.

Judge Rules on Fred Acker Case

Judge makes "size-of-dog" ruling!

On February 14th, St. Valentines Day, in the Bantam, Ct. Courthouse, the presiding judge, who shall remain nameless at this time, handed down a judgement in the case of State of Connecticut vs. Fred Acker of Monroe Ct., regarding 63 counts of animal cruelty.

In a nutshell, Acker had placed 63 various breed dogs, which he had planned to sell for profit, in an abandoned barn with little or no heat at a time when the outside temperature was 30 degrees.

After having been warned by the local animal control officer, in a written warning, that he was violating various State Statutes, Acker continued to keep these dogs at the location. After returning a few days later, the officer found that Acker had not in any way rectified those conditions and at that time arrested Acker and seized the dogs.

These dogs were taken into custody as evidence and taken to a number of local animal shelters where they were examined by a vet and cared for through the time of the civil trial.

On the 14th, the judge handed down a ruling that Acker was guilty of cruelty for all the "small" dogs, but innocent regarding all the "large" dogs.

The last time a judgement like this was handed down was in the Old Testament when King Solomon was asked to decide the case of two woman each of whom claimed to be the mother of a newborn baby. Solomon said that he could not pick one woman without hurting the other woman so he said he would have the baby cut in half and each woman could get her half. One of the women immediately fell to her knees before Solomon crying and saying for him to give the baby to the other woman as she did not want the baby killed. The other woman had just stood there and did not show any emotion. Solomon then gave the baby to the woman who was willing to give the baby up. He said she was the one who showed the emotions of a mother when hearing her child would be cut in half. Since that time he has been known as Solomon the Wise.

Connecticut State Statutes states that dogs cannot be kept anywhere, for any long amount of time where the temperature is below 55 degrees. There are no exceptions based on the size of the dog. An American Eskimo Dog which could be considered a "small" dog, can handle cold temperature better that a Great Dane which is obviously a "large" dog. The judge has ordered that the vet representing the State of Connecticut and the vet representing Fred Acker's interests, get together and decide which is the "small" and which is the "large" dogs. Which among other things begs the question, what about the medium sized dogs? Obviously this judge will never be mistaken for Solomon.

I would ask anyone who feels as I do that this is a miscarriage of justice, contact either the Superior Court in Bantam Connecticut or the Cannine Division of the Dept. of Agriculture in Harftford. 

• CtDeptag@ct.gov Canine Division, Ray Connors. Tel. 860-713-2506.

• Court is Bantam Criminal Court, 80 Doyle Rd.Bantam, Ct 06750. Tel. 860-567-3942.

Let your voices be heard (or your E-mails) and ask your friends to do the same. LET OUR VOICES BE HEARD for the dogs who can't speak for themselves.

M.H.Griffin

This post is contributed by a community member. The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Patch Media Corporation. Everyone is welcome to submit a post to Patch. If you'd like to post a blog, go here to get started.

Susan P O'Bernier February 20, 2013 at 02:27 PM
How can this Judge even ask this question? Of course its a miscarriage of justice, Cruelty hurts the same for all size animals, the penalty should be the same for all of the dogs, big, small, medium. HARSH!
Dasher February 20, 2013 at 08:30 PM
wow, that has to be the craziest thing i have ever heard a judge say ! What was he thinking ? Why on earth does he think it would be ok for the large dogs to be so cold and without food and water ! Can we scream mistrial for the sake of the dogg?
Debbie February 20, 2013 at 11:12 PM
Emails and phone calls!!!
Debbie February 20, 2013 at 11:13 PM
And spread the word!! That is what will hopefully make a difference in this case.
Michael Cragin February 21, 2013 at 12:05 PM
......................and he represents our legal system...............disgusting
Susan DeMay February 21, 2013 at 06:04 PM
Disgraceful!!!!! Shame on him! We need justice for ALL of these animals NOW!! Period!
C Young February 21, 2013 at 07:13 PM
Big dogs probably had outdoor genetics ... like huskies. Less vulnerable to cooler temps. Different statutes are at issue. Cruelty does not have any minimum temperature. Know the facts and law before you don the robe and are quick to judge.
Trish Rogers February 21, 2013 at 07:26 PM
Wow !!! Does not make any sense??? I would have hoped we had come farther than that in 2013!! We do all need to speak out for these loving animals!
Debbie February 21, 2013 at 08:50 PM
There is a minimum temperature in the way dogs can be kenneled such as Animal shelters,private kennels ,and commercial breeders, which is 55 degrees not 30 degrees.You can check the Ct.General Statutes,section 22,laws pertaining to dogs and domestic animals.Cruelty is cruelty.The judge made a wrong decision in allowing the dogs to be determined to be "small" or "big" dogs.
Jackie zVon February 21, 2013 at 11:36 PM
What??? This is a story about animal abuse and neglect. Please keep your comments to the topic at hand.
Debbie February 22, 2013 at 12:39 AM
What are you talking about Big Family?This blog has nothing to do with abortion.This has to do with cruelty to dogs.Please keep cooments only in reference to this blog.
Carl Kolchak February 22, 2013 at 01:06 AM
I agree with Big Family.
Big Family February 22, 2013 at 01:12 AM
Debbie, I'm still "Pending Approval" and all I would like is the same level of concern, at least giving to babies that is given to dogs. I don't think I'm asking too much, do you?
Michael February 22, 2013 at 01:37 AM
First of all, my comments are regarding animal cruelty, you don't know my opinion as to the Right To Life or Right To Choose and at this time, in this venue, it's none of your or anyone else's business. If you have a personal issue you wish to share or debate with the folks who share this venue, I suggest you enter the conversation by making a statement or taking a stand instead of jumping into a conversation which you obviously know nothing about and diverting to something you probably know even know less about, since you are obviously of the male persuasion.
Big Family February 22, 2013 at 01:57 AM
I think it is irrelevent what your opinion is as to the RIGHT TO LIFE or to choice is, I just want the same level of heartfelt feeling that you give to dogs given to babies. And if I'm a man or a women am I asking too much?
dj23 February 22, 2013 at 03:05 AM
The judge is guilty of dereliction of duty. Put him and Ackers in the barn for the next few days and then let's see how THEY feel.
jim laguardia February 22, 2013 at 03:11 AM
@ big family... by all means feel free to write an article about your feeling on abortion and post it to local voices on The Patch. I am sure you will have many supporters and get a good conversation going.
G February 22, 2013 at 04:34 AM
Did I miss something? Is someone aborting dogs?
Just me February 28, 2013 at 11:53 PM
Is there anyone on this thread that is privvy to this case. We need to not only get the Fred's of the world convicted but we ALSO NEED TO KNOW WHO HE IS IN CAHOOTS WITH!!! These are the people that just pick up their things, relocate, and start up again under a new phony rescue names. NAME ALL THE PLAYERS IN THIS SCAM PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Who helped him sell, who transported dog to him from the Midwest, who is part of his so-called rescue, who was his vet, who were his officers, who maintained the property where the dogs were abused, which municipal shelters sent him dogs, who did he pay to bring him purebreds......????????????????????? We need names, faces and to out the losers that keep costing these homeless animals to die a million times. They are all crooks!
Debbie February 19, 2014 at 09:24 AM
http://www.change.org/petitions/ray-connors-state-animal-control-the-state-to-revoke-any-business-licenses-in-fred-acker-s-name-and-to-remove-any-animals-in-his-possession-and-at-the-site-in-monroe-ct-know-as-spca-to-punish-him-to-the-greatest-extent-of-the-law?fb_action_ids=10152179895443911&fb_action_types=change-org%3Arecruit&fb_ref=__EbRrtEOIYx&fb_source=other_multiline&action_object_map=%5B214305992097197%5D&action_type_map=%5B%22change-org%3Arecruit%22%5D&action_ref_map=%5B%22__EbRrtEOIYx%22%5D

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something