith suffered abuses from their neighbour (JT) and JT’s friends. This abuse was verbal as well as physical, and included having people drive onto their property and sit in their cars with the lights shining into the house, calling on the CVRD (Comox Valley Regional District) By-laws dept with lies (to get them in trouble), pointing a gun at Edith’s headand threatening to shoot her and her dogs. This is not an exhaustive list. Edith was a peaceful woman who hoped that in time her neighbours would give up and end the abuse. But that did not happen.
Jacques and Edith, in court, fought all the by-law tickets that were given them and those tickets were dismissed. And, as part of that court case, in court JT (the neighbour) admitted on the stand that she had lied to the CVRD By-laws department regarding the complaints she made about Jacque, Edith and the dogs. I will repeat that – JT admitted on the stand, in court, that she lied – the complaints were false. Additionally, JT admitted, as part of that court case while on the stand testifying, that she did indeed cut a section of the fence separating their properties. That case was resolved by the judge on Jan 4th, 2012. On Jan 5th, 2012, JT claimed that her Jack Russell Terrier (JRT) was attacked and seriously injured by Chum and Champ (in Chum and Champ’s yard).
Please notice the dates: Jan 4th – judge resolves the court case … and, Jan 5th– JT claims her JRT was attacked by the dogs. The JRT was taken to the vet and required stitches (and lived) … the vet’s report shows no indication of a dog attack. And in court, Chum and Champ’s Vet testified that the JRT’s injuries were not caused by dogs but most likely caused by the JRT making its way through the mesh wire fence.
The JRT’s Vet (who happens to be JT’s employer) did not testify – I personally would love to know why TDS did not feel it necessary to have the JRT’s Vet testify in court (possibly because that Vet could not testify that Chum and Champ were responsible for the JRT’s injuries –I do wonder this – as should you all).
Chum and Champ were taken to the SPCA pound in January for holding until they were temporarily released back to Jacques and Edith in November.
Chum and Champ were taken to the SPCA pound in January for holding until they were temporarily released back to Jacques and Edith in November.
The dogs were incarcerated in small cells with little to no exercise, sleeping on concrete floors, separated from each other and not allowed visits from Jacques and Edith for 9 months! Imagine the hell that Jacques and Edith went through and what the dogs went through for 9 months! And bless the judge for finally realizing the cruelty inflicted upon the dogs and this family for that length of time.
All through this time, the neighbour and her friends continued the onslaught of abuse. And when the dogs were released, JT was quick to step the abuse up. During the time from Jan 2012 to the day of the dogs’ temporary release, Edith’s health deteriorated. The stress of the abuse and court case proved too much for her and she passed away in the hospital shortly after the dogs were (temporarily) released without ever seeing her sweet dogs again that she fought so hard to prove innocent of all alleged crimes. Thankfully she was aware of their release, she smiled and passed away knowing they were finally safe. I will repeat this – Edith has passed away. RIP sweet Edith!
The neighbour was quick to step up the abuse and without realizing that the dogs were moved from Jacques’ home to an undisclosed location for their protection, she started an unsubstantiated rumour that the dogs had attacked another dog. This horrible rumour is unsubstantiated (and changes with each telling) and we have proof that it did not happen. In court on Thursday, the CVRD lawyer (TDS) presented this unsubstantiated rumour as fact. One would think given all the false statements made by the neighbour that he would investigate before standing in court and presenting this information. One would think.
Also in court (this week), TDS tried to insinuate that the foster family is too oldto care for the dogs, that their (large) yard is too small, and that they did not have the financial means to care for the dogs. The judge did not appear to buy into this insinuation at all. In fact many were offended by TDS’ tactics in court on Thursday. I have personally visited this foster family in their home and can assure all that the yard is not too small – it is perfect and it is fenced. Additionally, this foster family is very capable (financially and otherwise) of caring for Chum and Champ.
All through this time, the neighbour and her friends continued the onslaught of abuse. And when the dogs were released, JT was quick to step the abuse up. During the time from Jan 2012 to the day of the dogs’ temporary release, Edith’s health deteriorated. The stress of the abuse and court case proved too much for her and she passed away in the hospital shortly after the dogs were (temporarily) released without ever seeing her sweet dogs again that she fought so hard to prove innocent of all alleged crimes. Thankfully she was aware of their release, she smiled and passed away knowing they were finally safe. I will repeat this – Edith has passed away. RIP sweet Edith!
The neighbour was quick to step up the abuse and without realizing that the dogs were moved from Jacques’ home to an undisclosed location for their protection, she started an unsubstantiated rumour that the dogs had attacked another dog. This horrible rumour is unsubstantiated (and changes with each telling) and we have proof that it did not happen. In court on Thursday, the CVRD lawyer (TDS) presented this unsubstantiated rumour as fact. One would think given all the false statements made by the neighbour that he would investigate before standing in court and presenting this information. One would think.
Also in court (this week), TDS tried to insinuate that the foster family is too oldto care for the dogs, that their (large) yard is too small, and that they did not have the financial means to care for the dogs. The judge did not appear to buy into this insinuation at all. In fact many were offended by TDS’ tactics in court on Thursday. I have personally visited this foster family in their home and can assure all that the yard is not too small – it is perfect and it is fenced. Additionally, this foster family is very capable (financially and otherwise) of caring for Chum and Champ.
Further to this, the CVRD has approved this family and their home as being appropriate for fostering the dogs. If the CVRD has provided their approval, I question why TDS would even bring this up in court –except to assume he is running out of tricks.
The court case has been adjourned to Jan 16th, 2013.”
The court case has been adjourned to Jan 16th, 2013.”
(The Newfies are back in the SPCA pound .. geesh)
“The CVRD is negotiating with the foster family to have the dogs temporarily released to their care so that Chum and Champ do not have to stay at the SPCA pound until then (January 2013) (which shows the CVRD still considers this family and their home as being appropriate for fostering the dogs). This foster family is very much in love with these dogs. They have a heated floor in their home that the dogs love to laze about on and a fenced backyard that the dogs love to play in. They take Chum and Champ for walks and feed them home cooked meals. Trust me when I say that the dogs are very well cared for in their home and Edith would be very pleased by their placement in this home.
A few here are wondering why Jacques is not looking after the dogs in his home. Yes, Jacques is away at work in Alberta – he must as his legal billsare rising dramatically, as you can imagine. He could have had someone stay at his home with the dogs in his absence.
A few here are wondering why Jacques is not looking after the dogs in his home. Yes, Jacques is away at work in Alberta – he must as his legal billsare rising dramatically, as you can imagine. He could have had someone stay at his home with the dogs in his absence.
 |
| Jacques seeing, Chum & Champ temporarily released after almost 10 months apart. His wife died the night before RIP Edith x |
However, based on what I have shared with you regarding the neighbour and her abuse, I am sure I do not have to state the obvious – but I will – we all are very much concerned that the dogs would be targeted by the neighbour. So the dogs have been moved to the foster family (away from Black Creek). This foster family are very good friends of Jacques and Edith’s, and the dogs know this foster family well. This placement, with Jacques’ awareness and permission (and he is grateful for this family opening their home to Chum and Champ), is the best place for the dogs.” (Except they had to return to Comox SPCA the night before court 6th Dec 2012 and up to this being published, are still there as no verdict was reached. Please read on.)
“During the Thursday 6th December, 2012 court session, and I was there, the Newf Rescue representative was on the stand as TDS’ witness. Given what I have said aboveplease understand that Chum and Champ’s supporters would find it very difficult to trust the intentions of anyone testifying on TDS’ behalf. And, as Chum and Champ’s supporters, we do find it odd that Newf Rescue did not approach Jacques with their offer – he is the dogs’ owner and any transfer of the dogs would require his permission.
Not only do we find this odd – we also wonder why Newf Rescue did not approach Jacques and the supporters and offer their assistance with the court case – to help Chum and Champ in winning their freedom. The angst Cindy Williams witnessed on Chum and Champ’s fb page is a direct result of this.
Now – for the unsubstantiated rumour that the breeders did not know that Jacques and Edith bred Chum. We have, on file, a letter (dated in 2008) in Chum’s breeder’s own handwriting that says she (Jane Unteriner) and Heidi Ball are both going to help Edith register her first litter with CKC.
Now – for the unsubstantiated rumour that the breeders did not know that Jacques and Edith bred Chum. We have, on file, a letter (dated in 2008) in Chum’s breeder’s own handwriting that says she (Jane Unteriner) and Heidi Ball are both going to help Edith register her first litter with CKC.
To rephrase,Edith did have the support of both Chum’s and Champ’s breeders to breed this pair. Regarding the money raised that some people have commented concerns about. Please be respectful of the supporters who are so giving of their time and energies. I have met the PayPal Admin myself. She is a wonderful woman who only has Chum and Champ’s best interests at heart. The money raised so far resides in the PayPal account and will be used for the intended purposes. Vet bills, food and such are being paid for by the foster family directly.
And finally, let’s all remember that the dogs are innocent of the crimesthey have been charged – they were uprooted from their loving family and incarcerated (without proof they committed any crimes) and Edith has died. This has been a complete travesty of justice, no matter how you look at it, and we are all fighting to prove their innocence and to save their lives. That is our focus.
Given that they are innocent – there is no reason why they were removed from Jacques, and therefore he still remains their rightful owner. To assume that Chum and Champ should be re-homed anywhere without his permission is beyond inappropriate.
I know I have given all of the Newf On The Net fb page patrons much to think about. I hope I have clearly, calmly and respectfully explained the full background and responded to your concerns to your satisfaction. There are obviously some things that I cannot speak to because of the ongoing investigations and this court case that has been adjourned to January 16th, 2013. If you do have any questions or concerns, please reach me atstkrenz at shaw dot ca and I will do my best to answer your inquiries. (Please do not send spam)
And, now can I respectfully request that your posts on Chum and Champ’s fb page – which is there to support them and their owner Jacques in their court case – be calm, polite and respectful. If you are unable to support, then I respectfully request you refrain from accessing their (Chum and Champs) FB page.”
And, now can I respectfully request that your posts on Chum and Champ’s fb page – which is there to support them and their owner Jacques in their court case – be calm, polite and respectful. If you are unable to support, then I respectfully request you refrain from accessing their (Chum and Champs) FB page.”
This is the latest news coverage of this terrible ordeal … which many families must suffer due to uneducated dangerous dog laws in Canada and the world. I was there:-
SUPPORT group for Chum and Champ on Facebook:-
To offer this elderly man financial assistance (because he should be fully retired and not working to pay lawyers to free his innocent dogs) please click here : – https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=K9QWRU8RNVJH2
