Not sure if this is happening in America. But this is one battle my friend won.
BANNED- BREED FIGHTER CAST CHECKLIST DOUBT.
BY BRENT MELVILLE
LOCAL SUN 16TH SEPT. 2008.
Gold Coast City Council officers have been warned they could face personal
civil damages in Court if they continue to use a 22 point checklist to impound
"restricted- breed" dogs.
The warning comes from a Gold Coast paralegal and Security firm operater,
Jon Mokomoko, who is campaigning against municipal bylaws banning the pit
bull terrier dogs.
He maintains the 22 point checklist being used by councils if fraudulent and cites
two Court cases and advice from a Brisbane law firm, King and Company, which specialises in local government matters, to support his claim.
He said Gold Coast council, Logan,Redcliffe councils had all lost cases, proving
the 22 point checklist was seriously flawed.
Mr.Mokomoko warned senior Gold Coast council officers that Councillors that
damages could run into "tens of thousands of dollars" for individual actions.
"The Gold Coast Council probaly has desToryed 70 to 80 dogs using the "checklist"
"Thats taking someone's private property and desTorying it under false pretences."
The Gold Coast Council last week refused to comment on the issue.
Mr. Mokomoko said he had overturned nine cases of restricted - breed rulings on the Gold Coast over the past 3 years and 23 other in South east Qld.
One such case was reported by the Sun in Feburary this year when Mr.Mokomoko
used security camera's to film council animal control officers using the 22 point
checklist on a dog at Currumbin owned by Fiona Gibson.
Two animal control officers declared the American Staffordshire dog to be a banned pit bull terrier. But following Mr.Mokomoko's intervention they later
told Ms. Gibson the dog's score sheet had been "recalculated" and did no qualify as a pit bull.
Mr.Mokomoko said anyone who had a dog identified as a restricted breed by the Council using the 22 point checklist "cannot lose" if they contact him and followed
"King and Company (solictors) have told the Councils to stop using the checklist
until it is validated,"he said.
"But they are still using it and l'am advising dog owners affected by it to take civil
action if officers continue to use it.
"These officers could be sued for MISFEASANCE and, under Qld law, council officers do not have indemnity and this has been made clear in a notice on the
website of the Department of Premier and Cabinet."
The state Government confirmed 'the State may not be liable for its actions of its officers which ammount to MISFEASANCE.