Today we are going to take a look at the actual complaints made by Klonda Richey, and the official records of the Montgomery County Animal Resource Center. Please click here to see the records, I will discuss them in the order that they appear.
As you read Klonda Richey's complaints I would like you to keep a few things in mind.
First, this section of the Ohio Revised Code found in section 955.12, Dog Wardens. "Dogs not registered as required by law, the court shall immediately order the warden to seize and impound the dog. Thereupon the warden shall immediately seize and impound the dog complained of." Here is the quote in context.
"Whenever any person files an affidavit in a court of competent jurisdiction that there is a dog running at large that is not kept constantly confined either in a dog kennel registered under this chapter or one licensed under Chapter 956. of the Revised Code or on the premises of an institution or organization of the type described in section 955.16 of the Revised Code or that a dog is kept or harbored in the warden's jurisdiction without being registered as required by law, the court shall immediately order the warden to seize and impound the dog. Thereupon the warden shall immediately seize and impound the dog complained of. The warden shall give immediate notice by certified mail to the owner, keeper, or harborer of the dog seized and impounded by the warden, if the owner, keeper, or harborer can be determined from the current year's registration list maintained by the warden and the county auditor of the county where the dog is registered, that the dog has been impounded and that, unless the dog is redeemed within fourteen days of the date of the notice, it may thereafter be sold or destroyed according to law."
Second, please note breed descriptions of Nason and Custer's dogs. They are called by both the victim and animal control as pit bull, pit mastiff mix, mastiff mix and one is called a boxer. There are no Cane Corsos recorded.
* * *
On 5/14/12 Animal Control responded to a cruelty complaint regarding one of Nason and Custer's dogs, a boxer puppy. The dog had been barking and was struck, the complaint stated that the puppy sounded like it was in distress. Animal Control Officer Baker stated that he spoke with the owner and saw the dog, it did not show signs of pain while he was petting it. Included in the report was Nason's statement that the complaint was a response to his son "messing with the fence" not concern about the dog. Nason received a written warning.
* * *
On 8/8/2012 Montgomery County Animal Control responded with a condition and license check to a complaint that a clearly stated "brown pit bull" was loose and had charged the complainant the previous evening. Police were called at that time but by the time police arrived the dog had been taken back into the house. The owners did not come to the door when police knocked and as soon as police left the dog was loose again. Nason and Custer received a warning for this. As Mark Kumpf, Montgomery County Dog Warden has stated a warning is simply an acknowledgement that ARC has responded to the call and that there is no follow up. There is no mention of any license check in the remarks.
* * *
On 9/26/12 ARC responded to another complaint about the clearly identified brown pit bull. This complaint is labeled as "Confinement." The ARC uses a form with areas asking yes/no questions. The form indicates that the dog is not a mixed breed but a "pit bull" and that there are no priors on this dog. Obviously somebody forgot about the 8/8/12 complaint on the same dog. Comments for this one state that two complaint calls had been left for ARC the previous evening that the dog was loose and very aggressive and that the owner is incarcerated. Julie Custer got the warning on this one.
* * *
On 12/27/11 ARC responded to a condition and license check for a dog with no descriptive information other than noting that the dog is not a mixed breed. Field Activity Records comments indicate that the dog is "very thin, ribs are visible, no food and water is outside." There is no record of any license check.
* * *
On an activity card dated 3/16//13 shows that the "comp states that the dog is loose again and the mailman will not deliver the mail." The memo section goes on to state "Comp states that the dog is loose again and she has a civil protection order against the owner. The dog has come after her before and she states that now he will let his dogs loose to go after her and her cats. She states that the mailman will no longer deliver mail to street because of this dog if it is not taken care of. There are no current license on file however there are two 2012 licenses on file 29070 male brown mix 29069 for a male tan mix breed. The dogs were registered to XXXXXXX with a public service of XXXXXXX. Comp states this animal has attacked her before and she has a civil protection order against the owner." This is followed by a repetitive statement and concludes with "I knocked on the door but nobody answered. I hear the dog barking in the house. I posted a warning."
Ohio Revised Code allows seizure of unlicensed dogs. ARC is aware and acknowledges that Nason's dogs are not licensed, at large and menacing residents, and are interfering with the delivery of mail by the United States Postal Service. Why did Montgomery County Animal Control refuse to take action allowed by ORC? They "posted a warning"? Wow...
This activity card is followed by a citation/violation listing a violation of ORC 955.11 "it was reported attacking people and cats."
* * *
On an activity card dated 5/23/13 showing a call date of 5/21/13 "Comp stated all four dogs were loose and chased her." The following citation/violation states "Nobody answered the door, did not see or hear a dog." Violations were noted.
* * *
An activity card dated 5/31/13 regarding a pit bull mastiff deals with the complaint that the dog was left out on a chain with no food or water. The complainant gave the animal food, the owner took the dog off the chain and told the dog to attack the complainant but the dog would not leave the yard. Richey asked for a return check in two days because she felt that the dog would again be chained at that time. Did they go back?
The report ends with a notation that the dog was not licensed and has several priors. ORC allows seizure of unlicensed dogs and seizure of Nason's unlicensed dogs would have saved Klonda Richey's life. A warning was given, wow. The citation/violation follows.
* * *
Moving on to activity cards dated 7/21/13 and 7/23/13 the complaint is that two bull mastiffs are loose "again" and chasing the complainant. This is followed by the citation/violation with a violation number on it.
* * *
On the 8/5/13 activity card we find the complaint that the owner is now putting the pit/mastiff in her yard to scare her and that there is STILL no license for 2013 and "several priors." Two warnings were posted but it was noted that "no one was home, did not see any dogs." The citation/violation follows.
* * *
On 9/9/13 the activity card indicates "the brown pit/mastiff is loose on the street, several priors, 2012 licenses." No one answered the door, no loose dogs. Two warnings were left. We have seen just how impressive the warnings are in promoting compliance with law. The citation/violation follows.
* * *
On 9/12/13 "the mastiff was loose again the previous evening, no current license, several priors." Comments include "no loose dog, no one answered the door." Remember that Ohio law gives animal control the ability to seize unlicensed dogs, this seizure would have saved Klonda Richey's life.
* * *
The 9/25/13 activity card shows the complaint dated 9/24/13 "the white pit pup is running loose, owner also has two brown mastiffs, several priors." Nobody answered the door but AC could hear a dog barking. That all important warning was posted.
* * *
At no time are any of Nason and Custer's dogs called Cane Corsos or Cane Corso mixes as Mark Kumpf has labeled them after the mauling death of Klonda Richey. This was apparently a post mortum transformation. All documents dealing with Richey's complaints deal with pit mastiff mixes, pit bulls or mastiffs and one lonely boxer pup.
Does anyone see any real attempt to do the job that the residents of Montgomery County pay animal control to do? Ohio Revised Code made it Mark Kumpf's job to impound unregistered dogs, this would have saved Klonda Richey's life.
Click here to see surveillance video taken by Richey showing Nason entering her property through her unfinished fence, trespassing, and menacing. Nason's dogs are shown in Richey's driveway exactly as she stated in her complaints.
Why have charges not been filed in this case?
