Saga of “Millie” Continues

by: Wolf von Baumgart, Staff Writer

The Dog Panel hearing in the Jake and Nancy Smith case, involving their pet, “Millie” is scheduled for 7 p.m., Monday, April 13 in the Sussex County Council Chambers, located on 2 The Circle in Georgetown, DE according to a 4/7/15 article in the Cape Gazette.

“Millie”, a white and brown Jack Russell Terrier mix, alleged to be a dangerous animal by a few of Smith’s neighbors, is reportedly being held incommunicado at the First State Animal Shelter, located on 32 Shelter Circle, Camden, DE 19934. We are unable to confirm this due to a judicial gag order, issued in this case.

The panel is charged with determining the dog’s ultimate fate, up to and including possible euthanasia.

The entire article can be read at: http://capegazette.villagesoup.com/p/milton-area-couple-protests-seizure-of-family-dog/1328603

20 thoughts on “Saga of “Millie” Continues”

  1. With all of the media attention and comments, it sounds like the First State Animal Shelter and the SPCA, could be using Millie as a weapon against the Smiths, because of legal action taken by them against these organizations. Killing a pet to retaliate against someone you dislike is despicable and the lowest of lows.

  2. The dog is being held “incommunicado”?

    They aren’t even letting the dog write letters home?

    How much communicating does this dog usually do?

  3. The animal shelter will not allow the owners to check on the welfare of their pet. Even a reasonable request for a visit by the Smiths’ veterinarian was refused and “Millie” is being held past the legally allowed ten-day quarantine period.

  4. Since animal control is insisting on a 45 day quarantine, it appears that Millie and/or the other dog did not have a current rabies vaccination. Some of the news reports state that the owner of the other dog was also bitten.

    If Jake Smith and his wife had signed the animal control paper about Delaware rabies quarantine, they would have been able to do an at home quarantine where they promise not to take the dog off their property during the quarantine period. In January, I had to do this when the neighbor’s Boxer broke loose, ran into my yard, and bit my dog through my front fence. Once the quarantine period was over, life went back to normal.

    http://delcode.delaware.gov/title3/c082/sc01/index.shtml

  5. “Some of the news reports state that the owner of the other dog was also bitten. ”

    Actually, it was Smith who is attributed by the Cape Gazette as having said that:

    “Smith said that on the day of the incident, he immediately made arrangements to pay the veterinary bills for his neighbor’s injured Yorkshire terrier. He said he and his wife also offered to pay medical bills for their neighbor who, he said, also sustained injuries.”

    And, yes Wolf, if they didn’t sign off on the rabies thing, then the dog is quarantined for 45 days. There is nothing in the law that permits conjugal visits or granting requests by third party veterinarians to do so. The article notes that the Smiths refused to sign anything. That’s why the dog is quarantined. Apparently you do not understand the meaning of the word “quarantine” here. If the Smiths weren’t suing the shelter, then the people there would probably be willing to be flexible in all sorts of ways, but you don’t seem to understand that when you sue someone, they aren’t going to do you any favors.

  6. Nit
    “If the Smiths weren’t suing the shelter, then the people there would probably be willing to be flexible in all sorts of ways, but you don’t seem to understand that when you sue someone, they aren’t going to do you any favors.”

    Thanks for admitting the animal shelter is using retaliation to hurt the Smiths, that is illegal also and a violation of their civil rights and discrimination laws.
    My bet is: they will kill the dog just to inflict pain on the Smiths!!!!!

  7. No more details are emerging after the gag order.
    In theory, it should be at least partially sorted out at the Dog Panel hearing.

    Your comment on the flexibility of animal shelter staff is purely speculative at best, as they have virtually no public accountability under the present scheme. That is why Delaware needs strong Inspector General.

    The Smiths are suing on constitutional principle against abuse of power by persons who violate due process under color of authority and are not sworn police officers and the case raises valid legal points.

  8. I’m with Nitpicker on this one: If Millie is “being held incommunicado”, then Millie is being prevented from communicating with the outside world–most importantly to include family and legal counsel. At first blush, this appears to be a material violation of canine rights. But I could be off the mark.

  9. From the news reports, it appears that Jake Smith’s dog did two of the three criteria in Delaware for the seizure of a ‘potentially dangerous dog’ and for triggering a dangerous dog hearing:

    (a) An animal control constable or dog warden shall seize and impound a dog suspected of being dangerous or potentially dangerous when the warden has reasonable cause to believe that the dog has engaged in 1 or more of the following:

    (1) Killed or inflicted physical injury or serious physical injury upon a human being; or

    (2) Killed or inflicted serious physical injury upon a domestic animal, provided the domestic animal was on the property of its owner or under the immediate control of its owner; or

    (3) Chased or pursued a person, including but not limited to a person on a bicycle, upon the streets, sidewalks or any public or private property, other than the dog owner’s property, in an apparent attitude of attack on 2 separate occasions within a 12-month period.

    http://delcode.delaware.gov/title9/c009/sc02/index.shtml

    By the way, also under Delaware, all medical doctors and vets are required to report bites by dogs suspected of potentially having rabies. If the person seeking medical attention does NOT have a copy of the rabies certificates of all the dogs involved in the biting incident, the doctor automatically assumes the there was a potential human rabies exposure and reports the incident to DE animal control. This is the law and not at the discretion of the person seeking medical attention for themselves or the dog that was bitten.

  10. Nit ‘N Honey:

    1] While I understand that your expressed concept of communication is anthropocentric in nature, I legitimately employed the term “incommunicado” in a slightly broader sense.

    2] From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incommunicado :

    Incommunicado, as an adjective or adverb, refers to a situation or a behaviour due to which communication with outsiders is not possible, for either voluntary or involuntary reasons, especially due to confinement or reclusiveness.”

    3] “Millie”, for the parameters of this discussion is being held in isolation from the outside world.

    4] I deliberately employed the term in its context to elicit more comments.

    Thank you for your participation….

  11. “There is nothing in the law that permits conjugal visits”

    [ REDACTED for vulgarity. ]

    STRIKE ONE!

  12. “Thanks for admitting the animal shelter is using retaliation to hurt the Smiths, that is illegal also and a violation of their civil rights and discrimination law.”

    Um, no Don. The shelter is not required by law to allow anyone to visit a dog in quarantine.

    If they choose to do so, as a favor to someone who isn’t suing them, they can do so.

    The shelter only has to do what it is required to do, and doesn’t have to lift a finger to do any more than that.

    What most normal people have discovered in life is that if you aren’t a combative nitwit who approaches every problem like Yosemite Sam, then others are more inclined to do things they don’t have to do.

    But there is no attorney who is going to say to any organization that they should have any dealings or interactions with someone who is suing them, beyond anything they are legally required to do.

  13. “[ REDACTED for vulgarity. ] ”

    I don’t actually recall what I wrote, but I’m quite certain that I was not vulgar. I am rarely, if ever, vulgar in the written word. Considering the quote I was commenting on, I am certain that I was snarky considering the commonly understood meaning of the term “conjugal visits.” Also, I was not aware that vulgarity (which I don’t believe I used) was a prohibited action on this site (the rules of which can be found here: http://www.delawarepolitics.net/you-may-contact-us/. Unless, of course, the rules are sorta made up as you go along.

    Bottom line, I was not vulgar and even if I were, there is no site prohibition against vulgarity. But then again, I am not surprised at the disconnect, since people who make the rules tend to not understand their own rules, nor live by them.

  14. Not only was it vulgar , it was libelous. Please be advised that I have editorial control over my posts and will uphold an atmosphere of decorum, whether some readers like it or not.

Comments are closed.