05-24-04 – Violation letter sent to Mr. Attleson
Violations: dead tree, fence maintenance, weeds along alley, outdoor storage and derelict vehicle

8/20/2007 $379000 WD 07000082593 2007 TERRELL TRACY K AND AMY MENGEL MELISSA T $37.9 8/28/2007

MUNICIPAL COURT, CITY OF LITTLETON, COLORADO
2069 West Littleton Boulevard
Littleton, C080129
RECEIVED
November 13 2006
Defendant:Robert Attleson CO COURT

or Party Without Attorney (Name and Add.-s): Case Number: MC20597
James D. McKnight, Jr.
143 Union Blvd, Suite 625
Lakewood, CO 80228
Phone Number: (303) 980-8444 Division
FAX Number: (303) 985-3297 Atty. Reg. #: 14215

What would you plead guilty to in order to retrieve what was taken illegally?

Mr Attleson’s only offense was being over the dog limit. His dogs were always well cared for. (I’ve seen them.)

He had finally found a suitable property to get his dogs out of the “police state” of Littleton but it was taking a while to get it ready. Why don’t you try putting up fences during the winter!

Robert Attleson 6529 and 6519 S. Windemere St
~I Show Cause MC20597
NOTE: City has been contacting Mr. Attleson as far back as 1974 (see below)
08-06-99 – Warning Letter
Housing Code and Derelict Vehicles.
04-05-00- Contact with Mr. Attleson Derelict Vehicle
11-14-01 – Complaint of too many animals at property – contacted at 5629 S Windemere St
Refused entry, at least 6 dogs heard barking inside residence.
11-30-01-Warning Letter
Reduce to 3 dogs by 12-12-01.
12-06-01- Copy of letter received from Mr. Attleson
Letter said was a rescue for the last 16 years but was ceasing immediately.
12-06-01- Attleson sent letter to Marian Aspnes
Requested extension to reduce to 3 dogs
12-10-01- Marian Aspnes e-mailed Mr. Attleson.
Clarifying Code violations, including number of pets and time to comply.
12-19-01- Attleson sent letter to Marian Aspnes
Refused to grant access or give a date for requested extension
12-24-01- Final Letter
Reduce to 3 dogs, repair front porch and remove derelict vehicle. 01-07-02 – Site inspection
Refused entrance to confirm number of dogs at 6526 S Windemere St. Violations of derelict vehicle and front porch in disrepair corrected.
07 -09-02- Complaint of 10 to 12 dog~ excess barking and a foul odor coming from property Marian Aspnes and LPD Officer Wendy Kane attempted to contact Mr. Attleson, no
answer at door, barking from at least 5 dogs heard from inside the residence at 6526 S
Windemere St.
05-24-04 – Violation letter sent to Mr. Attleson
Violations: dead tree, fence maintenance, weeds along alley, outdoor storage and derelict vehicle
09-30-04 – Site Inspection
Violations corrected
NOTE: In a letter from Mr. Attleson dated December 6, 2001, to Marian Aspnes he stated:
“My discussions with Ms Fife [Animal Control Officer] about barking dog and odor complaints are 16 years and 12 years old respectively. I recall one filed barking dog complaint about 1974 or ’75. The odor complaint was taken to City Court around
, 88, , 89. City presented one witness as to offensive odor, and I present two witnesses to no offensive odors detected. My two witnesses were the Humane Officers at that time. Thus a total of two fornal complaints and one infornal complaint (involving Humane Officers) in the twenty-nine years I have lived on South Windemere.”
~
Robert Attleson 6529 and 6519 S. Windemere St . Show Cause MC20597 09-06-06 – Violation date
10-4-4 (B) Exceeding limit of allowed household pets.
22 dogs – 6529 S Windemere St
09-13-06 – Arraignment date
Attleson called for extension 10-11-06 – Arraignment reset
Attleson called for extension 10-30-06 – Arraignment date
Entered Not Guilty Plea- set for trial 11-14-06 – Trial Date
Entered a Guilty Plea CONVICTED
11-22-06 – Signed Deferred Judgment
30 days to come into compliance with no more that 3 dogs total for the properties at 6529/ 6519 S Windemere St and to provide unannounced access to both properties to ensure compliance.
01-17-07 – Site inspection at 6529/ 6519 S Windemere St Refused entry and said he was still in violation 01-24-07- Motion to Revoke Deferred Judgment
Continued to 03-08-07 and Judge Kimmel asked for inspection
02-22-07- Site inspection at 6529/ 6519 S Windennere St
15 dogs at 6529 and 2 at 6519 S Windennere St
03-08-07 – Court Review
Judge Kimmel ordered another inspection and ordered him to be in compliance by 07 -19-07 with continuing inspections to reach compliance.
03-12-07- Site inspection at 6529/ 6519 S Windemere St
12 dogs at 6529 and no dogs at 6519 S Windennere St
03-13-07 – Show Cause Hearing requested Set for 05-17-07
05-03-07 – Site inspection at 6529/ 6519 S Windennere St
12 dogs at 6529 and no dogs at 6519 S Windennere St
05-17 -07 – Show Cause Review
Judge Kimmel said be in compliance by 06-14-07 or 30 days in jail
06-12-07 – Site inspection at 6529/ 6519 S Windemere St
12 dogs at 6529 and no dogs at 6519 S Windemere St
06-14-07 – Site inspection at 6529/ 6519 S Windemere St
3 dogs at 6529 S Windemere and no dogs at 6519 S Windemere St
06-14-07 – Show Cause Review
Defendant in compliance and Judge Kimmel ordered review for 07-19-07.
07-18-07 – Site inspection at 6529/ 6519 S Windemere
3 dogs at 6529 S Windemere St and no dogs at 6519 S Windemere St
07 -19-07 – Show Cause Review
Defendant in compliance and reminded he is subject to review for 3 years and must remain in compliance. Court review set for 11-15-07.
01-10-08 – Site inspection
5 dogs at 6529 S Windemere St and 2 dogs and 4 puppies at 6519 S. Windemere St. NOTE: Mr. Attleson was very agitated and uncooperative for the inspection.
02-04-08 – Request to Show Cause and Order to Revoke Deferred Judgment Set for 02-14-08.

Hello,

I am the Deputy City Attorney in the City of Littleton . I am the person who attended to the litigation involving Mr. Attleson. I appreciate the opportunity to reply to your letter.
I agree with you that dogs are a wonderful addition to the lives of people. The action the City of Littleton took in this matter was to protect the health of the dogs from a man who was not doing so.
There was a hearing before a judge that established the dogs’ health was in danger. Mr. Attleson had been under the jurisdiction of the Court for more than a year. Mr. Attleson was ordered and agreed to provide access to the two residences between 7 am and 8 pm. The officers could not locate Mr. Attleson, so a warrant was sought to remove the dogs to a safe environment. A week after the dogs were removed, I was told by Mr. Attleson’s lawyer that Mr. Attleson had moved his personal residence away from the dogs some time before the February inspections and he did not update his address or phone numbers with the Court or the officers that were responsible for inspections. Mr. Attleson made it impossible to locate him so the dogs could have been removed hours before and without forced entry.
During the time I have been aware of Mr. Attleson’s circumstances, he has kept up to 22 dogs on the premises. On 2/14/08, he had 11 dogs.
The Court gave Mr. Attleson leeway for months and months, because Mr. Attleson represented to the Judge that he, Mr. Attleson, was rescuing unwanted dogs and dogs in need of medical care. He never told the Judge he was a breeder, keeping the dogs for show and breeding purposes, and running a home business for grooming dogs. Mr. Attleson represented he provided a temporary home for the dogs in order to place them with loving and caring owners. The truth finally came out after the dogs were moved to a healthy environment.
Over the period of more than a year, Mr. Attleson let the conditions in which he kept the dogs deteriorate. In February of this year, the ammonia atmosphere, urine soaked bedding, and general unclean conditions caused immediate physical symptoms in the humans that inspected the premises. The humans were only there for minutes. The dogs were locked in; they could not get out without help. It was determined at a Court hearing that the conditions were such that the residences were unhealthy for humans and animals.
The conditions in the houses were the cause of one of 4 youth dogs to have a bacterial infection that Mr. Attleson left untreated. None of the 4 youth dogs had any shots and all needed to be wormed. The dogs received veterinary care from the Colorado Humane Society at no cost, when the dogs were taken from the homes and placed with the Humane Society until Mr. Attleson could locate the dogs in a healthy environment. The Court required documentation from an expert in animal welfare to approve the location and the conditions. With that accomplished, Mr. Attleson regained custody of the dogs.
It is inconceivable to me that any dog owner, who cared for his dog, would have given a dog to Mr. Attleson to be groomed in that environment, if the owner had actually been in the houses.
There are substantial records that establish Mr. Attleson knew he was acting illegally for years. There are substantial records that establish the deplorable conditions that forced the City of Littleton to take action to protect the animals. If you wish, you may order copies of the public records from the proper department and obtain the truth about Mr. Attleson.
It is my hope that he is an anomaly in the dog care world. If he is the model of a good owner, then the industry needs a serious revamping of government regulations to assure the humane care of dogs.
I know there are breeders and rescue agencies and non-profit organizations created by truly caring people who take good care of dogs. In my opinion, Mr. Attleson was not among that group in February of this year.
You are a person who cares about animal welfare. To you I say, give aid only to non-profit organizations. Not only should one avoid giving to the for-profit individuals and organizations, but also every potential giver would be wise to inspect the facilities before giving.
Now that the dogs are in a safe environment, the City of Littleton is moving forward to have Mr. Attleson repair the residences as needed for healthy human habitation.
Yours,
Alan C Katz
Deputy City Attorney
City of Littleton

Something definitely stinks in Littleton and it isn’t dog feces.

It is totally alien to me, that in a society where people should be supporting dog rescue and responsible licensed breeders, Littleton should have been applauding Bob’s work, not persecuting him. Talk about neo-fascism using civil and constitutional law persecute a citizen and then trying to hide their illegal actions, is a mis-use of power and violates a few laws in itself.

While I can’t donate money, I’d like to help. Plus, I think the dog-owners in Littleton should file a class action suit to protect their interests. If the town would do that to one owner, licensed breeder/animal rescue person, what happens to the citizen whose pets happen to have a litter? There’s more to this than meets the eye. Did someone get paid off?

S/F, Mark
Animal Rescues since 1981