Why these women so stupid?

In court this past Tuesday no settlement could be reached. We come to a settlement all agree to and the minute we leave the courthouse it's breached. The judge even sounded like he was fresh out of patience and tired of playing games.

After the last session Shamika was to give up the addresses of the dogs. She wouldn't give up the address where Tracker was kept even after animal control officers told her where he was. This week she still claimed they are not her dogs and doesn't know where Tracker is.

This weeks problem sits around why Shamika is still being dragged to court when this other guy on Harrison claims Tracker to be his dog. I don't know what happened to the you can't get rid of property involved in a crime thing. I didn't get to sit in on the settling talks in the witness room this time. I had to take one of my toddlers out to have a diaper change before we were held in constench of court.

I could not understand what was being said when the parties stood in front of the judge. A nine percent city tax and our courtroom can't afford microphones. No, it's not The People's Court by a long shot. I did hear the judge repeat over and over that if there are charges that can be brought against the person that has the dog now then that case should be brought before him.

After court we stood just outside the doors talking to M, the animal control officer that was there that day. As Shamika passed us on her way out she cussed and fussed and I heard the B word a couple of times before she hit the first landing of the stairwell and I could hear her no longer. M explained to us that because someone else claims ownership that they have to have a reason to go after that person. Since that dog has caused havoc and chaos in it's new neighborhood that wont be difficult.

Now, this is the crazy part. No matter who the dog owner is, when there's a dog crime, the owner of the property the animal resides on is the one charged with a crime. In this case, the one who signed the lease on the rental property.

Here's the stupid part. I don't know what's so great about these dogs that two women are willing to spend so much time in and out of court, paying fines, and gaining a criminal record. Shamika with her four kids and freeloading boyfriend who is technically "the baby sitter" according to the landlord and doesn't live there according to Section 8 records, is willing to take the crap for Nick's dogs? Lie in court? Pay fines? Stupid.

Now, Nick's cousin has the dog but Dude (I think in a previous post we agreed to refer to him as "Dude on Harrison St.") doesn't legally live there. No, his girlfriend is the only person on the lease at that address. According to animal control, there are animal cruelty issues that they will be bringing against her. Hello! Would I allow my freeloading boyfriend to let his loser cousin dump his dogs on my property causing me trouble with the law, fines, and criminal charges? I would be telling a man to take the dog and an f 'ing hike! At the very least I would call animal control to relieve me of the damn thing (and the dog too if a spare cage was available).

What I found interesting was that the animal control people already checked into whether or not they could prove Nicholas lives on Clearview St. with Shamika. The way this is done is to get mail records. I'm guessing a warrant is needed for this. I'm also guessing they had one. Apparently Nick gets no mail at the Clearview address so legally does not live there. They're pretty good at committing fraud over there. What I'm thinking is how neighborly it would be of me to send him a gift subscription to something like Dog Fancy. Anyone in on that with me?

See you after Tuesday's trial.