Protect the Pets
Meet Dr. Robb
Contact
News
Expert
Clients
Donate
FAQ
Take Action
Pet Talk Forum
Blog
Store
Member Vets
News

Boycott !

-Banfield the Pet Hospital

-Petsmart

-The Mars Company

They are killing our pets! Pass it on!!

More in news:




Closing Arguments in PetSmart Case

PetSmart, Inc.   V.  Robb, John M.                                          May 1, 2013
FST-CV-6017322-S

Defendant’s Closing Arguments


This is purely a case of good against evil, man vs. God. God has put Dr Robb in a position to protect the Pets.  Unfortunately in a world gone wrong there are companies like PetSmart/Mars and Banfield whose sole interest is profit – even at the expense of the pets.  They will do anything to continue their masquerade as the “good guys” when the truth is the opposite.  Just look at what they have done thus far in this court case.  They have lied about Dr Robb’s character.  Even though they say they have 4 video cameras inside the store and one outside the store they produced none in court to substantiate their insinuations about my behavior. If my behavior was such a serious issue, why wouldn’t they keep the tapes that would prove it?  Obviously the reason is there was nothing on them to prove their point but in fact would have exonerated me from their lies.   On the other hand I was able to procure a video of me that clearly demonstrates my behavior and what I was doing there- peaceably handing out literature on over-vaccination to protect the very pets entrusted to me.  I was doing my reasonable service before God in keeping my Hippocratic Oath to warn my clients not to believe the lie Banfield/Mars/Petsmart were perpetrating that their pets were under-vaccinated. Unfortunately many of my client’s pets will pay the ultimate price – death- because I was not able to warn all of them. Do you know Judge that in late February of this year a client named Catherine Trundy took her 12 pound 17 week golden retriever puppy to a Banfield in Holmack, NY and the Banfield vet gave the puppy 3 one cc vaccine doses including rabies?  By that afternoon Catherine’s 9 year old daughter was watching her puppy seizure in the living room.  The puppy was taken to the Veterinary Emergency Clinic of Long Island where it went blind and continued to seizure despite treatment.  A cerebral spinal fluid tap was done for lab analysis and confirmed it was a vaccine reaction.  The pet was suffering and euthanized humanely.  That pet would have never died if it came to me because I would have only given one vaccine and ½ ml dose.  This occurred after I presented in Stamford Court the 2012 Purdue study of 1.2 million dogs that concludes   -  small dogs given multiple vaccines have a much higher risk of reaction! The very thing they did to this puppy! I also sent the Purdue Study onto PetSmart and they also rejected it. What a tragedy for that pet and the 9 year old girl who had to watch her first dog dying from a vaccine reaction that should have never happened!  Banfield/PetSmart/Mars are in collusion caught in the act of Petocide – the systematic destruction of innocent pets for profit by corporations.


I produced 6 witnesses encompassing the entire time that I was at the PetSmart store the three occasions presented in court – December 13th 2012 – Corey Evans,  December 22nd 2012    -- Wendy Flammand,  Minister Bob Cutting,  and January 19th – a Stamford police officer, Wendy Flammand, Brendan Folgo, and Bridgette Dunn.  All of them completely destroyed Petsmart’s assertions that I was acting irrational as complete and utter lies!  Even you judge said to them their case was weak by the evidence presented. 
The Petsmart manager, Greg, testified he read the literature I handed out during my visits to PetSmart on December 13th and December 22nd and it was only about over-vaccination and had no negative remarks about PetSmart.   It is true at the picket I handed out leaflets which is in evidence but this was not done on PetSmart property but rather on the sidewalk and a TRO will not prevent me from doing that nor can I be arrested for freedom of speech.
We live in a time when our God given rights, especially liberty, so boldly expressed in the constitution of the United States, have been watered down to the point where a righteous man speaking the truth in love fulfilling his Hippocratic Oath to protect the pets has to face the possibility that the very court system enacted to protect his liberty is being used by people whose god is their money to squash the very people it was made to protect. They are using you judge as a pawn in their game to take away my liberties.  I have not broken any laws; have not caused any disturbance at their stores.  On the other hand they have staged disturbances to try and keep the truth from coming out about profits over pets having corporate workers (cronies) come into the store and make a scene to give the appearance of a disturbance. They have sent the police to my house to intimidate me and my wife, harassing, lying and tying to cause harm to me and my reputation. With everything these people have done to me and my family I am the one who should get a TRO against them not the other way around.


This case was already tried in US District Court in Hartford, Ct where Magistrate Martinez and Judge Chatigny refused to continue a TRO after listening to the merits of the case for 6 weeks starting in December 2012 and ending in February 2013.  In the attached “Ruling and Order” issued the 28th day of December 2012 Judge Chatigny said,” If a deterrent is needed, as the plaintiffs claim, the defendant’s recent arrest for trespassing should suffice. If it does not he is subject to rearrest. That should provide sufficient protection for the plaintiffs pending the hearing”   They also did not rule I was in violation of the TRO when I went to warn my clients and was falsely arrested. Read the enclosed document titled “Recommended Ruling on Motion for Preliminary Injunction” dated February 6th, 2013.  Magistrate Martinez writes, “As indicated, the plaintiffs sought injunctive relief only until the February 5th, 2013 termination date of the CPA.  The CPA has now terminated.  In view of these undisputed facts and plaintiffs’ concession that their motion is moot the court should not reach the merits of the motion but should deny the preliminary injunction motion as moot.” You Judge Genuario would be reversing the decision made by Judge Chatigny and Magistrate Martinez who listened to many more hours of lies by the Plaintiff before ruling in my favor.  Same companies, same TRO, same arguments, and different decision – I think NOT!


Look Judge this is a case of Corporate America gone wrong.  They are attacking me in US Civil Court, State Court of Ct, going after my veterinary license in Ct, having me arrested, sent to a psych ward.  They will do anything and everything to silence me because I tell the truth and protect the pets while they lie to the public and put profits over Pets.  They are using you as a pawn in their game to try and drive a nail in my coffin.  It doesn’t escape me judge that you are a righteous man that God has put in this very position at this critical hour in our country’s history to be his instrument  and do the right thing in a country gone wrong.  They PetSmart/Banfield/Mars are trying desperately to get some judge to rule in their favor.  They are using you Judge Genuario to try and get a verdict they could use as a tool in the criminal trespass case, the US Civil Court Case and the State Investigation into my license.


They have proven no economic damages, they have proven no unrighteous behavior they have only committed lie after lie to have you do their bidding as they try and weave a web of deceit. I know you judge see the spiritual battle over the very souls of those in these corporations and throughout America who are blind to the enemy and used as pawns in his game.  I love my enemies and see their blindness in going after the riches of this world. Their behavior must be corrected. Ruling in my favor is part of that correction. I want the best for very people who are attacking me.


PetSmart says this is not the same as the US District court, that they are separate companies. If that was true then why do they have the same lawyers in both cases, I thought that was called a conflict of interest.  There is no conflict here because they have the same interests. In addition PetSmart is part owner of Banfield, how can it be they are separate companies and Banfield just rents space? There were two armed guards for security hired in the three PetSmart stores, one paid by Banfield and one paid by PetSmart, separate companies with different interests, I think NOT!


What about the burden of proof, they have proven nothing.  Why would they have brought up all the lies about my behavior except to show economic damages, but since my behavior was lawful and righteous there are no economic damages.  They have proven nothing!  In the end it will be their own alignment with over-vaccination for profits that will result in economic damages – damages not brought about by Dr Robb but rather the pet owners who love their pets. Dr Robb was actually giving them the opportunity to show the public they cared by aligning themselves with a Doctor that has a 30 year unblemished record of being a champion for the pets.  Instead they tried to destroy his reputation to continue their alignment with the profits flowing from over-vaccination.


No Judge Genuario, there can only be one correct decision, to deny the TRO and not let them use you and you courtroom as instruments for their web of deceit.
There is one final point to bring this whole situation into proper perspective.  It really was never about vaccines.  They, Mars, bought Banfield in 2007 they wanted control and made a decision to eliminate the franchises even though most like me had 10 to 15 years left on their contracts. The franchise numbers have dropped from over 300 to less than 100 in 4 short years.  Most doctors chose to sell their hospitals back to Mars/Banfield for pennies on the dollar after being put thru the same tactics of fear and intimidation I have gone thru.  The difference is I have stood up and refused their dirty money and have no fear of them but rather “fear” God.


In PetSmarts latest document presented to the court they again twist the truth saying I intend to continue coming to the store.  That is not true your honor.  I have no intention of returning to their store.  Certainly if I win the case in US Civil Court and my franchise is returned to me they will have to honor the lease I have with them thru the Banfield/Mars franchise agreement and allow me access.  Their assertion that “the United States Supreme Court has never held that a trespasser or an uninvited guest may exercise general rights of free speech on property owned…” does not fit my situation.  First of all it was Banfield that had me arrested for trespassing not PetSmart and I have not been found guilty of trespassing and in fact will be exonerated in court.  I am not a trespasser and never will be.  Also I was never on their property exercising my right to free speech. I was protecting my clients’ pets based on being sworn under the doctors’ oath which is the first and basic law of my profession.  I was a veterinarian who owned a franchise located in their store which was still in effect until February 5th by Connecticut law warning his clients not to put their pets in danger by over-vaccination. It had nothing to do with free speech. The truth is I have only returned uninvited to PetSmart one time.  And what did I do that was so heinous? I bought a bag of cat food! There is absolutely no need for any TRO in this case. First I have no intention of returning to PetSmart. Second they have proven no damages.  Third they have proven no abnormal behavior. Fourth they are not likely to win on the merits and fifth as Judge Chatigny has said, “If a deterrent is needed, as the plaintiffs claim, the defendant’s recent arrest for trespassing should suffice. If it does not he is subject to rearrest. That should provide sufficient protection…..”


Conclusion:  Your honor, at this time I'd like to make a humble request of the court to deny a temporary injunction.  I promise you my good behavior will continue and make it clear this was the right decision.
                                                                                                                             Sincerely and God Bless,

                                                                                                                             John M. Robb DVM

 

Get Your Button Now
Visit our Store

Home
Pet Owners
Veterinary Professionals
Press