My Opinion

      When vets are allowed to hide their mistakes and wrongdoing, with the help of the vet medical Board, what we don't know can hurt us. But, much worse, kill our animals that we entrust to this profession.
 
      When secrecy is the price of your furfriend's life, I agree with Jack Wolfson, who was recently interviewed by Dallas television station KTVT CBS 11. Mr. Wolfson stated,   "The Board needs an overhaul�.not just protect their pals."   (click here or see the two part video below, also read about Jack Wolfson�s proposed Texas Intrinsic Value Law).     This would increase protection for animals  in the care of the Vet's office greatly, almost  100 %
 
      When they continue to let vets protect vets on the buddy system , which is evident in many cases , hide the crimes as if they never happened , let them continue with business as usual , this in itself is a crime. Even the police department will put a policeman on leave during an investigation of a questionable death. However, the Board is allowed to keep the strongest smoking-gun evidence out of public view. You say they are suppose to protect the public, act in the complaintants interest, don't be deceived.
 
     The plaintiffs are never  allowed to fully defend their case, documents and evidence withheld from their viewing, yet, the plaintiffs are expected to be their own attorney and present a full case of wrongdoing by the vet to the Board. This is an impossible task, as any practicing legal attorney will tell you. However, vets are allowed to see filings and documents presented by the opposing side, as a matter of law. The plaintiffs should receive the same consideration in matters before the Board.  They conduct their offices as a legal environment, even arranging for many attorneys to be employed and appointed to the Board, as a matter of their own protection.  Exactly who protects the public and the plaintiff? The plaintiff will be expected to file their own legal action beyond the Board in the legal system,  an expense not available to the majority. Even if you can get to that point, the Board has already dismissed, leading all to believe, they actually investigated, without bias. 
 
     Even if there is a disciplinary action by the Board, the actual details of the case are withheld from you and sealed. I believe this is called  absolute privilege records, which requires a judge's order to obtain, which meets with more legal resistance. Can the average public citizen afford all of this? Hardly. This is what bad vets rely on to continue their multi-million dollar operations, conducting their business as they wish without resistance from any source. In my opinion, some of these pretend vets are on the same level as serial killers and sex offenders, all under the protection of  "Dr." before their name, a trusted title by the uninformed. In the wake of all this, millions of animals suffer or die needlessly. I personally believe that anyone seeking a license to practice veterinary medicine should have to pass a psychiatric evaluation by at least two sources before receiving a license to practice. I'm referring to nationwide accountability. 
 
     These vets will go to any lengths and spend any amount of money to hide their crimes. They can afford this. We, "the public," paid them exorbitant amounts of money for their services. They have few actual rules to go by and many of these are ignored. They don't even have a reasonable control from any source over the drugs in their possession, nor how they distribute the drugs. It can be out the back door to a person who doesn't even own an animal.
 
    The Public needs to come forward and demand changes, and do it now, for the interest of the Public who must use these services. We have no other recourse.
 
   I personally spent one year investigating before I presented my case to the Board. Basically, I did their work for them. I have been met with short answers, resistance and have never been interviewed during the process. I hope the reason is their investigation is extensive.  
 
   My case of   "Intentional Destruction of an Assistance Animal by his Vet"    has been in the process almost two years. I fully expect it to be in one system or another a few more years. You have to be truly dedicated to a public concern and love your furbaby to the extreme to endure all the resistance, holding a hand dealt from a stacked deck in the game called  "Seeking Justice."
 
    I urge you to contact your governor and other elected officials concerning the issues that have come to light through the Internet and Media attention. Especially  I urge the ethical vets who are practicing, �Please, weed your garden! Weeds among the flowers are not necessary. Demand ethics be practiced by all and the oath you swore to be upheld.�
 
    Accountability goes beyond earth time one day. The animals talk to Him. What will they say about you?
 
Betty Garrity for Bo Bo Bear
4/3/07

     State of Texas Intrinsic Value Animal Rights Law

   Whereas Pets in Texas are only valued as having Material Value, i.e. as a piece of furniture; we need to change the law to reflect that pets in Texas now have  �Intrinsic Value�,   The actual value to the owners of their pets.

   In Cause No. 89-33660-1 Jack M. Wolfson vs. Shirle Maines, Judge R. Brent Keis on September 13, 1991 �Therefore, the Court awards $750 as damages for loss of    �INTRINSIC VALUE�    for �Ebony�, Wolfson�s afghan hound that dissapeared  from Maine�s care.

On October 23, 1991, Judge R. Brent Keis stated the following:

Gentlemen:

�After review of the applicable authorities, the Court has determined that fair market value and intrinsic value are alternative measure of damages. Therefore, the Court reforms its prior decision and would award to Plaintiff $750 for intrinsic value. The Court awards 1,600 in attorney�s fees to plaintiff in the case�.

On the 27^th day of November 1991, Judge R. Brent Keis stated:

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. There was a mutual benefit bailment for hire between Plaintiff and defendant for the safekeeping and boarding of Ebony.
2. The failure of the Defendant to return Ebony to Plaintiff upon demand creates a presumption of negligence on the part of Defendant.
3. Defendant was negligent, and such negligence was the proximate cause of the injury or damage to Plaintiff.
4. Defendant breached the mutual benefit bailment agreement between Plaintiff and Defendant.
5. Plaintiff�s damage was the loss of Ebony and Ebony�s intrinsic value.
6. Plaintiff is entitled to judgment against Defendant for the sum of $750.00 as the intrinsic value of the dog.
7. Plaintiff  is entitled to recover reasonable and necessary attorney�s fees of $1,600.00 from Defendant for trial of this matter.  

On October 27, 1992 the Second Court of Appeals District of Texas

No. 2-91-261-CV Fort Worth

Opinion by Justice Meyers

�This Court has considered the record on appeal in this case and is of the opinion that there was no error in the judgment of this trial court. It is ordered adjudged and decreed that the judgment of the trail court is affirmed�.

On page no. 2

�The court concluded that appellant was negligent and awarded appellee:

(1)   Damages for Ebony�s intrinsic value; and (2) reasonable and necessary attorney�s fees�.

Lawrence E. Meyers

Justice

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Pet owners have love for their pets. You can not replace a pet just as a piece of furniture. The furniture can not love you back. But your pet surely can.

             Jack Wolfson     
 

Land of The Brave and The Free. . .
where
Freedom of Speech
in truth can Prevail.