Dog owner suing Princeton Township
By Nick Norlen, Staff Writer
Amid the swirl of appeals for the dog that mauled him, Giovanni Rivera on Monday displayed the scars and described the pain he still suffers from the June 5 attack in Princeton Township.Mr. Rivera, 42, a landscaper who lives in Hamilton, is still recovering from his wounds, but said he doesn’t have an opinion about what should happen to Congo, the German shepherd labeled “vicious” by the township’s municipal judge in a written opinion issued Oct. 30. The ruling will result in the dog’s death if appeals filed by its owners, Guy and Elizabeth James, of Stuart Road West, are unsuccessful.
Supporters of the family and the dog plan to protest the ruling outside the Township Hall today when Judge Russell Annich Jr. is scheduled to issue his formal decision. The family has already filed the necessary documents for an appeal, which gives the dog a temporary stay.
Mr. James also announced new legal steps on Monday, as more voices joined the clamor of reaction to the dog’s impending euthanization — including Township Committeeman Chad Goerner.
Mr. Rivera, in his attorney’s Trenton office on Monday, revealed the large scar on his right thigh and the smaller marks elsewhere on his body that remain visible six months after the attack.
Speaking through an interpreter, he said the main wound on his leg is still painful and causes him difficulty.
Though he said the attention surrounding the situation and the different accounts of what happened — including those that differ from his — are “stirring in his mind,” he said he hasn’t let it affect him.
Mr. Rivera said that he knows he told the truth in court, and said that “it should be more than enough” for people to see the photographs of his wounds after the attack.
According to his attorney, Kevin Riechelson, Mr. Rivera was paid a $250,000 insurance settlement on Monday. He said the payment came from the homeowners’ insurance company.
”I don’t know anyone who would trade places with him for that kind of money,” he said.
Though he is not involved in the current legal proceedings, Mr. Riechelson said “there’s a lot of disinformation.”
”This wasn’t a dog bite. The guy was mauled. He was bitten and scratched from head to toe,” he said, noting that Mr. Rivera had to receive 65 injections of rabies treatment because the dogs were unvaccinated at the time of the attack. “He didn’t do anything intentional. He didn’t try to get himself hurt. He went to do his job and got mauled when he was doing it,” Mr. Riechelson said.
But both the James family and their attorney, Robert Lytle, have maintained that the attack was unintentionally provoked, which is the assertion — held by an expert in dog behavior during the trial — on which they plan to base their appeal.
While Mr. James said that Mr. Rivera pulled Mrs. James to the ground while trying to hide behind her, Mr. Riechelson and Princeton Animal Control Officer Mark Johnson have both said that only Mr. Rivera was ever on the ground.
Mr. James also took issue with Prosecutor Kim Otis’ assertion that his other dogs were not hit with a rake by another landscaper during the incident, which Mr. Johnson has also testified to.
In fact, Mr. James announced a lawsuit Monday against Mr. Johnson for accusations described in The Trentonian newspaper over the weekend which implied that Mr. James had inflicted the wounds on his own dogs.
The claim also includes a demand for the township to officially retract Mr. Johnson’s statements.
But Mr. Johnson said Monday that he was misquoted.
”Where it came from, I don’t know,” he said of his paraphrased remark.
Though he said one of the dogs did have a scar, Mr. Johnson said he believes it is from a canine tooth during the attack, not from a rake.
Mr. Johnson, did confirm, however, Mr. James’ charge that Mr. Rivera changed his account — of exactly where he was when he was attacked — immediately following the incident.
However, Mr. Johnson said the different details came from three different nurses who were interpreting for Mr. Rivera at the hospital.
Meanwhile, Mr. James has acknowledged that he rejected a plea deal offered by Mr. Otis before the trial in which Congo would have been labeled “potentially dangerous” — which comes with increased fees and certain containment requirements — rather than “vicious,” which, if upheld, will result in the dog’s death.
His other four dogs were labeled “potentially dangerous” by the judge.
”My dogs are innocent, every one of them,” he said. “They did what they were supposed to and they protected my family. We will fight to the end to make sure we will get them back without any labeling.”
Mr. James made a move in that direction Monday by filing a lawsuit to have Congo released to his custody while the appeal is pending, stating that Congo has become “demonstrably depressed” while being held at SAVE – A Friend to Homeless Animals animal shelter in the township.
While Mr. James said his heart “goes out to Giovanni and what he went through,” he said Mr. Rivera should have stayed in the car, where the landscapers were told to remain that day upon arriving at the property early.
”I believe he got scared, he panicked, he did the wrong thing. The bottom line was that this whole situation was provoked,” he said. “If they really wanted to hurt him, they would have gone for his throat.”
Mr. James said he expects “a huge amount of people” to be at the court Tuesday for the rally, including his four children, who are taking off from school to attend.
Though he wasn’t in town Monday, Township Committeeman Chad Goerner issued a statement on the situation by e-mail.
While he said he respects the legal system and the appeal process, he said he is deeply concerned “that we tend to react in a lopsided manner when a distressing situation like this occurs. A one-strike incident occurring on the dog owner’s property with a dog that has no prior history should not mean that the owner’s dog is out — for good.”
Mr. Goerner went on to say that he doesn’t believe the ordinance recently passed by the Township Committee — dealing with vicious and dangerous dogs — “was intended to authorize a one-strike death penalty, certainly not when there is so much ambiguity on the question of provocation.”
Mr. Goerner said he will ask Township Attorney Ed Schmierer to review the ordinance “to identify ways that we can provide even more guidance on the meaning of provocation and ensure that incidents on a dog owner’s property are evaluated with sensitivity to context.”
Mr. Schmierer could not be reached for comment Monday.