Whatever happened to peaceful protest?

Posted on November 14, 2016 by alexb2448

This vintage typwriter is our featured image.

These are tumultuous times here in the good old USA.

Old Glory. American Flag. Photo taken at Memorial Day Ceremony by Alexandra Bogdanovic — American Flag. As seen at Memorial Day ceremony in Warrenton, Virginia. May 2011. Photo by Alexandra Bogdanovic

It seems like every time I turn around, there’s more bad news about another protest gone amuck. If the media is to be believed (not that I’m saying it should) things are totally out of control.

Here’s just a small sample of recent headlines:

Turkey Issues Travel Warning About U.S., Citing Protests

Protests against Donald Trump’s win turn violent

Violence erupts around U.S. amid large protests over Trump victory

It honestly makes me wonder whatever happened to peaceful protest?

The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

The key words are “peaceably assemble.”

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say anything about the right to commit random (or deliberate) acts of destruction. So no, arson, vandalism, looting, theft, and related activities are not acceptable forms of protest. Any acts of violence are also unacceptable.

So what on earth is going on?

As far as I can tell, there are three basic reasons why gatherings that begin as peaceful protests turn ugly. The reason is the presence of “professional troublemakers.” These are the people who are paid to hijack peaceful events in order to promote a specific agenda — usually one that has little or nothing to do with the message originally endorsed by event organizers.

Then there are the criminals. These are the people who see peaceful protests as an opportunity to engage in illegal acts. These are the people who happily torch buildings, police cars What’s even more alarming is their propensity for attacking police officers and civilians.

And then there are the lunatics. These are the anarchists and the separatists and God only knows what else. I don’t even know how to describe them.

All I know is when you throw them all together, it is an incredibly toxic mix.

And as an American who fully endorses the right to engage in peaceful protest, I think it’s really sad.

Election 2016: Dark Days in America

Posted on November 10, 2016November 10, 2016 by alexb2448

“America is great because she is good. If America ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.”– Alexis de Tocqueville

Official disclaimer: Those of you who read this blog regularly know how I feel about discussing politics in this forum. You also know that while writing about the law, I have taken shots at both President-Elect Donald J. Trump and his vanquished opponent, Hillary Clinton.

So you can take what I am about to say with a grain of salt or you can ignore it completely. You can agree or disagree. You can make your opinion known in the comments section below, or you can keep quiet. That’s your choice.

And ultimately that’s what this post is about. Choice. Or more specifically, the choice Americans had to make when we went to the polls on Tuesday.

In America these are dark days, indeed

To put all of this in its proper context, I’ll start by saying that I am a first-generation American. I am first-generation American whose father was forced to flee from his own country — a former Communist regime — as a political refugee.

Founder/owner of In Brief Legal Writing Services, Alexandra Bogdanovic. Photo by N. Bogdanovic

So I am a patriot. I love this country. Under normal circumstances, my faith in America is unshakable. But I must admit, my faith has taken a beating lately. And on Wednesday morning, it almost crumbled. Almost. But not quite.

I woke up on Wednesday morning feeling ashamed, embarrassed, disgusted, angry, and sad. All at once.

But please don’t misunderstand. I was not upset about the outcome. I was still upset about the choice I was forced to make when I cast my ballot. I say “still,” because I was angry about the election before I went to the polls.

Those who don’t learn from (American) history….

In the days, weeks and months leading up to the presidential election eight years ago, many Americans were screaming for change. They wanted anyone in the Oval Office — as long it wasn’t anyone remotely resembling George W. Bush.

Then they voted accordingly.

And look what that got us. A deeply divided country. Heightened racial tensions. A stagnant economy. A pitiful attempt at universal healthcare. A diminished presence on the world stage. And for the most part, an angry, uninformed, uneducated, hyper-partisan electorate forced this year to choose between two of the worst presidential candidates in the history of the United States.

And look what that got us.

The lowest common denominator and the height of tyranny…

To quote from the label on the back of one of my favorite micro-brews, “We believe that pandering to the lowest common denominator represents the height of tyranny — a virtual form of keeping the consumer barefoot and stupid.”

From the moment he announced his candidacy, Donald J. Trump did just that. And the “lowest common denominator” — that angry, uneducated, uninformed, hyper-partisan electorate — responded accordingly. Congratulations, America. You did great!

That Vladimir Putin was one of the first, if not the first foreign leader to congratulate President-Elect Donald J. Trump, speaks volumes.

That a terrorist organization and a sworn enemy of this country has allegedly told the president-elect that everything will be peachy — as long as we pull everyone out of Afghanistan — also speaks volumes.

Clearly our country is in great hands.

And don’t you dare tell me, “at least he’s better than Hillary Clinton.” I really, really, really do not want to hear it. That argument didn’t hold water before the election, and it certainly doesn’t have any merit now.

To quote Alexis de Tocqueville…

Don’t worry, I’m not going to start prattling on about “getting the government we deserve,” a post-election sentiment often attributed to Alexis de Tocqueville. But I will end with this: if you honestly believe that President Donald J. Trump will make good on his promise to “Make America Great Again,” you are sadly, sadly mistaken. And that’s putting it nicely.

You see it is not up to him — or any elected leader, for that matter — to restore this country’s greatness. That is up to each and every one of us.

As de Tocqueville said, “America is great because she is good. If America ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.”

Here’s what happens when law enforcement and politics mix

Posted on November 7, 2016November 7, 2016 by alexb2448

Yesterday, the FBI announced that its review of additional material in the so-called Hillary Clinton email server “investigation” did nothing to change its prior decision. So Hillary Clinton and her cronies will go unpunished. Again.

According to various news accounts, here’s what happened. Following the decision not to pursue legal action against Clinton, FBI Director James B. Comey and his agency faced considerable criticism. Rumors about the level of discontent within the agency has also surfaced in recent weeks. Apparently bowing to the pressure from within, the FBI recently decided to review the additional material, which it said “‘appeared to be pertinent’ to the FBI’s original Clinton email investigation.”

The media has since reported that the new “case” is allegedly “related to ex-New York Democratic Rep. Anthony Weiner using a laptop he shared with estranged wife and top Clinton aide Huma Abedin for ‘sexting’ an apparently underage female.”

Now fast-forward to Sunday, when Comey issued a missive to Congress saying the agency conducted a comprehensive review of “all of the communications that were to or from Hillary Clinton as secretary of state.” As a result, Comey said, “we have not changed our conclusion.”

Honestly, with the Liberals screaming about Comey trying to influence the election, did this really come as a surprise?

It didn’t come as a great big shock to me, that much is for sure. To me it’s just another example — albeit an extreme example — of what happens when law enforcement and politics mix.

Yes, I know. It should never happen — but it does. It happens all of the time. And it’s a recipe for disaster. Obviously.

Back in July, I shared my opinion about FBI Director (er… lackey) James B. Comey’s decision not to prosecute Hillary Clinton in connection with the email scandal.

Just to refresh your memory, here’s what he said at the time:

“Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.”

He also said:

“I know there were many opinions expressed by people who were not part of the investigation—including people in government—but none of that mattered to us. Opinions are irrelevant, and they were all uninformed by insight into our investigation, because we did the investigation the right way. Only facts matter, and the FBI found them here in an entirely apolitical and professional way.”

And here’s what I said at the time:

“Well, with all due respect, Mr. Comey, here’s what I think. I think you are full of fecal excrement. I think one day, when your ambition is no longer a factor and your career is no longer at stake, you may actually find the intestinal fortitude necessary in order to share the truth about this whole situation.”

But based what’s happened in the last few days, I won’t hold my breath.

Suburban New York puppy mill law is a no-brainer

Posted on November 4, 2016 by alexb2448

What I’m about to say is hard to believe — but it’s true. Every once in a while, local, state (and even federal) lawmakers actually do something that makes sense.

In this case, lawmakers in the New York City suburbs — Westchester County, to be exact — are weighing the pros and cons of a so-called “puppy mill” law.

Eli, the In Brief Legal Writing Services mascot. — In Brief Legal Writing Services mascot Eli catching up on the latest news. Photo by Alexandra Bogdanovic

You can read all about it here. For now I will just highlight the key points.

As it currently stands, the new law would:

Change current rules that “regulate animal facilities.”
Create tougher regulations pertaining to health standards for breeders and pet stores that sell puppies.
Ban any transactions involving puppies that were “raised in unhealthy and unsafe conditions.”

County Legislator Jim Maisano, a Republican driving the new legislation, sums it up this way:

“What we really want to do is impact the flow of puppy-mill dogs into Westchester. We want to stop it. So we’re raising the standards the Health Department will enforce to make sure (that), when dogs come into a pet dealer in Westchester County, that they’re not coming from the puppy mills.”

According to published reports, many communities in the county are already taking matters into their own hands. As a result, Mamaroneck, , New Rochelle, Mount Pleasant, Harrison, Yorktown, Rye Brook and Port Chester all have so-called “puppy mill” laws on the books.

Of course, there’s always another side of the story. So those who oppose the county’s efforts say the law currently being considered may have unintended consequences. Specifically, one pet shop owner says passage of the law as it now stands would harm his business by limiting where he can get dogs for his breeding program.

Animal advocates don’t buy that argument, however.

“Westchester is already on the map for making a statement against puppy-mill atrocities and, as a county, we can make that statement even larger,” said Dina Goren, who represents the Coalition for Legislative Action for Animals in the county. “We have the legal right and obligation to protect animals in our own community. Banning the sale of commercially bred dogs and cats in pet stores altogether would do just that.”

I agree.

Police pit bulls — now that’s awesome

Posted on November 2, 2016 by alexb2448

There’s no doubt about it. Pit bulls get a really bad rap.

Some people say there’s a good reason for all of the bad press. But personally, I love pit bulls. I think they’re awesome dogs.

Take me home! A dog up for adoption and an Adopt-a-Dog volunteer. Photo by A. Bogdanovic — An Adopt-a-Dog volunteer with a dog up for adoption at the annual Puttin’ on the Dog show in Greenwich last September. Photo by A. Bogdanovic

So I was really happy and really excited when I came across this article about some pit bulls that not only found new homes, but also got new jobs. First, there’s Kiah. She’s “the first-ever pit bull K9 officer in the state of New York.”

As author Laura Goldman explains, “Kiah joined the Poughkeepsie Police Department after being rescued from a Texas shelter, where she’d ended up after her owner was arrested for animal cruelty.”

From what I understand, the department got her for free after a San Antonio, Texas-based business that specializes in training K9s teamed up with a New York-based organization devoted to saving pit bulls.

Generally speaking, law enforcement agencies have two options when it comes to their K9 programs. They either budget a small fortune for acquisition and training or they pursue other funding sources. So by working together to send Kiah to Poughkeepsie, the Texas business and New York pit bull advocacy group saved the Poughkeepsie PD a lot of money. More importantly, they ensured that Kiah got a new home and a good job.

And clearly Kiah is a natural when it comes to police work and public relations.

“When they’re not at their jobs, Kiah and her partner, Officer Justin Bruzgul, visit schools and conferences to educate people about the importance of animal rescue,” Goldman explains. “Kiah is also a pit bull ambassador, showing that any dog breed can have amazing underlying potential.”

While Kiah was the first of her breed to become a K9 in New York, she is not alone. Law enforcement agencies across the country are welcoming rescued pit bulls to their ranks.

You can read more about K9 Wilson, K9 Mollie, K9 Libby, and K9 Ruby, here.

Oh, rats! Feral cats now on the job in NYC

Posted on October 28, 2016 by alexb2448

Ah, New York City. Gotham. The Big Apple. It is globally known for its imposing yet beautiful skyline, its culture, its nightlife, its tourist attractions, its sports teams, its subway system, the collective “attitude” of its residents — and its rats.

Yes, you heard me. Rats. Big, mean, scary rats — well, according to urban legends at any rate. There are millions of them. In fact, a 2014 estimate published in a New York Times article indicated that New York City’s rat population totaled roughly 2 million — give or take a few. Although that article was supposed to debunk the myth that there’s a rat for every New Yorker (which would put the total at approximately 8 million), New York City still ranks as the worst “rat city” in the world.

But never fear! According to published reports, feral cats are coming to the rescue.

Yes, I’m serious.

As the website nymag.com reports in an Oct. 23 article, “Volunteers with the NYC Feral Cat Initiative are working to repurpose some of the city’s population of as many as half-a-million stray cats as feline special forces in the war against the rats.”

Citing accounts from other media outlets, nymag.com explains that the group, “is working to trap wild cat colonies throughout New York, spay or neuter the animals, and when the cats can’t be adopted or returned to the place they were trapped, the group will try to relocate them to areas in need of rodent control.”

So far, it seems to be working. One group of feral cats “assigned” to the loading dock area at the Jacob Javits convention center a few years back has reportedly been highly effective. Today four cats from that group remain on the job. The rest found new homes with some of the center’s employees or with visitors.

The program isn’t unique to New York. Similar efforts are ongoing in large cities elsewhere in the United States.

Historically, shopkeepers throughout the world have also kept cats to control rodents — a practice that continues in New York City today. And we all know about “barn cats” that help fend off rodents in rural areas. What you might not know is that in World War I, cats took to the trenches and ships to hunt rodents.

So the bottom line is that when it comes to putting feral cats “to work” in New York City, no one is reinventing the wheel. But I still think the idea is genius… and so does Eli.

Defending the indefensible: the demise of American decency

Posted on October 26, 2016October 27, 2016 by alexb2448

So I was really looking forward to writing about something fun today. I was planning on writing about the use of feral cats to curb the rat population in New York City. Frankly I think it’s genius.

Unfortunately I’ve got more serious things on my mind. Or more accurately, with the U.S. election looming, there’s something important I’ve got to get off my chest. So the post about feral cats being put to work in the Big Apple will just have to wait.

Today I am completely fed up — not only with presidential politics — but with hyper-partisan behavior in general. Americans on both sides of the aisle are happily defending the indefensible and justifying their behavior by saying “well at least he’s not as bad as she is,” or vice-versa.

Frankly it is deeply disturbing on many levels — for many reasons. But the partisan defense of the indefensible is especially troubling when it comes to Donald J. Trump’s (actual and alleged) behavior, Bill Clinton’s (actual and alleged) behavior and Hillary Clinton’s (actual and alleged) behavior.

Let’s begin with Donald J. Trump and Former President Bill Clinton. Both men have been accused of committing serious crimes against women. Trump is currently facing numerous sexual assault allegations. Yet Trump’s supporter loudly proclaim, “at least he’s not as bad as Bill Clinton.” Or something to that effect.” For his part, Former President Clinton has also been accused of sexual assault — and rape.

If nothing else, both men have demonstrated a proclivity for objectifying women. As everyone knows by now, Trump’s tendency to do so recently surfaced when his comments caught on that “hot mic” 11 years ago became public. As for Bill Clinton — well, there was that affair with a White House intern while he was president — among other things. Allegedly.

So what is the objectification of women? Objectification is commonly defined as “viewing and/or treating a person as an object, devoid of thought or feeling.” The definition of sexual objectification is ” the reduction of people to physical objects of sexual desire.”

So what’s the big deal? According to The Huffington Post, a recent study that included nearly 300 participants found that “over one-third of the participants had experienced sexual victimization as defined by the study.” The study also found that participants who experienced unwanted sexual advances — and worse — also reported experiencing objectification at one time or another.

In that sense, the study didn’t break new ground. It merely confirmed prior findings. It also confirmed what I witnessed as a crime reporter. As soon as someone stops seeing a person or group of people as human beings, it is easy to engage in criminal activity targeting that person or group of people.

In other words, it’s all “locker room talk” and “boy talk” until people get hurt. And then it’s not so funny anymore.

Listen Up, Ladies…

If there’s one thing worse than a man who mistreats women, it’s a woman who defends him. Hillary Clinton — who may very well be the leader of the free world come January — is accused of not only enabling her husband’s behavior, but verbally attacking his accusers.

And then there’s Melania Trump, who recently blamed everyone except Donald J. Trump for the comments that he made back in 2005. To her, Donald’s comments were just “boy talk.”

Really? Unbelievable.

Listen up, ladies. It is not okay. It is not acceptable. It is not a joke, and it is not funny.

It is inexcusable. And indefensible.

Period.

Football controversy and a wealth of ignorance in Greenwich, Connecticut

Posted on October 24, 2016October 24, 2016 by alexb2448

As someone who lives in Greenwich, Connecticut, I am proud to say I defy every stereotype about this place. As someone who has lived in Greenwich for most of my life, I am also happy to say I defy the stereotypes about Greenwich residents.

I am not filthy rich. My family isn’t filthy rich, either. I don’t live in a McMansion. I don’t drive an SUV or crossover, or even a luxurious car. The only time I go overseas is to see family and I haven’t done so since 2015. I don’t work in New York City and I don’t have a house in the Hamptons.

I am not a snob. I am not fake. In fact, you won’t find anyone more forthright, honest, or genuine than I am — if I do say so myself. What you see is what you get. And what you get isn’t always perfect. But for the most part, I’d like to think I’m a fairly decent person.

Having said all of that, perhaps you’ll understand why I’m not only ashamed of what’s been going on around here — I’m disgusted.

According to recent media reports, a Greenwich High School football coach decided to use some rather “unique” signals to counter certain defensive formations. Under his direction, the team used “Stalin” to signal an offensive line shift to the left, and “Hitler” to signal a shift to the right.

No, I’m not kidding.

In an open letter to the community recently posted on the school district’s website, the interim superintendent of schools said the following:

“The shift is called at the line of scrimmage. There is no defensible reason for using those two names. The coach clearly displayed bad judgement, but it was not intended in any way to be an anti-Semitic remark and there is no ‘Hitler’ play. This is not an excuse, only an explanation. It was a bad decision because of its insensitivity. But it is also important to understand that these were not slurs that were directed at anyone. It was an inappropriate use of names that have a horrific history attached to them and we should have been mindful of that. Our coaches should know better and it should never have happened.”

Understandably, the use of Hitler’s name spurred the most visceral reactions and received the most emphasis in Interim Superintendent Salvatore J. Corda’s public apology.

Frankly, as a first-generation American of Eastern European descent, I am outraged by the use of Stalin’s name. And no one has apologized to me.

For those of you who don’t know, Joseph Stalin was just as ruthless as Hitler. And just as evil. Although the exact numbers may never been known, some estimates indicate he may have been responsible for up to 20 million deaths from the time he seized power in the late 1920s until his death in 1953.

A brief summary of Stalin’s “achievements” on history.com includes the following:

“Stalin ruled by terror and with a totalitarian grip in order to eliminate anyone who might oppose him. He expanded the powers of the secret police, encouraged citizens to spy on one another and had millions of people killed or sent to the Gulag system of forced labor camps. During the second half of the 1930s, Stalin instituted the Great Purge, a series of campaigns designed to rid the Communist Party, the military and other parts of Soviet society from those he considered a threat.”

What’s even more disgusting than the repeated use of the names “Hitler” and “Stalin” by a high football team is the community’s reaction to the ensuing controversy on social media. You can read more about that here.

For people outside of Greenwich, it is simply a wealthy New York City suburb. But all this goes to show is that there’s a wealth of ignorance here, too.

And that’s a shame.

Note to Donald J. Trump: Stop playing the victim

Posted on October 20, 2016October 20, 2016 by alexb2448

Sexual violence: term used to describe “a specific constellation of crimes including sexual harassment, sexual assault, and rape.” — National Institute of Justice

It is something countless Americans endure each year.

I say “countless Americans” because the experience is not unique to women. Men are targeted, too.

In a recent media fact sheet, the National Sexual Violence Resource Center cited a survey in which nearly half the number of women who self-identified as lesbians and half the number of women who self-identified as heterosexual “reported sexual violence other than rape during their lifetimes.” Nearly 75 percent of women who self-identified as bisexual reported the same.

In the same survey, roughly 40 percent of men who self-identified as gay, nearly 50 percent who self-identified as bisexual and approximately 20 percent of those who self-identified as heterosexual said they too experienced sexual violence other than rape.

Another report cited in the same fact sheet indicates that “one in five women and one in 71 men will be raped at some point in their lives.”

And then there are the most heartbreaking statistics of all — those pertaining to the American children preyed upon by sexual predators each year. According to one estimate, one in four girls and one in every six boys will be “sexually abused before they turn 18 years old.”

These are the victims.

U.S. presidential candidate Donald J. Trump, who was caught on tape bragging about and making light of behavior that can definitely be characterized as sexual violence, is decidedly not a victim of anything.

Oh, he says he is. After the 2005 tape in which he bragged about and made light of behavior that could definitely be characterized as sexual violence became public, several women accused him of sexual assault. And he’s been whining and crying about it for days. To hear him tell it, he’s a victim of a media conspiracy, a victim of character assassination, a victim of a slur campaign… and on, and on, and on.

Perhaps his accusers are lying. Or exaggerating. Or perhaps not. Perhaps it is a political ploy dreamed up by the Clinton camp and the mainstream media. Or perhaps not. That all remains to be seen.

Hey Donald, There Is No Excuse

What is indisputable is that Donald J. Trump’s “locker room talk” (his words, not mine) was disgusting, reprehensible, vile, inexcusable and indefensible.

In fairness, the Clintons’ conduct (actual and alleged) is also vile, inexcusable and indefensible. But that’s another subject for another blog. For now I’m sticking to the topic at hand.

That Melania Trump said her husband was “egged on” would be laughable if it weren’t so pathetic. To hear Donald J. Trump tell it, he’s a big, tough businessman who doesn’t take c–p from anyone. He does what he wants, when he wants. No one can intimidate him, and so on and so forth…

But we’re supposed to believe that he only engaged in this “locker room talk” because someone (presumably Billy Bush) pressured him into it? Or because he wanted to be accepted? Or because he wanted to be one of the guys? Come, come now. What a load of garbage. It’s the kind of lame, pitiful, excuse you’d expect from a teenager. As far as I know, Mr. Trump was an adult back in 2005.

Today he is an adult who wants to become president. So my question is this: Should someone who could be so easily influenced and use such poor judgment become the leader of the free world?

Donald J. Trump had an opportunity to exercise true leadership and strength of character 11 years ago. Instead of going along with the “boy talk,” as Melania Trump claims, he had the chance to say, “Hey, man. You know what — that really isn’t cool. Women should be treated with respect. You wouldn’t want someone talking about your mom or sister, or daughter or girlfriend that way. Knock it off…”

But he didn’t.

Legal view on pets is actually changing…slowly

Posted on October 17, 2016 by alexb2448

Historically, the law has taken a pragmatic view of animals. Legally they’re not viewed as pets or companions or family members. Legally, animals are property. That’s all. Nothing more, nothing less.

This archaic philosophy — for lack of a better word — is still reflected in Connecticut law. As the Connecticut Humane Society notes, the state’s legal definition of animals includes “all brute creatures and birds.” Under CGS §53-247(a), criminal activity includes “overdriving, overloading, overworking, torturing, depriving of substance, mutilating, cruelly beating or killing, or unjustifiably injuring any animal.”

Judging by the language quoted above, the law can be traced to a time when most animals were literally “beasts of burden.” Fortunately a lot has changed since then. And the law is finally changing, too.

I’ve often blogged about one of the most significant developments — a law that permits the appointment of special advocates for animals in some cases. The law took effect here earlier this month.

As New London, CT, attorney Kean Zimmerman recently told The Connecticut Law Tribune, the passage of “Desmond’s Law” is a significant step in the right direction. But it’s just the beginning.

“Connecticut laws have not made the leap to consider pets more than property, but slowly judges and legislators are seemingly beginning to acknowledge the many intrinsic values pets have. This is especially true when it comes to a dissolution in which the ‘property’ cannot be divided,” Zimmerman said.

Meanwhile, divorce lawyers find themselves in search of creative solutions in cases where the parties don’t agree on what to do with the family pet(s).

“I’ve had parties agree that the family dog would go back and forth with the kids. I’ve had parties agree on financial contributions for the care of a pet,” New Haven attorney Renee Bauer told the Tribune.

The Animal Legal Defense Fund also offers tips for divorcing couples at odds over the family pet.

“Since animals are considered property in the eyes of the law, it may be helpful to offer proof that you were the one who adopted the animal, or if the animal was purchased, that you were the one who purchased the animal,” the organization recommends.

The person didn’t adopt or purchase the animal may still be able to show that he or she should continue to care for the animal, according to the ALDF. Relevant proof may include:

Receipts for veterinary care, licensing records.
Receipts for grooming, dog training classes, food, and other items purchased for the companion animal.

“If your neighbors saw that you were always the one who walked your dog or took him/her to the park, they may be useful witnesses who can confirm your consistent interaction with the animal and therefore be helpful to your case.”