Author Topic: Suds Back in Canada? Who's Watching Them Now?  (Read 13025 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164661
  • Karma: +2/-1
    • View Profile
Suds Back in Canada? Who's Watching Them Now?
« Reply #15 on: November 08, 2006, 03:49:13 PM »
Yep, you do this way too much.
Shane Haley
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164661
  • Karma: +2/-1
    • View Profile
Suds Back in Canada? Who's Watching Them Now?
« Reply #16 on: November 08, 2006, 03:52:02 PM »
Yep, you avoid the questions when they get too tough.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164661
  • Karma: +2/-1
    • View Profile
Suds Back in Canada? Who's Watching Them Now?
« Reply #17 on: November 08, 2006, 03:57:07 PM »
Because sometimes bad things happen to good people. I am done with this. I can't suffer through another one of your egotistical BS replies. Here's my number if you really feel you have something to prove.

Shane Haley
1-406-270-2243
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164661
  • Karma: +2/-1
    • View Profile
Suds Back in Canada? Who's Watching Them Now?
« Reply #18 on: November 08, 2006, 03:58:54 PM »
I don't have anything to prove.  It's already been done in two courts of law in two separate countries.  Think the burden of proof has fallen on you my dear.

Again, typical.  Facts get in the way of your opinions so you run away.  Wouldn't want those pesky little facts creeping into your fantasies now would we? :roll:
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164661
  • Karma: +2/-1
    • View Profile
Suds Back in Canada? Who's Watching Them Now?
« Reply #19 on: November 08, 2006, 04:04:19 PM »
Quote from: ""Shane Haley""
Because sometimes bad things happen to good people.

Well then the Suds sure do have a run of bad luck.  A conviction, dismissal of the appeal and another conviction in Juab county but this time for abusing actual humans.  Yep, that's some bad luck there.


 
Quote
I am done with this. I can't suffer through another one of your egotistical BS replies.



Thanks for playing.   :wave:  Your consolation prize is that someday you might just finally wake up.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164661
  • Karma: +2/-1
    • View Profile
Suds Back in Canada? Who's Watching Them Now?
« Reply #20 on: November 08, 2006, 04:13:37 PM »
Sudweeks left the property in the fall with the 40 horses confined in a pasture with very little food and no water. He also left 200 pounds of dog food in a washtub for his seven dogs. He returned
briefly in mid-December, then left the property in the care of Tetz who arrived in early January. Tetz found no dog food on the property, noticed that the horses were not well, and had no way to contact Sudweeks directly.  The RCMP received a complaint from a neighbour, and they arranged to meet in Sudweeks' driveway on January 10th.  The RCMP officer noticed the condition of the animals, entered the property to check on their condition, and was
unable to locate anyone. The officer applied for and obtained a telewarrant and then returned the next day with two veterinarians and a special constable from the SPCA. The veterinarians determined that the animals had been without adequate food and water for at least two months. The animals were seized. On January 15th, the RCMP returned with a veterinarian and found more horses
and a horse skeleton. All of the animals seized survived and recovered in the SPCA's care. The trial judge rejected Sudweeks' testimony that his daughters were the ones responsible for the animals' care, that he left

Page 2

adequate food, and that Tetz was at fault. The judge accepted Tetz' evidence and concluded that Sudweeks was responsible for the animals, that he left them in a state of present distress in mid-December, and that Tetz undertook to be responsible for the horses and permitted their distress to continue. Sudweeks received a $2,000 fine on each of two counts and a lifetime ban on owning
or having custody of any animal. On appeal, Sudweeks argued that the trial judge demonstrated a reasonable apprehension of bias in his interruptions and interference with examination of witnesses, in his obtaining and providing a copy of a newspaper article on the case to Sudweeks during a lunch recess, and in his comments about his own personal experience with the care of horses. Sudweeks also argued that the judge erred in his findings of credibility, in admitting the evidence obtained during the searches, and in passing a sentence that was unduly harsh.

HELD: Appeal dismissed. Fresh evidence by way of affidavits from Sudweeks and his daughter were admitted with respect to Sudweeks' allegations of bias. The trial judge's interruptions did not generally amount to cross-examination of the witnesses, nor did it
demonstrate any opinions about the witnesses' credibility. Any evidence elicited by the judge was more helpful to Sudweeks than to the Crown. Although the newspaper article that the judge gave to Sudweeks had a negative impact on the relationship between Sudweeks and Tetz, the parties would have seen the article a few hours or a day later and it would have had the same effect. At no time did the judge's interference or comments displace the right to silence or the presumption of innocence. The judge was even-handed, and if anything, was more helpful to Sudweeks than to the Crown. The RCMP had authority under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act to act as authorized agents for the SPCA in this geographic region.  The trial judge was correct in concluding that the telewarrant was invalid because the Act had its own search provisions and it was issued on the basis of unsworn informations, but he was also correct to conclude that the evidence was admissible. The Act authorized the searches because the police had reasonable grounds to believe that the animals were in distress. In the alternative, the warrantless searches were justified because of the exigent circumstances. Even if the searches violated the Charter, the evidence was admissible because of Sudweeks' limited expectation of privacy, the officers' good faith in believing that they
had valid warrants, the fact that the evidence was non-conscriptive, the technical nature of the breach, the lack of other investigative means, the seriousness of the charges and the importance of the evidence to the prosecution. Given the extreme condition of the animals, the police and SPCA had the authority to seize them and
had no obligation to let Tetz attempt to bring them back

Page 3

to health. Although there was evidence that Sudweeks' daughters purchased the animals and made decisions regarding their care, Sudweeks was clearly the one who had custody of the animals during the relevant period and was responsible for their care. The evidence reasonably supported the judge's findings of credibility and conclusions regarding the facts. The sentence was not excessive and the trial judge applied the correct sentencing principles.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164661
  • Karma: +2/-1
    • View Profile
Suds Back in Canada? Who's Watching Them Now?
« Reply #21 on: November 08, 2006, 04:21:27 PM »
The appellant testified. With respect to the appellant's evidence, the learned trial judge said ([paragraph] 37 of his Reasons):

I know that Mr. Sudweeks said that he did not own and was not responsible for the horses or dogs, that there was a great deal of feed remaining in the south pasture when he left the horses there on December 10, that there was also some good hay in the barn, that Bryan Tetz was, he believed, capable of caring for the horses and dogs, that he expected Bryan Tetz to arrive at the Chilanko Lodge about December 15, and that while Bryan Tetz may have
been at fault, he was not. To be blunt, I found Mr. Sudweeks' testimony to be a litany of excuses. Some were incredible and others merely very unconvincing. He did not raise any reasonable doubts in my mind.

[para28]
On the other hand, the trial judge stated that the story told by Mr. Tetz generally "rings true", specifying at [paragraph] 38 of his Reasons for Judgment:

I believe that the horses and dogs were in a bad way when he arrived. I believe that he tried to relieve the distress of the dogs: he bought some dog food for them. I do not believe he had any sufficient notion how to care for horses during the winter in Chilcotin country, and the task of caring for the Sudweeks' distressed horses simply overwhelmed and defeated him. The extent of Mr. Tetz' ineptitude is demonstrated by the fact that he apparently never did realize that he had not found and removed all the horses in the south pasture. Mr. Tetz failed when he did not "blow the whistle". He listened to his sister who told him not to do that because it might
cause troubles for the Sudweeks.
He should have listened to his friend, Mr. Pimlott. Mr. Tetz assumed responsibilities that were beyond his abilities. When he realized he was "in over his head", he had a legal duty to call for help, to call the SPCA, or to call the RCMP, but he did nothing of the sort.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164661
  • Karma: +2/-1
    • View Profile
Suds Back in Canada? Who's Watching Them Now?
« Reply #22 on: November 08, 2006, 04:43:56 PM »
Imagine that: Mark Sudweeks trying to pass the blame onto his young daughters.  It seems this man will go to any lengths to deny responsibility. Shameful, isn't it? That's just my opinion.

Can your read, Shane?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164661
  • Karma: +2/-1
    • View Profile
Suds Back in Canada? Who's Watching Them Now?
« Reply #23 on: November 08, 2006, 04:48:17 PM »
If you read the entire transcript, this Tetz kid was one of the Sudweeks former "foster kids" or some such relationship. Another kid who thought the Suds "loved and cared about him and his sister, Darlene."   This kid just got blamed, and left to defend himself is how it seems.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164661
  • Karma: +2/-1
    • View Profile
Suds Back in Canada? Who's Watching Them Now?
« Reply #24 on: November 08, 2006, 04:48:44 PM »
Yep, with the Suds it's always someone else's fault.  Never theirs.  The Canadian gov't was mean and out to get them.  Child protection investigators were mean and out to get them.  It's the daughters' fault.  It's the former foster kid's fault.   Never, EVER theirs.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164661
  • Karma: +2/-1
    • View Profile
Suds Back in Canada? Who's Watching Them Now?
« Reply #25 on: November 08, 2006, 04:50:06 PM »
Isn't this the same time frame when the Suds were down in Mexico, getting evicted for "running a school without a license?"
Then they showed up in good ole Nephi, opening up Whitmore?
Gads!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164661
  • Karma: +2/-1
    • View Profile
Suds Back in Canada? Who's Watching Them Now?
« Reply #26 on: November 08, 2006, 07:15:01 PM »
Blah blah blah.  Keep going, I'm sure this is some kinda self-medication for you.  Man, you must be on cloud nine.  Keep going, keep on keeping on. Wow, you must be a new person already. Keep on spitting. Keep on talking. Keep on healing your deep little wounds.  You're sick in the head I tell you.

Shane Haley
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164661
  • Karma: +2/-1
    • View Profile
Suds Back in Canada? Who's Watching Them Now?
« Reply #27 on: November 08, 2006, 07:20:17 PM »
Call Me.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164661
  • Karma: +2/-1
    • View Profile
Suds Back in Canada? Who's Watching Them Now?
« Reply #28 on: November 08, 2006, 07:25:01 PM »
Shane, were you with the Suds when they got evicted from Mexico? If you were, bet that was a scary deal for a bunch of kids, huh?

Were you up there in Canada when the Suds abandoned and abused all those starving horses?

Or, are you just a Whitmore child?  Just the regular, ole, daily stuff?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164661
  • Karma: +2/-1
    • View Profile
Suds Back in Canada? Who's Watching Them Now?
« Reply #29 on: November 08, 2006, 07:27:49 PM »
Quote from: ""Shane Haley""
Blah blah blah.  Keep going, I'm sure this is some kinda self-medication for you.  Man, you must be on cloud nine.  Keep going, keep on keeping on. Wow, you must be a new person already. Keep on spitting. Keep on talking. Keep on healing your deep little wounds.  You're sick in the head I tell you.

Shane Haley


Doesn't this remind you of a little kid with his hands over his ears saying "lalalalalalalalalalalalala" because he is hearing an answer he doesn't like?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »