Tuesday, January 6, 2009

Donate to DogsBite.org
Please donate to support our work

DogsBite.org is a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt public charity organization. Learn more »

posted by   |  permalink  |  6 comments  | email  |icon blog rss  |icon comment rss 


Anonymous Dude I Bagged Ur Pit  |  1/06/2009 2:31 AM  |  Flag  
I guess this person’s level of loony trumps the anxiety or panic others might experience being trapped in tight quarters with Miss Crazy and her 120 lb. crutch. (Or so she thinks.)

Anonymous Jimmy o  |  1/06/2009 9:04 AM  |  Flag  
Too bad they did not post a photo of the woman. I have noticed all too often many of these pit nutter/dog nutter types resemble livestock. Could have been appropriate!

Anonymous bluesmom  |  1/06/2009 1:45 PM  |  Flag  
As I recall what I read in the ADA regulations, "emotional support" animals are NOT considered legitimate service animals. This woman is attempting to stir a pot on a cold stove.

Anonymous Trigger  |  1/06/2009 2:00 PM  |  Flag  
I believe the revised ADA law was PASSED and is in effect. However, it's unclear when the subway act happened and if the woman falls under the old ADA or the new one. Given that she's suing for 10 million after already receiving 10 thousand, it's likely that the "offensive" act occurred under the old law. She seems awfully confident...Then again, so did the Monkey woman...


Anonymous Felony  |  1/06/2009 9:27 PM  |  Flag  
It's also likely that the entire event was a set up, with the goal all along being a $10 million dollar lawsuit.

I think Mahlon Patrick and his bride of Frankenstein might up to the same shenanigans. First they signed over their dogs and now they are suing for them!

Anonymous Anonymous  |  9/09/2009 9:51 PM  |  Flag  
PTSD is a medical mental health condition that is over and beyond the realm of "emotional support." That said, a service dog must specifically "task trained" to alleviate symptoms of this disorder which cause her to be legally defined as having an "impairment." Some people with PTSD do not have legally definable "impairment" and others do. Herein, lies heart of the controversy.

Post a Comment »