The following outline is a detailed chronological order of events that dates a number of years back, and shows a pattern of abuse by Diana Phair and her ex-husband Joseph Banville. It will also show that the New Hampshire Humane Society has been involved in cases of animal abuse by both of the above named people for a number of years. The facts contained in this document can and will be if necessary proven by documents, and testimony. The horse was called Spirit by the abuser and we did not feel comfortable calling him by the name that he had when being abused. We started just calling him Buddy, and that is the name we will remember him by. You will see that the following, refers to him as Spirit, and that is because that is the name he was called by in court documents. Several of the linked letters etc. refer to him as Buddy. In short, Buddy and Spirit are the same horse.

We, John B. Foster and Susan M. Emanovsky, do hereby agree to submitt to a polygraph examination if requested by any involved, or interested party. The expense of any polygraph examination will be borne by the party requesting such examination.

1. Officer Susan Emanovsky of the Rumney Police Department was aware of numerous investigations by the New Hampshire Humane Society dating back to 1991 of cruelty to animals by Diana Phair in regards to the above mentioned horse “SPIRIT” and other animals.

2. There is a State Police report in file (dated October 21, 1992) that alleges cruelty to animals by Joseph Banville, the ex-husband of Diana Phair. This report states that the abused animal is the subject horse “SPIRIT”.

3. A report from Charles E. Hutchinson DVM formerly of the Plymouth Animal Hospital, (dated October 22, 1992) confirms that abuse and neglect existed, as alleged in the State Police Report.

a. Instructions for the care and feeding of the horse were provided to the owner, Diana Phair and ex-husband caretaker Joseph Banville, by Dr. Hutchinson DVM, in the report.

b. One of the written recommendations that were given to Diana Phair and Joseph Banville, by Dr. Hutchinson DVM, was to hang food and water buckets in the barn and two buckets were donated by the Plymouth Animal Hospital for that purpose.

c. Charles Laurent of the New Hampshire Humane Society examined the horse, the next day, according to this report, and decided not to seize the animal, and further stated that he would periodically check on the horse, and if appropriate measures were not taken, he could seize the horse.

4. On June 15, 1995 Charles Laurent of the New Hampshire Humane Society filed a report as a result of an investigation. The complainant was listed as anonymous.

a. The anonymous complainant was a result of Officer Emanovsky asking two friends to call Laurent and complain after he had failed to respond to the numerous other complaints that Officer Emanovsky had relayed to him several times over a period of a week.

b. The report indicates that the investigation site was the Diana Phair residence and the subject animal was “SPIRIT”.

c. Laurent checked off the appropriate boxes in his report, that on 06-15-95 at 10:30 a.m. the conditions were clean and sanitary, good food and water, fair shelter, good animal condition, fair condition of area, and poor safety of animal.

d. In the narrative of Laurents report, he writes that the horse was cross tied and chin tied in a way that the horse could not lie down.

e. Laurent further writes in his narrative that Diana Phair told him that she had been using an electric cattle prod on the horse to correct undesired behavior.

f. Laurent writes that he instructed Phair to not to cross tie the horse and stop using the electric cattle prod.

g. Laurent writes in his report that he sent a letter of recommendations to Phair on June 21, 1995. Letter was dated (June 19, 1995).

h. Laurents instructional letter to Phair, (copy in file) paraphrases his verbal instructions to Phair of June 15, 1995, and furthers states that the state veterinarian also stated to stop using the electric cattle prod and properly tie the horse immediately. Laurent also recommended that an electric fence be installed so the horse could be put out to pasture.

i. Laurent further writes in his narrative of his June 15, 1996 report, that he returned on June 22, 1995 (no time noted) and found no one home, but checked on the horse and found that the horse was properly tied and had hay, water bucket tipped over

j. Officer Emanovsky’s report states that Laurent stated to her in a phone conversation on June 22, 1995 that he had inspected the care and condition of the horse on June 21, 1995, not June 22, 1995.

k. Laurent further writes in his narrative, 6-22-95 “Horse seized by “Sue” Rumney PD

5. The morning of June 22, 1996, Officer Emanovsky received another complaint of the subject horse cross tied and without food or water.

6. Officer Emanovsky called Charles Laurent and he stated that he had seen the horse the day before and everything was OK, and he didn’t see the need to respond to check out this complaint.

7. As a result of Charles Laurent’s refusal to respond to the complaint referenced in paragraph 5., and his failure to respond in a timely fashion to the complaints referenced in paragraph 4-a, as well as numerous other complaints, Officer Emanovsky applied for a search warrant from the Plymouth District Court, for the barn and pasture area of the Phair property based on the following facts.

a. The horse has been tied three ways to prevent movement.

b. The horse has not been out of the barn in 1 ½ weeks.

c. Owner admitted to Humane Society worker on June 15, 1996 that she had used a cattle prod on the horse. Evidence of this was seen at time of admission by owner.

d. Horse was seen by Humane Society on 06-15-95 triple tied.

e. 06-21-95 Humane Society reports horse tied with one line.

f. 06-22-95 neighbor reports horse triple tied.

g. Humane Society has documented pattern of abuse by Diana Phair on various animals over several years, including this animal.

8. Judge David Kent of the Plymouth District Court issued a search warrant for the barn and pasture area behind the home of the Phair property. on June 22, 1995 at 19:45 hrs. (7:45 P.M..)

9. Officer Emanovsky called Charles Laurent of the New Hampshire Humane Society, after receiving the search warrant, and asked him to participate in the execution of the search warrant.

a. Charles Laurent of the New Hampshire Humane Society refused to participate in the execution of the search warrant, and further stated to Officer Emanovsky that he didn’t want to get involved in a loser of a case.

10. Officer Emanovsky and Chief Thompson of the Rumney Police Department and Trooper Paul Hunt of the New Hampshire State Police, assisted by Diane Amberg, a competition horse rider and trainer, executed the search warrant on June 22, 1995 at 20:50 hrs (8:50 P.M.) The temperature about 90 degrees.

a. The subject horse “SPIRIT” was found triple tied in a manner that restricted his movement, in that the horse could not raise his head more that 1 ½ to 2 feet off the floor, and could not lie down.

b. The food and water buckets were empty, tipped over, and were so filthy that they appeared to be a health hazard if used. The food and water buckets were also out of the horses reach.

c. There was an excessive amount of manure in the barn, to the point of the back end of the horse being elevated as he stood in it.

d. There was obvious rope burn marks around the horse’s neck, that had been caused by his repeated attempts to free himself from the restrictive cross ties.

e. Burn marks, caused by the repeated use of an electric cattle prod, were found about the horse’s body.

f. Scabs and open weeping sores were about the horse’s body.

g. Numerous puncture wounds were found on the horse’s neck.

h. The horse showed no signs of aggression and loaded easily into a trailer for transport to a safe barn in Plymouth, New Hampshire.

11. The safe barn, a stable for Percherons, was owned by James Mayhew.

a. The subject horse “SPIRIT” was put into a birthing stall, a very large stall that was designed for Percherons. The stall was provided by Mayhew at no charge.

b. “SPIRIT” immediately drank a five gallon bucket or water dry and wanted more.

c. The horse’s wounds were looked over and attended to as he ate large quantities of food.

d. Medical care was soon arraigned as the animal hadn’t seen a vet since November 18, 1993. The medical care was paid for by Officer Emanovsky.

e. Hoof care and shoeing was arraigned and was paid for by Officer Emanovsky.

f. All hay and grain for the horse was paid for by Officer Emanovsky.

g. The third day at this stable the subject horse started displaying signs of some very bad manners. Kicking, Biting, etc. These bad manners appeared to be as a result of his past history of abuse. It appeared that he was trying to protect himself from any human.

h. After about two months the horse had to be moved to another stable because he had bitten and kicked the Mayhew family to a point that his welcome had worn thin.

12. The horse was moved a short distance to Jamie Carpenter’s farm where he resided free of charge.

a. Officer Emanovsky continued to pay for the hay and grain for the horse.

b. Any medical and shoeing costs were also paid for by Officer Emanovsky.

c. The end of September, the horse kicked Jamie’s 17 year old daughter and put her through a board wall.

d. Jamie Carpenter called us and said the horse had to go because he was too dangerous to have around the farm.

13. Diane Amberg had offered the day of June 22, 1995 to stable the horse if it became necessary. In that the horse now had a reputation for bad manners, we could not find anyone that would stable the horse other than Diane.

a. Diane Amberg moved the horse to her stable, assisted by Officer Emanovsky. The horse loaded on the trailer with no problem and unloaded as easily.

b. Officer Emanovsky continued to pay for hay, grain, medical, and shoeing costs.

c. Just before Thanksgiving Diane Amberg called and said the horse was not welcome anymore and had to be moved. We assume that his bad manners were the reason, although Diane didn’t say.

14. It should be noted that the above three mentioned stable owners and their families are trained and experienced horse people.

15. It should be noted that in August of 1995, Officer Emanovsky spoke to Charles Laurent of the New Hampshire Humane Society at the Plymouth Animal Hospital about his reluctance to help her with this case.

a. Laurent told Officer Emanovsky that he didn’t think she had a case and he didn’t want to be involved, because they would lose. Laurent further stated that he had no intention of going to court to lose, as the intent of the New Hampshire Humane Society was to educate the offenders of cruelty to animals.

b. There are numerous documented occasions where Diana Phair has been given instructions in the care and feeding of this abused horse since October 22, 1992 by seven different people.

c. Katie Keegan of Bristol, NH, an equestrian studies major at Johnson and Wales, was giving regular instruction to Phair on the care and feeding of the horse, and testified at Phair’s trial, that she stopped going because Phair’s treatment of the horse was too sick.

d. Verbal instructions by Laurent, had been given to Phair just seven days prior to the seizure of the horse.

e. Written instructions, from Charles Laurent of the New Hampshire Humane Society, dated June 19, 1995, were mailed on June 21, 1996 and Phair should have had them in her possession the day the horse was seized by Officer Emanovsky.

16. On August 03, 1995 a hearing was held in the Plymouth District Court on a pro se motion filed by Diana Phair to release the horse to the care and custody of her ex-husband Joseph Banville, and Judge Thomas Rappa ordered the New Hampshire Humane Society to inspect the accommodations at Joseph Banville’s residence, and if appropriate then the horse would be surrendered to Banville’s custody forthwith.

a. September 13, 1995 Judge Thomas Rappa, in an order states that the New Hampshire Humane Society failed to respond to the courts order of August 03, 1995.

b. Judge Rappa further states, that in further review of the order, the court did not place an affirmative obligation on the Humane Society to inspect the proposed accommodations for the animal.

c. The inspection of the Banville property, by the New Hampshire Humane Society, should have been a priority, in that the New Hampshire Humane Society had first hand knowledge that the horse had been abused and neglected, at the hand of Joseph Banville.

d. Judge Rappa ordered the abused horse “SPIRIT” to be released to the care and custody of Joseph Banville.

e. Judge Rappa further stated that the care and supervision of the horse would be under strict scrutiny and the Humane Society MAY inspect the property and report back their concerns to the court.

17. Soon after the September 13, 1995 order of Judge Rappa, the Rumney Police Department had in their possession, Dr. Hutchinson’s report mentioned in paragraph 3 of this document.

a. Because the report stated that the animal had been neglected and was malnourished, the Rumney Police Department elected to trying not to subject the horse to the possibility of being abused and neglected again by Joseph Banville.

b. Officer Emanovsky called Charles Laurent and expressed concern that the horse might be subjected to abuse and neglect if allowed to go to Joseph Banville.

c. Without inspecting the Banville property, and having first hand knowledge of Banville’s history of animal abuse and neglect, Laurent told Officer Emanovsky that he had no problem with the horse going to Banville. The New Hampshire Humane Society, should have strenuously objected to the horse going to a stable that the horse had been neglected and abused at before.

d. Officer Emanovsky and Chief Thompson had a problem with the horse going to Banville. They now had to violate a court order in order to prevent the possibility of further abuse to the horse, because Charles Laurent of the New Hampshire Humane Society had no problem in releasing the horse to a person that was known by Laurent to have abused and neglected this very same horse.

e. The decision to violate the court order was determined to be in the best interest of the horse.

f. The possibility existed of Chief Thompson and Officer Emanovsky getting fined and going to jail in order to protect this horse that the Humane Society was neglecting to.

g. The Chief of Police, Robert Thompson was ordered to appear in the Plymouth District Court to answer contempt charges for failing to release the horse to Banville.

h. Grafton County Attorney Kenneth Anderson filed a motion to rescind order on October 10, 1996 and a hearing was held on that motion, and the contempt of court, by Chief Thompson, on October 23, 1995.

i. Judge Rappa was made aware of Dr. Hutchinson’s report, and the abuse and neglect of the horse by the hand of Joseph Banville, and ordered that the horse would stay where it was.

j. Although Judge Rappa was not the least bit pleased with Chief Thompson and his refusal to release the horse to Banville as ordered, he understood why Chief Thompson refused and did not find him in contempt of court.

18. On October 20, 1995 Diana Phair was indicted in the Grafton County Superior Court of two class B felony counts of cruelty to animals.

a. At the time of the indictment, the horse was residing at Diane Amberg’s stable, but he was soon wearing out his welcome, and just a little before Thanksgiving we were told to get the horse out of there.

19. The horse was now homeless and Charles Laurent of the New Hampshire Humane Society, had made it quite clear that he had no intention of helping in any way.

20. We knew that a decision to bring the horse to our house would raise questions of a conflict of interest, as Officer Emanovsky had stated several times that she would like to adopt the horse, even with his bad manners, if the horse became available for adoption.

a. Because of the deplorable conditions that Officer Emanovsky had seen the day the horse was seized, a little over 24 hours after the Humane Society allegedly checked on the animal, she felt sorry for the horse and thus became emotionally involved, to the point of personally making sure the horse had the best of care on a daily basis.

b. The horse seemed to have taken a liking to Officer Emanovsky, in that she had received less injuries than anyone else that had been around the horse.

21. With all options exhausted, a decision was made to bring “SPIRIT” to our house just before Thanksgiving of 1995.

a. Shaughn Piper, a resident of Rumney, a horse trainer, a horse rider, a certified horse show judge, and former member of the board of directors member of the New Hampshire Humane Society, moved the abused horse “SPIRIT” to our house.

b. The horse loaded into the trailer with no problems, and unloaded at our house with no problems, and was turned out to pasture.

22. Officer Emanovsky continued building the case of cruelty to animals against Phair, and had requested several reports from several sources.

a. All the reports had been supplied to Officer Emanovsky within days of the request, except the New Hampshire Humane Society reports.

b. Officer Emanovsky requested Charles Laurent to supply the reports several times with no response.

c. Out of pure frustration with the uncooperative nature of Charles Laurent and the New Hampshire Humane Society, Officer Emanovsky threatened to subpoena the necessary Humane Society files.

d. Officer Emanovsky was finally given the report dated June 15, 1995 and the instructional letter that Charles Laurent wrote on June 19, 1995.

e. There are several documented occasions that Charles Laurent of the New Hampshire Humane Society was involved in, regarding this, and other abused animals, at the hand of Diana Phair and Joseph Banville, and Officer Emanovsky was only given one report and a letter.

f. Due to the number of occasions that Charles Laurent and the New Hampshire Humane Society had either refused, failed, or was uncooperative with assisting in this case of cruelty to animals, Officer Emanovsky had determined that they were not acting in the best interest of the horse, and considered the officers and employees, of the New Hampshire Humane Society, hostile witnesses.

23. Officer Emanovsky had been making remarkable progress in correcting the bad manners that “SPIRIT” had. With the horse at our house the progress accelerated at a rapid pace.

a. Officer Emanovsky spent hours in the stable working with the horse, to a point that the horse was seeing more of her than I was.

b. The horse seemed to enjoy all the attention that he was getting and responded in a positive way to the kindness and gentle handling he was getting.

c. The horse allowed our 3 ½ year old daughter to feed him carrots and pet him. (This was under the supervision of Officer Emanovsky).

d. Although I tried to remain distanced, the horse finally won me over, and I started feeding him carrots and petting him on a regular basis.

e. Mindful of the possibility of an acquittal, we made a decision that if the horse became available for adoption, we would try to adopt the horse ,in that the Humane Society did not want to be involved with this loser of a case, and we were the only ones, that were determined to protect the horse from further abuse.

f. We were also mindful that the chances of our getting our out of pocket expenses for the care of the horse was very slim, in that Diana Phair had been declared indigent by the Grafton County Superior Court, and had been provided a public defender. Thus she had no assets other than the horse that we could recoup our expenses from.

g. Our intentions were, that if a conviction was attained in the forth coming April trial, we would request that our out of pocket expenses be reimbursed by the defendant, Diana Phair, as provided for in RSA 644:8 paragraph IV.

h. In that Phair had been declared indigent, we felt that if we were allowed to adopt the horse, we would forgive our out of pocket expenses that totaled over twice what the horse was worth.

i. Those decisions were made because our whole family had become very emotionally attached to the horse, and we wanted to be sure that the horse would never be subjected to any form of abuse and neglect again.

j. Officer Emanovsky further planned to train the horse to work police mounted patrol for rescues, parades, and special functions, thus the horse would go full circle from the rescued, to the rescuer.

k. The costs of training and outfitting the horse would have been borne by our family at a cost of over $5000.00.

l. The intentions of Officer Emanovsky and our family were obviously in the best interest of the horse, totally unselfish, and were emotionally motivated to provide the best possible existence for the natural balance of this abused horse’s life.

24. The jury trial was held on April 11, and 12, 1996 in the Grafton County Superior Court, Judge Robert J. Lynn presiding.

a. Due to the documented uncooperative attitude of Charles Laurent and the New Hampshire Humane Society, Charles Laurent had to be subpoenaed in order to get him to testify.

b. Susan Douglass, the President of the Board of Directors of the New Hampshire Humane Society, was subpoenaed by the defense, and did testify for the defense, in this case of cruelty to animals.

c. Testimony at the trial did not include the lack of cooperation on the part of Charles Laurent and the New Hampshire Humane Society.

d. Testimony at the trial did not include that Charles Laurent had been invited to view the horse on numerous occasions, and had not seen the horse since his last inspection of the Phair property and the horse on June 21, 1995.

e. Testimony at the trial did not include that not only did he refuse to check on the care and condition of this abused horse, but he told Officer Emanovsky that he didn’t even want to know where the horse was.

f. Testimony at the trial did not include that Charles Laurent had received a complaint in the summer of 1995, that alleged that Diana Phair was witnessed hitting a Hereford bull in the head with a 2X4.

g. Testimony at the trial did not include that Charles Laurent never investigated this complaint of cruelty to animals mentioned in paragraph 24-f.

h. Testimony at the trial did not include that Charles Laurent and the New Hampshire Humane Society had failed to respond to numerous other documented reports of cruelty to animals, over a period of years.

i. Testimony at the trial did not include the fact that Officer Emanovsky requested the help of Charles Laurent and the New Hampshire Humane Society numerous times, and was told each time that they didn’t want to get involved in a loser of a case.

j. Testimony at the trial did not include that Officer Emanovsky had to threaten Charles Laurent with a subpoena, in order to get the one report that he finally and reluctantly provided.

k. After hearing two days of testimony and deliberating about 2 1/2 hours, the jury found Diana Phair GUILTY of two misdemeanor counts of cruelty to animals.

l. Sentencing was to be scheduled for a later date to be determined by the court.

25. Sentencing was scheduled for May 03, 1996 at the Grafton County Superior Court, Judge Robert J, Lynn presiding.

a. A finding of GUILTY is entered.

b. The defendant is sentenced to one year in the House of Corrections, SUSPENDED on good behavior.

c. The defendant is fined $1500.00 plus statutory penalty assessment, $1000.00 of this fine is SUSPENDED.

d. The defendant is placed on probation for one year.

e. The defendant is to perform 300 hrs. of community service at the direction of the probation/parole officer with the recommendation that such service involve work with the Humane Society. (Continuing education, we assume!)

f. The horse SPIRIT and the cattle prod are hereby ordered to be confiscated, the horse to be turned over to the Humane Society and the cattle prod to be disposed of as the County Attorney sees fit.

g. During probation, the defendant shall not posses of keep any livestock of domestic animals.

h. A request for reimbursement of the expenses for the care and keep of the animal as provided for by statute (RSA 644:8) was denied by Judge Lynn.

i. Judge Lynn further stated that Officer Emanovsky could not seek restitution through civil process against the defendant Diana Phair.

j. Charles Laurent told Officer Emanovsky, at the court house, that he would make arraignments to pick up the horse on Tuesday May 07, 1996 at 13:30 hrs., then the horse would be evaluated as to it’s worth and then put up for adoption.

k. Charles Laurent told Officer Emanovsky that she could put in an application for the adoption of the horse if she wanted to, but her application would not receive any preferential treatment and he would not guarantee that she would be allowed to adopt the horse.

l. Charles Laurent then went directly from the court house to our house, and for the first time since June 21, 1995, when he allegedly found the care and condition of the horse acceptable at Phair’s, checked the care and condition of this horse. For the previous 316 days, we assume, that Charles Laurent and the New Hampshire Humane Society must have felt that the horse was being well taken care of, and our care and custody, was in the best interest of the horse.

26. On May 06, 1996 Officer Emanovsky applied for, and received, an ex-Parte attachment of the horse, that we had for 319 days been providing excellent care for, and had expended over $2500.00 of our own funds for that care.

a. It was expected that the New Hampshire Humane Society would offer the horse to us for adoption in that the ex-Parte attachment made the horse unadoptable until our expenses were paid for.

b. The New Hampshire Humane Society through their attorney Gary Westergren, filed a motion to intervene, dismiss and rescind attachment order. This action surprised us in that Charles Laurent had stated numerous times that the New Hampshire Humane Society didn’t want to get involved in a loser of a case, and had refused to assist Officer Emanovsky when requested to do so numerous times.

c. We contacted Attorney Bill Hopkins, and he filed an appearance and an objection to Westergren’s motion on May 09, 1996. He also wrote to Westergren and told him even though the horse was not worth what we had spent on it’s care, we would adopt the horse with no fees attached and the matter would come to an end.

d. Westergren wrote back, and in light of the past performances of Charles Laurent and the New Hampshire Humane Society, our attorney and we viewed most of the content of the letter as PURE FICTION. Westergren wrote, “Primarily, any disposition at this point would be contrary to the order of the Superior Court and also a tantamount failure on the part of my client to do what it is supposed to do”.

e. It amazed all of those that read this masterpiece of fiction, that the New Hampshire Humane Society was now ready to follow the instructions of a court order, as they had failed to respond to Judge Rappa’s order of August 03, 1995.

f. It also amazed everyone that the New Hampshire Humane Society was now prepared to do what is was supposed to do. Officer Emanovsky had been trying for almost a year to get Charles Laurent and the New Hampshire Humane Society to do what he were supposed to do, which was to investigate all reports of cruelty to animals in a timely manner, take affirmative action on those responsible, cooperate with police in their investigations, and show some interest in preventing further abuse and neglect to animals.

g. Westergren also filed a motion in the Grafton County Superior Court to intervene and for immediate affirmative relief.

h. This motion was a masterful smoke screen, that portrayed Officer Emanovsky as the villain in this case, and it was the New Hampshire Humane Society, and not Officer Emanovsky, that was acting in the best interests of the horse.

27. At this point several, several facts should be addressed. These facts will show that the New Hampshire Humane Society never acted in the best interest of the horse, and was now only acting in the best financial interests of the New Hampshire Humane Society, and not in the best interest of the horse.

a. Charles Laurent of the New Hampshire Humane Society failed to respond in a timely manner to numerous complaints of cruelty to animals at the hand of Diana Phair over the years, involving several animals, and numerous other complaints were never investigated at all.

b. The attempts to educate Diana Phair by at least seven people, including Charles Laurent, over a period of three years had failed, and knowing this, and knowing that abuse, neglect, and cruelty continued at the hand of Diana Phair, Laurent was still giving instructions to Phair for the proper care and feeding of the horse in June of 1995.

c. Charles Laurent inspected the care and condition of the horse just hours before Officer Emanovsky seized the horse on June 22, 1995. Apparently Laurent determined that the deplorable conditions that three police officers, and a competition horse rider and trainer found this animal in, was acceptable to Laurent and the New Hampshire Humane Society.

d. Laurent repeatedly refused the many requests of Officer Emanovsky to get involved, as he had determined this case of cruelty to animals was a loser, prior to any trial or hearing in a court of law. The Honorable Judge Charles Laurent of the New Hampshire Humane Society had ruled.

e. Numerous requests for Laurent’s reports were ignored, and Laurent had to be threatened with a subpoena for the pertinent reports that the New Hampshire Humane Society had. There is documented evidence of numerous complaints against Phair, that were reported to the New Hampshire Humane Society, and several reports were expected to be supplied, in order to show the pattern of abuse at the hand of Diana Phair in court. Laurent finally responded with only one report, dated June 15, 1995.

f. The New Hampshire Humane Society apparently encourages, and condones the actions of Charles Laurent, in that Laurent is still employed by the New Hampshire Humane Society, in the capacity of ANIMAL CRUELTY INVESTIGATOR.

g. The obvious failure to faithfully discharge their duties was never fully brought out in evidence at the trial. Although Officer Emanovsky would have liked this information to have become a matter of public record, a court room battle over the incompetence of Charles Laurent and the New Hampshire Humane Society, would have detracted attention from the real issue, the best interests of the abused horse SPIRIT.

28. Attorney Hopkins filed an objection to Westergren’s smoke screen motion in the Grafton County Superior Court, on May 22, 1996.

29. A chambers hearing was held in the Plymouth District Court on May 23, 1996, on the motions before that court. Judge David Kent presiding.

a. Judge Kent reluctantly did what he had to do, and that was to send the matter to superior court.

30. On June 03, 1996 Judge Robert J. Lynn ruled on the motions before the Grafton County Superior Court. This order was made without giving Officer Emanovsky the benefit of a hearing.

a. Judge Lynn states in his order that after receiving the Humane Society’s motion, the court was in touch with the Plymouth District Court, and was advised that it’s file in this case was transferred to the Superior Court for disposition.

b.. Note: The Humane Society’s motion was received by the Grafton County Superior court on May 09, 1996, and the chambers hearing in the Plymouth District Court was not held until May 23, 1996. Our objection to the Humane Society’s motion was dated May 22, 1996 and at best was received by the Grafton County Superior Court on May 23, 1996, ironically, the day of the chambers hearing in Plymouth District Court.

c. Assuming without deciding that, Judge Lynn had to be in possession of all the documents, and the chambers hearing in the Plymouth District Court had to have been held, prior to the Superior court being in touch with the Plymouth District Court. We assume without deciding that, Judge Lynn was in contact with the Plymouth District Court after receiving our objection to the Humane Society’s motion, and not after receiving the Humane Society’s motion.

d. Judge Lynn further stated that Officer Emanovsky did have some legitiment civil claim against the defendant Diana Phair, and the horse could not serve as security for such a claim.

e. The reason for this, was stated by Judge Lynn was, at the time Officer Emanovsky filed her claim in the Plymouth District Court, this court had already ordered that Ms. Phairs interest in SPIRIT be forfeited to the Humane Society, and since Ms Emanovsky is obviously not a creditor of the New Hampshire Humane Society, there is no basis for her attaching property (SPIRIT) which now belongs to the Society.

f. Accordingly, the attachment of the horse SPIRIT is hereby vacated. Susan Emanovsky is ordered to immediately surrender the horse SPIRIT to the New Hampshire Humane Society.

g. Should Ms. Emanovsky fail or refuse to immediately surrender possession of SPIRIT to the Humane Society, the Grafton County Sheriff is authorized to seize SPIRIT and deliver him forthwith into the custody of the Humane Society.

31. On June 03, 1996, our request, Attorney Bill Hopkins sent another letter to Attorney Westergren, requesting that we be allowed to adopt the abused horse “SPIRIT”. This letter was sent prior to any knowledge of Judge Lynn’s order of June 03, 1996.

32. Attorney Westergren quickly responded to this letter on June 05, 1996 and once the window dressing was removed from his letter, he essentially said, too bad you lost, we are making immediate arraignments to pick up the horse. You client is encouraged to file an application for adoption which will be fairly and equally evaluated, keeping in mind the Society’s goal is to place the horse in the best available home.

33. At or about 10:00 hrs. on June 06, 1996 Charles Laurent, and Susan Douglass of the New Hampshire Humane Society arrived at our house with a truck and trailer, closely followed by Grafton County Deputy Sheriff Sheryl Labbe, and seized the abused horse SPIRIT as our 3 ½ year old daughter cried and watched in horror and disbelief.

a. There was no need for the New Hampshire Humane Society to involve the Sheriff’s Department, as we had not failed or refused to surrender the horse. The court order specifically stated, that we needed to fail or refuse to surrender the horse, before the Sheriff’s Department, was ordered to intervene, and seize the horse.

b. The three of them went directly to the barn, and Susan Douglass put a halter on SPIRIT, and lead him out the gate. Laurent was taping the fiasco and when the horse was lead out of the gate, my daughter’s pony got upset and followed SPIRIT out of the gate. Laurent had to stop taping and help Douglass get the pony back inside the fenced area.

c. Susan Douglass lead the horse down the driveway to the trailer, and for the next several minutes they all tried to coax, pull, and push the horse into the trailer. He wasn’t about to get into a trailer for them although he had been trailered several times for us without any problems in loading at all.

d. I’m sure that their intentions were to quickly seize and load the horse, and then quickly get out of Dodge.

e. Now totally frustrated and embarrassed by their failed attempt to load the horse, and I’m sure that my presence didn’t comfort them at all, they decided to drive the truck and trailer down the road a ways to load the horse.

f. After taking a couple of minutes to calm my visibly upset daughter down, we walked down the road, to where they were attempting to load the horse.

g. What I witnessed almost made me throw up! The President of the Board of Directors of the New Hampshire Humane Society, Susan Douglass, had a lead rope in her hand and was repeatedly hitting the horse on the hind quarters in a whipping action, until the horse jumped into the trailer out of pure fear.

h. I will be the first to admit that the whipping of this abused horse at the hand of The President of the Board of Directors of the New Hampshire Hunane Society, did not do any physical damage, but we must remember that this horse has been subjected to some form of abuse and neglect for most of it’s life, and the psychological damage done that day, at the hand of Susan Douglass ,the President of the Board of Directors of the New Hampshire Humane Society, must have been enormous.

i. At that point, rage overwhelmed me, and I had to exhibit a tremendous amount of self control in order not to react in a way that surely would have gotten me arrested for refusing to obey a court order. I came within a millisecond of physically and unlawfully seizing the horse from the Humane Society and refusing to release him to them. In retrospect, I wish now, that I had done exactly that!

j. I don’t wish to covey that, I in any way, would condone the violation of a court order, by me or anyone else. The point is, that if I had reacted that day, it would have been in the best interests of the horse, to protect him from further psychological damage, at the hand of Susan Douglass. There is no Jury in the world that would have found me in contempt of anything, except the treatment of the horse at the hand of Susan Douglass, that I witnessed.

34. I called the New Hampshire Humane Society that afternoon and requested that an application be mailed to me. The second I mentioned my name, I was put on hold by the male person that answered the phone. About two minutes later he came back on the phone and told me that his boss said that I could pick up an application anytime during normal business hours. Several times I demanded to know who his boss was. After a great deal of hesitation and reluctance, he told me his boss was non other than Susan Douglass, the President of the Board of Directors of the New Hampshire Humane Society.

a. I drove the sixty mile round trip to pick up the application and arrived around 14:30 hrs.

b. I walked into the shelter and was greeted nicely and asked what could they do for me.

c. I told them my name, and there was an instant feeling of tension in the room among the people present.

d. I asked for an application to adopt the horse that had just been seized from our property. The tension was overwhelming and I sensed something was wrong. These people did not know me, but my presence made them nervous.

e. An application just happened to be in arms reach and was quickly given to me. Amazing, it seemed as though they had prepared for my arrival in advance.

35. The application was filled out and delivered to our Attorney Bill Hopkins, and was forwarded to Attorney Westergren , on June 11, 1996, along with a copy of our latest pleadings in the Grafton County Superior Court, and another letter was sent to the New Hampshire Humane Society, asking for a meeting with their board of directors, and our Attorney enclosed some pertinent facts of the horse’s bad manners and our displeasure with Susan Douglass whipping the horse.

a. A friend of our’s sister called the New Hampshire Humane Society on June 11, 1996 and requested that an application for the adoption the this horse be mailed to her. She was told that the horse had already been adopted, but an application could be sent anyway. Our friend’s sister told them not to bother sending one, as the horse that she wanted to adopt was not available.

b. Jane Harris, the Assistant Executive Director of the New Hampshire Humane Society, called our attorney the afternoon of June 12, 1996 and set up a meeting for Monday June 17, 1996 at 19:00 hrs. at a nutral place in Laconia, NH. Harris further stated that the horse had not been adopted, and was still being evaluated before being put up for adoption.

c. Although the meeting was our idea, we were very pleased at the thought that the New Hampshire Humane Society was going to sit down and discuss this matter in a meeting, and iron out our differences. We felt this was a very positive move on the part of the New Hampshire Humane Society.

d. We had to make schedule changes as did our attorneys for this meeting, and we were prepared for the meeting on Friday morning the 14th of June 1996.

e. Friday afternoon, June 14, 1996 a call was received by our attorney’s office from Attorney Westergren’s secretary. She canceled the meeting that had been scheduled, and further stated that there was no reason to have the meeting as the horse in question had been transferred to the New Hampshire Equine Humane Association.

f. Monday June 17, 1996 our attorney received a letter from Attorney Westergren that confirmed his secretary’s message. He further stated that “Upon reflection, we feel that any such meeting is unnecessary”.

g. Westergren further stated “There is basically two reasons this has been done: first, the Equine Association is well qualified and equipped to make a decision in the animal’s best interest; and, second, it will be better for all concerned if the if the entity making the ultimate adoption decision cannot be accused of any undue bias. Therefore, your client should direct all further concerns regarding this matter to the following address”:

h. TRANSLATION OF PARAGRAPH 35-g: Due to the total incompetence of the New Hampshire Humane Society, it became necessary to transfer the horse to the New Hampshire Equine Humane Association, so public outrage over the handling of this highly publicized matter, can be directed away from the New Hampshire Humane Society. This action, we hope will assure that the perception, that the public has, of any improprieties, by the New Hampshire Humane Society will be dispelled, thus allowing the horse to be selectively placed with anyone but Susan Emanovsky and John Foster. In order to allow the New Hampshire Humane Society to do damage control, please stop the attack on us, and go after the New Hampshire Equine Humane Association, as they have no idea what they are in for.

36. Saturday June 15, 1996 we made several attempts to contact Celia Wright, the Adoptions Manager of the New Hampshire Equine Humane Association. Each time we got an answering machine and we left a message each time.

a. That evening of June 15, 1996 Celia Wright returned our calls and when Sue tried to discuss the horse, Celia Wright repeated the message on her answering machine, that we had heard many times, and then abruptly hung up.

b. Sue called me at work and told me about the conversation that she had with Celia Wright. Sue was very emotionally upset that Celia Wright would not discuss the horse.

c. I called Celia Wright, determined to get some answers, and was given the same run around that Sue had gotten. I asked her who I could talk to and she said Joy Pierce the President of the New Hampshire Equine Humane Association, and she provided me with the President’s phone number.

d. I called Joy Pierce and she knew who I was, although we had never met or talked before, nor had I ever heard of her. She did confirm that the horse was in a foster home and would be evaluated before he was put up for adoption.

e. When I told Pierce of the litigation before the court, she stated she was not aware of the litigation and it did not concern the New Hampshire Equine Humane Association. She further stated that the New Hampshire Equine Humane Association had been given clear title to the horse by the New Hampshire Humane Society.

f. It troubled me that my reputation had preceded me, and a person that should not have known anything about me, would be cold, defensive, and evasive, with her answers to my questions.

g. It is very apparent, that the New Hampshire Humane Society, had taken the liberty to thoroughly brief the New Hampshire Equine Humane Association about the matter, they were to, without undue bias, make the ultimate adoption decision.

37. Over the next few days, I sent Joy Pierce numerous letters in an attempt to adequately inform her of the ongoing legal battle with the New Hampshire Humane Society. I assured her that we had no quarrel with the New Hampshire Equine Humane Association. I also made several offers in writing, to adopt the horse.

a. On June 24, 1996 I received a letter from Joy Pierce that acknowledged the receipt of my letters.

b. She stated in her letter that on June 08, 1996 the New Hampshire Humane Society legally released “SPIRIT” to the New Hampshire Equine Humane Association.

38. Joy Pierce had just supplied me in her letter with enough information, to convince me of some less than honorable actions by the New Hampshire Humane Society.

a. The New Hampshire Humane Society gave the horse to the New Hampshire Equine Humane Association, two days after they seized him from us.

b. The New Hampshire Humane Society knew that the horse had been given away, when the Assistant Executive Director, Jane Harris called our Attorney and scheduled the meeting, four days after they had given the horse away.

c. The New Hampshire Humane Society had been taking a lot of heat in the media, and from the public, and in a very selfish move, threw this hot potato to the New Hampshire Equine Humane Association.

d. Again the New Hampshire Humane Society was allegedly acting in the best interests of the horse, so they said.

39. We mailed an application to the New Hampshire Equine Humane Association on June 26, 1996. Two letters detailing our intentions for the care, training, and use of the horse had been mailed earlier to her, on June 21, 1996. We were under the impression that the application that we sent to the New Hampshire Humane Society would be accepted, as we were lead to believe in Westergren’s letter of June 14, 1996. This was not the case, according to Celia Wright, the Adoptions Manager for the New Hampshire Equine Humane Association in a phone conversation I had with her on June 22 or 23, 1996.

a. Westergren lead us to believe that our application that we had filed with the New Hampshire Humane Society, would be the only application needed.

b. Celia Wright told me in a phone conversation on June 22 or 23, 1996, that we needed to file the official application of the New Hampshire Equine Humane Association.

c. Celia Wright further told me in that phone conversation that she had received the letters that Sue and I had sent her, she had scanned the and forwarded them the Joy Pierce so that the Board of Directors could be kept up to date and informed.

d. Celia Wright further stated that she just answered the phone, and did not make the decisions, the Board of Directors did.

40. On July 17, 1996 Judge Lynn ruled on our Motion to Reconsider. The motion was denied, and stated several reasons for that decision.

a. We are sure his decision would have been different, if he had known the facts of the New Hampshire Humane Society’s many unprofessional acts, especially the whipping of the horse the day that they, in the best interest of the horse, seized him from our loving home.

b. We are really at fault, in that we did not tell the courts of the incompetent, and uncooperative positions the New Hampshire Humane Society had taken in regards to this matter. This was a major mistake on our part!

41. August 02, 1996 I mailed to Jane Harris, the Assistant Executive Director of the New Hampshire Humane Society, a letter again asking for a meeting with the entire board of directors. This letter was also sent to all known members of that board as well as a copy to the New Hampshire Equine Humane Association. As of this writing we have not received a reply. We even sent a S.A.S.E. so that they could reply, and accept our refuse or request for a meeting. Being ignored was what we expected from the New Hampshire Humane Society, in that it seems to be what they do best.

42. We received a letter from Celia Wright, Adoptions Manager, of the New Hampshire Equine Humane Association, on August 06, 1996 (letter dated August 05, 1996).

a. The letter stated that she had reviewed the application dated June 26, 1996 for the six year-year old Arab cross gelding. She had previously told me in a phone conversation that she did not make the decisions, the Board of Directors did. Now it appears that she is making the decisions on adoption matters.

b. “Family Pet” is listed as the intended use for this horse, she writes. We are an animal loving family, and all animals that show up here become family pets, for example, this year I decided to raise some rainbow trout in our pond for the freezer. Not one of those rainbow trout have ever been caught. Yes, they have become family pets, all twenty five of them.

c. She further wrote, “It is considered in the horse’s best interest to place him where he will be trained to ride and/or drive. This is because well mannered, well trained horses tend to be kept long term by their adoptive owners and to be more easily placed should another adoptive home be needed in the future.

d. Therefore, your application was not chosen. All applications do remain active for four months, and yours will be placed on file.

e. Sue had written a detailed two page letter, that Celia Wright had acknowledged in a phone conversation with me, of receiving, scanning, and forwarding it to the Board of Directors. The letter spoke of prior training of the horse that Sue had done in order to make the horse safer to work around. The letter also spoke of further planned training of the horse to work police mounted patrol, rescues, parade, and special functions, as well as recreational riding.

f. In my two page letter, that Celia Wright had acknowledged in a phone conversation with me, of receiving, scanning, and forwarding it to the Board of Directors, I offered to pay what ever adoption fees that they deemed necessary. I pledged an annual donation of $200.00 to the New Hampshire Equine Humane Association for five years. I pledged to provide annual veterinarian reports to them. I pledged that we would never sell of trade the horse. I gave the New Hampshire Equine Humane Association permission to come on to our property and check the care and condition of the horse at any time, without notice. I also pledged that in the unlikely event that we were unable to provide a good loving home for the horse, then we would return him to the New Hampshire Equine Humane Association along with a $1000.00 donation.

g. I suggest that the only reason that Celia Wright even looked at our application before rejecting it was to find some reason to reject it. It is obvious that she did not even look at the two letters we mailed to her. If she had read the letters, I’m sure she could have had to be a little more creative with the rejection letter.

h. We fully expected that our application would not be fairly considered from the start. We do believe that there was a significant amount of undue bias involved in the whole adoption process, starting from the day of sentencing ,in the Grafton County Superior Court.

i. It is our opinion, that a conspiracy existed, to prevent us from adopting, or otherwise obtaining legal custody of the abused horse “SPIRIT”, between certain members of the New Hampshire Humane Society, and certain members of the New Hampshire Equine Humane Association.

j. It is our opinion, that certain members of the New Hampshire Humane Society, and certain members of the New Hampshire Equine Humane Association, knowingly engaged in deceptive business practices, with the sole purpose of that action, being, to deprive Susan Emanovsky and John Foster, of adopting, and or otherwise obtaining legal custody, of the abused horse “SPIRIT”.

43. The following outline will summarize the evidence, that proves beyond any doubt, that a conspiracy against us (John Foster and Susan Emanovsky) did exist, and there is defiantly probable cause, beyond any doubt, of deceptive business practices, by the New Hampshire Humane Society, and the New Hampshire Equine Humane Association.

a. The New Hampshire Humane Society, through it’s agent Charles Laurent, knowingly, allowed cruelty, neglect, and abuse to continue at the hand of Diana Phair and her ex-husband Joseph Banville, for three years, while Charles Laurent allegedly attempted to educate Diana Phair in the proper care and feeding of the horse. This was not in the best interest of the horse.

b. Numerous complaints were lodged against Diana Phair for cruelty to animals over a period of several years, and most of them, were never investigated by Charles Laurent of the New Hampshire Humane Society. This was not in the best interest of the horse.

c. Charles Laurent, Animal Cruelty Investigator, for the New Hampshire Humane Society, found the condition of the abused horse “SPIRIT” and his accommodations acceptable, to Charles Laurent, and the New Hampshire Humane Society, on two occasions in June of 1995. This was not in the best interest of the horse.

d. Hours after Charles Laurent’s last alleged visit to the Diana Phair property, Officer Susan Emanovsky received another complaint of Diana Phair being cruel, abusing, and neglecting the horse “SPIRIT”. This was in the best interest of the horse.

e. Officer Emanovsky reported this complaint to Charles Laurent, to which he replied that he had just been there and everything was all right, and that he saw no reason to respond again. This was not in the best interest of the horse.

f. Due to Charles Laurent’s refusal to respond to this complaint, Officer Susan Emanovsky, applied for and received a search warrant for the Diana Phair property, in that she and the Judge, that issued the search warrant, believed that continuing cruelty, abuse, and neglect at the hand of Diana Phair existed at the time the search warrant was issued. This was in the best interest of the horse.

g. In the spirit of cooperation, Officer Susan Emanovsky called Animal Cruelty Investigator, Charles Laurent, and asked if he would like to take part in the execution of the search warrant. Animal Cruelty Investigator, Charles Laurent declined to take part, and further stated that he didn’t want to get involved in a loser of a case. This was in the best interest of the horse, and Laurent could have cared less.

h. Hours after Charles Laurent’s last, alleged visit, to the Diana Phair residence, three police officers found the abused horse “SPIRIT” in deplorable conditions, and felt the need to seize the animal, to safeguard him against further cruelty, abuse, and neglect, at the hands of Diana Phair. This was in the best interest of the horse.

i. Animal Cruelty Investigator Charles Laurent only cooperated when threatened with a subpoena, when his reports were requested by Officer Emanovsky. This was not in the best interest of the horse.

j. Even when asked to do so, by Officer Emanovsky, Animal Cruelty Investigator Charles Laurent refused to check on the care and condition of the abused horse when he was in our custody. In one August 1995 conversation with Officer Emanovsky, Charles Laurent stated, that he didn’t even want to know where the horse was. This was not in the best interest of the horse.

k. In all fairness, we decided that Charles Laurent must have done something that was in the best interest of the horse. In retrospect his refusal, to get involved in this loser of a case, allowed the case to go to trial, and a conviction resulted, thus in a strange, twisted way, his refusal to help, was in the best interest of the horse.

l. Although Charles Laurent stated many times that he didn’t want to get involved in a loser of a case, he was in attendance at the sentencing. We suppose that he knew that it is routine for a Judge to turn abused animals over to the Humane Society. With Charles Laurent’s track record in this case, turning this horse over to the Humane Society was not in the best interest of the horse.

m. It would have been entirely legal and proper for Charles Laurent and the New Hampshire Humane Society. to simply allow the horse to stay with Officer Susan Emanovsky, in that she had spent over $2500,00 on the care of the horse, that Charles Laurent and the New Hampshire Humane Society did not want to get involved with, and would not help with. This, certainly would have been in the best interest of the horse.

n. It appears that the New Hampshire Humane Society was now going to profit from the horse they wanted nothing to do with. If they had been involved as Officer Susan Emanovsky asked them to, they would have taken the horse to their shelter, and they, and not us, would have paid for the care and keep of the horse. This was in the best interest of the Humane Society, and not the horse.

o. Although the horse had a good loving home, and we wanted the horse, the New Hampshire Humane Society felt it necessary to seize the horse on June 06, 1996, while my 3 1/2 year old daughter cried, and watched in horror, and disbelief. This was not in the best interest of the horse.

p. The horse didn’t want to leave this good loving home, and he rebelled and wouldn’t get in the trailer. For the first time in his life, he had been treated with love and not cruelty. For the first time in his life, he was allowed to run free, and not be triple tied to a ramshackle barn floor. For the first time in his life, he had good food and clean water. For the first time in his life, he trusted the humans that were taking care of him. I saw the look in his eyes, as Charles Laurent and Susan Douglass attempted to load a horse, and take him away from the only place that he wanted to be. I saw the look in his eyes, as he waited for me to step in and rescue him again, and the look of disbelief, when I didn’t. This was not in the best interest of the horse.

q. When it was obvious that the horse was not going to leave this loving home willingly, Susan Douglass decided that she would whip the horse until he jumped into the trailer out of pure fear. This was not in the best interest of the horse.

r. This horse had been subjected to some form of abuse for most of his life, now the people that were saying that they were acting in the best interest of the horse, were taking him away from a loving home, and were subjecting this abused horse to further psychological abuse, in that no physical damage was done with the whipping. This was not in the best interest of the horse.

s. As a result of a direct order of Susan Douglass, an employee of the New Hampshire Humane Society, required me to drive the sixty mile round trip to Laconia to get an application for adoption. Five days later our friend’s sister was offered an application by mail. This is an example off a deceptive business practices.

t. Jane Harris, the Assistant Executive Director of the New Hampshire Humane Society, scheduled a meeting to discuss this matter, four days after the horse had been given to the New Hampshire Equine Association. This is an example of conspiracy and deceptive business practices.

u. Joy Pierce the President, and Celia Wright, both told us that our application would be evaluated fairly. Sue and I both sent two page letters, along with the application, so that our intentions for the horse, would be clear. We promised that the horse would live out his natural life with us. We told them in a letter, that we planned to train the horse for mounted police patrol. We had such wonderful plans, to give the horse the best possible life. This would have been in the best interest of the horse.

v. When we got our rejection letter from Celia Wright, Adoptions Manager, for the New Hampshire Equine Humane Association, we were shocked when we read that the only reason that our application was rejected, was we had indicated that “FAMILY PET” was the intended use for the horse. They read our letters and this is just another example of deceptive business practices in the conspiracy to deprive us from adopting or otherwise gaining legal custody of the horse. Sue responded to the rejection letter, and so did I with a blistering letter!

44. As a result of the publicity this case generated, we have been offered six free horses. Although the offers were deeply appreciated, we declined, in that we were never really in the market for a horse. We made an attempt to board the horse out so that we would not become attached to him. When he wore out his welcome in three different barns, we had no choice but to bring him to our house. Well, so much for not getting attached to this horse. We couldn’t help getting attached to him, he responded in such a positive way to the love and kindness that he was receiving here. If we had wanted a horse we could have bought several, and it would have been cheaper than caring for this one, and then having to fight, for his rights and ours. We will never regret giving that horse the best year of his life, in the best interest of the horse.

45. We feel that the actions by the New Hampshire Humane Society, and the New Hampshire Equine Humane Association, was a vindictive conspiracy, in that they purposely and knowingly engaged in deceptive business practices, with the sole purpose for these deceptive practices, being, to deprive us, (John B, Foster & Susan M. Emanovsky and our daughter Brianna M. Foster) of adopting or otherwise gaining legal custody of the abused horse “SPIRIT”. We can only assume that someone in those organizations wanted the horse for profit, or wanted the horse at no expense, and when we got in their way, this matter became a personal vendetta against us, and had nothing to do with the best interest of the horse.

46. We have written and sent over twenty five letters to the New Hampshire Humane Society and or the New Hampshire Equine Humane Association, and so far we have received just two letters from the New Hampshire Equine Humane Association.

a. There is no way to understand the reasoning on the part of the two organizations, for not responding to the numerous letters we sent.

b. We can only assume that the issues that we addressed in those letters must have touched a few nerves, and there was no way for them to address our concerns.

c. We feel that, their failure to respond to our concerns, substantiates our feelings, assumptions, and opinions, as there has been no objections or denials to the content of any or our letters. We can only assume that the New Hampshire Humane Society and the New Hampshire Equine Humane Association, regards the content of our letters to them as fact.

47. I was determined to have a meeting with the New Hampshire Humane Society, and that chance came when they advertized a public annual meeting. This is the big galla annual event where the Society pats themselves on the back, and tells thier members what a wonderful job they have done. It is also where they justify their existance to the general public, and discuss the past year. They also discuss the plans for the future, and beg the members for more money. I walked into the meeting hall all decked out in my one suit, and noticed a very large table of food. It must have taken hours to set the hall and food table up. I sat down with my note book in hand, and a man came over and introduced himself to me. Once he found out who I was he made an excuse to leave and mingle. He beat a hasty path to talk with one of the board members. I noticed a hasty meeting of several people was seceretly called in the kitchen. The meeting finally started about fifteen minutes late, and several awards of merit were given out. It was time for the reports of the officers then, and much to my surprize, those reports were all less than a minute long. I suspected that something was wrong then, and my suspisions were found to be true. The entire annual meeting of the New Hampshire Humane Society lasted eight minutes. I was shocked, when the meeting was abruptly adjourned. Nothing had been discussed, reports that gave no information were quickly approved. Once the meeting was adjourned, almost everyone left. The massive food table was virtually left untouched. I could see that I had disrupted the galla event by my presense. I am sure that the little dog and pony show was staged for my benefit, and the real meeting was rescheduled for a later date, by the officers that were in the kitchen meeting. I have talked to past members of the board of directors of the New Hampshire Humane Society, and they have told me that the annual meeting lasts over two hours, and an eight minute meeting was certainly a dog and pony show, staged entirely for my benefit.

48. Another chance for a meeting became a reality, when the Selectmen of the town of Rumney requested a meeting with the New Hampshire Humane Society. We were supposed to be told of the meeting so that we could attend. We were told about the meeting just six hours before the meeting was held. We had no time to reschedule work and childcare so that we could attend. The selectmen reported to us that when Mark Ackerman, the Executive Director of the New Hampshire Humane Society was questioned about the treatment we had received, he responded by saying, "We just feel that they acted prematurely." We wonder just how bad the abuse and neglect has to be, before the New Hampshire Humane Society will take action.

49. Sue and I have both been law enforcement officers for over twelve years, and we are shocked that this kind of thing can happen. This has to be a first, where a Humane Society has spent thousands of dollars, to take an abused horse out of a good loving home, and did little or nothing to prevent abuse when they had the chance. Surely they have spent much more than the horse could possibly bring, even at full retail prices. I know we have! We are prepared to spend more, to expose the skeletons, that we are sure, exist in a few closets, here in rural New Hampshire.

50. This document has been presented to the New Hampshire Humane Society and the New Hampshire Equine Humane Association, prior to it’s public release, in order to provide them with one more chance, to address our issues and concerns. The release of this document, along with the supporting, letters, documents, pictures, newspaper clippings, and affidavits, was provoked by the refusal of these two organizations, to acknowledge and or address, the issues and concerns contained in this document.

51. The possibility of us being sued by either the New Hampshire Humane Society or the New Hampshire Equine Humane Association is very remote, in that the facts that are represented in this document, have been carefully researched, and the supporting, documented, evidence, has either been included, or is available upon request.

52. This document, as well as all supporting documentation has been examined by an attorney, who is neutral, and is not representing us in any way. The opinion of this attorney is, that there is absolute validity to facts in this document, based on the documentation that was examined, and the failure of the New Hampshire Humane Society and the New Hampshire Equine Humane Association, to respond to our repeated requests for settlement of this matter, casts further doubt on their claims of acting in the best interest of the horse.

Sincerely,

John B. Foster & Susan M. Emanovsky