.

Town Attorney Releases Statement Detailing Animal Cruelty Case

Memorandum briefs police reports about the condition of a resident's home before and after a grant-funded cleaning. The resident, Marion Perreira, claims she lost the majority of her belongings during the cleaning. She is now being sued by the town.

Editor's note: Stratford resident Marion Perreira, 90, and her son, William Perreira, 56, are both charged with animal cruelty and, if found guilty, face arrest and could have to pay over $6000.

They say they are innocent and have been abused by Stratford Animal Control. Much of their testimony can be read . A letter to the editor submitted by the woman's daughter claims the same abuse, and can be .

Below is the town of Stratford's respond via a memorandum released by town attorney Tim Bishop.

A. Introduction

The following memorandum is an attempt to summarize the information contained in the Perreira file up to December 19, 2011. The information detailed in this memorandum is from the Stratford Police Department's Incident Report, Incident No. 10-18481 as well as my conversations with ACO Solviera and Maureen Whelan of the Health Department.

It should be noted that the Police Incident reports go more in depth than this memorandum, however, many sections that may contain embarrassing facts regarding the Perreiras have been omitted.  

B. Facts and Relevant History

The Health Department of the Town of Stratford has been dealing with Marion Perreira since the 1990s. On September 13, 2006, the Perreiras were in Housing Court with Maureen Whalen from the Health Department as a result of the Perreiras failure to comply with a Health Department order to abate a foul odor emanating from the residence. During the course of the proceedings, the judge had to temporarily stop because he stated that he could smell Ms. Perreira from the bench.   

On July 27, 2010 a complaint was received by the Animal Control Office regarding Marion Perreira. Animal Control Officer (herein “ACO”) Solviera went to the residence with Maureen Whalen from the Health Department and detected a foul odor emanating from the residence. On that date, Ms. Perreira had approximately eighteen (18) cats at her residence.  Ms. Perreira authorized ACO Solviera to go into and inspect her house. A total of nine (9) cats were taken from the residence because they were covered in urine and fecal matter, as well as were infested with fleas, suffering from upper respiratory diseases, worms and eye infections. 

Two days later, on July 29, 2010, ACO Solviera, AACO Fitzmorris, AACO Pixley, AACO Pennatto, Trumbull Animal Control Officer Lynn Dellabianco, State of Connecticut ACO Nancy Jarvis and Fairfield Animal Control Officer Paul Miller, went to Ms. Perreira’s house. Ms. Perreira granted these individuals authorization to enter her residence.  Approximately twenty (20) cats were taken from the residence. All of these twenty (20) cats were so sick that it was determined that they needed to be euthanized.    

On August 1, 2010, ACO Pixley, ACO Fitzmorris and ACO Solviera returned to Marion Perreira’s home per her request.  The ACO at the scene removed five (5) cats from the residence. There were a total of six cats that appeared to be living at the house; however the last cat could not be located by the ACO’s at the scene. The five cats that were obtained were subsequently diagnosed at Snowflake Pet Center with diseases such as Bartonella disease (a.k.a. cat scratch fever) various eye and ear infections, wounds of unknown origin, ear mites and fleas.  

On September 9, 2010, ACO Pixley and ACO Solviera returned to the Perreira residence and found the sixth and final cat.  The cat was trapped and taken to Snowflake Pet Center where it tested positive for feline Bartonella. The cat was subsequently neutered and returned to the shelter later that week. While at the Perreira residence, ACO Pixley and ACO Solviera noted that the house had not been cleaned for years. For example, the wood furniture in the kitchen had “water damage” that appeared to be caused by years of exposure to cat urine.  In their report, ACOs Pixley and Solviera state that:

“[Ms.] Perreira is neither willing nor able to comprehend the condition of her home…she declined every offer made by any town agency to assist her in the cleaning, including free meals that were offered so that she may free up some time from cooking, and our offer of volunteers to come in and remove the trash that she has accumulated…Perreira also was unable to comprehend that the majority of her animals were ill, citing that there are no physical symptoms or tests for Bartonella….” Incident Report 10-18481, p. 2, September 27, 2010.  

From September 2, 2010 through October 14, 2010, Ms. Perreira sought counseling with the Reach Program at Bridgeport Hospital. Ms. Perreira stated that she went for an appointment but they did not recommend any further counseling.

On October 14, 2010, ACO Solviera, Health Director Andrea Boissevain, Maureen Whalen and Captain Kenneth Bakalar went to Ms. Perreira’s residence. ACO Solviera stated that the condition of the home showed improvement but was still cluttered and still smelled like cat urine.  

From September 1, 2010 through March 1, 2011, ACO Solviera allowed Ms. Perreira to visit her cats. Ms. Perreira visited her cats on only three occasions.  As of early 2011, a total of thirty five (35) documented cats were taken from the Perreira Residence

On February 10, 2011, both Marion and William Perreira signed an Agreement with the Town of Stratford to have their residence professionally cleaned, refurnished and outfitted with new appliances. The Agreement authorized Animal Control and the cleaning company to throw out all objects that were affected with cat urine and fecal matter.

In addition, the agreement provided that the Perreira’s would receive a grant from the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (herein “A.S.P.C.A.”) in the amount of $8,586.00 to fund the cleaning. Another five hundred dollar ($500.00) grant was also obtained from the Stratford Animal Rescue Society and Bob’s Discount Furniture Charitable Foundation to be used to purchase new furniture. The Agreement also provided that upon the completion of the cleaning process, five cats would be returned to Ms. Perreira, provided that the cats were brought to a veterinarian in accordance with the schedule contained in the Agreement. Ms. Perreira failed to comply with the agreed upon schedule.

C. The Condition of the Perreira Residence before the Cleaning

Before the cleaning commenced, ACO Solviera inspected the Perreira residence and took approximately 140 photographs of the residence. The Perreira’s were advised to box up all reasonable items that they wanted to keep and discard the items they did not want to keep. However, upon entering the home for cleaning, just about all of the items in the house were in boxes marked “KEEP”. In most instances, the items contained in the boxes were broken, damaged beyond repair, saturated in cat urine, or un-cleanable and easily replaceable.  

The following descriptions of each room are the condition of the Perreira residence before the residence was cleaned. 

The Dining Room

In the dining room there were approximately twenty (20) cardboard boxes stacked along the walls. There was also an undetermined amount of open boxes in the room that were filled with newspapers, books and magazines. As for the condition of the furniture in the dining room, the dining room table was broken along with the two wooden chairs and the two piece china cabinet. All the items were salvaged. 

The Living Room

In the living room, there were approximately fifteen (15) boxes marked “KEEP”. In addition, there was a Zenith television so covered in cat urine that the wood around the television was blistering. Due to extensive urine saturation, the wall to wall carpet and a throw rug were removed. Finally, a couch, chair and an end table were disposed of and replaced as contracted.  

The integrity of the structure of the Perreira residence is also lacking as while workers were moving furniture in the bedroom directly above the living room, ACO Solviera reported that the entire ceiling moved roughly two inches.  

Marion Perreira’s Room 

In Marion Perreira’s room there were between forty (40) to fifty (50) boxes and suitcases marked “KEEP”. The ceiling over Ms. Perreira’s bed had fallen in and was repaired with cardboard and duct tape.    

The Kitchen

In the kitchen there were approximately three (3) boxes of current and expired foods. The expired foods were discarded along with the foods that appeared to be unsafe for consumption due to rust, damage or filth. Rodent droppings were discovered inside some of the boxes and all of the items in the boxes were discarded. 

The walls of the kitchen exhibited heavy swelling as a result of extensive urine damage. In fact, the spraying on the walls was so bad that the wooden paneling on the walls had to be removed because it could not be cleaned. In addition, the refrigerator had severe rust on the outer surfaces as a result of continued exposure to cat urine. The refrigerator was removed and replaced as contracted.  

The Porch

On the porch, there were “numerous” containers of chemicals and broken yard tools that were marked “KEEP”. In addition, boxes of urine soaked board games and puzzles were labeled, “Keep for the Vietnam Vets”. All the items from this room, with the exception of some salvageable yard tools were discarded.  

The Stairwell 

ACO Solviera reported that the stairwell was riddled with structural problems. For instance, the bottom step was not secured to the floor or risers and the railing almost came loose from the wall when it was touched and nearly fell several times as workers attempted to use it to balance. The steps were also covered in urine and dirt.    

At the top of the stairs there was a room with wooden floors with approximately fifty (50) boxes. There were also two old wooden bed frames and a wooden writing desk that was saturated with urine and falling apart. 

William Perreira’s Bedroom

ACO Solviera reported that there was garbage and piles of dust and appeared to have not been cleaned for many years. For instance the mattress located in this bedroom was so soiled, it was black. There were two dressers located in the room and the large portions of the plaster had fallen from the ceiling and water damage was evident throughout the room. Thick black clumps of dust were hanging from the curtain and ceiling as well as objects hung on the walls. There was a hole in the floor directly beneath the window in the room. All of the trash and items in the room were disposed of, except for two stereo systems.  

The Attic

The attic contained approximately one hundred (100) boxes that the cleaning crew was unable to sort through due to time constraints. There was a note on the door to the attic that stated, “Keep closed at all times. Squirrels will get into house.” It was later discovered by the workers that it was not squirrels, but more cats that were living in the attic.  

The Bathroom and Laundry Room   

The bathroom had one box marked “KEEP” that was placed in the shower. The laundry room was the final room and contained approximately forty (40) boxes marked “KEEP”. These boxes were filled with dozens of soiled and saturated carpet fragments, cloth and tablecloths. All of the items were stained, and damaged by prolonged exposure to urine. There were also numerous two liter bottles of soda that were all expired by at least seven years. Some of the bottles were so old; they had begun to cave in. There was also extensive water damage to the bay window.  

The Backyard

In the backyard, there were three makeshift cat enclosures constructed out of newspaper, scrap wood, carpet fragments and various other materials.  

D. The Cleaning Process—March 1, 2011 through March 8, 2011.

Timeline

The Town of Stratford hired ServPro, a professional cleaning company, to conduct cleaning operations from March 1, 2011 to March 8, 2011. During the duration of the cleaning process, the Perreira’s were moved into the Comfort Suites per the terms of the Agreement with the Town of Stratford. 

On March 1, 2011, ACO Pixley and ACO Solviera went to the Perreira’s residence to begin the authorized cleaning. There was a strong odor of cat urine from outside the house, even though cats had not lived in the house for over seven months.  

On March 3, 2011 and March 4, 2011 ACO Solviera returned to the Perreira residence to assist in sorting items in all boxes marked “KEEP”. According to ACO Solviera, roughly 60% of the items were of no value, such as magazines, destroyed books, newspapers, broken ceramics and glass. All of these items were heavily soiled, stained, and exposed to urine.  

On March 5, 2011 ACO Solviera returned to the Perreira residence and took approximately one hundred (100) more photographs.  The cleaning company left with two full truckloads of trash before ACO Solviera arrived on the scene.  The third load of garbage was photographed by ACO Solviera before the garbage was placed in the truck.  ACO Solviera noticed that after the cleaning the rooms had shown improvement, but the odor of urine persisted.  

On March 7, 2011, ACO Solviera returned to the Perreira residence to install replacement furniture including a kitchen table, four chairs, a television stand and microwave stand.  When ACO Solviera arrived on the premises, she noticed a small puddle of water had formed on the floor of the laundry room, as the result of a heavy rain the night before.  

On March 8, 2011, ACO Solviera returned to the Perreira residence to collect two remaining cat traps from the property.

On March 11, 2011, ACO Solviera, Police Officer Muschett, ACO Fitzmorris, ACO Pixley and Stratford Animal Rescue Society (herein “STARS”) President O’Malley returned the five (5) cats were returned to Ms. Perreira per the terms of the Agreement.  A full size cat carrier was left for Ms. Perreira to keep and use for her cats. 

Summary of the Cleaning Process

From March 1, 2011 to March 8, 2011, ACO Pixley and ACO Solviera documented a total of approximately two hundred sixty five (265) to two hundred seventy five (275) boxes marked “KEEP” and a total of seventeen (17) cats were trapped and removed from the premises, including the skeletal remains of a kitten. The Town is not in possession of any record of all of the items that were thrown out. 

All of the cats taken from the Perreira residence were infected with various respiratory diseases and/or had open wounds. All the cats were transported to Snowflake Pet Center for diagnosis. As of March 8, 2011, the total number of cats that were removed from the Perreira residence totaled fifty-two (52) cats.  

E. Ms. Perreira’s Claim against the Town of Stratford

Marian Perreira submitted a claim to the Town of Stratford sometime during the month of September 2011. The claim totaled $35,555.50, for items that the Town had allegedly removed during the cleaning process. The items are priced at the price the items would be worth as “new”. In addition, former CAO, Geen Thazampallath held a hearing with Marion Perreira that lasted a few hours, the date of which I am unsure. 

As of March 11, 2011, the total expenditures on this case totaled $13,306.26 for vet bills and other expenses, which do not include any Animal Control Officer overtime or any food and boarding fees for the five cats. In addition, $1,880.63 was spent on purchasing the following pieces of furniture:

  • Sofa;
  • Recliner;
  • Microwave cart;
  • Television stand;
  • Four (4) chairs;
  • Refrigerator;
  • Kitchen table;
  • One (1) standing lamp;
  • Large screen television;
  • Set of silverware;
  • Kitchen towels;
  • Pot holders;
  • Sixteen (16) piece kitchen dish and cup set;
  • Eight (8) piece pots and pans set;
  • Queen Airbed with electric pump;
  • Two (2) queen sheet sets;
  • Five (5) cat litter pans;
  • Two (2) new scoops;
  • Twelve (12) twenty-five (25) pound bags of cat litter;
  • One (1) case of twenty-four (24) cans of cat food;
  • Four (4) ten pound bags of cat food;
  • Cat storage bin;
  • Forty (40) pound stackable pet food container; and
  • Six (6) brand new plastic cat bowls.

As part of my investigation, Animal Control Officer, Rachel Solviera, provided me with approximately 140 photos and two videos of the Perreira residence, taken pre-cleaning and post-cleaning. I also spoke with ACO Solviera regarding the process and procedure during the cleaning. The photographs of the residence “pre-cleaning” shows that most, if not all, surfaces and items that were located in the house were completely covered in cat urine and fecal matter. 

For example, the refrigerator had started to rust from the constant exposure to cat urine. Most of the items that Ms. Perreira listed in her inventory appears in the “pre-cleaning” pictures were completely destroyed in that they are coated in cat urine and fecal matter and otherwise appeared to be of little or no value. I also spoke with ACO Rachel Solviera who stated that during the cleaning process, she saved the items that could be cleaned, but that most of the items in the house were completely saturated in cat urine.  

The Agreement between the Perreira’s and the Town of Stratford stated that Ms. Perreira was required to bring the five cats in her possession to the vet in adherence with the schedule contained in the Agreement. On July 28, 2011, ACO Solviera, ACO Pixley, ACO Fitzmorris and Maureen Whalen of the Stratford Health Department returned to the Perreira residence to check the conditions of the home and the five cats.  

Ms. Perreira allowed the officers to enter the house. ACO Solviera asked for the veterinarian receipts for the required veterinary care that was supposed to have been received over the past four months. Ms. Perreira did not have any paperwork and stated that she did not take any of the cats to the animal hospital.  

ACO Solviera issued a written warning for failure to provide the required veterinary care to the remaining cats in her possession pursuant to the State of Connecticut’s Animal Cruelty laws. On the back of the ticket, ACO Solviera wrote that the cats were to be photographed at the next visit.  

On October 20, 2011, a judge signed a search and seizure warrant which was issued to seize all animals that were located at the Perreira residence. The warrant was executed on October 28, 2011.  

On October 28, 2011, after reviewing the above information, the Town Attorney’s Office issued a letter of denial of Ms. Perreira’s claim in its entirety for Ms. Perreira’s failure to comply with the Agreement.  

Subsequent to the Town Attorney’s letter of denial, the Chief Administrative Officer of the Town of Stratford, Stephen Nocera, conducted an independent evaluation of the handling of the situation and of Ms. Perreira’s claim. His investigation concluded that the Town Attorney’s denial of Marion Perreira’s claim was appropriate. 

Note: This article's original date of publication, Monday, Dec. 19, has been changed for layout purposes.

Laurie December 22, 2011 at 01:57 AM
You know what Barb, I would never let this happen to my Mom. How could you?? If you feel so strongly about this happening to your Mom then why did you let is happen? The Animal Control Officers are doing their jobs, which they are suppose to do. The problem is that your Mom is 90 and how could you let this happen to her???? You are here now, but where you when this happened and where was your brother. Please stop bleming everyone else, but youself! You should be takening care of your Mom before this happened!!!!
Robert Chambers December 22, 2011 at 02:55 AM
Wow, what a bunch of miserable holes... Good luck getting to the bottom of this Barb, it sounds like your mother needs more help than her son and you can give and although sad, just a fact of life. I hope she gets the help and the TOS stop this expensive exercise in making a 90 year old woman miserable.
alice December 22, 2011 at 09:57 AM
Barbara, get a lawyer for your mom and brother, Tim Bishop will chew them up and spit them out, and revel in it. I do not doubt for a moment what your mom and brother are saying is true. GET A LAWYER. GET A GOOD LAWYER, someone who has wooped his butt before. Let the lawyer do all the talking, twisting your words around and selective use of partial statments is what they do. Please beleave me this will be real ugly without a really good lawyer.
Dom DeCicco December 23, 2011 at 01:13 AM
Don't be the distance of their journey, be the light of their path. If you need help with your mother barb -- just ask. If there a sheetrock problems that needed to be repaired -- just ask.
George E. Mulligan December 23, 2011 at 01:52 AM
I left a post which disappeared or is in a different string. Laurie's last name also disappeared from a post. Dom had a post with a link about a mean poster. Since when does the child order the parent? My interpretation is that Laurie's posting indicates a bias towards Stratford's Animal Control Officer and demeans the family and especially the lady who has balanced the coverage about her family.
Dom DeCicco December 23, 2011 at 01:57 AM
Aggression is the problem here, not the cure. Blaming won’t reveal the truth; however, it may expose the true problems in our society. I have been troubled by this story since I first heard of it. To tell you the truth, the issue of the cats went in and out of mind quickly. If the reporting in the incident is even half true, this family needs assistance. If the conditions are anywhere close to what was reported to have been observed, saving four or even four-hundred cats and allowing the situation that would more than likely be harming the humans more than it was the cats to continue would not only be inhumane but it would boarder on criminal negligence in my opinion. What the heck happened here? How could any agency claiming to have observed all of these conditions have simply dismissed the potential mental health or incapacitation issues the even a layperson, not working in any of the social services, could easily have detected. I have worked in the construction field and promise all of you that even grizzled and callused-hand carpenters would have done something to better this situation and not irritate it further. As this is a legal affair that seems to be directing itself toward becoming a tort, I am assuming that the town is limited in its ability to comment regarding some of the facts. I am not condemning anyone, as I am sure they are limited in defending their honor in this forum.
Dom DeCicco December 23, 2011 at 01:57 AM
So, what has changed? Is this family safe? Is the community safer or are we just worried about the cats. A ninety year old woman wants a cat for Christmas and she’s not allowed to have one. Just great – isn’t that just fantastic. The last great Republic ended at a time that it was feeding people to cats for entertainment. I’m sure the more reasonable citizens then thought the practice a bit odd and they probably suspected hard times coming. Well, I see problems with this as well.
Dom DeCicco December 23, 2011 at 02:23 AM
I also noticed that the posting history for that same individual disappeared as well. Just trying to figure out the play and I will be sure to post again. Oh, I almost forgot: http://stonemountain.patch.com/users/albert-d
Donna Rae Henault Caporaso December 23, 2011 at 03:11 AM
If a responsible family member was present it becomes "he said, she said". People who live in "stench" will not notice it as they become accustomed to it. I will suspect that the photos will speak volumes. They town would not spend the time and effort "framing" someone for such a trivil matter. The town has nothing to gain by doing so. Thinking this is revenge or vendetta for speaking against the town years ago is ridiculous. Many people over the years have done so and for matters that were far more important. Neighbors, much like family, will in most cases stick up for other neighbors as they all have to live near each other. 27 cats are far more than any person (or 2) could handle or keep up with and being limited to 3 or 4 rooms and probably having limited litter boxes they will go anywhere. And male cats will spray EVERYTHING and it will take paint off walls. No reasonable person would subject themselves to that many animals unless there is an underlying issue.
Donna Rae Henault Caporaso December 23, 2011 at 03:13 AM
Are there witness to the threats? I worked with the elderly for several years in a facility and they are not always "factual" in their remembering and can be easily swayed to think something happened by suggestion.
Semi Happy Resident December 23, 2011 at 03:50 AM
Dom, I made the mistake of looking up the link you left regarding Albert D. I read some of it and it made me sick to my stomach! And he thinks my mother is emotionally crippled? It appears that he has a lot of his statements saved on his computer because every city that had an article about stray cats had the same wording. I even had to check to see if they kept bringing me back to the same blog. But no, it was all accross the country. The one that made me feel sick was his post dated July 21, 2011 in the HighlandPark-MountWashingtonPatch where he promoted the SSS Cat Management Program = Shoot, Shovel & Shut Up. His dicussion on that alone was bad enough but no, I had to read more where he was trying to see if the wildlife in the area would eat the cats he killed and when they didn't he said "I even tried hacking a cat into quarters once thinking this might make it more palatable." Anyone thinking that way makes my skin crawl. George you were right in telling him to look into the mirror because anyone that would do that to an animal has a bit of a problem.
George E. Mulligan December 23, 2011 at 03:59 AM
Dom, I believe she has 1 cat and wants 4 more back. This situation may be about robbery & abuse of positions? Either the family & 2 neighbors are lying? Or at least 1 town worker started a chain of lies? Were the 4th & 9th Amendments violated? Town Attorney Tim Bishop, (by Town Charter and rule from former Attorney General Blumenthal) is the sole arbitor or Stratford Town Charter and Law. Esquire Bishop admitted to me & to the PATCH Jason Bagley, who posted: 1) Neither he nor his office composed the "contract" which the town claims was violated. 2) Neither he nor his office viewed, nor approved the "contract" before it was signed. 3) He never heard of a Town: ... A - Getting a Grant to: ....... 1. clean a private home (highest bidder?) ....... 2. place (force) family into hotel for 1 week with NO ACCESS to HOME? ....... 3. buy replacement furniture Is there something wrong with the picture of 1 - Arbitrarily throwing out property, without owners present? (permission) 2 - Having time window whereas urine & feces could have been planted for picture taking? 3 - Searching home with OWERS not allowed in home by contract? Coerced? Would any reasonable person sign such a contract without coercian or under duress of threat of arrest? 4 - Seizing property without Warrant in 18 month torment 90 year old lady. Start July 2010! Warrant finally Oct 2011? 5 - Feces & urine on ceiling? 6 - Contradicting sworn affadavits - SOMETHIN SMELLS! R U NEXT?
Dom DeCicco December 23, 2011 at 06:58 AM
I had to stop reading them and I agree that they are being copies and pasted form his computer file. I joke and kid a lot Barbara, but I have lived long enough to know that some things can be hard for a family to take on alone. If you need help with the wallboard in the house or something -- im pretty good at that stuff and would be more than happy in helping fix the areas that need replacing. The people that have chimed in in some instances are trying to push your buttons. I wouldn't be shocked if they were stooges working for the other side. Who the hell could read this story and not feel a calling to try and help. For now, enjoy Christmas if that is your god and peace to your family. We'll continue this game the following day. Peace be with you.
Lamont Sanford December 23, 2011 at 07:18 AM
Is there a bidding provision in the charter and was it followed? Who wrote the contract and did anyone notorize it? Has this ever happened in the past? If the town made a mistake in how it handled this situation, wouldn't it be better to make it right before the court date? This would make it easier to sort out the issue of the search as well as the claim of missing property. I don't see this working out well for the town and hope they will come to their senses -- soon (like today). Drop the complaint and figure out how to avoid this in the future.
Semi Happy Resident December 23, 2011 at 07:47 AM
Lamont, I don't know if there is a bidding provision in the charter but they did put out a bid for my mother. The town chose ServPro which was not the lowest bid. If I were a taxpayer in town, that would be one question I would bring up along with were they soliciting work on their breaks or on the time they were getting paid to do work. Nobody notorized the contract & the town's attorney, Tim Bishop, has stated it didn't come from his office & has not come forward with the name of the party or parties that did write the contract as of this date to my knowledge. I have also asked why it wasn't run by the attorney as well as did that person have authorization to write the contract. If so, why does the town pay for an attorney if the various depts can write contracts. I have also asked if the person did not have the authority was any disciplinary action taken & I have not received an answer on any of it nor has anyone contacted my mother & brother that they were looking into it.
Semi Happy Resident December 23, 2011 at 07:47 AM
If you go by the town's statement only & all they did was remove items then why not pay for a moving company instead? It would have been a lot cheaper & faster. Even the town's attorney said it was a failure in his statement but instead of some kind of agreement its easier to issue a warrant so they can arrest & fine a 90 year old who won't be able to pay the fine. Then bring her back to court to get a pay by date or else a lien goes on her house. As stated in my comment on the other blog concerning the case - with the lien on her house due to inability to pay her house will need to be sold upon her passing & with the description the attorney gave of its condition, nobody will buy it. Now it becomes a burden to the town or state to use tax dollars to correct for sale or demolition. All to increase taxes on all the residents to cover costs.
Semi Happy Resident December 23, 2011 at 08:11 AM
Dom, Thanks for the offer & I will pass the info to my mother. I know the people are trying to push my buttons along with the witnesses that have come forward that disagree with the town's assessment & description of the property. I have noticed as well that when people are looking for resolution a nasty comment appears. Whether or not the comments are coming from the depts involved to try to do the old bait & switch away from the depts involved in her case we will probably never know. I just have found it interesting that they have chosen to attack me as well for not "being there" where they don't say anything bad about the town who states they knew she had a problem in comprehention & don't bring in an advocate for the elderly to help her through the process. Especially if you believe their description of my brother's room where he would obviously not understand the issue either. They also believe how terrible the place is due to the pictures but never question why the town refuses to show them the pictures to confirm or deny. The town will show everyone else with no problem but not to the people they have the claim against. What is there to hide? When they had the meeting to discuss the missing contents they could have brought the pictures then to show them & say due to the condition of the house before cleaning we are not paying for anything. Instead when asked why the denial of reimbursement the answer was we have pictures of the place but we won't show them to you.
George E. Mulligan December 23, 2011 at 02:06 PM
Many good & decent people working in the Government. Some fit with NAZIs & APPARATCHIK (russian communists) who were PARTY MEMBERS for SPECIAL PRIVILEDGES, to gain PSYCHIC GRATIFICATION from SCHADENFREUDE and SADISM. To speak with the 90 year old Mrs. Perreira is to respect a remarkable strong willed lady, who is like a "BULL DOG." To see some of the LOATHSOME POLITICAL DECISIONS & deal with ROCK HEARTED ROCK HEADS is to understand how WORSHIPPING "RED DEVILS," can turn ACTS which are cruel and unusual punishipment, not of criminals, but of people who play by the RULES, expect HAND SHAKE INTEGRITY, and simply WANTED to LIVE their LIVES with RIGHTS RESPECTED. Some people revel in being like GRINCH, SCROOGE, MACHIAVELLI, VON CLAUSEWITZ, SUN TSU, DRACULA, DE SADE, etc
Mike December 23, 2011 at 02:09 PM
I know that this old lady's house is clean and neat. It was clean and neat before the cleaning. I know the town has reason to be upset with her because she stoped them from playing fast and loose with HUD money, millions of dollars. I know the dog catcher is upset with her because she wanted the HUD land for the animal shelter. I know that, if the dog catcher did do this for revenge, she has a strong motive to lie about the number of cats, and the condition of the house. She has to cover her butt. If it is found that this was all revenge, what happens to the dog catcher? What's that they say? Follow the money. In this case, millions of dollars in HUD money.
Lamont Sanford December 23, 2011 at 05:14 PM
Oh yes there are people as you have described in this town and your descriptor: "PSYCHIC GRATIFICATION from SCHADENFREUDE and SADISM" is right on the money bro. I have said it rght to some of their faces.
Lamont Sanford December 23, 2011 at 05:41 PM
Like the song suggests Mike.. "It's all about the money, money, money.." I have been worried about situations such as this for a while. The outside money is too powerful. Foundations are using our towns as tax exemptions while, at the same time, pushing agendas that benefit their interests. Towns will become so hooked on the money they will cease to exist after a while. corporate-democracy... Some would call it fascism..
George E. Mulligan December 24, 2011 at 04:30 AM
Dom, Thank you for requesting Holydays & Holidays / Dear Santa. Lamont, Thank you for concurrance with my opinion about "some" who are esssentially apparatchic. The KKK members call themselves GHOULS.. Elizabeth, thank you for the invitation to play with you. Mike thank you for stepping up to bring this public & concur with Barbara, Marion, Bill, and Diane. The question before the Judge is: Were the cats cruelly treated by Marion? Barbara thank you for your exhausting work and analysis.
Semi Happy Resident December 24, 2011 at 04:46 AM
I would like to wish everyone, reguardless of which side you are on, a very happy holiday season and a healthy and prosperous new year. May the miracle of the season bring peace and love to all parties involved so a settlement that is good for everyone involved, animals and humans alike, be reached before the new year without the need of court so the town can start the new year moving forward in a positive direction
George E. Mulligan December 24, 2011 at 05:13 AM
Amen
Tom December 24, 2011 at 10:03 AM
Amen. Peace to your family Barbara -- I have kept your mom in my prayers since this thing came to light and will continue to do so. I stand with Mr. DeCicco on his offer should you guys need anything.
Gabriel Kotter December 24, 2011 at 10:07 AM
From me and the Sweathogs -- peace to all as we celebrate our traditional holidays.
George E. Mulligan December 25, 2011 at 10:48 AM
Will Stfd ANIMAL CONTROL seize YOUR DOGS from your HOME? Will Stfd ANIMAL CONTROL seize YOUR CHILDREN from your HOME?
George E. Mulligan December 25, 2011 at 05:03 PM
MERRY CHRISTMAS
Albert D December 26, 2011 at 02:58 AM
Oh look. One of the most very basic tenets of human-behavior continues to be proved true. Manipulate all those around you though self-victimization. I wonder if this is one of the base behavioral processes of the reptilian brain-stem -- enactor as well as the afflicted. It seems so pervasive in so many religions, this can't be a happenstance occurrence. Whatever the reason, may the afflictor, as well as the afflicted, enjoy their being so blatantly and easily manipulated by their neighbor. LOL!
Tom December 26, 2011 at 03:32 AM
This is not a basic condition of human behavior. It is one that was conditioned within the last century. The LOL at the end of any post regarding this issue says more about the person writing the LOL than any of the people involved in the issue.

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