Free! » Place a Classified· Submit News· Add an Event· Share a Photo· Get Email News Alerts« Free!
Home
Obituaries
News
Sports
Opinions
Business
Style
Calendar
Classifieds
FauquierNow.com
Will the trial of former Gov. Bob McDonnell and wife Maureen result in any conviction? Vote!
Thursday, July 31, 2014 · Login · Register · Forgot Your Password?
About Us · Advertise
« Share this page
April 22, 2013 · By .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

Broad Run kennel owner sues humane inspector

14
File Photo/Lawrence Emerson
Hilleary Bogley, a court-appointed humane inspector for the county, wrote a damning report that includes information the kennel owner calls false.
File Photo/Lawrence Emerson
Irina Barrett tearfully denies the allegations in Mrs. Bogley’s report during the February BZA hearing.
Prior to the events giving rise to this suit, Barrett had an excellent personal and business reputation.
— Thomas H. Roberts, attorney for kennel owner
The Lawsuit
• Plaintiff: Irina Barrett, owner of Canis Maximus Kennel near Broad Run

• Defendants: Hilleary Bogley, county humane investigator, and Middleburg Humane Foundation, which she runs

• Filed: April 10

• Where: U.S. District Court in Alexandria

• Allegations: Defamation, misrepresentation of financial interests and fraud

• Seeking: $1 million in compensatory damages, $350,000 in punitive damages, attorneys’ fees and other relief.
The owner of a controversial Broad Run dog breeding kennel has filed a $1.35-million lawsuit against Fauquier’s humane inspector and the foundation she runs.

Irina Barrett alleges that Hilleary Bogley presented false information in a widely-distributed report about Canis Maximus Kennel at 6205 Beverleys Mill Road.

Mrs. Barrett’s suit (copy embedded below) also charges that Ms. Bogley misled the kennel owner in convincing her to give up a dozen dogs for placement through the Middleburg Humane Foundation.

The lawsuit, filed April 10 in U.S. District Court in Alexandria, alleges Ms. Bogley had financial motive for her actions, because the foundation charges adoption fees for the animals it places.

Canis Maximus Kennel, specializing in Doberman Pinchers and Great Danes, has operated without a business license or zoning permit in Fauquier for more than 3-1/2 years.

A court-appointed humane inspector for Fauquier, Ms. Bogley three times in January visited the 4.9-acre kennel property before writing a damning report, which became part of a case before the county board of zoning appeals.

The report cited allegedly poor conditions at the kennel, including abundant animal waste, inadequate ventilation and lack of sufficient staffing.

At a BZA hearing in February, Ms. Bogley called the operation “a puppy mill.”

Twenty-six people — mostly kennel neighbors and animal rights activists — also testified at that hearing and a shorter one April 4. County staff members also received more than 400 e-mails about the case before the first hearing.

Alleging defamation, Mrs. Barrett’s lawsuit denies many of Bogley report’s findings.

“Prior to the events giving rise to this suit, Barrett had an excellent personal and business reputation,” her attorney, Thomas H. Roberts of Richmond, wrote in the lawsuit.

During the April 4 BZA meeting, Mrs. Barrett withdrew her application for a special zoning permit.

She reapplied the next week. A denial from the BZA would have required her to wait a year to reapply.

Later the same week, the county cited Mrs. Barrett for zoning violations.

The BZA will again consider the permit application June6. Mrs. Barrett has said she will present architectural and site plans for a new kennel building that will address noise and setback issues.

Neither Ms. Bogley nor Mr. Roberts returned phone or e-mail messages Monday afternoon.

Once sheriff’s deputies serve the defendants with the suit, they have 30 days to file responses with the court.

Barrett Lawsuit by Fauquier Now

Member comments
To comment, please log in or register.
MyScreenName · May 1, 2013 at 12:38 pm
Canis Maximus Kennel, specializing in Doberman Pinchers and Great Danes, has operated without a business license or zoning permit in Fauquier for more than 3-1/2 years.

Anyone else see anything wrong with this?
MyScreenName · April 29, 2013 at 1:56 pm
Everyone needs to email .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) and JUST SAY NO TO IRINA BARRETT. Make sure that all concerned friends, family, and colleagues write too. Barrett can't be allowed to continue after she has disregarded the law in two counties and is allegedly running a puppy mill.
MyScreenName · April 29, 2013 at 1:53 pm
Come on Irina - you're not a lawyer so stop representing yourself as one. You can't even use the English language properly; you certainly are not "Yale Law" educated.

You're a joke.

We have a legal system in this country to stop people like YOU - who fled from Fairfax County after operating an illegal business and now you're operating an illegal business (an alleged puppy mill) in another county. You've broken the law in two counties. Where are you going to run to next? There is no way you will get a Zoning variance. Your neighbors are against it, the public is against it, and animal lovers are against.

You and your alleged puppy mill are going to have to pack up and move again.

Yale Law · April 25, 2013 at 9:09 am
"What's the number for your law office?". You sound like a broken record. Please read my previous message. I would be more then happy to speak with you on the phone if you provide me with your contact information. Second, due to your inability to defend your point of view with facts based on the case above you are diverting the issue on to a subject of my office or my employment. If you have facts to support your position other then your tirades based on assumptions and emotions then please provide me with your information. You do not need my office information nor do you need my number. You have asked to speak with me and I am more then happy to speak with you if you provide me with your contact information. If you chose not to provide me with your information then that is fine. However, please do not attempt to divert the issue at hand from Ms. Bogleys false representation to Ms. Barret and her use of the dogs obtained under false pretenses for self gain and profit all of which are supported by her tax filings which are of public record. I am not a supporter of Ms. Barret,however I will not sit quiet when I see that a group of individuals are misleading the public and terrorizing a person based on lies and terrorizing, bullying a women whom is simply trying to defend her self and explain to the public her point of view. We have a legal system in the country for a reason. If you your self were accused of facts that you believed are lies, I would hope that you would also want to have the opportunity to share you side of the story as this women is doing in court.
MyScreenName · April 25, 2013 at 6:32 am
What's the number for your law office?
Yale Law · April 24, 2013 at 7:29 pm
If it makes you feel better to believe that I am that women then please believe so to your hearts content. Additionally, I find it interesting that rather then discusing the facts you are attacking me in the most childish was possible for having a different view then you. It simply goes to show how fanatical you are.

To the person that questions my education or my position in society I would be more then happy to speak with you. Simply provide me on this site with your phone number and I will be more then willing to call you and discuss our differences in a mature manor.
MyScreenName · April 24, 2013 at 3:37 pm
Hey Yale - where is your law practice? I'd like to give you a call.
MyScreenName · April 24, 2013 at 3:36 pm
Ok Irina - whatever you say.
MyScreenName · April 24, 2013 at 3:34 pm
To anyone receiving an email from Barrett's lawyer, IGNORE IT. He has copies of all the emails to Zoning (which he is entitled to). However, YOU ARE UNDER NO LEGAL OBLIGATION TO RESPOND. I called my lawyer when I got my email and she told me to ignore it. Check with yours if you're not sure. I'm not helping anyone who helps an alleged puppy miller.
Yale Law · April 24, 2013 at 12:01 pm
The individual whom posted regarding my comment. First I am not Ms. Barret. The fact that a person posts a comment which is not line with your blind fanatical tirades does not insinuate that I am Ms. Barret. Second, it is clear that you did not take the time to read the document above in its entirety.
If you had you would understand that YES in fact there are some valid claims to what is being said by Ms. Barret. Third, when you obtain property or goods or chattel from a person under false pretenses as was done above then YES that is a crime. Here, there was no court order requiring Ms. Barret to give up her dogs to Ms. Bogley. Rather, Ms. Bogley obtained possession of the dogs by saying that she would take the dogs and find them a good home by adopting them out. What should have been said was "I will take the dogs and find them a good home, we charge a fee for the dogs obtained and the fee is used to pay the salaries of the individual at the organization and maintenance". As you can clearly see by Ms. Bogleys own words in the initial report that was not done.

I believe you are mistaking your emotions and the law, or you are one of many employee whom is beholden to Ms. Bogley and her organization. Regardless, it does not matter I understand the frustration you must feel regarding animal abuse and I am a avid supporter of the prosecution of individuals whom abuse animals. HOWEVER, in the above mater it is not an issue of animal abuse! If there was a case to be brought concerning animal abuse then the dogs would have been taken away immediately by a court order. THIS DID NOT HAPPEN HERE.

Most importantly regarding your staunch opposition to the fact that no sale took place for the dogs which were obtained by false pretenses by Ms. Bogley. I would like you to take the time to look at the advertisements which were posted in the paper and other media sources for the sale of the dogs. A sale is in simple terms can be defined by an, Offer, Acceptance, Consideration. Does not matter if you say it is a fee or what other name you use. Then to take the revenue generated from the sale of the dogs which based on the above document is in the six figures yearly to pay your self %0 the rate of what all other individuals are paid at your organization clearly demonstrates an issues which needs to be looked at more further regarding the legality of her actions in relation to a conflict of interest. There is not problem with paying your self that amount but do not say that you are taking the dogs from people because you love them and want to find a good home for them when you are really taking the dogs to sell the animals for personal gain. You can not argue with facts. If she loved the dogs so much then why would she pay her self so much and not return the money into the shelter to care for the animals.

Lets not forget about the issue regarding the fact that Ms. Bogley is a direct competitor of Ms. Barrett. If you take a step back and look at what is going on here an individual my get the perception that Ms. Bogley is trying to terminate her competition to ensure that she is the sole source for purchasing high end animals. IN A COURT OF LAW ALL INDIVIDUALS ARE INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. AND THE DUE PROCESS GRANTED TO US BY THE CONSTITUTION ALLOWS ALL MEMBERS OF THIS SOCIETY TO DEFEND THEM SELF'S AGAINST ACCUSATIONS BOTH CRIMINAL AND CIVIL. You should remember that when you attack a person for trying to clear there name. If Ms. Bogley followed the rules and the law then she has nothing to be worried about and Ms. Barrett is S.O.L. However, if Ms. Bogley acted in a manor in which she abused her power for personal gain then there needs to be accountability.



MyScreenName · April 24, 2013 at 8:50 am
Bogley screwed up royally by not bringing charges against Barrett last year; however, she does NOT sell dogs - she adopts them out. Stop pretending to be a lawyer Irina - this was clearly written by you and you are clearly NOT Yale material. You can't even use the English language properly.
Yale Law · April 23, 2013 at 10:47 pm
I am a avid supporter of animal rights so it pains me to say what I am about to say. Speaking only based on the law and the facts presented in the above matter Ms. Bogley needs to understand that the court of law and the court of public opinion are two different matters completely. Her actions in the above matter do clearly place her in a very compromising situation given that her own statements in the initial report of taking the puppy's to be given up for adoption. Important to look at the words used. Adoption and sale are two drastically different words in the eye of the law regarding this matter. Additionally, the simple fact that given her financial incentives in partaking in such activities as confiscating animals from individuals only for the purpose of re-sale for what seems to be six figure earnings yearly places her in a situation where there is a clear conflict of interest and abuse of power. I would have much rather seen there simply give the animals for adoption free of charge avoiding such serious implications legal and criminal implications and utilized the revenue of donations for the business rather then the profit generated from the sale of the dogs. Having the power of over site for the safety of animals while shutting down businesses whom are in the same stream of commerce as your self posses a serious breach of both
Ethics and legal morality. Ms. Bogley please utilize the paychecks which you are given to better serve the dogs rather then paying your self through the sale of the dogs which you confiscate.

Dobermomma · April 22, 2013 at 8:05 pm
Jeez - Barrett is such an idiot. Does Hillary Bogley need donations for a legal defense fund????
Betsy A · April 22, 2013 at 5:39 pm
Ms. Barrett has one heck of a nerve. I hope (for the dogs' sake), she never gets her permit. Shame on her !
Facebook comments
« Share this page
OPINION
Friday, July 25
Like 0 · 0 ·
Get e-mail news alerts
delivered to your inbox.
Enter your e-mail address
© Copyright 2011-2013

50 Culpeper Street, Suite 3
Warrenton, Virginia 20187
540.359.6574
Crime Log
Obituaries
Business
Add Your News
The Big Picture
Ellen’s Kitchen
and Garden

Features
Real Estate
For Sale
Employment
Automotive
Announcements
Legal Notices
Post an Ad
Advertise
Terms of Service