Jump to content

kylielou

Suspended Users
  • Content count

    42
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About kylielou

  • Rank
    Dog Owner
  • Birthday 12/06/1974

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Interests
    Walking my Amstaffs, Movies, Reading.

Extra Info

  • Location
    QLD
  1. Rangi's husband spoke with ACO Norton who told him that they had conducted a similar BITSA DNA test on his two dogs and had videoed the testing, but as the GCCC did not like the results, as it would have been the same as Rangis', proving they were not liars, Rangi put in an FOI to obtain copies, as you would. The reply from the person who handles the FOI: Council does not hold any copy of the documents that you have applied for???? This is a common practice the GCCC use as I went through the same problem with a dog called Maverick, who after the 22 point checklist were done on the dog, the GCCC claimed that the assessment was in fact not done and we had imagined everything?? But the GCCC did not know I had videoed the whole thing and I posted it on UTUBE for the whole world to see with their full name and email addresses. Then we had a back flip and we got one copy of the altered 22 point checklist and the other which had been completely falsified to match the altered copy of the first one.
  2. They are currently looking at useing the 22 pointchecklist however with the damage done with the Chivers Vs GCCC and Request for an internal review: In your last correspondence you raised three points: 1. That the BITSA DNA test could not identify an American Pit bull terrier, due to the fact they have no formal test to identify the breed make up, from an imported dog. To answer this you have to take into account, the only person stating the two dogs are Pit bulls is you. Your proof is a “known to be non-factual test called the 22 point checklist”. We on the other hand state and can prove that the two dogs are in fact just cross breed dogs. In order for you to be right, the two dogs would have to be recently imported dogs so the DNA test, as you say, would not work as the DNA gene pool for these dogs would not be included in the BITSA test. The Importation ban has been in force for a number of years so these dogs would have had to be put in cryogenic suspension, and woken up just before you seized them to make this statement factual. Or can you prove that the dogs are from the very rare, line bred pure bred Pit bull blood line that know body can find or even any of the Pit bull breeders can find as well. If you can, I would be happy to DNA paternity tests them with the Sire and Dam, to see if you are correct. We contend that the two dogs are from known breeds of Australian dogs, known and tested in the DNA data base, not from imported stock from the USA. 2. You still contend that the two dogs are American Pit bull terriers, with the only evidence or basis is the training and knowledge of your Animal Control experts using the 22 point checklist. You even state two trials: C Falcon Vs GCCC: A male in his 20’s, who before his trial was a victim of a home invasion where he was thrown out of a second story window after being beaten by a base ball bat. Mr Falcon was in hospital on morphine for 5 to 6 days before his trial where his lawyer was pressured to withdraw from the case as it was a conflict of interest with the GCCC. Still under the medication, morphine, (as stated by the Gold Coast Hospital) and taking several other medications throughout the trial, with broken ribs and bandaged from head to toe, the GCCC lawyers still preceded. Alf, told John Mokomoko over the phone, that he was present in the court room, so he is also able to verify this to be factual and true. A truly proud win in court? Justin Folkes Vs GCCC: As I recall, the GCCC withdrew from the trial, so clearly not a win, or proof the 22 point checklist is of any reliable use. 3. The 22 point Checklist is a useful tool: Let’s look at this reliable Tool, in the hands of untrained fools. 25/08/2003: Christina Anderson, Ashmore, two ACO from the GCCC, did use this useful tool to identify her dog as a Pit bull terrier. ACO Mark Pavey, Scored Tyra at: 48/66 ACO Lester Soloas, Scored Tyra at: 49/66 The dog was asleep at the time of the identification, as shown by the photos provided by, Lester Soloai, with her back to a black couch. Had these two experts bothered to examine Tyra, they would have noticed a ridge running down her back starting from between her ears to just past mid way down her back. The useful tool did not take this into account either. In January 2007, a real dog expert called Gary Blane did identification on Tyra, and an assessment of reliability of the 22 point checklist and found the GCCC assessment of Tyra false, being that Tyra was clearly a Rhodesian Ridge back cross, (possibly a Staffy or small terrier). The GCCC had to accept Gary’s assessment as fact and a Certificate of non-Prohibited dog breed was sent to Christine Anderson. This document is not recognised, by legislation, other councils in Qld, or any dog organisation in the world, but was in place of an apology. Useful tool at exposing two fools. 29/05/05: Kathy Spiller, Arundel, dog called Harley: ACO from the GCCC, did use this useful tool to identify her dog as a Pit bull terrier. AMO 27: Ken Burgess: Scored Harley 47/66 This makes the dog score over 45, so the dog is a Pit bull terrier….wrong, add up the scores and you actually get 45, Ken Burgess can’t count. The true score is 45/66 so dog is free to go home, Useful tool at exposing yet another fool. 01/03/06: Dino Da Fre Vs Logan City Council: ACO Allan Frederickson: Scored Rusty: 56/66 ACO Les Warren: Scored Rusty: 59/66 ACO Debora Pomeroy: Scored Rusty: 55/66 Vet Jackie Perkins: Scored Rusty: 58/66 RSPCA Mick McAuliffe Scored Rusty: 58/66 After 5 experts used the useful Tool, in 6 days giving evidence in court, the useful Tool was not good enough to win the trial against a simple DNA paternity test showing Rusty came from a Staffy, called Peggy. Dr J. Perkins even adapted the useful Tool into the 17 point checklist, to try and fool the magistrate, that she had bifocal three dimensional vision and could perform the checklist on TV video footage, taking measurements by her special vision, good try but the magistrate, was not that gullible. RSPCA Mick McAuliffe, Scored Rusty: 58/66, was so embarrassed after his first attempt at fooling a magistrate, in the Christine Maroske Vs Logan City Council, that he failed to turn up to give evidence in the Dino Da Fre Vs Logan City Council, (he was missing somewhere in the USA). He had no credibility after falsifying the first assessment in a rather silly way. His first attempt at adding his score was similar to that of AMO 27: Ken Burgess, he also can’t add. Christine Maroske Vs Logan City Council, RSPCA Mick McAuliffe, first assessment of a dog called Bella, added up to a true score of 45/66 making Bella not a restricted dog. He found out rather too late so a substitute assessment was falsified, by bumping the scores up a little to get them to add up to what the assessment sheet was falsely added up to. Problem was we had both assessments sheets. At this time in Logan Council, written into their local law was this, if you disagreed with Logan City Councils ACO there was an independent person whose decision was the rule. The only condition was they had to use the useful Tool, or the 22 point checklist. RSPCA Mick McAuliffe. His explanation was: “Due to an error in Calculation the 27/05/04” the two copies say it all. With the second falsified checklist, completed, with several scores bumped up a few points to get them to add up to 48/66, Logan City Councils lawyers also can’t count, the new checklist adds up to 47/66 not 48/66 so they still got it wrong. So the useful Tool exposes yet another 3 ACO as fools, a vet as a double fool, and a person from the RSPCA, as the biggest fool of all attempting to falsify documentation to be used in a court of law, this tool is truly a useful Tool. This is not the only time ACO have falsified their useful Tool, to save face, here on the Gold Coast, ACO Jason Tyrer and ACO Mick Hays, also did the same as poor old Mick, McAuliffe. February 2008: Fiona Gibson, Currumbin, Dogs Name Maverick: Two ACO officers were sent to perform the so called useful Tool, on a dog called Maverick, unknowingly so was, John Mokomoko. Who set up 5 video surveillance cameras, in the lounge room, posted a notice on the front door and in the middle of the lounge room wall that this property was protected by CCTV and filmed the whole show. At the end of the performance, John Mokomoko spoke with Jason Tyrer ( as shown on the video and as there was a tape recorder going in Jason Tyrer’s pocket at the time) regarding the fact that it was very hard to find an American Staffordshire terrier the colour that Maverick was as the only breeder was on the Sunshine Coast. Realising they had been set up, the two officers went back to the office and firstly made out that the assessments never happened. Problem for the GCCC was John Mokomoko had them on video, and I gave them an FOI request for the documentation that they had filled out before they left, also on video, the useful Tool, the 22 point checklist. After much difficulty, as their department claimed they did not do an assessment and they were not there at Currumbin, John Mokomoko posted the video on U Tube for the world to see, and the copies of the useful Tool arrived. ACO Jason Tyrer: Firstly scored Maverick at: 51/66 then bumped the score down to 45/66 by crossing out 3’s to lower scores so to give them a way out of not looking so stupid. This is still falsifying a document. ACO Mick Hays: did something even worse, he re-typed a whole new useful Tool to match Jason Tyrer’s modified copy, the FOI had asked for the original copies not a doctored modified version. I think this is called covering up false documentation? I have asked John Mokomoko to put the Video back on U Tube to assist the GCCC in remembering what had happen. Once again, a useful Tool at exposing a couple of fools. 06/11/2004: Justin Taylor: His dog Fonzie, ACO Selina Neil, GCCC, scored Fonzie over 45 so Fonzie is a Pit bull terrier. In the Magistrate court in Coolangatta, Magistrate Batts, did not accept the 22 point checklist (the useful Tool) or the expertise of ACO Selina Neil as even remotely feasible as an expert in dog breed identification, dog returned. A big problem here is ACO Selina Neil was the person on the Gold Coast who trained the likes of ACO Lester Soloai on how to use the useful Tool called the 22 point checklist in the first place, in 2003, however the magistrate also stated that ACO Selina Neil was not qualified as an expert in breed identification nor anyone she trained. This could explain why ACO Lester Soloai, has misidentified so many dogs using the useful Tool. Another prime example of the use of fools using the useful Tool: Julie Morris, Southport, Dog, Zeus: ACO Lester Soloai, scored Zeus over 45 so Zeus is a Pit bull terrier. ACO Selina Neil: scored Zeus over 45 so Zeus is a Pit bull terrier. Julie Morris, after having her dog under a destruction order for 4 years, decided to take it to the Supreme Court and challenge the useful Tools and the two expert Fools. A deal was made that if Julie Morris was to withdraw from the trial her dog Zeus would be allowed to reside on the Gold Coast without restriction for the rest of his life. The useful Tool did it again, exposing again the same two fools. Rangi Nikau , Coomera: ACO Lester Soloai: scored Mau: 49/66 ACO Len Murphy scored Whero: 48/66 I have access to over 20, false uses of the useful Tool, exposing the ACO as nothing but fools for this action and you expect I, Rangi Nikau to accept that maybe this time after over 20 times that I have been shown and can prove, that ACO’s have gotten it wrong, this time they have gotten it right? ACO Lester Soloai, of all ACO, has falsified evidence in a Supreme Court by claiming the reason he was an expert in dog breed identification in the Chivers Vs GCCC trial, was because he was trained by ACO Selina Neil in 2003 and by ACO Debora Pomeroy in 11th November 2004. Tango was identified by ACO Lester Soloai, as a Pit bull terrier by way of the useful Tool on the 19/04/2004. He was trained to use this useful tool by ACO Selina Neil, in 2003, in 05/11/2004 Selina Neill was proven not to be an expert in breed ID or anyone she has trained. “During 2003 I successfully completed the Gold Coast City Councils breed Identification Course Conducted by Ms Selina Neill who’s title is supervisor Animal Management, Gold Coast City Council” Ms Selina Neill, was never trained to use the 22 point checklist but it was handed to her by Geoff Irwin Supervisor Animal Management as stated by her in a recent trial, Andrew Richards in Southport court. In the space of 92 days the person who trained Lester as an American Pit bull terrier identification expert, has identified Tango as a Pit bull terrier and been discredited as a restricted dog breed identifier and trainer herself. 05/11/2004 Selina Neill was proven not to be an expert in breed ID or anyone she has trained “On or about the 10th and 11th November 2004, I successfully completed the breed Identification Course conducted by Ms Deborah Pomeroy of Brisbane City Council.” Lester stated in his Affidavit that he did the "useful Tool" 22 point checklist on Tango, on the 19/04/2004? and the reason he was such an expert in the art of the useful tool was the training he had from Debora Pomeroy, even suplying a certificult with dates....?? fool or tool I'm getting mixed up? Time line: On the 19/4/2004, Lester Soloai assessed Tango and determined this dog to be an American Pit bull terrier as per the assessment document called the 22 point checklist (the useless Tool). 209 days after Lester Soloai had used the 22 point checklist to ID Tangos as a Pit bull terrier, he was trained by Pomeroy on how to use it. Any training Lester Soloai obtained 209 days after his identification of “Tango” is not relevant, or would have in any way assisted him, I would have thought was obvious. Exhibit “LS4” confirms the date by way of certificate dated 10th and 11th November 2004 by Ms Deborah Pomeroy. So either we accept ACO Lester Soloai’s use of the useful Tool as a true way to identify a suspected dog as a restricted dog, a Pit bull terrier, or we do not because of his history of false identifications and his own evidence in the Chivers vs GCCC where he has lied and entered a false affidavit in this trial. Chivers Vs GCCC, in the SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPLICANT was entered in the Supreme Court went unchallenged, therefore is accepted as fact. This also proves the useful tool is false. Your proof that your “officers are of the opinion” and that the use of the “useful Tool”, has only proven your officers are nothing but incompetent fools. I will post this letter and all relevant documents on the internet, and I am currently preparing all false identifications for anyone who wishes to challenge the useless Tool in court. The Vic don't know were to go.
  3. Brenda Weber The Decision Maker Freedom of Information Maker Nerang Administration Centre. Nerang Southport Rd. Nerang. Date: 20.08.2010 Rangi Nikau Coomera Qld Dear Brenda Weber Request for Information under the Freedom of Information Act. My name is Rangi Nikau of Coomera Qld. I am writing to request the DNA results obtained by Gold Coast City Council Animal Control officers for my dogs Whero (female) microchip number 981000300296184, and Mau (male). May I also have the documentation of the time, date and place that these DNA tests took place, as I was told via phone conversation by Norton Verran that I had to go through the F.O.I process to obtain this information. Norton Verran also advised me via the same phone conversation, that a video recording was made of these DNA tests and therefore, would also like to obtain this recording. I understand that this application is regarding information about me personally and my personal property so there would be no fee for the request. I am aware that the GCCC may take up to 45 days to finalise this request. Thank you for your consideration. Rangi Nikau.
  4. Points of interest: 1) The Gold Coast City Council have the results from the DNA BITSA test back, they do not like the results as they will not let Rangi have them, she has to obtain them by FOI, funny if the results had come back as an Amstaf we all would know. 2) With this letter was 130 pages of copies of several dogs owners "Useful Tool" 22 point checklist, all of which the dogs had to be returned to the dog owners, I have currently finished another 20 cases proving the "useful Tool" was only a tool to trick dog owners and a few magistrates in to thinking that ACO had some special power, given to them by one Debora Pomeroy, to identify a suspected dog as a Pit bull terrier. However the name Charlatan is more appropriate to what the ACO are really. 3) Now Rangi has enough to go to the Police and have charges laid on the ACO and the GC Animal Control for common theft and fraud. Dear Norton Verran Animal Management Inspector For the CEO Gold Coast City Council 17th August 2010 Request for an internal review: In your last correspondence you raised three points: 1. That the BITSA DNA test could not identify an American Pit bull terrier, due to the fact they have no formal test to identify the breed make up, from an imported dog. To answer this you have to take into account, the only person stating the two dogs are Pit bulls is you. Your proof is a “known to be non-factual test called the 22 point checklist”. We on the other hand state and can prove that the two dogs are in fact just cross breed dogs. In order for you to be right, the two dogs would have to be recently imported dogs so the DNA test, as you say, would not work as the DNA gene pool for these dogs would not be included in the BITSA test. The Importation ban has been in force for a number of years so these dogs would have had to be put in cryogenic suspension, and woken up just before you seized them to make this statement factual. Or can you prove that the dogs are from the very rare, line bred pure bred Pit bull blood line that know body can find or even any of the Pit bull breeders can find as well. If you can, I would be happy to DNA paternity tests them with the Sire and Dam, to see if you are correct. We contend that the two dogs are from known breeds of Australian dogs, known and tested in the DNA data base, not from imported stock from the USA. 2. You still contend that the two dogs are American Pit bull terriers, with the only evidence or basis is the training and knowledge of your Animal Control experts using the 22 point checklist. You even state two trials: C Falcon Vs GCCC: A male in his 20’s, who before his trial was a victim of a home invasion where he was thrown out of a second story window after being beaten by a base ball bat. Mr Falcon was in hospital on morphine for 5 to 6 days before his trial where his lawyer was pressured to withdraw from the case as it was a conflict of interest with the GCCC. Still under the medication, morphine, (as stated by the Gold Coast Hospital) and taking several other medications throughout the trial, with broken ribs and bandaged from head to toe, the GCCC lawyers still preceded. Alf, told John Mokomoko over the phone, that he was present in the court room, so he is also able to verify this to be factual and true. A truly proud win in court? Justin Folkes Vs GCCC: As I recall, the GCCC withdrew from the trial, so clearly not a win, or proof the 22 point checklist is of any reliable use. 3. The 22 point Checklist is a useful tool: Let’s look at this reliable Tool, in the hands of untrained fools. 25/08/2003: Christina Anderson, Ashmore, two ACO from the GCCC, did use this useful tool to identify her dog as a Pit bull terrier. ACO Mark Pavey, Scored Tyra at: 48/66 ACO Lester Soloas, Scored Tyra at: 49/66 The dog was asleep at the time of the identification, as shown by the photos provided by, Lester Soloai, with her back to a black couch. Had these two experts bothered to examine Tyra, they would have noticed a ridge running down her back starting from between her ears to just past mid way down her back. The useful tool did not take this into account either. In January 2007, a real dog expert called Gary Blane did identification on Tyra, and an assessment of reliability of the 22 point checklist and found the GCCC assessment of Tyra false, being that Tyra was clearly a Rhodesian Ridge back cross, (possibly a Staffy or small terrier). The GCCC had to accept Gary’s assessment as fact and a Certificate of non-Prohibited dog breed was sent to Christine Anderson. This document is not recognised, by legislation, other councils in Qld, or any dog organisation in the world, but was in place of an apology. Useful tool at exposing two fools. 29/05/05: Kathy Spiller, Arundel, dog called Harley: ACO from the GCCC, did use this useful tool to identify her dog as a Pit bull terrier. AMO 27: Ken Burgess: Scored Harley 47/66 This makes the dog score over 45, so the dog is a Pit bull terrier….wrong, add up the scores and you actually get 45, Ken Burgess can’t count. The true score is 45/66 so dog is free to go home, Useful tool at exposing yet another fool. 01/03/06: Dino Da Fre Vs Logan City Council: ACO Allan Frederickson: Scored Rusty: 56/66 ACO Les Warren: Scored Rusty: 59/66 ACO Debora Pomeroy: Scored Rusty: 55/66 Vet Jackie Perkins: Scored Rusty: 58/66 RSPCA Mick McAuliffe Scored Rusty: 58/66 After 5 experts used the useful Tool, in 6 days giving evidence in court, the useful Tool was not good enough to win the trial against a simple DNA paternity test showing Rusty came from a Staffy, called Peggy. Dr J. Perkins even adapted the useful Tool into the 17 point checklist, to try and fool the magistrate, that she had bifocal three dimensional vision and could perform the checklist on TV video footage, taking measurements by her special vision, good try but the magistrate, was not that gullible. RSPCA Mick McAuliffe, Scored Rusty: 58/66, was so embarrassed after his first attempt at fooling a magistrate, in the Christine Maroske Vs Logan City Council, that he failed to turn up to give evidence in the Dino Da Fre Vs Logan City Council, (he was missing somewhere in the USA). He had no credibility after falsifying the first assessment in a rather silly way. His first attempt at adding his score was similar to that of AMO 27: Ken Burgess, he also can’t add. Christine Maroske Vs Logan City Council, RSPCA Mick McAuliffe, first assessment of a dog called Bella, added up to a true score of 45/66 making Bella not a restricted dog. He found out rather too late so a substitute assessment was falsified, by bumping the scores up a little to get them to add up to what the assessment sheet was falsely added up to. Problem was we had both assessments sheets. At this time in Logan Council, written into their local law was this, if you disagreed with Logan City Councils ACO there was an independent person whose decision was the rule. The only condition was they had to use the useful Tool, or the 22 point checklist. RSPCA Mick McAuliffe. His explanation was: “Due to an error in Calculation the 27/05/04” the two copies say it all. With the second falsified checklist, completed, with several scores bumped up a few points to get them to add up to 48/66, Logan City Councils lawyers also can’t count, the new checklist adds up to 47/66 not 48/66 so they still got it wrong. So the useful Tool exposes yet another 3 ACO as fools, a vet as a double fool, and a person from the RSPCA, as the biggest fool of all attempting to falsify documentation to be used in a court of law, this tool is truly a useful Tool. This is not the only time ACO have falsified their useful Tool, to save face, here on the Gold Coast, ACO Jason Tyrer and ACO Mick Hays, also did the same as poor old Mick, McAuliffe. February 2008: Fiona Gibson, Currumbin, Dogs Name Maverick: Two ACO officers were sent to perform the so called useful Tool, on a dog called Maverick, unknowingly so was, John Mokomoko. Who set up 5 video surveillance cameras, in the lounge room, posted a notice on the front door and in the middle of the lounge room wall that this property was protected by CCTV and filmed the whole show. At the end of the performance, John Mokomoko spoke with Jason Tyrer ( as shown on the video and as there was a tape recorder going in Jason Tyrer’s pocket at the time) regarding the fact that it was very hard to find an American Staffordshire terrier the colour that Maverick was as the only breeder was on the Sunshine Coast. Realising they had been set up, the two officers went back to the office and firstly made out that the assessments never happened. Problem for the GCCC was John Mokomoko had them on video, and I gave them an FOI request for the documentation that they had filled out before they left, also on video, the useful Tool, the 22 point checklist. After much difficulty, as their department claimed they did not do an assessment and they were not there at Currumbin, John Mokomoko posted the video on U Tube for the world to see, and the copies of the useful Tool arrived. ACO Jason Tyrer: Firstly scored Maverick at: 51/66 then bumped the score down to 45/66 by crossing out 3’s to lower scores so to give them a way out of not looking so stupid. This is still falsifying a document. ACO Mick Hays: did something even worse, he re-typed a whole new useful Tool to match Jason Tyrer’s modified copy, the FOI had asked for the original copies not a doctored modified version. I think this is called covering up false documentation? I have asked John Mokomoko to put the Video back on U Tube to assist the GCCC in remembering what had happen. Once again, a useful Tool at exposing a couple of fools. 06/11/2004: Justin Taylor: His dog Fonzie, ACO Selina Neil, GCCC, scored Fonzie over 45 so Fonzie is a Pit bull terrier. In the Magistrate court in Coolangatta, Magistrate Batts, did not accept the 22 point checklist (the useful Tool) or the expertise of ACO Selina Neil as even remotely feasible as an expert in dog breed identification, dog returned. A big problem here is ACO Selina Neil was the person on the Gold Coast who trained the likes of ACO Lester Soloai on how to use the useful Tool called the 22 point checklist in the first place, in 2003, however the magistrate also stated that ACO Selina Neil was not qualified as an expert in breed identification nor anyone she trained. This could explain why ACO Lester Soloai, has misidentified so many dogs using the useful Tool. Another prime example of the use of fools using the useful Tool: Julie Morris, Southport, Dog, Zeus: ACO Lester Soloai, scored Zeus over 45 so Zeus is a Pit bull terrier. ACO Selina Neil: scored Zeus over 45 so Zeus is a Pit bull terrier. Julie Morris, after having her dog under a destruction order for 4 years, decided to take it to the Supreme Court and challenge the useful Tools and the two expert Fools. A deal was made that if Julie Morris was to withdraw from the trial her dog Zeus would be allowed to reside on the Gold Coast without restriction for the rest of his life. The useful Tool did it again, exposing again the same two fools. Rangi Nikau , Coomera: ACO Lester Soloai: scored Mau: 49/66 ACO Len Murphy scored Whero: 48/66 I have access to over 20, false uses of the useful Tool, exposing the ACO as nothing but fools for this action and you expect I, Rangi Nikau to accept that maybe this time after over 20 times that I have been shown and can prove, that ACO’s have gotten it wrong, this time they have gotten it right? ACO Lester Soloai, of all ACO, has falsified evidence in a Supreme Court by claiming the reason he was an expert in dog breed identification in the Chivers Vs GCCC trial, was because he was trained by ACO Selina Neil in 2003 and by ACO Debora Pomeroy in 11th November 2004. Tango was identified by ACO Lester Soloai, as a Pit bull terrier by way of the useful Tool on the 19/04/2004. He was trained to use this useful tool by ACO Selina Neil, in 2003, in 05/11/2004 Selina Neill was proven not to be an expert in breed ID or anyone she has trained. “During 2003 I successfully completed the Gold Coast City Councils breed Identification Course Conducted by Ms Selina Neill who’s title is supervisor Animal Management, Gold Coast City Council” Ms Selina Neill, was never trained to use the 22 point checklist but it was handed to her by Geoff Irwin Supervisor Animal Management as stated by her in a recent trial, Andrew Richards in Southport court. In the space of 92 days the person who trained Lester as an American Pit bull terrier identification expert, has identified Tango as a Pit bull terrier and been discredited as a restricted dog breed identifier and trainer herself. 05/11/2004 Selina Neill was proven not to be an expert in breed ID or anyone she has trained “On or about the 10th and 11th November 2004, I successfully completed the breed Identification Course conducted by Ms Deborah Pomeroy of Brisbane City Council.” Lester stated in his Affidavit that he did the "useful Tool" 22 point checklist on Tango, on the 19/04/2004? and the reason he was such an expert in the art of the useful tool was the training he had from Debora Pomeroy, even suplying a certificult with dates....?? fool or tool I'm getting mixed up? Time line: On the 19/4/2004, Lester Soloai assessed Tango and determined this dog to be an American Pit bull terrier as per the assessment document called the 22 point checklist (the useless Tool). 209 days after Lester Soloai had used the 22 point checklist to ID Tangos as a Pit bull terrier, he was trained by Pomeroy on how to use it. Any training Lester Soloai obtained 209 days after his identification of “Tango” is not relevant, or would have in any way assisted him, I would have thought was obvious. Exhibit “LS4” confirms the date by way of certificate dated 10th and 11th November 2004 by Ms Deborah Pomeroy. So either we accept ACO Lester Soloai’s use of the useful Tool as a true way to identify a suspected dog as a restricted dog, a Pit bull terrier, or we do not because of his history of false identifications and his own evidence in the Chivers vs GCCC where he has lied and entered a false affidavit in this trial. Chivers Vs GCCC, in the SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPLICANT was entered in the Supreme Court went unchallenged, therefore is accepted as fact. This also proves the useful tool is false. Your proof that your “officers are of the opinion” and that the use of the “useful Tool”, has only proven your officers are nothing but incompetent fools. I will post this letter and all relevant documents on the internet, and I am currently preparing all false identifications for anyone who wishes to challenge the useless Tool in court. Please send your excuses and all further documentation to Rangi by email not by Fax as you clearly don’t know how to use the fax machine by the copies you have sent to date. Thank you Rangi Nikau
  5. 6 August 2010 Email from Rangi Called the council today and Anton said that all correspondence have been sent out and we shall have it by Monday. Fingers crossed. Regards Rangi 9 August 2010 Message recieved from Cr Crichlow: The advice I have received on your request follows: Both these dogs have been deemed to be regulated (restricted) dogs. The older dog was in fact deemed to be a restricted dog over twelve months ago and the owner removed it from the City. The owner of the dogs has appealed our decision to deem them restricted dogs and the review of our decision has not been completed. It is hoped to have the review completed by the end of the week. We are not able to release the dogs until the process is completed, and only then, if we change our decision. Depending on the outcome of our decision, the owners have further appeal rights that they could pursue. So who's the biggest liar, ACO Anton, or Collet Mc Cool GCCC
  6. Email from Rangi Called the council today and Anton said that all correspondence have been sent out and we shall have it by Monday. Fingers crossed. Regards Rangi
  7. Good Afternoon John FYI - could you please on to Rangi The Director of Community Services (Colette McCool) has left me a message that she is unable to give me an answer today (on the registering of Rangi's dogs) as she has to seek legal advice. She asked that I be assured that she is seeking that advice and will have an answer for me tomorrow. Kind regards Dawn Cr Dawn Crichlow Ph: 55816280 Fax: 55816899 email: [email protected] This is the list of so called brains that run the Gold Coast City Council. http://www.first-place.com.au/appointments...20Structure.pdf :D :p ;)
  8. The saga continues: Yesterday, Cr Dawn demanded from the GCCC Animal Control, an explanation answer to another very simple question: Can a resident on the Gold Coast who own two dogs that are: Mo: Boston Terrier/ Golden Retriever Whereo: Staffordshire Bull terrier/ Boxer Register thier dog. The GCCC Animal control department has been formally instructed to not communicate anything to Cr Dawn? 10:30 am under my instruction the owners of the two dog followed councils guidelines on how to register their two dogs and now have in their possession the registration for: Mo: Boston Terrier/ Golden Retriever Whereo: Staffordshire Bull terrier/ Boxer Cr Dawn managed to get an ACO called Len to talk to her where she asked did these two dogs attack or hurt anyone, ACO Len told her no, that’s not true. Cr Dawn was told there is a note at the GCCC that these two dos are not to be allowed to be registered. (to bad that it had alredy been done, with the help of Cr Dawn, the power of one! and a bit of yelling and screaming helps) You could say Cr Dawn is not the sort of person who sea’s the funny side of being lied to, mislead, and generally stalled and when asked simple questions, the review of the dog owners questions on notice, and the unlawful conduct of the GCCC ACO will be finalized on Friday, 6th August 2010. Facts: 1. Mo: Boston Terrier/ Golden Retriever Whereo: Staffordshire Bull terrier/ Boxer 2. There is a DNA Bitsa test to prove this. 3. The two dogs have never hurt anyone. 4. The GCCC ACO has lied to the owners regarding said attacks, and is now on record to this fact. 5. The two dogs are registered as what cross breed dogs they are with the GCCC. 6. The next step is to involve the Police for theft. 7. The DNA results from the unlawful DNA samples sent by the GCCC will be at council today, of little use because of the way they were obtained. On the side note, we are working with a Police officer who is going through the same problem as these two dog owners have been through, some people just don’t know when to give up. If you try and call anyone from Animal Control on the Gold Coast, they are either on Holiday or unavailable to come to the phone, or if you go to the help desk the poor girls their have to lie and say they all are not available. John ;)
  9. Dear Councillor Bob La Castra Gold Coast City Council Animal Control. 3/08/2010 Dear Cr La Castra You were asked to explain a few very simple questions to establish if your action and the actions of the staff members who work under your control, (Vicarious Liability) were lawful and with admissible proof. The reply acknowledgment was Faxed to me at 17:02, being after office hours, in a format that I can only consider as a practical joke, I have attached a true, said copy for you to attempt to read. My two Dogs held for being Restricted dog breed, (American Pit bull terriers.) You were asked to explain what admissible evidence you had that my two dogs are American Pit bull terriers, ruling out the use of the 22 point checklist, as a tool by the Supreme Court trial Chivers Vs GCCC, part reply letter received states, “Councils officers are of the opinion that both dogs are restricted dogs and for that reason, pursuant to the Animal management (Cats and Dogs) Act 2008. a destruction order was issued” You offer no explanation on to how this opinion was formed or any admissible evidence to justify the continuing with holding of my property, so I can only take this as a clear admission that your officer’s action are unlawful and without cause. You were given the opportunity to explain why your officer took DNA samples without my consent. You were also asked with the results from your illegally obtained DNA samples taken, how are you going to establish that the results are that of American Pit bull terriers, When no-body in the world knows what the breed make up of a American Pit bull terriers is. My dog is a dangerous dog I obtained copies under an FOI to establish if my dog attacked any one, only to de supplied evidence to the fact that wile my dog had escaped my property, he went to a house not his owners, most possible thinking it was home, finding strangers behind a closed door, barked and ran away. Hardly the action of a dangerous dog, you have a temperament test which shows my dog not to be a dangerous dog or warrants this title. As you have refused to give admissible evidence to why you are still holding my dogs under a destruction order as Restricted dogs, (American Pit bull terrier) and Dangerous dog and your reply to the request Faxed on the 2 August was in a format that was barely legible, you have given me no reason but to put this in the hands of the Qld police services, to charge your officers and your self with common theft. My email address is, (removed)as your staff are not capable of the ability to intelligently send a fax. Once again from a resident of the Gold Coast. Rangi From Rangi Nikau Coomera
  10. At 17:02 the GCCC replied to Rangi's letter, demanding the return of her dogs or for council to come up with some admissible proof that her dogs were Pit bull terriers otherwise she would go to the Police in the morning and have them charged: The reply was to be faxed to me, I called, John Madigan, Acting Coordinator Animal Management, (07) 5581 6664 and asked them to email it instead. Now I wondered why no email until I got the fax, it was the old use the fuzzy photo-copy setting, but wait, someone at the Animal Control department has been staying back late, nights on the new unreadable super spy trick......reduce the A4 letter to half a page and then fax the three pages so you need a magnifying glass to read it or if you scan it and increase the size it becomes just about unreadable. Why send it at 17:02 when the phones go to answer service and all ACO are unable to be reached? One part I could just make out was: Councils officers are of the opinion that both dogs are restricted dogs and for that reason, pusuant to the Animal management (Cats and Dogs) Act 2008. a destruction order was issued No explaination as to how these officers came to their opinion, we all know opinions are like [email protected]#es we all have one! I see no reason or excuse not to go to the police in the morning. John ;)
  11. Has anyone ever found this on the Qld government site: http://www.qcat.qld.gov.au/fees-and-allowances.htm regulated_dog_flowchart_2.pdf regulated_dog_flowchart_3.pdf
  12. I called the Gold Coast Animal Control, Southport Office. 47 Nerang Street Southport QLD 4215 Telephone: 1300 694 222 To speak to an Animal Control Manager, ACO Norton, Geoff Irwin, Lester Solaos..anyone and the good girl answering the phone after she had told someone who was asking, came back saying there are no Animal Mangers working today, I asked for their email address, she can give that out, I asked for phone numbers, she cant give that out either to me, it looks like it’s Animal management Public holiday…well who would have thought that? They aren’t hiding ..do you think?, As for the question above: Good question, here in Australia and it looks like in the USA, due to breeders trying to improve the breed, or make their line stand out it would seem that even their it is becoming difficult to tell what in fact is a pit bull by DNA. Just to show you, that not only do we know that the DNA test works here in Australia, but even in the USA their are other affected dog owners who have problems with councils trying to falsely identify their pets as Pit bulls. Bad luck the whole world uses the internet. Open this and play from half way through, 3:25, Logan Timms, I think you will get the point. Have fun watching I think David Letterman should run for mayor for the GCCC or at least Head of Animal Control as he is as smart as they are.
  13. Faxed to: CEO. Dale Dickson CR Dawn Cr Bob Dear Councillor Bob La Castra Gold Coast City Council Animal Control. 2/08/2010 Dear Cr La Castra My two dogs were seized on the 19th May 2010 when they were found by Council Officers after they escaped from my property, which is a minor offence considering the conduct of the department you hold office for: 1. The Animal Control Officers performed an unlawful identification on my two dogs pronouncing them to be Restricted dog breeds, namely American Pit bull terriers, by way of a system called the 22 point checklist. SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Kylie Louise Chivers v Gold Coast City Council [2010] QSC98 PARTIES: KYLIE LOUISE CHIVERS (applicant) v GOLD COAST CITY COUNCIL (respondent) FILE NO/S: BS6396/07 DELIVERED ON: 6 April 2010 DELIVERED AT: Supreme Court, Brisbane HEARING DATE: 29 March 2010 JUDGE: Martin J During this trial the validity of the 22 point checklist was tested and the Gold Coast City Council’s Barrister openly admitted that the identification test/system was wrong, false and unreliable, so to use this to identify my two dogs is nothing more than a trick to deprive me of my lawful property. When you were asked why your Officers were still using this test, when the validity has already been established in a Supreme Court, your reply to Mr John Mokomoko on Sunday, 1st of July at 10:45am, was “well it’s the only way available”. Once again you are permitting and authorizing employees, under your direct control, to disobey a direction/finding from a recent Supreme Court trial. This is conspiracy to commit fraud. 2. I have supplied factual/true evidence to show that my two dogs are, by way of a DNA BITSA breed identification test, in fact: Mau: Boston Terrier/ Golden Retriever Whero: Staffordshire Bull terrier/ Boxer 3. My dogs DNA was taken as per instruction from the manufacturers information, supplied in the test kit, and after extensive training from a court recognized DNA sampler, Mr John Mokomoko, 14 James Cagney Close, PARKWOOD, Qld 4214, Ph Mob.0421326408. Dino Da Fre Vs Logan City Council, Chivers Vs GCCC. 4. The sample was taken on council’s property in the normal hours of staffed operations and it was done in clear sight of all working staff. If security video equipment was present, my partner would have been documented doing the test. 5. At the time of the DNA BITSA test results, we were aware that with the ruling from the Chivers Vs GCCC that an American Staffordshire terrier and an American Pit Bull terrier are in Queensland the same breed. The results did not come back as American Staffordshire terrier, so you do not have any supported evidence or admissible proof to assert that my two dogs are American Pit Bull terriers. 6. If you still contend that my two dogs are in fact American Pit Bull terriers, then you would have no problem in informing me what is the breed combination that makes up an American Pit Bull terrier? This way I can rule out Mau: Boston Terrier/ Golden Retriever or Whero: Staffordshire Bull terrier/ Boxer, as your council did get the ruling that a American Staffordshire terrier and an American Pit Bull terrier are the same dog, so the DNA BITSA test easily proves that an American Staffordshire terrier is an American Staffordshire terrier. You are once again holding my two dogs without legal authority and without cause. 7. The email/information sent to Cr Dawn, then sent to me by way of email, states: Message from Cr Crichlow I asked the question about the DNA testing - have received the following answer- FYI - We are happy to do it but require their permission if you can suggest they give it to us we will have it done straight away. We have no evidence that the dogs they used for the test were theirs. The test results were dated in June but the dogs were in the pound since May? If they come back OK we can exempt the dogs if necessary and return them as long as no AmStaff is in the DNA line. Kind regards Dawn 8. Your Animal Control Officers have obtained DNA samples without consent, as per phone conversation with ACO Norton who informed my partner, Mete, and in a following conversation from ACO Alf, who both are employees under your direct control and are responsible for their actions under vicarious liability laws. The use of these second unlawfully obtained DNA samples are now, as you should know, of no relevant importance as the Hon Minister Desley Boyle has publicly admitted that the American Staffordshire terrier is not a restricted dog breed in both a QLD Government Media release and in person on Ch 9 on Saturday, 31 June 2010, making any results meaningless. Her statement that American Staffordshire terriers are not restricted dog breeds will be legislated as an amendment to the Animal Management Cats & Dogs law 2008 It is clear that the Gold Coast City Council have no lawful reason to hold my dogs, without my permission or consent and you have no admissible evidence to support your claims that my two dogs are American Pit bull terriers. Your Animal Control Officers have acted unlawfully and have committed fraud in the manner of which they attempted to steal my property by way of a trick or false pretence by using the 22 point checklist. You leave me no other option: If I have not been contacted by the end of this day 2 (July) amended to August 2010, and have in my possession my property, Mau and Whero, then I will have to contact the QLD Police department and have charges laid against the offending officers and yourself. A Resident of the Gold Coast. Rangi From Rangi Nikau Coomera
  14. Although Dogs Qld and Mel G were very quick to take credit for forcing the Qld Minister having to make the statement she has regarding the American Staffordshire terrier, the truth is far more interesting. First: 2004 Kylie’s dog Tango was seized as a Pit bull terrier. A Magistrate ordered that the dog was not to be allowed to return to the GCCC unless Ms Chivers prove to the GCCC that her dog was an American Staffordshire terrier. Then began the war to prove: 1. That the method of identification, 22 point checklist was nothing but a trick to fool dog owners into handing over their dogs and fool magistrates that council had experts in dog breed identification 2. That these experts in dog breed identification held training to a level supported in the rules of law as a true expert. First case to court was Justin Taylor vs GCCC Justin is a quadriplegic; the GCCC took his companion dog, as yes “it’s a Pit bull”. Under cross examination form Barrister, Jack Pappas, ACO Selina Neil crashed and burned, taking the 22 point checklist with her as her support. The Magistrate Batts ruled she was in no way an expert in dog breed identification holding no true qualification in this field. The attempt was then made to get another ACO to save the day, however, when it was found that the person who was to be the GCCC saviour was trained by ACO Selina Neil, that was the end of that and the dog was returned. Second Case to trial, Dino Da Fre Vs Logan City Council. 6 days in trial, the founder of the 22 point checklist (ACO Debora Pomeroy) on the stand, shooting herself in the foot that many times, even I felt embarrassed. Her star student Dr Jackie Perkins, a much better shot, having difficulties with her foot in her mouth, still manage to convinced the magistrate, she was also not an expert in dog breed identification. Trial over, submission being exchanged, Logan City Council, withdrew,… dog returned to owner. Then Darren Wills Vs Redcliffe City Council, and followed around about 57 other misidentifications which when they contacted legal advice informed them the best results for them was to just give the dog back, which they did. Chivers Vs GCCC We had to go to the Supreme Court BRISBANE: Then began the war to prove: 3. That the method of identification, 22 point checklist was nothing but a trick to fool dog owners into handing over their dogs and fool magistrates that council had experts in dog breed identification 4. That these experts in dog breed identification held training to a level supported in the rules of law as a true expert. This went through the trial, with total agreement from the GCCC barrister, going out of his way to assist. Then at the end, the GCCC barrister handed in a whole new submission, stating over the past 6 years, including the past trials, which councils had won throughout Qld their process was wrong and now they have the truth? The Amstaff and the Pit bull terrier are the same dog breed, as Ms Chivers had proven her case she sill loses because, her proven Amstaff is still a Pit bull terrier and as we know Pit bull terriers are a restricted dog breed. The judge had to rule with what was before him on the day. A win by stealth, Amstaff is a Pit bull terrier. A lot of noise from the ex-president of the Qld Amstaff club, and Dogs Qld but noise dose not change polices. Hard facts do. Working with Logan Timms Senior Policy Officer of the Department of Infrastructure and Planning, who is the real hero, in my mind, but don’t let him know that I wrote this: We were now faced with the task of proving the Judge ruling was wrong, the Judge gave us the way by stating this in his decision: [42] The determination of whether a dog is of a particular breed can be quite difficult. There is, on the evidence before me, no satisfactory scientific method such as DNA analysis which provides a reliable answer. The word “breed” itself has to be applied carefully. To determine whether a dog is of a particular breed is, of course, a question of fact. As we were aware that this has been a provable fact for almost 10 years here in Australia, and the GCCC barrister, never having requested this proof in 6 years, but asking for the proof at the end of the trial, we now had the opportunity to prove this point. I started DNA testing Pure breed Amstaffs with the help of Linc from the Victorian Amstaff club. We could, with 100% accuracy, show the DNA test for an Amstaff was solid. We started testing well known Pit bull terriers. The results: 1) Boston terrier cross Labrador? 2) Bulldog cross Staffy? 3) Boxer cross Staffy? 4) Neapolitan mastiff Ridgeback? 5) Ridgeback Cross Staffy? The crosses kept coming back different, I contacted the DNA lab, to find out a reason for the results, only to find they were aware of this and was one of the reasons they did not bother making up a DNA test to prove a dog was a Pit bull terrier. I contacted well known Pit bull breeders, who confirmed that same thing. Email to Logan Timms: To The Hon Minister Desley Boyle Member for Cairns C/o Dear Logan Timms Senior Policy Officer of the Department of Infrastructure and Planning Brisbane Logan, I have 2 questions: Question 1, The Hon Minister Desley Boyle has in her portfolio, The Cats and Dogs Animal Management Bill 2008. Within this, is a reference to the old 17A Restricted dog laws. My question is: As a law abiding citizen of Queensland and a dog owner, who wishes to obey the letter of the law, how am I to know if my dog is an American Pit bull terrier, a restricted breed? Can the Minister please give me a scientific positive way so I may, as a common person/ratepayer, be able to know that I have broken the law or not? As with Mete and Rangi Waikai, her two dogs "Whereo" and "Mo" were both placed under a destruction order by the Gold Coast City Council, Animal Management (Cats and Dog) Act 2008, section 127, Destruction Order.2010/01, Both dogs have been tested for Breed identification, known as BITSA which you are familiar with, and the results: Mo: Boston Terrier/ Golden Retriever Whereo: Staffordshire Bull terrier/ Boxer Both do not hold the cross breeding to be American Pit bull terriers so how is it they have broken the law? If Boston Terrier/ Golden Retriever are Pit bull terriers, then all other cross breeds are nothing more than mongrels and are free to live in peace, likewise if Staffordshire Bull terrier/ Boxers are Pit bull terriers then all other cross breed mongrels are then also free to live in peace as well? If the Minister can tell me what are the cross breeds to make an American Pit bull terrier, I will be able to advise Mete and Rangi Waikai on how they can fulfill their obligations as law abiding citizen's of Queensland and obey the current Animal Management (Cats and Dog) Act 2008. Thank you John Mokomoko The problem Logan Timms has is; what is the cross breed make up of the Pit bull when we can’t get a common match? I have 30 DNA test results, Logan Timm’s has possibly the same amounts, the DNA lab had 100’s…..it is fact that it is impossible to prove by looking at a dog or by proven Genetic testing that a dog is a pit bull, the law is flawed. It would be the same as saying we have a law that states "in the intrest of public safty, you are not allowed to speed on our roads" very good law this one, when asked at what speed is it unsafe to drive, reply, "Idon't know", or "I can't tell you that". With the help of this web page, and people like Tybrax cross posting it all over the world, the Hon Minister Desley Boyle has had no other option, but to fudge the law along and come out with the statement that the Amstaff is not a restricted dog breed, including in her statement she acknowledged the trial, Chivers Vs GCCC where the Amstaff and the Pit bull are the same breed, now without stating it has inferred that Pit bulls are also not restricted. As for Mel G, the ex- president of the Qld Amstaff club, I still have her letter of support sent to her club members, unknowingly sent to me. The knife wound in the back has healed up nicely, and everyone knows where you stand on BSL and good luck with your new breed of dogs, Boston Terriers, I hear. Its good to see that in the last minutes of all this you come to take the full credit, it shows you are good for something Dogs Qld, thanks for not supporting us as well and yes I do not want to be in your papered club membership. I am happy to support all dog owners regardless of breed or pedigree, so I completely understand you withdrawing any support as per your email. Tango as we all know has no papers, so funding and support should only go to your members, and to hell with those other dog owners… Many I have to thank, like Val, how I used as a Fact checker, Tybrax (Christina A) as idea sounding board, who has worked on this for longer than I have, as she was the one I asked for help when Tango was taken, Barrister Stephen Fynes-Clinton who gave up his time and wavered his fees to help many dog owners, with out the need for recognition, but we should not forget this is not over yet. John and Kylie, the little people who love their unpapered dogs. ;)
  15. I have just gotten of the Phone to Cr Bob La Castra, 10:45 am Sunday I asked him a simple question regarding the return of the two dogs in the GCCC pound, that his department claimed to be restricted dogs, Pit bull terriers. Q1, with the announcement from Hon Minister Desley Boyle, stating that the American Staffordshire terrier is not a restricted dog breed, both on the Qld Government web page, Media release, and on Ch 9, 10 and all local news papers, why are you holding Rangi’s dogs? A, I don’t’ read the news papers, or watch TV…”I Know Nothing”… (Hogan Heroes, Sergeant Shaltz!) and he insisted that knowone tells himanything? Q2, then do you read the Qld Media released? A, I will. Q,3 Your department stated in emails from Cr Dawn, that if the DNA test comes back and there is no Amstaff in her dogs DNA they could go home, with the amendments this is now meaningless. A, I will have to have a meeting middle of next week to find out anything to do with this. Q4, With the Hon Minister Desley Boyle, decision, that the Amstaff is not a restricted dog breed and the Chivers Vs GCCC ruling that the Amstaff and the Pit bulls are the same breed, is this now so that there are no restricted Pit bull’s either? A, I will have to have a meeting middle of next week to find out what we will do. Q5, why won’t the Animal control department answer Rangis question on notice. A, ask me I will. Q6, In the Supreme court Chiver Vs GCCC your Barristers openly admitted that the 22 Point checklist was an invalid and unreliable, method of identification, then why did your officers use this system after the trial to identify Rangi’s two dogs. A, well its the only method available. Q7, so you don’t have to abide by a Supreme court ruling? A, I will have to find out middle of next week when we have a meeting …. Q7, you were quoted in the news paper, that if the DNA test comes back that the two dogs were not Pit bull terriers, then the family would be compensated for their cost? A, yes that is true. Q8, then would Kylie Chivers would also be compensated for the past 7 years two trials and for the work proving every thing over 59 misidentification of other dog that councils have taken unlawfully.? A, will have to find out middle of next week when we have a meeting …. I think you as a member of the public should call write and ask this councilor why Rangi’s dogs are still in a pound when the uninformed Councilor has no lawful reason for holding them? http://www.goldcoast.qld.gov.au/t_standard2.aspx?pid=349 Councillor La Castra can be contacted any time by office phone or mobile. He is available at the Nerang Administration Office by appointment. Phone: (07) 5582 8206 Mobile: 0414 180 008 Fax: (07) 5596 6010
×