Featured

Ardorgold One, Ingrrrate Rescue, 0 – A Hell Hath No Fury Post: Read if You Dare

gabeside2

008
Personality plus!

Update on Dispute Between Golden Retriever Rescue of the Rockies and Ardorgold English Golden Retrievers.

Please see previous post for upcoming litter plans.

Several days ago the Rescue’s attorney waved a Constitutionally flawed agreement at us using our beautiful Ardorgold Peerless Parisienne at us as coercion. We were both exhausted, symptomatic with the PTSD with which we are disabled under the law, and very concerned about our service dogs’ welfare and return.

Because this scenario is possible for any breeder, we want to communicate why it is that we feel that we are not bound by the Agreement’s provisions, why it does not constitute a settlement or “resolution,” and why we will not settle for a partial resolution of the egregious violation of our civil rights by this organization.

Firstly, GRRR has refused to return one of our service dogs to us, ignoring our request for ADA-mandated requested “reasonable accommodation” of our disabilities. Thus, we have unfinished business.

Secondly and related to first point, GRRR has failed to enter into the required interactive process to effect a meeting of the minds required by the US Department of Justice in effecting just reasonable accommodations of the disabled under ADA Title III.

Our remedy, of course, is to bring suit under the ADA. But the agreement is especially flawed, despite its execution in the exigencies of the moment, as follows:

Thirdly, the Rescue in question is a public entity and nonprofit serving the public. As such it has exposure to criticism from any quarter and cannot allege or base any settlement on OUR RIGHT TO HOLD IT ACCOUNTABLE IN THE PUBLIC SPHERE ON THIS BLOG.

Fourthly and most significantly, perhaps,  no legitimate settlement can violate the US Constitution, upon which the laws of the land reside. In this case, the Rescue demanded that in return for one of our bitches, we never utter a critical word about it, its policies or personnel.

This was arbitrary, violating the required ADA interactive process referred to in Point 1.

But more significantly, this violates our right of free speech i.e. the First Amendment of the Constitution. It also fatally flaws and nullifies the Agreement. Ardorgold is not legally bound to refrain from criticism of this agency or from any further legal action.

Our Thoughts and Course of Action

Ardorgold requested the return of two bitches, and indicated that we want a cash settlement commensurate with our pain and suffering.

The Agreement failed to even acknowledge our terms or that we had couched our requests as reasonable accommodations under the ADA, the Americans with Disabilties Act designed to insure fair and equal treatment of the disabled in our country. Moreover as codified in the CFR, this organization was required to enter into the interactive process set forth by DOJ.

Regarding that the Agreement is unconstitutional and would not hold up in a court of law, the following is instructive.

In the early 2000’s one Ward Churchill, at the time an adjunct professor at the University of Colorado, referred to 911 victims working as stockbrokers in the Twin Towers as “little Eichmann’s,” i.e. aides de camp to Hitler.

This comment was considered by the University Regents to be such a political hot potato that Churchill was fired.

Subsequently, however, his attorneys made the argument that he had the right to say this outrageous thing about the dead, the victims of the 911 attacks.

Numerous professors took out an ad in the Rocky Mountain News and supported his right of free speech.

He won a half million dollars from CU and reinstatement on a tenure track.

This decision caused much outrage and is well-known in case law in the West around the First Amendment and is merely one of many landmark decisions putting Amendment I to the test.

Ardorgold reserves the right to hold Golden Retriever Rescue of the Rockies accountable for violating our civil rights and refusing to make requested reasonable accommodations under the ADA.

We have the right to sue the Rescue and to a fairer settlement than the one we have received to date for the egregious treatment and loss we have endured.

We stand by and reiterate the following:

IF THIS AGENCY HAD AN IOTA OF COMPASSION AND TRUE COMMITMENT TO THE WELFARE OF THESE DOGS OR ITS BEREFT OWNERS, OUR WELL-CARED FOR DOGS WHOSE ONLY ISSUE WAS THAT WE RAN OUT OF MONEY AND TURNED TO IT, (WHICH DOES NOT MEAN THAT WE CANNOT FEED, CARE FOR OR LOVE OUR DOGS) IT WOULD MOVE HEAVEN AND EARTH TO REUNITE OUR DOGS WITH US, TO HELP THOSE IN THE THROES OF DESPERATION IN THE WAKE OF A MISTAKEN SURRENDER.

THIS AGENCY LACKS COMPASSION AND INTEGRITY. IT PROJECTS ON US THAT WE ARE SOMEHOW EVIL BECAUSE WE WERE EXHAUSTED, OVERWHELMED, SYMPTOMATIC WITH OUR DISABILITIES, AND NEEDED ITS HELP WITH A BITCH ILL WITH A UTERINE INFECTION AND PUPPIES WE HAD RUN OUT OF RESOURCES TO TREAT. IT SCOOPED UP OUR BEAUTIFUL PUPPIES, IMMEDIATELY HANDED THEM OVER TO ITS DONORS, POSTING A PHOTO OF OUR MOST BELOVED PUPPY ON FACEBOOK IN SOMEONE ELSE’S ARMS.

ARDORGOLD WILL REMOVE THIS POST WHEN JUSTICE IS SERVED, AND ONLY THEN.