SAVE HEIDI'S LIFE

As a resident of Hawthorn Woods and an animal lover I am disgusted that the village and the attorney is wasting time and money on this.  This is someone's pet - they are part of the family.  They have taken corrective action to get help to correct the animals behavior - return the dog home and let it live it's life in peace.  I'm certain there are bigger fish to fry than dragging this poor family thru all this trouble.  I'm embarassed to be a resident in Hawthorn Woods, shame on you!

the only winner in all of this is the lawyer the Village of HW is paying, robbing the tax payers of Hawthorn Woods of hard earned dollars! Hey, why not take that $25k and find us a new water supplier over here in the Country Club? People are going broke over here due to 300% increased water rates and having to move because of it, several homes are abandoned due to this water issue. And the elected officials are spending money on putting a dog to sleep for biting? Shame on you all! How do you sleep at night? You should have Aqua IL as your water supplier....maybe you wouldn't be too concerned over a dog's life then!

#78: -  

 People are abandoning this community for the water increase and high taxes even on the "poor" side of town. Basically, we are at the mercy of the city officials. We were warned by several people about the privatization of water and this is where we are. The senior citizens as well as middle class folks cannot afford to live here anymore and it is really sad as this used to be a town that everyone wanted to live in. We hope that this dog gets moved to another family and it is really sad that the lawyers are making out on this issue by most likely issuing continuance after continuance etc......The owners seem to be willing to talk to anyone who calls them so again, please just give the dog another home. Most likely it was protecting the family. Stop wasting our money on this issue and start giving homeowners' some breaks!

The case seems that Heidi was just "being a dog" and doing what dogs do -- we have a dog and he gets nervous when he feels threatened or he is protecting us.  This is dog behavior.   And, it was her property she was protecting after all.  Poor Heidi!!  We have enough wasting of our tax money...  I don't want mine spent this way!! 

dog being a dog and a polititian being a polititian...spending our money on stupid things like this.  this dog is not harmful, you are mayor, and so are your thug police.

If your dog has an angry disposition, watch out, because there are legal remedies available to people bitten by an angry dog. BUT: just because a dog bites you does not mean that the dog is the one who broke the law!

In the State of Illinois, there exists a law called the Animal Control Act, which is at Chapter 510 of the Illinois Compiled Statutes, Act 5, Section 16 (510 ILCS 5/16). This law reads as follows: “If a dog or other animal, without provocation, attacks or injures any person who is peaceably conducting himself in any place where he may lawfully be, the owner of such dog or other animal is liable in damages to such person for the full amount of the injury sustained.”

If you haven’t yet noticed, the key phrases in this law are “without provocation” and “where he may lawfully be.” As with most things in the law, the nuances, or grey spaces are where the law is at! What does “without provocation” mean? When are you “lawfully” present and when not?

“Without provocation” means, basically, that you (the bitten person) intentionally do something to anger the canine, like yell at it, throw something at it, or hit it. Acting in this way toward an otherwise friendly animal makes you the perpetrator and the biting dog the victim! If this was the case then you should lose any lawsuit you file against a dog-owner whose pet harmed you.

“Lawfully present” means that you were in a place you had a legal right to be, like a friend’s home, place you were invited to, or otherwise somewhere you reasonably believed you had the right to be. If you were engaged in criminal behavior or were somewhere where “BEWARE OF DOG” signs or “NO TRESPASSING” signs dotted the landscape, you should have known you were not legally present on the property, and any suit you file against the dog-owner should fail in Illinois courts.

In Chicago, the Animal Care and Control ordinance is in effect to patrol the behavior of Chicago residing dogs. This ordinance (Chapter 7-12 of the Chicago Municipal Code, online at www.chicityclerk.com/legislation/codes/ ) allows city officials to impound and even euthanize dogs or other pets that have been determined to be a “dangerous animal”. The ordinance which sets the standard for what is a dangerous animal follows basically the same logic as the state Animal Control Act.

The Animal Care and Control ordinance governs city officials’ determinations regarding animals who are referred to them from complaints of bitten persons. Again, these officials must determine whether an animal attacked without provocation on public property or outside the bounds of its owner’s property. If this finding is made, the Chicago Commission on Animal Care and Control (www.cityofchicago.org/AnimalCareControl/ ) can fine the dog owner and restrict its control of its pet and even put your pet to sleep!

In a nutshell, make sure you have signs up if you have guard dogs around, and make sure you train your dog to be loving and caring to everyone, unless PROVOKED!

I WOULD REALLY LIKE TO KNOW IF THESE PEOPLE WHO WERE SO "VICTIMIZED" WERE LEGALLY ALLOWED TO BE ON THE PROPERTY. IF NOT, GUESS WHAT, WE WILL BE LOSING MORE TAX DOLLARS PAYING CHECKS (JUST CHECK THE LINK TO HAWTHORN WOODS) MORE AND MORE AND MORE. JUST GIVE THE DOG ANOTHER HOME AND DROP THIS ISSUE. THERE ARE A LOT OF COMMUNITY MEMBERS UPSET AND PERHAPS A COMPROMISE IS NECESSARY.  WHILE WE PAY THIS RETAINER EACH MONTH, WE THOUGHT THIS WAS A CRIMELESS TOWN. THIS IS A JOKE. SORRY THAT PEOPLE WERE NIPPED BUT DOGS ARE TO PROTECT OWNERS AND THEIR CHILDREN. IF YOU HAD NO RIGHT TO BE ON THE PROPERTY THEN YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN THERE!

#84: Guest - Dog's have rights too! 

Thank you for taking the time to write this very informative comment and making readers aware of the Illinois Animal Control Act. The Act is a comprehensive, statutory, and specific structure of defining and determining dangerous dogs. Hawthorn Woods claims they do not have to follow the State Laws, and claims it can even make its own laws which directly conflict with the state laws.  This is patently false, and the reason we filed a complaint in district court in the first place.  Unlike Chicago, which is a home-ruled municipality, HW is non-home ruled, which means state laws preempt village ordinances, especially when they conflict. Contrary to your comments above, The State Animal Control Act goes to great lengths to protect owner's rights and prevent the euthanization of any dog by establishing specific procedures required to find a dog dangerous or viscious, and specific requirements for owners whose dogs are found viscious.  In fact, if you read the Law carefully, you will see that the only circumstances the government can order the kiling of a dog is if owners do not comply with viscious dog confinement requirements, and only then, if the dog cannot be adopted away from the irresponsible owner within a reasonable period.  

And to clarify: The individuals that were bit were on our property but were not there illegally or improperly.  Provocation is a sticky issue, because provocation should be from the dog's point of view (legal precedent exists). Since Heidi cannot talk, we can only surmise her motivations. Dogs protect their family and their property. Heidi was sometimes timid and afraid of sudden strangers, until she sniffed them and realized she and her home were not threatened (then her affection and copius licking were pretty relentless). We know this: Heidi never bit anyone and continued to pursue the person. She nipped, then retreated with her tail between her legs. 

Heidi is a 28 pound beagle-mix who has been living in a 4x10 cage for a year and 5 months  She is doing remarkably well-- full of energy and affection when we visit her.  But Heidi is on Death Row and doesn't deserve this inhumane treatment, nor the ultimate act of inhumanity-- death at the hands of a enigmatic village Board and a high-priced, hostile Chicago lawyer.

#85: Jean Bacardi - Re: Dog's have rights too! 

 We are sorry to post anything wrong. Honestly, we were trying to help and hoping that Heidi can live and live with another family. We think the Village is wrong and targeting this issues instead of more important issues. We pray for you and your family and hope that the Village just drops this issue for the good of all. Hope you are not upset with the post, we can always remove it if you think it is not serving the purpose of saving this beautiful creature of God.

#86: Guest - Re: Re: Dog's have rights too! 

 Oh my goodness, no-- we are so very grateful for your support of Heidi and honestly, for your comments regarding the laws.  Much of my comments above are written for the group, to hopefully further inform everyone of the law and the situation. Bless you!

This all sounded weird to me when I read it.  No judge will kill this dog.  And Villages don't go out executing dogs.

The petitioner says in post # 53:

"The truth of it is that the case is, on the surface, about the dog, but really is a vindictive, powerful government punishing humans for personal and not legal reasons."

It clearly tells me the poor dog has about nothing to do with this petition.  Motives here are very questionable.

Hm. 

#88: -  

Dear Hm,

Call me or look up the facts in the court records.  Heidi is on Death Row.  There is a 19th Circuit court ruling of March 24, 2014 that upholds a Hawthorn Woods' 'barn' court decision that Heidi must be executed.  We are appealing that ruling in the Appellate Court of Illinois, second district.  So go look up the court records and you will see that Heidi's life is in jeopardy unless the individuals on the Village Board-- and yes, your neighbors-- Joe Mancino, Kelly Corrigan, Peter Ponzio, Dom Dimaggio, Steve Reiss et al-- agree to settle the case and let Heidi live with a different owner outside of Hawthorn Woods.  The Village has unlimited funds-- PAID BY YOU and other HW tax payers--to pay this ~$500/hour Chicago attorney, and the odds of winning in appeals court are in their favor-- despite our strong case that the district court judge erred.  The ball is in Mayor Mancino's court to end the legal costs and end this inhumane treatment of a loved pet.  

I'm not sure what you are getting at by citing 'questionable motives', so please do call me-- 847-736-1340-- and let me know your concerns. You're right, the case is pretty unbelievable, but horrifyingly true. 

From the information given, the dog appears to be totally innocent. But what we are finding, with so many of these types of cases, is that people (no knowledge if this is true here) have their dogs outside, sometimes all day and all night, without supervision. I walk with my dogs in our neighborhood, on leashes, and clean up after them, three to four times each day, depending on my schedule. At least three times. Sometimes I am very tired, or busy, and don't always feel like it; but they need it and I do it gladly. I have never left my dogs alone in the yard. Too many things happen when one is not around. Lots of owners just stick the dog "out there" as if they were lawn furniture. There is evil in the world, and your dog is not protected while he or she is out in the yard without you. Teach your dog to be inside and respect belongings while you are gone. The dogs mostly sleep during the day anyway. For helpful, non-food, non-crate training tips, go to www.thepetshow.com, Dr. Warren Eckstein, Ph.D., a true behaviorist who has a great track record of 30 years. He has radio shows where you can call in to get behavior advice, and his website has info and his training books available. DON'T LEAVE YOUR DOGS ALONE IN THE YARD ANY MORE THAN YOU WOULD LEAVE YOUR TWO-YEAR-OLD CHILD ALONE.

Sounds like the dog is now in a better home. 

#51: BS detector - Re: Re:  

 It's obvious you may be either naive or are somehow politically connected.  I was once a defenseless victim of a community village and its crooked police dept and it's unethical elected officials before I moved here 2 years ago.  One of the reasons why I moved to HW was to get out of Cook County and into a sacred truthful community.  I am beginning to see that Lake County and HW is no different.  Until you are in it as a victim and have lived the system like I have or the Bacardi family has, you have no idea what goes on behind the scenes, and with our court judges too.  You probably believe that everyone in prison is guilty too, right?  Wake Up!  We are talking about a dog here!  People work very hard for what they have and pay big taxes here to live in HW.  And for these folks to use our money and hand it over to legal attorney crooks to teach someone a lesson or for avengance, what a shame!  I will pray for you that you will see the real world one day.  Shame on you for your comments too!  Have some compassion!  It's obvious you've never owned a dog before either. 

#13: -  

maybe someone should inquire about whether or not Pam Newton has a relationship with this law firm.  That is a lot of money for a Village the size of ours.