Dear Mr. Woodall,

     I feel I should write you directly to make certain that you are aware of everything that has been going on.  As I am sure you remember, Mr. Bill Martin, Asst. D.A.'s office contacted me and left me a voicemail on the day of Mr. John Johnson's hearing that you and he would like to meet with me.  I called Mr. Martin at his office and inquired what the meeting was to be about.  Mr. Martin informed me that he did not know what the meeting was going to be about, that you had asked him to set up the meeting.  I was advised not to meet with you alone and without legal representation.  My wife, Debbie Foster called Mr. Martin's office and asked to speak with him.  He was not available so she left a voicemail stating that I would not be able to meet with you at the time and place that you requested.  We would need to schedule another appointment.  Then we recieved a voicemail from Mr. Martin asking if either Monday or Tuesday would be a better time for us to meet.  Again, my wife called Mr. Martin and told him that we had decided if you and Mr. Martin had something on your minds, to please put it in a letter.  Mr. Martin said,  I will pass that along to Mr. Woodall.  Mr. Martin promptly called us back at our home, stating that he forgot to get our mailing address which my wife gave to him.

     Mr. Woodall, I was brought up to believe that a man is as good as his word, and that is the reason I called you to reschedule the meeting.  This was protested greatly by my wife.  I told her, I wanted to work with the D.A.'s office for the betterment of the community and the animals who were involved in this particular situation.

When I called you, I am sure you will remember, that you implied to me  it hurt your feelings that I would not give you a chance to get this all straightened out.  You also commented that you did not like OUTSIDERS coming in and telling you how to do your job and that WE could work the problems of animal cruelty out.  I stated to you that I had problems in the past with Mr. Martin working with me.  I have gone to see Mr. Martin several times and he "talks down to me."    I am sure you remember that you told me,"If Martin is a problem, then we can have him moved and have someone else brought in that will work with you in dealing with the animal cruelty investigations.     

      I have believed since childhood that a man is as good as his word. So after talking to yu on the phone, I agreed to meet with you.  You said to meet at the Beech River Watershed Department located at Beech Lake.  We were to meet at 10:00 am on May 15, 2006.  I then proceeded to call Mr. Bill Martin and asked him to come to the meeting and to invite Henderson County Sheriff Lunsford, County Mayor Dennis Ray McDaniel and City of Lexington Mayor Jack Johnson.  Mr. Jack Johnson did not attend the meeting.  Deputy Youngston attended and brought a "revised report" from the sheriff's department. 

     I was advised to bring in a tape recorder and record the meeting.  I knew I had nothing to hide at the meeting and I didn't think you or anyone else should have a problem with it being recorded.  When I asked permission to put out the recorder, to record the meeting, you promptly informed me that "if you can't trust what I say and we have to record the meeting, then there is no need to have a meeting."  Again, believing I could trust what a man said, I sat there during the meeting without recording it.  I was told by you in the meeting not to give any more press interviews or send out anymore pictures.  If I did that, then you told me that I would  be on your bad side.

There was nothing said at the meeting about removing Mr. Martin, and bringing someone else in to work with me  as you had told me on the telephone.  During the meeting, Mr. Martin stated that it "might not be legal for me to go on the property, because Mr. John Johnson could have had the property as well as the house rented."  I called Mrs. Mobley on the telephone after the meeting and she assured me that Mr. Johnson did not have the property rented as well as the house and that I definitely had her permission to go on the property.  She actually called me and asked me to go on her property.  I was asked if I had the sheriff's deputy Chris Bausman's  report on his investigation.  I said that I did not have the report with me.  Dispatch was called and a "revised report" was brought over to the meeting.  I was told that the report did say "status completed" but that did not mean that is was closed out permanently.  I have a copy of the first report and it does say "status completed."    Sheriff Lunsford said that he and County Mayor Dennis Ray McDaniel had "something worked out for the dogs."

     An article came out in the Henderson County News  quoting you as saying," Mr. Foster is a well intentioned animal activist, but lacks understanding of the rules of evidence, liability issues for himself and the county and the necessity to work with local law enforcement officials."   I beg your pardon, sir, but if you will remember I told you on the telephone when I called you back because you wanted to set up a meeting,  that I had gone to Mr. Martin numerous times to try to get him to work with me on animal cruelty reports I had and he refused to do so.  I am sure you also remember that you told me if Mr. Martin is a problem, then he can be moved.  Also, if you will check the records at the sheriff's department, Mrs. Mobley called me after the sheriff's department told her to.  I called the sheriff's department myself and gave the the address and asked them to check out the situation and I was told, it would be a long time, because they were very busy.  So you see, sir, I have been trying my best to work with local law enforcement officials.

     Mr. Woodall, I would like to take this opportunity to make certain you knkow what has happened with this case.  On May 1, 2006, I recieved a phone call from Mrs. Betty Mobley at 1:34 p.m.  She called me on her cell phone from the sheriff's department.  Her cell phone number is 931 797 2511.  She had gone to the sheriff's department to ask for them to go and remove some pit bull dogs from her property.  She said there were two tied up and two or three running at large.  Mrs. Mobley informed me over the phone, that the sheriff's department told her to call David Foster with the Henderson County Humane Society.  She wanted me to go and pick the dogs up.  She said they were tied up without food, water or shelter.  I told her that we are not animal control and that I couldn't just go and pick the dogs up, but I would be glad to go and check on the dogs with her permission to go on her property.  She said that I did have permission to go on her property and she was requesting that I go.  She informed me that she was trying to get Mr. John Johnson evicted from her house and she had been told she had to deliver the eviction notice herself.  She also said that she and her husband both had permits to carry guns and that her husband had a gun in one hand and a walking cane in the other.  When they went to put the eviction notice in the door, that is when she saw the dead dog lying on the porch.  She was scared of the situation.  She said she wanted to "get rid of the pit bull dogs because she wanted to bring some cows and young calves on the property."  She said she was afraid the dogs would kill the calves. 

     After we finished talking, I immediately called dispatch and told the dispatcher at the sheriff's department that I had a cruelty complaint from  a lady about some pit bulls tied up without water, food or shelter and some running at large.  The dispatcher told me it would be a long time before they could get out there because they were "very busy."  I gave the dispatcher the address of the property, 412 East Highway, Box #21850.  I asked the dispatcher for someone to call me when they went out to check on the cruelty case.  Since the dispatcher said it was going to be a long time, I decided to go and check the condition of the animals, since Mrs. Mobley said they had no food, water or shelter.  According to Tennessee Statute # 39-14-207  Feeding of impounded animals--Care provided by humane society--Recovery of expenses. (a) In case any impounded animal is without necessary food and water for more than twelve successive hours, it is lawful for any person as often as necessary, to enter any place in which any animal is so confined, and to supply it with necessary food and water so long as it shall remain so confined.  Such person shall not be liable to any action for such entry and the reasonable cost of such food and water may be collected from the owner or keeper of the animal.  The animal shall not be exempt from levy and sale upon execution issued upon a judgement therefor.  (b)  In case any animal is injured, diseased, suffering from the elements, or malnourished, and is found at large by any agent of any humane society chartered by the state, the agent may cause adequate veterinary treatment or shelter or nourishment to be furnished to the animal.  The society shall have a right of action against the owner or the animal for all necessary and reasonable expenses so incurred.  Within forty-eight hours after taking custody of the animal, the society shall make reasonable efforts to notify the owner of the animal's whereabouts and condition.  Nothing in this subsection shall affect the right of action of the veterinarian or furnisher of goods or services against the person or persons with whom he contracted for payment of charges.  Any such right of action by a humane society may be voided by an owner who elects to forfeit the animal to the society rather than pay for the goods or services rendered.

     When I arrived on the scene, it appeared that the pregnant female could get to water, but she had no food or shelter.  The male that was tied had no water, food or shelter, but I couldn't get close enough to him to give  him any water.  Mrs. Mobley had told me there was a dead dog on the porch and I was appalled to see that the dog appeared to have been decapitated.  I took pictures and went back to my home to wait for the sheriff's department to call me.  The sheriff's department had not called by the time my wife got home from school between 3:30p.m. and 4:00p.m.  Between 4:00p.m. and 4:30p.m. she called the sheriff's department to ask if they had been out there.  She talked to Deputy Chris Bausman and he informed her that he had been out to the residence.  She asked him if he saw the dead dog lying on the porch and he said he had seen the dead dog.  He also saw the dogs without food, water or shelter.  She asked him if he had made a report and he said he had  not.  She asked him if he would write a report, that we needed a copy of the report.  Deputy Bausman told her that he would write up a report, but that it probably won't do any good.  He said they were very busy and he didn't have time to write it tonight, but he would write it tomorrow and she could come by and pick it up.  After talking to Deputy Bausman, Mrs. Foster downloaded the pictures taken by her husband at the scene.  She was appalled and horrified to see that the dog lying dead on the porch had apparently been decapitated.  She then emailed the details of the incident and the pictures to animal rescue groups for help with the situation. 

     On Tuesday, May 2, 2006, Mrs. Foster went to the sheriff's department and asked for the report from the previous day.  The status on the report was marked completed.  I went back to check on the dogs on Tuesday May 2, 2006 and made more pictures.  The body of the dog had been moved to another location on the porch and the dogs insides were removed from the body and were lying  beside the body.    The insides looked (as you can see from the photos) to be intact as if the insides had been removed, by a person, not torn apart by dogs.  It appeared that no one had time to investigate further because it was election day.  Although the report was called in by David Foster  the day before on May 1, 2006, and that is when the report was dated that

Deputy Bausman went to the scene, although the report supposedly wasn't written until May 2, 2006.  On May 2, 2006, Mrs. Foster sent an update and more pictures to rescue groups.  It was reported to the Fosters that Mr. Martin said that he couldn't understand why so much fuss was being made over dogs.   We were still unable to get anything done.  It was reported to us by some of the animal rescue groups that Mr. Martin had made some reference to WHY IS THERE ALL THIS FUSS ABOUT A DOG?

     On May 3, 2006, Deputy Dowdy and Deputy Youngston came to the Foster's residence and asked if we could house the dogs.  I told them that we were full to capacity and we were not sure about insurance issues.  WBBJ TV also called on that day and asked for an interview.  I told them to go ahead and talk to the sheriff.  I did not give an interview that day, although I was asked to.  The sheriff did a press conference.  We went out to check on the status of the dogs and they were gone.  We went immediately to town to the sheriff's office and called on our cell phone to ask about the whereabouts of the dogs.  The lady who answered the phone said she would have someone call us.  My wife told her we were on our way up there to talk to someone.  When we got to the sheriff's department a female officer said,"Who sent you?"  We told her we were with  the Humane Society and we were inquiring about the safety and whereabouts of the dogs that were removed form the property.  We were informed by Deputy Dowdy and Deputy Edgin that the dogs had been transported to Lexington Animal Clinic.  We went to the clinic to see the animals.  Debbie noticed the ears of the pregnant female and pointed that out to Dr. R.C. Davis.  He said that is a  home made crop job.  She said that is animal cruelty and he said yes, but we can't prove that he (Johnson) did it.  Then we noticed that one of the dogs was missing.  We told Dr. Davis that one of the dogs was missing and we had his picture.  We went home and called and talked to Deputy Edgin and told him about the dog that was missing and described him and Deputy Edgin said, that is the one that was run over on the  highway.  We saw one that had been hit and lying on the side of the road. 

   We have many pictures and some that appear to be a fighting ring.  It was reported in Henderson County News that "Investigators also observed what they " believe to be a pen to fight dogs at the residence," the warrent states."

     John Johnson was arraigned on May 8, 2006 in jail according to the sheriff's department.  We were told someone from the courthouse was going to come to the jail to arraign him and that we could not be there.  Mr. Johnson went to court on May 11th and asked Judge Steve Beal for a bond reduction since he turned himself in.  Judge Beal reduced the bond from $10000.00 to $5000.00.  I had hard copies of the pictures and Deputy Dowdy had to be in school and Deputy Youngston had to be in Federal Court. Deputy Youngston asked for the hearing to be another day.  His request was refused.  The pictures were never presented to the judge.  There was an elderly lady in the courtroom who had been charged with her dog running at large and Judge Beal told her to speak with David Foster of the Humane Society. " He is sitting right there."  Mr. Martin said, "Oh is Mr. Foster in the courtroom?" The pictures were NOT presented to the judge although Mr. Martin had access to

them.  According to Henderson County News, "Representatives for the sheriff's department and the District Attorney's office pointed out that they have little to no influence over a judge's decisions on bond."

     Mr. Woodall, I am the Cruelty Investigator for the Henderson County Humane Society and have been certified as such by Judge Steve Beal.  I have a notorized copy for my records.  According to Tennessee Statuee #  39-14-210  Societies for prevention fo cruelty to animals--Powers   (a) the agents of any sociey which is incorporated for the prevention of cruelty to animals, upon being appointed thereto by the president of such society in any county, may within such county, make arrests and bring before any court thereof offenders found violating the provisions of this part with regard to non-livestock animals.  this is under Tennessee Cruelty to Animals Statutes,  Tennessee Statutes  Title 39 Criminal Offenses Chapter 14  Offenses Against Property  Part 2 Animals

It was reported to me that Mr. Martin made the remark that I wanted animal control so I could arrest people.

that of course, is not true, although this county is in dire need of animal control.  We represent Henderson County Humane Society, not animal control. 

 

Mr. Woodall, I am respectfully sending you the pictures that I have taken so they can be viewed at your discretion. 

 

Thank you for your assistance.

 

Very Truly Yours,

 

David Foster