A Federal Agency and/or Animal Control/Humane Society/SPCA will often “create” cruelty charges that do not exist. Is there a need for genuine animal welfare? Of Course! Should some animals be taken from unhealthy or abusive situations? Yes!

However, in our less than ideal world, sometimes other factors motivate law enforcement to take unnecessary actions. In many cases, misconceptions occur based on hearsay or unreliable and vengeful complaints which often remain anonymous. Ulterior motives, jealousy and the opportunity to receive another person’s animals for free do happen. Unscrupulous people use animal law enforcement officers to achieve these goals.

Once seized, the animals are taken to the local “holding facility” [I first typed hoarding facility by accident, but perhaps that is a good term for them after all.] The animals may be adopted for a fee, or farmed out to rescues, sanctuaries or zoos. Some may be euthanized and many die due to substandard care by individuals who are unqualified to keep them.

The holding facility charges a daily boarding fee for each animal. They bill for as many vet visits and tests as possible, whether they are necessary or not. These charges add up and someone must pay. Sometimes the city, which contracts with the official shelter, is held responsible for the exorbitant fees. If the original owner is fortunate enough to win back custody of their own animals, they will be charged for boarding, vet bills and food.

How would you feel if someone came into your house while you were gone and took your children and animals from you for no reason and held them for ransom? This is a good analogy of how the system works. People must pay the “legal thieves” to get back what should have never been taken from them to begin with. People have to go through the court system to try and get their children and animals back. Attorney’s fees are high and add up quickly. The accused are considered guilty until they prove themselves innocent and at a great financial and emotional cost, I might add.

Most attorneys for the defendants know very little about animal cruelty law, how this system operates or what motivates it. They do not realize the full force and effect it has on people’s lives or how devastating the experience is. Generally, these issues are not given the serious consideration they deserve.

Victims of the “animal cruelty control” system are forced to plea bargain because they have already paid thousands of dollars in lawyers fees and cannot afford additional boarding and vet fees which have accrued. The animals are declared forfeit, and adopted for a fee, euthanized or farmed out to other rescues and shelters. The defendants just want the entire episode over with.

The official shelter profits from the boarding fees and fines. This creates an incentive to encourage animal cruelty cases. Of course, this is a conflict of interest and it is frightening to all animal owners, because what could happen to one person could happen to any of us.

To add insult to injury, the laws, statutes and ordinances that set up this very system were introduced by the animal control/shelter network that has most to gain from the laws. Seldom is there input from the animal owner who will be affected by these laws. They are busy caring for their animals and families. On the other hand, the HSUS, SPCA and other animal rights organizations are very politically active in all levels of our government. They have the time and infrastructure in place to slowly but surely bring an end to all animal ownership in this country.

The prosecution’s failure to bring timely formal charges is part of the strategy. Law enforcement, animal control or local humane agencies do not want their cozy little scam exposed. They count on their victims’ confusion and emotional reactions. They count on the fact that many attorneys in the past have not taken these cases seriously. They drag out the procedure as long as possible, while daily charges and fees add up. They expect defendants to buckle under the financial and emotional pressure.

Ironically, the animals often endure genuine “animal cruelty” from the hands of those who claim to be their saviors. The shelters, rescues and sanctuaries should be governed by the same laws they impose on others. Not all shelters are improperly administered – but far too many are. Sometimes problems are exposed and investigated and have resulted in improvements. Sometimes not. In the meantime, it is a win-win situation for the prosecution. If the animals remain healthy, they take credit. If the animals deteriorate, they can blame it on the defendant.

If a defendant does decide to “fight city hall” and demands a jury trial, the defendant’s attorney often has a very difficult time acquiring discovery documents. These would include any formal complaints which triggered the search and seizure, copies of search warrants, photos, videos and the very important chain of custody. Proper procedure during any seizure includes making a detailed list of the animals taken. Ideally this document should contain detailed notes about each animal’s condition, subsequent vet care and treatment while they are in animal control’s custody, where the animals go if they leave the holding facility and cause of death if applicable. Obtaining each of these items comes at a price to the defendant.

Few people have the time, energy or money to take a case this far, so the animal control prosecution often doesn’t bother to keep detailed records. The prosecution has no desire to have their unethical strategy exposed for public record. If the case goes this far, they will opt for a settlement, but no settlement can undo the damage that has already been done to the defendant(s).

Mainstream newspapers and TV reporters never let the truth or respect for another’s privacy get in the way of a good story. The unsuspecting public was told that during the course of a weapons investigation, animals were found inside the homes of John and Cynthia Wilkinson. Oh My! Cramped, dirty and filthy were words used to describe the animal’s living conditions. Readers were told that the owners had been charged with “animal cruelty” and could face jail time. And, of course the animal rights news network wasted no time broadcasting the sordid story all over the internet. Today’s media is anything but impartial but that is a topic for another day. They never bothered to get the Wilkinson’s side of the story. They just went for the jugular.

The Wilkinsons are known throughout their community. Everyone knows they own animals and that those animals are well taken care of. Visitors love to see the animals and learn about them. John has been raising exotic animals for more than 20 years and has kept snakes since he was a child. He is an expert in their care and well being.

Veterinarians and rehabbers in the area call him for advice and help. He is an animal expert and has hands on experience about many species of herps, snakes, monkeys, birds, and nearly everything you can imagine.

The Wilkinsons were in shock when the federal, state and local agents showed up early one morning in August to conduct a raid. Cindy lives at 178 Harris St. and John resides at 182 Harris St. Armed with machine guns, the BATFE entered Cynthia’s house first and then John’s. Numerous law enforcement vehicles congregated in front of the two houses and of course, the media was there to cover the story.

John Wilkinson is a NRA certified instructor who teaches classes to people who wish to apply for gun permits. He has years of experience with firearms and had an extensive collection, many in boxes that had never been opened. The BATFE were there to find an item that is commonly sold on the internet. John’s youngest son purchased the item via PayPal and it was sent to 178 Harris St. Neither he nor his father had anything to hide nor realized that a pellet gun silencer would create such a ruckus. The laws regulating such items are contradictory and controversial and the BATFE is purposely vague on the subject. If they are truly illegal, then perhaps the merchants who sell them should be investigated.

Unfortunately, the alleged “weapons case” triggered the highly questionable “animal cruelty” allegations, which led to the seizure of John and Cindy’s animals.

Cindy also owned three hairless Sphinx cats, a Chinese crested and a beagle. None of her animals were spared from confiscation. The animal control officers used sticks with ropes to capture Skittles and April. These human raised monkeys had never been treated so cruelly. Cindy would have placed her capuchins in a cage if the ACOs would have asked. She surely didn’t want them to be taken from her, but she didn’t want to see them treated the way they were either.

The youngest son’s pet dachshund was also taken during the melee. Animal control officer, Ronda Burgess, refused to even let him visit her at the shelter, nor would the shelter adopt her out to other family members.

The Child Protective Services agency was called because the ACOs said the children could get TB from the monkeys. These primates received excellent care – and so did the children! After a heated discussion, the grand babies were released into the custody of an older son that lives in a nearby city. The case worker visited the children and who knows what she told them, because when Cindy went to visit them, the oldest girl was afraid of her. Talk about adding injury to insult!

Thank God, the children are back home with their family again. The 6 year old was delighted to see the swing set in the back yard - she thought the agents had taken it too. They probably would have if someone had taken it apart for them.

John has no arrest record of any kind, not even a speeding ticket. He cooperated fully with the agents. Like so many similar situations before this one, why didn’t the BATFE simply contact him and tell him that a pellet gun silencer was illegal? John would have worked with the agency and handed over the item. A dramatic Gestapo-like raid was unnecessary.

The typical press statement admits that the “case remains under investigation and no charges have been made.”

John was unable to feed or attend to any of the animals during the law enforcement free-for-all. It was a hot 98 degree August day when the animal police stacked cages and animals outside in order to take them away from their homes. They did not allow John, Cindy or any family member to provide fresh water and food for the animals and many suffered heat exposure and stress at the hands of their “rescuers.”

The next day, ACO’s returned to take the rest of the animals from John’s house. He was not home, but with his son at the hospital, who was having surgery. The garage door was unlocked, but the animal control officers cut the chain on their fence to access the property. They knocked over a pole when they backed into the yard.

Taking animals while no one is home seems to be preferable to ACOs because they are free to search the house and property at their leisure. Without supervision they have been known to take personal items and items unrelated to their “investigation” in any way. This time they took a large roll of electric fence, salt water fish supplies, empty buckets and every empty cage John owned. They had wanted to take the salt water aquariums the day before, but John told them it would kill all the fish. They left the fish behind because they were too much work and would incur an obvious liability should they die.

Formal animal cruelty charges were not made until 40 days after the confiscation of all the animals. John and Cindy were each charged with 3 misdemeanors. The details of the charges have never been satisfactorily explained. Why weren’t they given the opportunity to work with animal control? Why were ALL of the animals taken?

Why didn’t the prosecuting attorney serve a copy of a summons and complaint upon Cindy Wilkinson rather than arrest her three days after a major heart surgery? Ronda Burgess made it a point to arrest her and pat her down - - and she was openly smug about doing so. Cindy’s son was frantic and told Ronda not to move his Mom’s arms or handcuff her behind her back. Burgess backed down. John called his attorney when they came for him and he was arraigned.

It is an understatement to say that Ronda Burgess overstepped her authority. Animal control officers have been known to give people a reasonable period of time to correct any perceived issues pertaining to the animals. In this case, she simply did not have the knowledge and experience about the animals she seized. Consequently, she made her report based on subjective opinions.

What were some of the animal cruelty allegations made?

By now we all know the three F’s that are standard statements in these cases: Filthy conditions, feces everywhere and foul odors and stench. John and Cindy have stated for the record that all of the animals were healthy, appropriately housed and adequately cared for.

The snakes were kept in appropriate containers that had snapping lids. John told ACO Burgess that he had approximately 25 snakes containing both venomous and constrictor species. These were kept in a special snake room with limited and monitored access. John is qualified to handle such reptiles.

The ACO wrote that many of the animals were without food or water – but this was only because no one had been allowed to service the cages during the federal raid!

The chinchillas were not without food nor were they in a filthy cage as she wrote in her report. She wrote that the rabbits were in filthy conditions with little food or water. They were in good health and housed in normal rabbit hutches. The ACO thought one of the three chickens had an obvious neck injury. She was unfamiliar with turkens who have no feathers on their necks. Several snakes were described as being thin, but the fact is, those snakes were juveniles and the appropriate size for their age. In fact, there are reasonable explanations for all of the allegations Burgess made, but those details will be presented in court.

Ronda Burgess knew the Wilkinsons, knew they had kept numerous exotic animals and had even enjoyed visits with them over the years! For whatever reason, she apparently got caught up in the excitement of the federal raid and played “animal planet” for the media. There simply was no reason to take all the animals away from their owners. John and Cindy’s friends and neighbors have been very supportive. They are baffled by the confiscations and strong armed tactics which were used.

Sadly, some of the animals have died since they were taken from their homes. John’s mousebird was fed seed. No one bothered to ask him how to care for any of the animals. A local zoo received the capuchin monkeys. The venomous snakes were transported to the Kentucky Reptile Zoo, which often receives seized and confiscated herps. They sell venom that is used for snake bite antidotes. Directors and officers are often called to be expert witnesses for the prosecution in alleged “animal cruelty” cases. The Reptile Zoo stated that one of John’s snakes had mouth rot, but this occurs due to stress and heat – conditions they endured during transport.

John Wilkinson has paid an attorney to get the animals back. The civil case is still pending while the animals languish at shelters, zoos, and other facilities. The animal shelter had billed the city approximately $10,000 during the first month the animals were in their custody and the amount is certainly much higher by now.

John is fighting back. He has demanded a jury trial for the “animal cruelty” charges leveled against him and Cindy. The prosecution is in for a surprise. The Wilkinsons have many friends who will provide excellent expert witness testimony on their behalf. Their stolen animals need to be returned to them free and clear. We need national media coverage for people like John and Cindy, who had their Constitutional rights violated.