Animal Friends Humane Society Complaint, Affidavits and Exhibits

5/10/2018 Animal Friends Humane Society Complaint, Affidavits and Exhibits - slidepdf.com

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/animal-friends-humane-society-complaint-affidavits-and-exhi

\

\

No. ' 30 - E- \ \O}3 (y.:)- 0 \ _

PUNKIN PAULA, LLC, ))

Plaintiff ) In Justice Court

Precinct 3

\

)

) Bexar County, Texas

vs. )

)

)

)

ANIMAL FRIENDS HUMANE SOCIETY, )

Defendant )

----------------------------)COMPLAINT FOR FORCIBLE DETAINER

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

COMES NOW Plaintiff, PUNKIN PAULA, LLC, complaining of Defendant, Animal

Friends Humane Society, and asking for a finding of forcible detainer and an order of eviction

and, as grounds therefore, would respectfully show as follows:

I. Parties

1. PUNKIN PAULA, LLC ("PUNKIN PAULA" or "Plaintiff'), is a domestic limited

liability company formed in the state of Texas on November 14, 2007. Laura Alderman

is manager and the registered agent of PUNKIN PAULA. Ms. Alderman's business

address and PUNKIN PAULA's registered office are located at 319 Woodway Forest

Drive, San Antonio, Texas, 78216.

2. PUNKIN PAULA is the owner of property located at 213 W. Borgfeld Road, San

Antonio, Texas (the "Property").

3. Animal Friends Humane Society ("AF" or "Defendant") is a nonprofit corporation

incorporated in or around 2000 under the applicable sections of the Texas Business

Organizations Code, and for the purpose of rescuing, caring for and adopting out

unwanted, lost and abused animals.

II. Service on Registered Agent

4. Paula Oberle is AF's President and a member of its board of directors ("BOD"), and is its

registered agent for service of process. She may be served with process at her usual

residence address locat_ed at 41 Edgecreek, San Antonio, Texa_s,_ 78245, or at her



employer's place of business, where she works part-time, and which is located at 1-10 Pet

Emergency, 10822 Fredericksburg Road, San Antonio, Texas, 78249, or where she may

be found.

III. Jurisdiction and Venue

5. The Property is located within Precinct 3 of Bexar County, Texas and, pursuant to Texas

Property Code §24.004, jurisdiction and venue are proper in this Court.

IV. Notice to Comply of Quit

6. A written "Notice to Comply or Quit" (the "Notice") was personally served on AF's

manager, Cheryl Wildenstein, on August 22, 20 II . (A copy of the Notice is attached as

Exhibit A-I).

7. A copy of the Notice was sent to Ms. Oberle by regular first-class mail and by certified

mail on August 22, 20 I, and was signed for by Ms. Oberle on August 23, 20 II . (A copy

of the Retum Receipt is attached as Exhibit A-2).

8. As further described below, after many requests for action and wamings, the Notice gave

AF and Ms. Wildenstein three days to comply with the terms of an oral lease between AF

and PUNKIN PAULA, including the repair and restoration of the Property, and a

reduction of the number of dogs on the Property to 80 or below, or to quit the Property.

9. AF has not repaired the damage or restored the Property to its original condition, nor has

it complied with other conditions for its lease and use of the Property, including reducing

the number of dogs on the Property.

10. AF willfully holds over and continues in possession of the Property without Plaintiffs

permission.

V. Terms for Possession of Property

I. In 2005 or 2006, Ms. Alderman became a member of AF's BOD. At that time, AF rented

a small building located at 23445 U.S. Highway 281 in San Antonio, Texas, to use as a

shelter. AF's shelter manager was Cheryl Wildenstein. Paula Oberle was a member of

the BOD. At the time or shortly after Ms. Alderman became a BOD member, Cheryl's

mother, Billie Wildenstein, and Cheryl Wildenstein's boyfriend, Gary Rodriguez, were or

became AF board members.

2. In 2007, there were public proposals to widen U.S. Highway 281. This would have

eliminated the building that AF rented for the shelter, and Ms. Wildenstein and the BOD

were understandably concemed.

3. As a result of her sister Paula's murder in' a terrorist bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over

Lockerbie, Scotland, Ms. Alderman had received part of a settlement from the Libyan

2



government, which had been held liable for the bombing. Ms. Aldennan planned to use'

all of the money that she received as a result of her sister's murder for the benefit of not

for-profit and charitable organizations.

4. Ms. Alderman informed the BOD that if an appropriate property could be found, she hadfunds to buy land for AF to use. Ms. Wildenstein told Ms. Aldennan about the Property,

a nearly five-acre piece of land located at 213 West Borgfeld Drive, north of the City of

San Antonio, in Bexar County, Texas. The Property was owned by Harry L. and Donna

J. Lux and was for sale.

5. The Lux family had owned the Property for many years. In the mid-1970's, the Lux's

had a circa 1920's-1930's house (the "Yellow house") moved to the Property. (See

affidavit of Donna Lux,' Exhibit B-1). During the 1980's, they moved a second brown

and white house (the "Brown house"), now approximately130 years old, to the Property.

([d.)

6. Between 2006 and 2007, the Lux's invested approximately $50,000.00 in renovating the

Yellow house, including upgrading the electric and plumbing; repairing the foundation;

painting the interior and the exterior; renovating the bathroom; and restoring the original

wood floors. (ld.) The Lux's did not move back into the Yellow house after it was

upgraded, and it was immaculate at the time PUNKIN PAULA purchased the Property.

(ld.)

7. The Lux's had repairs made to the Brown house in the amount of $3,000.00 to $4,000.00,including painting, restoring the original wood floors, and renovating the bathroom. The

interior wood walls and gingerbread trim, and a large built-in china cabinet were all

original. ([d.)

8. In 2002, the Lux's designed and built a large warehouse on the Property. (See Exs. C-I;

C-2). The warehouse included an apartment (the "Apartment") with a fully equipped

kitchen, sitting area, three bedrooms and two full baths. All of the appliances were brand

new.

9. Mr. Lux subsequently became ill and he and Ms. Lux decided to sell the Property and

move to New Braunfels, Texas.

10. On or around November 14,2007, Ms. Aldennan formed PUNKIN PAULA as a vehicle

to purchase the Property. Ms. Aldennan is a member and the manager of PUNKIN

PAULA, and is authorized to act on its behalf.

11. On November 20, 2007, PUNKIN PAULA purchased the Property for $512,694.12.

12. AF moved onto the Property in July 2009. Conditions precedent to the purchase and of

lease of the Property included that AF pay $1.00 a year in rent; maintain the Property in

INotarized copies ofaffidavits will be filed separately.

3



good condition; advise Ms. Alderman about any problems at the Property; including theneed for maintenance and repairs; and prohibit any animals from entering any part of theApartment or the Yellow or Brown houses. Ms. Alderman did not want the Property to

be used as simply a larger "holding pen" for more dogs, so she also insisted that no more

than the maximum number of dogs held at the old shelter, eighty, could be on theProperty at anyone time.

13. The partiesagreed that Ms. Alderman would donate funds to AF annually to cover theProperty's property taxes and property insurance, and that AF was to separately purchaseliability insurance in PUNKIN PAULA's name in the amount of $300,000.00. Ms.Alderman also made separate substantial contributions to AF between 2004 and 20 I 0totaling more than $75,000.00.

14. Ms. Wildenstein was supposed to live in the Yellow house.

15. The electrical system in the Brown house had not been upgraded, and Ms. Alderman didnot know whether the heating system was sound. Although the BOD discussed thepossibility of someday using the Brown house as a thrift store or a veterinarian's office,she told Ms. Oberle and Ms. Wildenstein that at that time no one could live in the house.

16. Ms. Alderman visited the Property on number of occasions and initially the Property waswell-maintained. On subsequent visits, Ms. Wildenstein discouraged her from walking in

the direction of the Yellow house or beyond the mid-point of the warehouse, where AFhad installed a fence across the Property. (See Exs. C-3; C-4, the latter photograph takenfrom the back side of the fence). Ms. Wildenstein told Ms. Alderman that people walkingon the sides or in the back of the Property caused the dogs to bark, and the neighborswould become upset and call the police. Ms. Alderman considered Ms. Wildenstein and

Ms. Oberle, who volunteered at the Property every weekend, to be her friends as well asan AF employee/fellow BOD member; she relied on their representations and deferred totheir requests to stay at the front of the Property.

17. In or around February or March 20 I0, Ms. Alderman became aware that the warehouse

was being used to house a thrift store. At no time did PUNKIN PAULA authorize AF torun any business other than an animal shelter on the Property. However, at that time it

appeared orderly and well managed, and Ms. Oberle informed Ms. Alderman that itearned AF more $5,000.00 a year.

~ I . Violation ofTerms of Possession -- Damage to the Property

.A. Warehouse and Apartment

18. In mid-March 2011, Ms. Alderman was contacted by a former AF volunteer, whoclaimed that, among other things, she had looked through an Apartment window and seenmold in the room.

19. Ms, AldennaR contacted Ms. .Wildenstein and Ms. Oberle,. who both denied -it,-and-

4



condemned the volunteer as a "dishonest" and "disgruntled" individual.

20. A few days later, Ms. Alderman made an early-moming visit to the Property. The

warehouse's overhead garage door was open and she walked in and shouted Ms.

Wildenstein's name. The thrift store now appeared to be wall-to-wall with junk (see Exs.

C-5; C-6), and a queen-size bed covered with blankets sat near the warehouse overhead

door.

21. A laundry room between the thrift store and the Apartment was so cluttered so as to be

nearly impassable. (See Ex. C-7).

22. When Ms. Wildenstein did not respond, Ms. Alderman walked into the Apartment. A

candle was buming on a kitchen counter, and the kitchen and sitting areas were wall-to

wall with clutter. (See Ex. C-8).

23. The parquet floor in front of the fireplace had been flooded and was warped. (See Ex. C-9). There was mold and mildew on the kitchen's baseboards.

24. In the first room down the hallway, the carpet had been removed. Thick mold grew on

the baseboards and up the walls, and the door to the room was disintegrating due to

moisture. (See Exs. C-J 0; C-ll; C-12).

25. In the front bathroom, there was approximately four inches of dried brown sludge in the

bathroom tubs, sinks and toilets from an apparent septic tank backup and/or a flood.

Mold grew on the baseboards, up the walls and over the sink. (See Ex. C-I3). A vanity

beneath the sink was falling apart. (See Ex. C-14).

26. The second and master bedrooms' baseboards and walls were also covered with mold,and the carpets had been removed. (See Exs. C-15; C-16).A window in the master

bedroom had apparently been left open for months and paint on the windowsill was

peeling and the wood was cracked. (See Ex. C-17). Mold grew in the closets (see Exs. C-

18; C-19), and on the baseboards and walls next to and above the bathtub and bathroom

vanities in the master bathroom. (See Exs. C-20; C-21 ; C-22).

27. Despite the prohibition against allowing animals in the Apartment or in either house, a

kitty litter pan with old, used litter sat in the master bedroom shower. Ms. Oberle has

since told Ms. Alderman that the carpet in the master bedroom had to be removed

because Ms. Wildenstein allowed a sick Great Dane to be kept there.

28. The walls of the warehouse were covered with holes the size of golf balls. (See Ex. C-23). Contractor Tony Watson told Ms. Alderman that they were made by water rats. (See

affidavit of Tony Watson, Exhibit B-2, par. 4).

29. Ms. Alderman has since been made aware that until volunteers personally purchased

metal garbage cans, Ms. Wildenstein and Ms. Oberle allowed open bags of dog, cat and

rabbit food to lay. exposed around the Property, thereby encouraging an infestation of

5



rats. (See affidavit of Lissa Tuttle, Exhibit B-3, par. 9). During an early morning visit to

the Property during the week of August 22, 2011, Ms. Alderman observed a large bag of

dog food lying open on the ground. Ms. Wildenstein was asleep when Ms. Alderman

arrived, and clearly the dog food had been lying there for some time.

30. Volunteers and workers have told Ms. Alderman that one can hear rats running in the

walls of the warehouse, and that multiple rat traps placed in the warehouse bathroom

frequently hold several dead mice and rats. During a visit, Ms. Alderman observed a

moUse run down the bathtub drain in the Yellow house.

31. Ms. Wildenstein later told Ms. Alderman that she had not lived in the Yellow house in

more than a year, but instead fell asleep each night in the bed in the warehouse. (See Ex.

C-24). Ms. Wildenstein had been in such a deep sleep when Ms. Alderman entered the

warehouse that morning that she failed to Ms. Alderman calling her name from only three

feet away.

32. Ms. Wildenstein claimed that she had discovered the mold and the sludge in the

Apartment only the day before Ms. Alderman had. However, a former employee has

confirmed that Ms. Wildenstein toured the Apartment with animal control officers and

several sheriffs on March 2, 2011, after someone anonymously complained about animal

abuse on the Property. (See affidavit of Lissa Tuttle, Ex. B-3, pars. 30-33).

33. The employee further claims that Ms. Wildenstein would not let employees or volunteers

go any further into the Apartment than the kitchen, but that she often would go into theApartment's other rooms and lock the doors. (ld. at par. 29)

34. On August 15,2011, Ms. Wildenstein changed her story, telling Ms. Alderman in front of

three witnesses that she had actually discovered mold in one of the rooms "monthsbefore" Ms. Alderman discovered it. Ms. Wildenstein claimed that despite seeing the

mold, she had not bothered to check any of the other rooms. Ms. Wildenstein could not

explain why she had not informed Ms. Alderman about the mold at that time, or why she

had lied to Ms. Alderman when she called her about the volunteer's allegations about

mold.

35. Ms. Oberle has consistently denied any knowledge about the condition of the Apartment

or the mold. However, she has since claimed that there was a bad flood in the warehouse

in 2010 from a rain storm, and alleged that that may have caused the mold. She has not

explained why she never bothered to check the Apartment's condition after that storm or

to inform Ms. Alderman about the flood.

36. Former employee Lissa Tuttle alleges that Ms. Oberle came to the Property after animal

control, sheriffs and the media showed up on March 2, 2011, and that after that, she, Ms.

Oberle and Ms. Wilden stein discussed a sheriffs reference to the mold. (ld. at par. 33).

6



B. Condition of the Grounds

37. After she looked around the warehouse and Apartment, Ms. Alderman scaled the fencethat AF built next to the warehouse and across the Property. Behind the warehouse she

observed running water and large patches of mud that she had never seen before. (See Ex.C-25; C-26). The land had a slight downward grade and a small pond had formed in themiddle of the Property. (See Ex. C-27).

38. Ms. Alderman asked Ms. Wildenstcin that day about the source of the water and mud.Ms. Wildenstein, and subsequently Ms. Oberle, both claimed that two plumbers hadexamined the area and told them that it was caused by a natural spring. (See e.g., e-mailsent from Ms. Oberle to Ms. Alderman on July 17, 2011, attached as Ex. 0-1). Ms.Wildenstein and Ms. Oberle have refused to identify the alleged plumbers.

39. Ms. Alderman has since learned that Ms. Wildenstein told others almost a year beforethat the water was caused by a broken pipe in the warehouse's concrete slab foundation,but that AF did not have the money to repair it. (See affidavits of Lissa Tuttle, Ex. B-3,pars. 34-35; Cathi Pedersen, Ex. B-4, par. 23) Ms. Alderman did not learn that a brokenpipe was the source of the water until on or around May 17, 2011. She has subsequentlyobserved water flowing from the warehouse foundation. (See Ex. C-28). She believesthat no plumber would ever have claimed that the water came from a natural spring, andthat Ms. Wildenstein and Ms. Oberle intentionally deceived her.

40. The water has apparently been running for a year or more at the volume of a garden hoserunning full force. The pond that it has formed has created standing water, helpingmosquitoes to breed and exposing dogs to heartworm. BOD member Gary Rodriguez hasobtained an estimate in excess of$5,500.00 to locate and repair the leak.

41. There are small buildings and sheds on the Property that have been constructed withoutPUNKIN PAULA's knowledge or permission. (See Ex. C-29). Because she had nevergone to the dog kennels near the fenced of f part of the Property, and the kennels wereshielded from view by blue plastic tarp, she was unaware that permanent concretefoundations had been installed beneath some of the kennels. (See, e.g., Exs. C-30; C-31).Ms. Alderman did not become aware until May 2011 that under many of the outdoor dogpens' mulch-covered floors were permanently installed concrete slabs.

42. Garbage and junk, inclUding broken furniture, fans, coolers, mattresses and bedding wereexposed to the elements and strewn across the Property. (See Exs. C-32; C-33; C-34; C-

35; C-36).

C. Brown House

43. As Ms. Alderman approached the Brown house at the very back of the Property (see Ex.C-37), she observed Ms. Wildenstein's brother, John, an AF employee, emerging from itwith 11 dogs. Ms. Wildenstein had told Ms. Alderman that her brother would be movinginto the Brown house and would begin making necessary repairs. Ms. Wildenstein ~

7



assured Ms. Alderman that her brother was a competent and capable "handyman."

44. Upon entering the Brown house, Ms. Alderman was overpowered by the stench of urine

and feces. The floors of every room were covered with dog, rat and mice feces and

puddles of urine. (See Exs. C-38; C-39; C-40). Garbage, including half eaten cans of

food, was strewn across the floors. (See Ex. C-41). Several windows in the house were

broken (see Exs. C-42; C-43), and a plugged in space heater lay tipped on its side.

45. A room in the back was piled high with junk and clutter and dried animal feces (see Exs.

C-44; C-45), and the kitchen was covered with feces and grime. (See Ex. C-46).

46. Tony Watson, a contractor brought in to examine the damage, has opined that the smell

has likely permeated the Brown house's joists and that the l30-year old structure may

have to be razed. (See affidavit of Tony Watson, Ex. B-2, par. 13).

47. John Wildenstein's pickup truck has been parked in front of the Brown house for several

years and apparently does not run. (See Ex. C-47). The cab of the truck, and a small

garage next to the Brown house, remain filled floor-to-ceiling with large black garbage

bags ofunknown items. (See Ex. C-48).

D. Yellow House

48. Ms. Alderman returned to the warehouse where Ms. Wildenstein was just emerging, and

together they walked to the Yellow house. (See Ex. C-49 [background]; C-50). The front

door, off of its hinges, was propped up in the doorway. (/d.) The door was partially

broken and all of the glass in it was shattered and scattered on the floor. Although Ms.

Wildenstein claimed that a strong windstorm blew in the door, a volunteer saw it

destroyed by a goat that, unbeknownst to Ms. Alderman, Ms. Wildenstein had allowed onthe Property. (See affidavit of Lissa Tuttle, Ex. B-3, par. 39).

49. The door was destroyed in 2010, and the last time Ms. Alderman was on the Property in

mid-August 2011, AF still has made no effort to repair it. A witness has testified that the

goat continues to live on the Property, and that it recently damaged a wood fence. (See

affidavit ofMary Beth Merritt, Ex. B-5, par. 6).

50. The Yellow house was cluttered with furniture and boxes, and several rooms were nearly

impassable. When Ms. Alderman entered it on that morning in mid-March, an unattended

candle burned on a kitchen counter.

51. There was the powerful stench of animal urine everywhere. Ms. Alderman has sincelearned that Ms. Wildenstein had kept up to 50 cats housed there (See affidavit of Kelly

Rothvold, Ex. B-6, par. 4; see also, Ex. C-51), and frequently allowed dogs in as well.

52. Ms. Wildenstein used one wall of the house to sample paint colors, leaving blotches of

various colors of paint.

8



53. The remains of dog and/or cat and rodent feces were visible on the floor (see Ex. C-52), .and Ms. Alderman observed a mouse run down the bathtub drain. The kitchen was dirtyand rodent feces covered the counters.

54. A screen door had been removed and was propped up against the house. (See Ex. C-53).

VII. Continued Failure to Clean or Repair

55. Ms. Wildenstein promised Ms. Alderman that she would personally oversee her brother'scleanup of the Brown house, and that she· would arrange to have all three buildingscleaned, repaired and restored.

56. Ms. Wildenstein promised that AF would not take in any more animals at the shelter untilthe Property was £:jxed; allow any animals in the Apartment or two houses; or burn anymore candles anywhere on the Property.

57. When Ms. Alderman, Ms. Oberle and Ms. Oberle's sister returned the next week to

inspect the Property, Mr. Wildenstein had not begun cleaning the Brown house. Indeed,the conditions were even worse.

58. Ms. Wildenstein admitted that she had not even looked in the Brown house, nor had sheoverseen any cleanup. Ms. Wildenstein refused to accompany Ms. Alderman, Ms.Oberle and her sister into the Brown house, but insisted on remaining outside. Ms.

Alderman does not know whether, to this day, Ms. Wildenstein has ever stepped footinside of that house.

59. Mr. Wildenstein left the Property and AF's employment the next day. He took none of

his belongings, including his truck and the bags full of items with him, and they remainthere still today.

60. Ms. Wildenstein, Ms. Oberle and BOD member Gary Rodriguez have repeatedly assuredMs. Alderman that repairing and restoring the Property was an AF "priority." Five andone-half months after the Property's condition was first discovered by Ms. Alderman,nothing, not even a broken window, has been repaired, and no cleaning to speak of hastaken place.

61. A witness has alleged that as recently as three weeks ago, Ms. Wildenstein continued to

take dogs into the Yellow house, and when Ms. Alderman visited the Property on oraround August 7, 20 11, there again was an unattended candle burning in the Apartment.

62. Contractors Tony and Lisa Watson have examined the Property and estimate that,excluding the broken water pipe, it will cost between $75,000.00 and $100,000.00 torepair and restore it to the condition it was in at the time that AF moved in. (See affidavitof Tony Watson, Ex. B-2, par. 21). AF is constantly facing a negative cash flow, and hasno foreseeable ability to pay for the repair and restoration of the Property.

9



'.

63. Ms. Alderman contends that Ms. Wildenstein, Ms. Oberle and AF have acted in bad faith,'

dishonestly, and with gross negligence in fulfilling their duties, and that their continued

presence on the Property poses an imminent and continuing threat to the integrity and

value of the Property.

VIII. Number/Hoarding ofAnimals

64. As a condition precedent to purchasing and leasing the Property, Ms. Alderman required

that there could never be more than eighty dogs on the Property at one time. Although

Ms. Oberle now denies it, she was aware of this condition, and she has acknowledged in

an e-mail that she was present when Ms. Alderman informed Ms. Wildenstein of this

condition as well. (See e-mail sent from Ms. Oberle to Ms. Alderman on July 17, 2011,

attached as Ex. 0-1).

65. In March 20 II, Ms. Alderman instructed Ms. Wildenstein and Ms. Oberle that no more

animals could be taken in by AF, and that an emphasis on adoptions must be made. Ms.

Oberle told Ms. Alderman that when Ms. Wildenstein took in two more dogs in April

2011, Ms. Oberle threatened Ms. Wildenstein that she would resign the BOD. Ms.

Alderman now believes that Ms. Oberle aided and abetted Ms. Wildenstein in knowingly

and intentionally continuing to take in more animals, particularly dogs.

66. On April 26, 2011, the AF BOD voted to add Anita Anderson, Tracey Greene and Ms.

Oberle's sister, Jeanne Kordus, to the BOD.

67. In early May 2011, in response to her inquiries, Ms. Oberle informed Ms. Alderman that

there were 117 dogs on the Property, II of which were allegedly personally owned by

Ms. Wildenstein. (See e-mail sent from Ms. Alderman to Ms. Oberle on August 17,2011,

attached as Ex. 0-2). The dogs allegedly continued to be adopted out, and Ms. Aldermanassumed that the number was decreasing.

68. Both Ms. Oberle and Ms. Wildenstein rebuffed Ms. Alderman's subsequent requests for a

"head count" of the dogs.

69. During the first week in August, Ms. Alderman asked BOD member Anita Anderson to

count the dogs on the Property. Ms. Anderson counted 140, including 50 that were in the

back of the warehouse behind the partition whom Ms. Oberle and Ms. Wilden stein

alleged were "escape artists" that could not be kept in typical dog kennels. (See affidavit

of Anita Anderson, Ex. B-7, pars. 18, 43).

70. When Ms. Oberle did not respond to Ms. Alderman's repeated telephone calls seeking anexplanation for the increase in the number of dogs between May and August, Ms.

Alderman left a frustrated voicemail message with BOD member Tracey Greene. Ms.

Greene, a friend of Ms. Wildenstein and Ms. Oberle, responded in a voice mail message

that she did "not know what [Ms. Alderman] was talking about," and that she had

personally just counted 121 dogs on the Property, of which now 15 were allegedly owned

by Ms. Wildenstein.

10



71. Ms. Alderman then contacted Ms. Wildenstein'sboyfriend, BOD member Gary

Rodriguez, who promised to do a final, thorough count. On August 15, 2011, despite AF

having ostensibly having adopted out four more dogs over the weekend, Mr. Rodriguez

told Ms. Alderman that there were 142 dogs on the Property, 13 of which Ms.

Wildenstein now allegedly personally owned. (See e-mail sent from Gary Rodriguez to

the BOD on August 15, 2011, attached as Ex. 0-2).

72. Witnesses have since alleged that for months after the prohibition was imposed on taking

in more dogs, Ms. Wildenstein and Ms. Oberle continued to do so. Volunteers and

employees, including Lissa Tuttle, who was last on the Property on March 2,2011, have

stated that they were familiar by name and appearance of almost every dog on the

Property. They did not recognize the majority of videos posted on "tracysdogs.com" in

August 2011 showing the dogs available at that time to adopt. (See, e.g., affidavit ofLissa

Tuttle, Ex. B-3, pars.17-22; 36-38).

73. AF began at the Property with a small number of rabbits. Ms. Alderman learned in

August 20 II that AF failed to take advantage of a local veterinarian, Dr. Hubanek's,

offer to spay and neuter the rabbits, and the number grew quickly to more than 100. AF

failed to properly separate the genders, and as recently as July 2011, rabbits continued to

breed. (See affidavit of Mary Beth Merritt, Ex. B-5, par.5).

74. Various witnesses have alleged that when potential adopters selected an animal, Ms.

Wildenstein would tell them that adoption papers for that animal had already been filed.In the majority of cases, that was not true, and months later, the animal remained on the

Property. (See, e.g., affidavit of Lissa Tuttle, Ex. B-3; par. 40).

75. In March 2011, when Ms. Alderman offered to adopt Junior, a Chihuahua covered withmange, Ms. Wildenstein declined, telling her that someone had already filled out the

adoption papers. The papers allegedly had been filed the year before and, upon further

questioning, Ms. Wildenstein reluctantly admitted that she had lost the prospectiveowner's contact information.

76. In April 2011, new BOD member Tracey Greene told Ms. Alderman that when she had

wanted to adopt a particular dog, Ms. Wildenstein had likewise told her that adoption

papers had already been filed. Ms. Wildenstein subsequently admitted to Ms. Greene that

that was not true, and allowed Ms. Greene to adopt the dog.

77. In August 2011, facing eviction and holding a publicized adoption event, Ms.

Wildenstein continued to stall adoptions, including telling a volunteer who wanted toadopt a particular cat that adoption papers had already been filed. Ms. Oberle was made

aware of this, but did nothing to intervene. According to the volunteer, weeks later, the

cat remains at AF.

78. In spring 20 I 0, Ms. Alderman had visited the Property with friends who wanted to adopt

a medium-size dog. Ms. Wildenstein had scheduled the appointment for 4:00 p.m. on a

II



Saturday afternoon. When they arrived at that time, Ms. Wildenstein showed the couple .

only four dogs. She refused to let the couple walk around the Property to look at other

dogs, claiming that she did not allow anyone to tour the Property after 4:00 p.m. because

the dogs barked and upset the neighbors. The couple did not select any of the four dogs,

and instead went to another shelter the next weekend and adopted one there.

79. Four witnesses have recently confirmed that Ms. Wilden stein took in dogs and refused to

return them to their rightful identified owners. (See affidavits of Lissa Tuttle, Ex. B-3,

par. 3; Kelli Rothveld, Ex. B-6, pars. 7-8; Cathi Petersen, Ex. B-4, pars. 27-28; Farah Joy

Ebadi, Ex. B-8, pars. 4-5).

80. In one case, the owner of two dogs, renamed "Satan" and "Newbie" by AF, went to AF

several times, asking if his dogs were there. Ms. Tuttle and volunteers allege that Ms.

Wildenstein was upset that the man had not had the dogs neutered, and that she denied

that AF had the man's dogs. (See affidavits of Lissa Tuttle, Ex. B-3, pars. 3-4; Farah Joy

Ebadi, Ex. B-8, pars. 4-6). The other witnesses, an older couple who had regularly

volunteered at the shelter, quit volunteering as a result of this deceit.

81. Lissa Tuttle maintains that she personally drove Satan to a veterinary clinic to be

euthanized. (See affidavit ofLissa Tuttle, Ex. B-3, pars. 5-6).

82. Ms. Wildenstein instructed Ms. Tuttle to tell everyone that Satan had been placed in a

foster home.

~ 3 . A tormer veterinary tech who, for four months in 2010 worked Tuesdays and Thursdays

at AF, has alleged that although a poodle and a Boston terrier arrived at AF with

microchips that revealed their owner's names, addresses and telephone numbers, because

they livedon

the ".south side"of

San Antonio--a partof

the city that Ms.' Wildensteindeemed to be undesirable--Ms. Wildenstein refused to contact the owners. (See affidavit

ofKelli Rostvold, Ex. B-6, pars. 7-8)

84. As recently as August 19, 20 II , police were called to AF when Ms. Wildenstein refused

to turn over a dog to its rightful owner. (See Bexar County Sheriff Incident Report dated

August 19,2011, attached as Ex. A-3).

85. Ms. Alderman gives credence to these allegations. She is personally aware that shortly

after she joined AF's BOD, Ms. Wildenstein told the owners of a Chihuahua mixed-breed

that "Chiquita" had died while in AF's custody. Ms. Alderman was aware that Chiquita

was actually alive, and told Ms. Wilden stein that she was committing theft by conversion,

and that she must not do it again. Because the dog's owners could not be located, Ms.Alderman found Chiquita a home.

86. Numerous witnesses have alleged that even after leaving many voice messages at AF

regarding their desire to adopt a dog, no one has returned their calls. (See e.g., e-mail sent

from Anita Anderson to BOD on August 16,2011, attached as Ex. 0-3; e-mail sent from

Erin Northington to Ms. Alderman on August 10, 2011, attached as Ex; 0-4; see also,

12



affidavits of Farah Joy Ebadi, Ex. B-8, par. 12).

87. When contractor Lisa Watson visited AF in August 2011 to estimate the cost of repairs,

she recognized AF's name and stated that she had once tried to adopt a dog from AF, but

that no one had returned her call.

88. Earlier this year, Ms. Wildenstein and AF used a dog, "Jiffy Pop" with a large tumor

above its tail, to elicit sympathy and raise funds for AF. Although Jiffy Pop was

allegedly an AF shelter dog, when members of the public subsequently tried to adopt her,

Cheryl claimed her as her personal dog.

89. I am aware that AF has long had financial difficulties, and that all of their employees

have quit due to not being paid. AF may still owe most of these employees back wages.

90. The last two employees to be paid were Ms. Wildenstein and "Mike," a dog walker. Ms.

Oberle told Ms. Alderman after she resigned the BOD that due to a lack of funds, Ms.

Wildenstein and Mike had not been paid for some time, and that they now were

"volunteers. "

91. Numerous people, including Ms. Oberle, have told Ms. Alderman that Ms. Wildenstein

has alienated almost all of AF's volunteers, and many, including groups from Lackland

Air Force Base and the Boy Scouts, now refuse to volunteer at AF. (See affidavit of Cathi

Pedersen, Ex. B-4, pars. 8-11, 17, 26;) Despite the lack of employees and the shortage

of volunteers, Ms. Wildenstein and Ms. Oberle have ignored recent attempts by other

groups to volunteer for AF. (See Affidavit of Anita Anderson, Ex. B-7, par. 36) .

92. Ms. Alderman has learned that, even knowing that AF was going to be evicted, AF has

continued to take in dogs. (See, e.g., affidavit of Lissa Tuttle, Ex. B-3, pars. 17-22, 36-38).

93. Furthermore, Ms. Oberle has rejected recent offers from other shelters to take in dogs,

including offers by the Animal Defense League ("ADL") and the Bulverde Humane

Society ("BHS"), local no-kill shelters. (See, e.g., e-mail sent from Ms. Oberle to Ms.

Alderman on July 8, 20 II , attached as Ex. D-5).

94. Ms. Oberle was indignant that ADL agreed to take only dogs that were adoptable. Ms.

Oberle stated that she would not tum over adoptable dogs because the adoption fees were

AF's "only source of income." ([d.) Ms. Alderman responded, asking the BOD, "What

kind of a shelter prefers to keep dogs locked up for a few extra months in the hopes that

they may eventually bring in a couple of hundred dollars?" (See e-mail sent from Ms.Alderman to the BOD on August 14,2011, attached as Ex. D-6).

95. Ms. Oberle also rejected BHS offer to take in dogs because she felt that an e-mail sent by

the BHS manager was "rude."

96. Ms. Oberle recently admitted to Ms. Alderman that on some Sundays, she and Ms.

13



Wildenstein are the only people on the Property. Ms. Alderman does not believe that two'people can adequately feed, water and walk more than 140 dogs, or take care of the morethan 30 cats that are on the Property. She believes that, as a result, dogs in relativelysmall kennels can go days without getting exercise, fresh water or any socialization at all.

(See Exs. C - 4 7 ; q - 4 8 ; ~ : 4 9 ) . 97. Ms. Alderman believes that given their history, Ms. Oberle and Ms. Wildenstein will

continue to take in, and refuse to adopt out, animals, and that the Property's physicalstructure and value will continue to decline.

IX. Failure to Pay for Liability Insurance

98. At the end of July 2009, in response to her inquiry, Ms. Alderman learned that in orderto save money, Ms. Oberle had either cancelled or failed to renew PUNKIN PAULA'sliability insurance.

99. Ms. Alderman directed her to immediately restore the insurance.

100. In an August 2011 e-mail totheBOD.Ms. Oberle denied that she had ever let theliability insurance lapse. If fact, Ms. Oberle again let the liability insurance lapsebetween April 2nd and April 13 th of this year. (See copies of Mount Vernon FireInsurance Company declarations page, Ex. A-4).

101. Ms. Alderman is aware that on another occasion, Ms. Oberle was not honest about AF'sfinancial obligations. In March 2011, a former volunteer told Ms. Alderman that Dr.Haines would no longer treat AF's animals because AF had failed to reimburse him forthe costs of animal vaccinations, etc., that he had incurred,2 Ms. Oberle assured Ms.

Alderman that allof

Dr. Haines bills had been paid, and that he no longer treated AFanimals due of his retirement. In late August 2011, Ms. Alderman spoke with Dr.

Haines, and he confirmed that he had stopped treating AF animals because AF owedhim "a lot more" than $500.00.

102. Ms. Oberle continues to deny the allegation, but coincidentally sent Dr. Haines a checkfor $500.00 in early August 2011, shortly after AF's July 2ih fundraiser.

103. Ms. Alderman has lost faith that Ms. Oberle can be trusted to live up to AF's financialobligations and to keep the Property insured.

X. Violations of the Law and Standards ofCare

104. In March 2011, Ms. Alderman asked to see AF's records on each of the animals. Ms.

Wildenstein claimed that they had been stolen by a disgruntled former employee, andshe was unable to produce a single one. Kelli Rothvold, a veterinary technician, andtwo veterinarians, Dr. Hubanek ("Access Veterinary Care") and Dr. Haines (retired),

2 Dr. Haines volunteeredhisserviCes, but had to purchase items such as vaccinations himself because he did nottrust that AF had stored them properly or that they had not expired.

14



both of whom have offered their services to AF, have each stated that AF has never kept·

adequate records of adoptions or vaccinations.

lOS. Five people have alleged that in violation of the law, Ms. Wildenstein has given dogs

rabies vaccinations. (See, affidavits of Lissa Tuttle, Ex. B-3, par. 12; Nancy Coronado,Ex. B-9, pars. 24-25; Robert Coronado, Ex. B-IO, pars. 3-4; Joannie Dunn, Ex. B-ll,

par. 3; Rosemarie Robbins, Ex. B-12, pars. 3-4). Veterinary technician Kelli Rothvold

stated that Ms. Wildenstein told her that she is "authorized" to give rabies shots. (See

affidavit of Kelly Rostvold,' Ex. B-8, par. 6).

106. Texas Health and Safety Code §826.023(a) provides that a rabies vaccine may be

administered only by or under the direct supervision of a veterinarian. Pursuant to

THSC §826.024, it is a misdemeanor to administer a rabies vaccination with the

supervision of a veterinarian. Texas Administrative Code § 169.29 likewise requires that

rabies vaccinations be administered by or under the direct supervision of a veterinarian.

107. Dr. Hubanek told Ms. Alderman that AF often did not give a rabies vaccine certificate to

persons who adopted dogs, even though they were told that the dogs had received their

rabies shots. According to Dr. Hubanek, his and his clients' telephone calls to AF to

obtain the certifications went unanswered.

108. Lissa Tuttle has alleged that as Ms. Wildenstein was adopting out an animal, Ms.

Wildenstein sometimes would often fabricate dates on which the animal supposedly was

given its shots. (See affidavit of Lissa Tuttle, Ex. S-3, pars. 13-14).

_ 109. There is also evidence that in violation of Texas Health and Safety Code §826.041,3 AF

failed to report to Bexar County Animal Care Services that Ms. Wildenstein was

recently bitten by an AF dog. (See affidavit of Tracy Voss, attached as Ex. B-13).

110. Bexar County requires that every animal involved in a human bite or scratch be

examined by a licensed veterinarian and quarantined for a period of ten days from the

bite or the scratch. Instead of protecting the public and other animals from potential

rabies by quarantining the dog, Ms. Wildenstein, with Ms. Oberle's knowledge and

consent, failed to separate it from other dogs, then let the dog be adopted out. (See e

mail string between Ms. Oberle and Tracy Voss between September 6-7, 2011).

Ill . Various individuals, some of whom did not know each other, have alleged that they

witnessed Ms. Wildensteinengage in behavior that can only be described as animal

abuse. (See, e.g., affidavits of Lissa Tuttle, Ex. B-3; pars. 41-45; Cathi Pedersen, Ex. B-

4, 27-30; Mary Beth Merritt, Ex. B-5, pars. 4-5; Kelli Rothfeld, Ex. B-6, pars. 10-15;Farah Joy Ebadi, Ex. B-8, pars. 8-10; Nancy Coronado, Ex. B-9, pars. 2-23;).

3 Texas Health and Safety Code §826.04l provides that a person who knows of an animal bite or scratch to anindividual that the person could reasonably foresee as capable of transmitting rabies shall report the incident oranimal to the local rabies control authority ofthe county or municipality in which the person Irves, in which theanimal is located, or in which the exposure occurs.

15



112. Volunteers and employees have claimed that cats taken in by AF were not tested for

feline leukemia, a highly contagious and incurable disease. All cats are housed in one or

two cages, and feline leukemia positive cats have been adopted out. (See, e.g., affidavit

of Lissa Tuttle, Ex. B-3, pars. 15-16).

113. Mary Beth Merritt, who had no association with AF, adopted a rabbit and her four

bunnies in July 2011. The first day she arrived, she and her daughter counted 10 dead

rabbits in the rabbit pen. The next day when they returned, six more were dead in the

pen. (See affidavit of Mary Beth Merritt, Ex. B-5, pars. 4-5).

114. Dr. Hubanek had a client who volunteered at AF complain to Ms. Wildenstein about an

AF dog who appeared to have a prolapsed uterus. Ms. Wildenstein assured her that a

veterinarian who sometimes volunteered at the shelter, Dr. Haines, was treating the

dog. The volunteer worked up her courage to call Dr. Haines directly, and was told

that he knew nothing about the animal.

115. PUNKIN PAULA and Ms. Alderman cannot run the risk of having the Property exposed

in any way to potential criminal conduct or liability, or to be associated with an

organization that has such a negative reputation.

XI. Competency of Manager

116. As PUNKIN PAULA's manager, Ms. Alderman is concerned that Ms. Wildenstein is no

longer fit to run an animal shelter. Since Ms. Alderman re-established more regular

contact with Ms. Wildenstein beginning in March 2011, Ms. Wildenstein has

demonstrated increasingly irrational, bizarre and erratic behavior.

117. Ms. Wildenstein lost her wallet more than a year ago. As ofiate-July 2011, she still hadnot attempted to obtain a single form of personal identification (driver's license, Social

Security card, passport, old school 10, or even a library card).

118. Ms. Wildenstein does not drive or have a driver's license, and Ms. Wildenstein, Mr.

Rodriguez and Ms. Oberle have told Ms. Alderman that she has stepped foot off the

Property only twice since the end of July 2010, both times to attend AF's annual

fundraiser that takes place each year at the end of July.

119. Ms. Wildenstein has told Ms. Alderman that she has not used the Yellow house in more

than a year, except to shower, and that she lives and sleeps in the warehouse's thrift

store. Ms. Alderman believes that with her heavy cigarette smoking and deep sleep, Ms.

Wildenstein poses a genuine risk of starting a fire.

120. Ms. Wildenstein claims that she sleeps in the warehouse with the overhead garage door

open because otherwise strangers will come at night and steal dogs. She engages in

excessive secrecy, obscuring dogs and kennels with blue plastic tarp (see Ex. C-54), and

forbidding all volunteers, employees and the public from walking around the majority of

the Property. Only Ms. Wildenstein, Ms. Oberle, "Mike" and, presumably, Mr.

16



Rodriguez, have been allowed even to see these dogs, 4 and they can go for days at a time·

without being walked or socializing with humans. (See Exs. C-55; C-56; C-57; C-58).

121. On March 30, 2011, Ms. Wildenstein told Ms. Alderman that she heard "kids" playing at

night in the attic of the Yellow house. Ms. Wildenstein could not explain why she had notcontacted Ms. Alderman, the BOD or called the police.

122. On or around August 7, 2011, Ms. Wildenstein told Ms. Alderman that she was having

a "nervous breakdown."

123. On September 1, 2011, Ms. Wildenstein told a volunteer that someone was poisoning

AF's dogs. As of September 6, 2011, Ms. Wildenstein had not filed a police report with

the Bexar County Sherriff's Department regarding the alleged poisoning.

124. During a highly publicized adoption event held on August 24, 2011, with Ms. Oberle's

consent and knowledge, Ms. Wildenstein adopted a pit bull dog named "Molly" to a

family with a six-month old infant. Ms. Wildenstein had previously told former

employee Lissa Tuttle that Molly had killed two dogs and a cat. (See affidavit of Lissa

Tuttle, Ex. Q-3, pars. 23-25). Ms. Wildenstein likewise told volunteer Mary Alvarado

that Molly was "dangerous," and should not be walked around other dogs or cats. (See

affidavit of Mary Alvarado, Ex. 8 - 1 ~ par. 3).

125. A recent screen shot from AF's page on "petfinders.com" reflects that Molly should not

be around other dogs or cats.

126. Mr. Rodriguez and Ms. Oberle have vacillated between maintaining that Ms. Wildenstein

has "mental issues," needs professional help and is an unfit shelter manager who should

be fired, to referring to her as the "face of [AF]," and a "unique" person who should stay.

XII. Notice to Comply or Quit, and Eviction

127. Despite claiming that the restoration and repair of the Property was an AF "priority," Ms.

Alderman is aware of little to nothing that has been done.

128. In late July or early August, Ms. Alderman set out a schedule by which AF would have to

repair and restore the Property, or face eviction, and she resigned from the AF BOD.

129. The thrift store was to be eliminated because of the fire hazard it posed due to a lack of

sprinklers in the building. Some items were removed, but most of the items remained.

130. Despite having an infusion of money after a fundraiser on July 27, 2011, AF has failed to

make even basic repairs such as replacement of the broken windows and doors.

4 On August 22, 20 II , BOD member Tracey Greene admitted to Ms. Alderman that she had not visited the Property

since AF first moved in in July 2009.

17



XIII. Relief

131. Based on the foregoing and the affidavits and exhibits attached hereto, PUNKIN PAULA

requests that it be awarded possession of the Leased Premises and a Writ of Possession.

Respectfully submitted,

Laura Alderman

Manager of PUNKIN PAULA, LLC

319 Woodway Forest

San Antonio, Texas 78216

(210) 386-0908

State Bar Card # 24006658

VERIFICA TION

STATE OF TEXAS )(

COUNTY OF BEXAR )(

Before me the undersigned Notary Public on this day personally appeared Laura

Alderman who on her oath did depose and say that the matters stated in the above and forgoing

petition for forcible detainer and possession and for damages are true and correct and within herpersonal knowledge.

Signed and sworn this _ day of September, 2011

(seal)

18

NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the

State of Texas



NOTICE TO COMPLY OR QUIT

TO: Animal Friends, a/k/a Animal Friends Humane Society (“AF” or “Tenant”) byand through Paula Oberle as President/Chairman of its Board of Directors, CherylWildenstein as AF Manager, and Cheryl Wildenstein, Individually, as Permissive

Tenants

FROM: PUNKIN PAULA, LLC, by and through Laura Alderman, Manager and memberof PUNKIN PAULA, LLC (“PUNKIN PAULA” or “Landlord”)

You are hereby served with this Notice to Comply or Quit.

In support of this Notice to Comply or Quit, the Landlord states as follows:

Between December 2003 and December 2004, as a result of her sister, Paula’s, murder inconnection with a terrorist bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, Laura

Alderman received a substantial monetary settlement.

Ms. Alderman decided that any money that she received as a result of her sister’s murder wouldbe used solely for the benefit of not-for-profit and charitable organizations.

In 2005 or 2006, Ms. Alderman became a member of AF’s board of directors (“BOD”).

At the time that she became a member of the BOD, AF rented Borgfeld Property located at23445 U.S. Highway 281 in San Antonio, Texas. AF’s shelter manager was Cheryl Wildenstein.Paula Oberle was a member of the BOD. At the time or shortly after Ms. Alderman became amember of the BOD, Cheryl’s mother, Billie Wildenstein, and Cheryl Wildenstein’s former

boyfriend, Gary Rodriguez, were or became AF board members.

In 2007, there were public proposals to widen U.S. Highway 281, which would have eliminatedthe building that housed the AF shelter. Ms. Wildenstein and the BOD were understandablyconcerned.

Ms. Alderman advised the BOD that she had funds available to buy land for AF to use if anappropriate property could be found. Not long afterwards, Ms. Wildenstein advised Ms.Alderman about a nearly five-acre property located at 213 West Borgfeld Drive, north of the Cityof San Antonio, in Bexar County, Texas (the “Property”). The Property was owned by Harry L.and Donna J. Lux and was for sale.

On or around November 14, 2007, Ms. Alderman formed “PUNKIN PAULA, LLC,” a domesticlimited liability company formed in the state of Texas as a vehicle for purchasing the Property.Ms. Alderman became the Manager and was a member of PUNKIN PAULA.

On November 20, 2007, PUNKIN PAULA purchased the Property for $512,694.12.

The Lux family had owned the Property for many years and only a few years before they sold it



to PUNKIN PAULA, Mr. and Mrs. Lux had moved two circa-1920 or -1930 homes from otherland that they owned to the Property.

The Lux’s moved the first house (the “Yellow House”) to the left-center part of the Property.The Lux’s invested approximately $50,000.00 installing a foundation, painting, upgrading the

electric and plumbing, etc., in the “Yellow house.”

The second house (the “Brown house”) was placed in the back left part of the Property, and wasrented out by the Lux’s at the time PUNKIN PAULA purchased the Property. The tenantsmoved out before PUNKIN PAULA closed on the Property.

Mr. Lux worked on large trucks and had a large warehouse built on the center-right portion of the Property. The warehouse contained an apartment that included a new, fully equippedkitchen, sitting area, three bedrooms and two full baths (the “Apartment”). Before the Lux’s hadlived on the Property very long, Mr. Lux suffered a stroke and he and his wife decided to moveback to Austin, Texas.

AF moved onto the Property in July 2009 and the Property was to be leased for $1 a year.Conditions precedent to the purchase and lease of the Property included that AF maintain theProperty, advise Ms. Alderman about any problems at the Property; including the need formaintenance and repairs; that no animals be allowed in any part of the Apartment, the YellowHouse or the Brown House; and that no more than 80 dogs ever be on the Property at one time.

The parties agreed that Ms. Alderman would provide AF with funds to cover the Property’sproperty taxes and property insurance, and AF was to purchase liability insurance in the amountof $500,000.00 to protect PUNKIN PAULA from liability for injury to any person who cameonto the Property, or to their personal property.

Ms. Wildenstein was supposed to live in the Yellow house. There was an inadequate heatingsystem in the Brown house, and some plumbing issues needed to be addressed, and Ms.Alderman advised Ms. Oberle and Ms. Wildenstein that noone was allowed to live there. TheBOD discussed the possibility of fixing the Brown house up and eventually using it to house athrift store or even a veterinarian’s practice.

Ms. Alderman visited the Property on number of occasions and initially the Property was well-maintained. On subsequent visits, she began to be discouraged from walking beyond thewarehouse, where a fence had been installed across the Property with a locked gate. Ms.Alderman was told that her walking around would cause the dogs to bark. Neighbors had

frequently called police regarding barking dogs, and Ms. Wildenstein alleged that one had eventhreatened to shoot the dogs. Not wanting to cause AF any problems, and relying on Ms.Wildenstein and Ms. Oberle, whom she considered to be friends as well as fellow members of the BOD, Ms. Alderman deferred to their requests not to walk around the Property.

In or around February or March 2010, Ms. Alderman became aware that the warehouse wasbeing used to house a thrift store. At no time did PUNKIN PAULA authorize AF to run anybusiness other than an animal shelter on the Property. At the time it appeared orderly and well



managed. Ms. Alderman was informed by Ms. Oberle that the thrift store earned AF over$5,000.00 a year.

I. Damage to the Property

On or around March 13, 2011, Ms. Alderman was contacted by a former AF volunteer, whoinformed her, among other things, that she was aware that there was mold in the Apartment.

Ms. Alderman contacted Ms. Wildenstein, who denied it.

A day or two later, Ms. Alderman visited the Property early in the morning. She walked into thewarehouse and shouted out Ms. Wildenstein’s name but could not find her.

Ms. Alderman observed that there was wall-to-wall junk haphazardly strewn all over thewarehouse. A queen- or king-size bed covered with blankets sat near the front of the warehouse.

Ms. Alderman walked into the Apartment. An unattended candle was burning on a kitchencounter. The kitchen area was wall-to-wall with clutter.

Ms. Alderman went from room to room. There were several inches of dried brown sludge in thebathroom tubs, sinks and toilets, from an apparent sewer backup and/or a flood.

The parquet floor in the sitting area has been flooded, and was warped and will need to bereplaced. Every room’s baseboards was covered with mold. With the exception of the kitchenand sitting room, the walls in every room were covered with thick black mold. The almost-newcarpets in each of the bedrooms had been torn out. A window had apparently been left open formonths and paint on the windowsill was peeling. Doors and bathroom vanities literally were

falling apart, apparently due to moisture.

Ms. Alderman has since been made aware of holes about the size of golf balls covering the wallsof the warehouse. She has been told by a contractor that they were made by water rats. He hasopined that at night, rats “the size of squirrels” must come out.

Ms. Alderman has since been made aware that in her capacity as AF manager, until volunteerspurchased metal garbage cans, Ms. Wildenstein allowed bags of dog, cat and rabbit food to lieexposed around the Property, thereby encouraging the infestation of rats. Ms. Alderman hasbeen told that one could hear rats running in the walls of the warehouse, and that multiple rattraps placed in the warehouse bathroom simultaneously contained dead mice and rats.

After exiting the warehouse, walked to the back of the Property. She observed standing mud andlarge puddles of water that she had never seen before.

There were small buildings and sheds on the Property that had been constructed withoutPUNKIN PAULA’s knowledge or permission. Ms. Alderman did not become aware until May2011 that under many of the dog pens’ mulch-covered floors were permanently installedconcrete slabs. PUNKIN PAULA had never given AF permission to install those slabs.



Ms. Alderman went to Brown house at the back of the Property. Ms. Wildenstein’s brother,John, an AF employee, was living there with 11 dogs. Ms. Wildenstein had told Ms. Aldermanthat her brother would be moving into the house to begin fixing it up and to make any necessaryrepairs. Ms. Wildenstein assured Ms. Alderman that her brother was a competent and capable

“handyman.”

Ms. Alderman entered the Brown house and was overpowered by the stench of urine and feces.The floors of every room in the house were covered with feces and puddles of urine. Garbage,including half eaten cans of food, was strewn all over the floor. Windows in the house werebroken, and a space heater lay tipped on its side.

A contractor has since told Ms. Alderman that the smell has likely permeated the whole houseand it probably will have to be razed.

A flatbed truck was parked in front of the Brown house for two years; apparently it does not run.

The cab of the truck, and a small garage near the Brown house, were filled floor-to-ceiling withlarge black garbage bags of unknown items. Beer cans were strewn across the ground.

As Ms. Alderman walked back toward the warehouse, Ms. Wildenstein emerged from the front.Ms. Wildenstein told Ms. Alderman that she no longer slept in the Yellow house, but instead fellasleep each night in the warehouse bed. Ms. Wildenstein had earlier been in such a deep sleepthat she had not heard Ms. Alderman calling her name from only three feet away.

Ms. Wildenstein claimed that she had discovered the mold in the Apartment only the day beforeMs. Alderman did. However, witnesses have told Ms. Alderman that Ms. Wildenstein toured theApartment with animal control officers when they were called to the Property on March 2, 2011.

On August 15, 2011, Ms. Wildenstein told Ms. Alderman in front of three witnesses that she hadactually discovered the mold in one of the rooms “months before” Ms. Alderman had discoveredit. Ms. Wildenstein stated that she had not bothered to check any other rooms, and could notexplain why she had not informed Ms. Alderman about the damage, including why she had liedwhen Ms. Alderman directly asked her if there was any mold in the apartment.

Ms. Alderman asked Ms. Wildenstein about the running water at the back of the warehouse, andthe deep puddles of mud. Ms. Wildenstein, and subsequently Ms. Oberle, claimed that twoplumbers had examined the area and told them that it was a natural spring. Neither Ms.Wildenstein nor Ms. Oberle have identified the alleged plumbers.

Ms. Alderman later learned that Ms. Wildenstein had told others as early as late 2009 or early2010 that the water was from a broken pipe in the warehouse’s concrete slab foundation, but thatAF did not have the money to repair it. Ms. Alderman did not learn that there may be a brokenpipe until on or around May 17, 2011. She has subsequently observed water flowing from thewarehouse foundation, and believes clearly that no plumber would ever have alleged that thewater came from a natural spring.



Ms. Alderman then went with Ms. Wildenstein to the Yellow house. The front door was off itshinges and simply propped up in the doorway. The glass in the door was shattered, and brokenglass lay on the floor.

Ms. Wildenstein claimed that a powerful wind had blown the door off of its hinges. Ms.

Alderman is not aware of any powerful windstorms that were in that area, and she was told by aperson who witnessed it that the door was knocked off its hinges by a goat. That had occurred in2010; Ms. Wildenstein made no effort to repair the door until in or around May 2011.

The Yellow house was cluttered with furniture and boxes, and there was a stench of animal urineeverywhere. An unattended candle burned on a kitchen counter. Ms. Alderman later learnedthat Ms. Wildenstein had kept cats in the house, and frequently allowed dogs in as well.

Ms. Wildenstein promised Ms. Alderman that she would personally oversee Mr. Wildenstein’scleanup of the Brown house, and would make arrangments to clean up all three buildings.

Ms. Wildenstein promised to comply with Ms. Alderman’s and Ms. Oberle’s instructions to takein no more animals, not to allow any animals in the Apartment or Yellow and Brown houses, andnot to burn any candles at all on the Property.

Ms. Alderman, Ms. Oberle and Ms. Oberle’s sister, Jeanne Kordus, returned the next week toinspect the Property. Mr. Wildenstein had not begun cleaning the Brown house or repairing thebroken windows. In fact, the conditions were even worse.

Ms. Wildenstein admitted that she had not even looked in the Brown house, nor had shesupervised her brother’s cleaning up. Ms. Wildenstein refused to accompany Ms. Alderman, Ms.Oberle and Ms. Kordus in their inspection of the Brown house, insisting on remaining outside.

Mr. Wildenstein left the Property and employment with AF the next day. He took none of hisbelongings, including his truck and the bags full of items with him, and they remain on theProperty.

Ms. Wildenstein, Ms. Oberle and BOD member Gary Rodriguez have repeatedly assured Ms.Alderman that repairing and restoring the Property was an AF “priority.” Five months after theProperty’s condition was first discovered by Ms. Alderman, nothing, not even a broken window,has been repaired and no cleaning to speak of has taken place.

A witness has told Ms. Alderman that Ms. Wildenstein continues to take dogs into the Yellow

house.

When Ms. Alderman visited the Property during the first week in August 2011, there was anunattended candle burning in the Apartment.

Contractors Tony and Lisa Watson have examined the Property and estimate that it will costmore than $75,000.00 to repair and restore the three buildings. AF is constantly facing a negativecash flow, and has no foreseeable ability to pay for the repair and restoration of the Property.



Ms. Alderman contends that Ms. Wildenstein and AF have acted willfully, dishonestly and inbad faith, and that their presence on the Property poses an imminent and continuing threat to theintegrity and value of the Property.

II. Number/Hoarding of Animals

As a condition precedent to purchasing and leasing the Property, Ms. Alderman required thatthere would never be more than 80 dogs on the Property at one time. Ms. Oberle was aware of this condition, and she has acknowledged in e-mails that she heard Ms. Alderman advise Ms.Wildenstein of this condition as well.

In March 2011, Ms. Alderman and Ms. Oberle instructed Ms. Wildenstein that no more animalscould be taken in by AF, and that an emphasis on adoptions must be made. When Ms.Wildenstein took in two more dogs in April 2011, Ms. Oberle alleges that she threatened Ms.Wildenstein that if she took in any more, Ms. Oberle would resign AF’s BOD.

On April 26, 2011, the AF BOD voted to add Anita Anderson, Tracey Greene and JeanneKordus to the BOD.

In early May 2011, in response to Ms. Alderman’s inquiries, Ms. Oberle advised her that therewere 117 dogs on the Property, 11 of which were allegedly personally owned by Ms.Wildenstein. The dogs continued to be adopted out, and Ms. Alderman assumed that the numberwas decreasing.

Both Ms. Oberle and Ms. Wildenstein rebuffed Ms. Alderman’s subsequent requests for a “headcount” of the dogs.

During the first week in August, Ms. Alderman asked Ms. Anderson to count the dogs on theProperty. Ms. Anderson counted 140 of them.

After Ms. Alderman spoke in frustration with Ms. Greene about the increased number, Ms.Greene responded that she had counted 121 dogs, 15 of which Ms. Wildenstein allegedlypersonally owned.

Mr. Rodriguez promised to do a final, thorough count. On the weekend of August 13, 2011, Mr.Rodriguez told Ms. Alderman that there were 141 dogs on the Property, 13 of which Ms.Wildenstein allegedly personally owned.

Witnesses have since told Ms. Alderman that months after the prohibition on taking in more dogswas imposed, Ms. Wildenstein and Ms. Oberle have continued to do so.

In addition to the dogs, AF houses approximately 30 cats.

AF began at the Property with a small number of rabbits. AF failed to take advantage of a localveterinarian’s offer to spay and neuter the rabbits, and the number grew quickly to more than



100. AF failed to properly separate the genders, and as recently as July 2011, rabbits continuedto breed.

Numerous witnesses have recently told Ms. Alderman that when people would select a dog toadopt, Ms. Wildenstein would tell them that someone had already filed the paperwork to adopt

the dog. In the majority of cases, this was not true, and months later, the dog was still on theProperty.

In March 2011, when Ms. Alderman offered to adopted Junior, a Chihuahua who had mange,Ms. Wildenstein declined, telling her that someone had filled out adoption papers for Junior.The papers allegedly had been filed the year before and, upon further questioning, Ms.Wildenstein reluctantly admitted that she had lost the prospective owner’s contact information.

Ms. Alderman does not believe that anyone had ever filled out papers to adopt Junior.

In April 2011, Ms. Greene told Ms. Alderman that when she had wanted to adopt a particular

dog, Ms. Wildenstein had told her that someone had already filled out adoption papers. Ms.Wildenstein subsequently admitted to Ms. Greene that this was not true, and allowed Ms. Greeneto adopt the dog.

Ms. Alderman has had three independent witnesses recently confirm that Ms. Wildenstein took in dogs and refused to return them to their rightful owners.

In one case, the owner of a dog, renamed “Satan” by AF, went to AF on several occasions,asking if his dog was there. Three independent witnesses have told Ms. Alderman that Ms.Wildenstein was upset that the man had not had Satan neutered, and that she denied that the dogwas there. An older couple who regularly volunteered at the shelter quit volunteering as a result

of this deceit.

One witness has told Ms. Alderman that she personally drove Satan to a veterinary clinic to beeuthanized. Two witnesses have told Ms. Alderman that they were aware that Satan wascremated, and that they witnessed Satan’s cremains being returned to AF.

Ms. Wildenstein instructed the person who drove Satan to the veterinarian to be cremated to telleveryone that Satan had been placed in a foster home. It appears that as recently as this pastweek, former employees continued to believe that he had been.

A former veterinary tech who, for four months worked two days a week at AF, has told Ms.

Alderman that although a poodle and a Boston terrier arrived at AF with microchips thatrevealed their owner’s names, addresses and telephone numbers, because they lived on the“south side” of San Antonio--a place that Ms. Wildenstein deemed to be undesirable--Ms.Wildenstein refused to contact the owners.

Ms. Alderman gives credence to these allegations. She is personally aware that shortly after she joined AF’s BOD, Ms. Wildenstein told the owners of a Chihuahua mixed-breed that their dog,“Chiquita,” had died while in AF’s custody. Ms. Alderman was aware that Chiquita was alive,



and told Ms. Wildenstein that she was committing theft by conversion, and that she must not doit again. Because the dog’s owners could not be located, Ms. Alderman found Chiquita a home.

Numerous witnesses have told Ms. Alderman that after leaving many voice messages at AFregarding their desire to adopt a dog, no one has returned their calls. When contractor Lisa

Watson visited AF for the first time on August 12, 2011, she recognized AF’s name and statedthat she had tried to adopt a dog once from AF, but that no one had returned her telephone call.

Ms. Alderman has been told that even knowing that AF was going to be evicted, AF continued totake in dogs.

Numerous witnesses have told Ms. Alderman that Ms. Wildenstein has alienated almost all of thevolunteers, and many, including contingents from Lackland and the Boy Scouts, now refuse tovolunteer at AF.

Ms. Oberle told Ms. Alderman recently that on some Sundays, she and Ms. Wildenstein are the

only people on the Property that day. Nevertheless, Ms. Oberle has rejected recent offers fromother shelters to take in dogs, including an offer by a local no-kill shelter, the Animal DefenseLeague, to take in four or five dogs.

Ms. Alderman does not believe that two people can adequately feed, water and walk more than141 dogs, or take care of numerous rabbits and cats.

Ms. Alderman believes that given their history, Ms. Oberle and Ms. Wildenstein will continue totake in, and refuse to adopt out, animals, and that the Property’s physical structure and value willcontinue to decline.

III. Liability Insurance

In July 2009, in response to her inquiry, Ms. Alderman learned that in order to save money, Ms.Oberle had either cancelled or failed to renew PUNKIN PAULA’s liability insurance.

Ms. Alderman directed her to immediate restore the insurance.

Ms. Oberle confirmed to Ms. Alderman earlier this year that there was liability insurancecoverage in place, but she has not provided Ms. Alderman with copies of the policy or thedeclarations.

Ms. Oberle has refused to provide Ms. Alderman with written confirmation that she hasmaintained liability insurance on the Property.

IV. Violations of the Law and Standards of Care

In March 2011, Ms. Alderman asked to see AF’s records on each of the animals. Ms.Wildenstein claimed that they had been stolen by a disgruntled former worker, and she wasunable to produce a single one. A veterinary technician and a veterinarian have told Ms.



Alderman that AF has never kept adequate records.

On information and belief, cats that are taken in by AF are not tested for feline leukemia, ahighly contagious and incurable disease. All cats are housed in one or two cages, and felineleukemia positive cats have been adopted out.

A witness who adopted a rabbit and four bunnies in July 2011, told Ms. Alderman that on thefirst day she arrived, she and her daughter counted 10 dead rabbits in the cage. The next daywhen they returned, there were six more dead.

Three witnesses have told Ms. Alderman that in violation of the law, Ms. Wildenstein has givendogs rabies vaccinations.

A veterinarian has told Ms. Alderman that AF often did not give a rabies vaccine certificate topersons who adopted dogs, even though they were told that the dogs had received their rabiesshots. The clients’ telephone calls to AF to obtain the certifications, and the veterinarian’s phone

calls to confirm whether the vaccine was given, went unanswered.

One witness has told Ms. Alderman that as Ms. Wildenstein was adopting out an animal, Ms.Wildenstein often would often fabricate dates on which the animal supposedly was given itsshots.

Various witnesses, some of whom did not know each other, have told Ms. Alderman that theywitnessed Ms. Wildenstein engage in behavior that can only be described as animal abuse.

PUNKIN PAULA and Ms. Alderman cannot have the Property exposed in any way to potentialcriminal conduct.

V. Notice to Comply or Quit and Eviction

Despite claiming that the restoration and repair of the Property was an AF “priority,” Ms.Alderman is aware of little to nothing that has done.

Ms. Alderman insisted that the warehouse thrift store be emptied because, particularly in light of the fact that Ms. Wildenstein is a smoker and deep sleeper, it created a fire hazard. Even thoughAF paid to have its dumpster emptied one extra day each week, little or nothing in the warehousewas being removed.

In frustration, in August, Ms. Alderman set out a schedule by which AF would have to repair andrestore the Property, or face eviction, and she resigned from the AF BOD.

There continued to be a lack of progress and, despite having an infusion of money after afundraiser on July 27, 2011, not even basic repairs such as replacement of broken windows anddoors were made.

PUNKIN PAULA gave AF a 30-day notice to vacate the Property, before discovering that absent



a lease, under Texas law, an order to vacate the premises can be made upon three days notice.

AF must repair or restore the Property to its original state, reduce the number of dogs on

the Property to 80 or fewer, and provide Ms. Alderman with proof of liability insurance

within three days after receiving this Notice to Comply or Quit, or vacate the premises by

August 25, 2011.

I, Laura Alderman, personally served this Notice to Comply or Quit on Cheryl Wildenstein onthe morning of August 22, 2011. I served AF by affixing a copy of this Notice to Comply orQuit to the front door of the Apartment on August 22, 2011, and by sending copies by regularand certified mail to Paula Oberle at her place of residence, located at 80 Edgecreek, SanAntonio, Texas 78254.

__________________________________ Date: August 22, 2011Laura Alderman, as Manager and member

of PUNKIN PAULA, LLC













No. 30-E-11-03305-01

PUNKIN PAULA, LLC, )

)Plaintiff ) In Justice Court

) Precinct 3) Bexar County, Texas

vs. ))))

ANIMAL FRIENDS HUMANE SOCIETY, ) Defendant )

_____________________________________)

AFFIDAVIT OF DONNA J. LUX

BEFORE ME the undersigned notary public on this day personally appeared Donna J.Lux who, being known to me, did on her oath depose and say as follows:

My name is Donna J. Lux. The matters stated herein are true and correct and within mypersonal knowledge.

1. I have lived in the city of New Braunfels, Comal County, State of Texas, since in oraround October 2007. Prior to that, I lived with my husband, Harry L. Lux, on propertywe owned that was located at 213 W. Borgfeld Road, San Antonio, Texas (the“Property”).

2. During the mid-1970’s, we moved a house (the “Yellow house”) from another parcel of land to the Property. I do not know the age of the Yellow house, but it appeared to becirca 1920’s -1930’s. During the 1980’s, we moved a brown and white house (the“Brown house”) to the Property. The Brown house would be over 130 years old today.

3. Between 2006 and 2007, my husband and I invested approximately $50,000.00 in theYellow house upgrading the electric and plumbing, repairing the foundation, completely

remodeling the bathroom (inclding restoring the old bathtub), and painting the interiorand exterior of the house.

4. We also had all of the natural wood floors in the Yellow house restored. My husband andI did not move back into the Yellow house after it was upgraded, and it was immaculateat the time PUNKIN PAULA purchased the Property.

5. We invested approximately $3,000.00 to $4,000.00 in the Brown house. The original



2

wood floors were refinished and restored a number of years ago, and I believe that myhusband may also have had some foundation repair done at the same time. We replacedthe Brown house’s bathroom sink and vanity, and painted the exterior and the bathroom,kitchen and panty. The walls in the rest of the rooms, as well as the trim and a largebuilt-in china cabinet, were all original. Until just before we sold the Property, my

husband and I rented out the Brown house, and it was well-maintained and cared for.

6. In 2002, my husband designed and built a large “barn house,” which I understand thecurrent owner and others refer to as a “warehouse.” The barn house included anapartment with a fully equipped kitchen, sitting area, three bedrooms and two full baths.Everything in the barn house, including all of the appliances, was brand new.

______________________________Donna J. Lux

Signed and sworn before me the undersigned notary public on this the ____ day of September,2011 to witness which my hand and seal of office.

_________________________NOTARY PUBLIC in andfor the State of Texas

(seal)



No. 30-E-11-03305-01




vs. ))))


_____________________________________)

AFFIDAVIT OF TONY WATSON

BEFORE ME the undersigned notary public on this day personally appeared TonyWatson who, being known to me, did on his oath depose and say as follows:

My name is Tony Watson. The matters stated herein are true and correct and within mypersonal knowledge.

1. I reside in the city of San Antonio, Bexar County, State of Texas.

2.

I have been a contractor for almost 20 years. I am capable and accomplished inperforming home and commercial renovations, including, but not limited to, laying tileand other kinds of flooring; removing and installing drywall; painting the interior andexterior of buildings; some carpentry; installing windows and window glass; refinishingfurniture; and so forth.

3. On August 15, 2011, I toured the property located at 213 W. Borgfeld Road, SanAntonio, Texas (the “Property”), including, but not limited to a warehouse, a yellowhouse (the “Yellow house”) and a brown and white house (the “Brown house”).

Warehouse and Apartment

4. The main part of the warehouse was filled with wall-to-wall clutter. I observed holes thesize of golf balls in the warehouse’s walls which, in my opinion, were made by waterrats.

5. There was an apartment in the warehouse that ran the length of that building (the“Apartment”). My review of the Apartment indicates that it has been exposed to flooding,a backup of the septic tank or both.



2

6. The first room was a kitchen and sitting area that was covered with clutter. The parquet

floor in front of a fireplace had been exposed to water. It is warped and, in myprofessional opinion, will have to be replaced.

7.

There was some mold on the kitchen’s baseboards. Because the kitchen and sitting areawere illuminated by only a few small lights, it is possible that upon further examination,the damage to both areas of the Apartment may be more extensive.

8. Every room and closet in the rest of the Apartment has thick black mold growing fromthe baseboards two to four feet up the walls.

9. In my professional opinion, the Apartment will have to be removed at least up to wherethe mold stops growing. It is quite possible that when that drywall is removed, there willbe more mold on the other side of the drywall that is not yet visible, and that the wallswill have to be completely gutted down to the studs.

Brown House

10. The Brown house is located at the back of the Property, and appears to be an originalcirca 1920’s -1930’s structure.

11. Upon entering, I noticed a powerful stench of animal feces and urine in every room. Theoriginal wood floors of each room are covered with dried feces and garbage, and a back room was piled several feet high with what appeared to be someone’s personalbelongings.

12. Several windows were broken, and the kitchen’s linoleum floor was torn and disfigured.

13. It is quite possible that the smell has permeated the joists and can never be eliminated, inwhich case, the Brown house will have to be torn down.

Yellow House

14. The Yellow house is located on the center-left of the Property. It too had a strong smellof animal urine and feces, and I observed dried feces on the floor. In my professionalopinion, the original wood floors have been ruined by such urination/defecation, and willhave to be completely refinished.

15. All of the glass in the front door has been broken and must be replaced. The door itself isbroken. It is not a standard size door, and may have to be custom built.

16. The interior of the house will have to be repainted and another exterior door will have toreplaced. A screen door has been removed and may be broken.

17. No light bulbs were working in the Yellow house. Due to a lack of illumination, it is



3

possible that upon further examination, more damage will become apparent.

Broken Pipe

18. The property at the back of the warehouse has a gentle downhill grade. I observed very

large areas of deep mud, and what appears to be a small pond. Upon closer examination,I observed water running from an area of the warehouse’s foundation.

19. In my professional opinion, this is likely caused by a break in the water main in thewarehouse’s slab foundation.

20. I do not believe that any professional plumber would ever have diagnosed the source of the water as a naturally-occurring spring.

Costs to Repair and Restore

21. In my professional opinion, costs of labor and material to repair and restore the Propertyto its condition in July 2009 will amount to between $75,000.00 and $100,000.00. Thisdoes not include the cost of repairing the water pipe in the concrete slab foundation.

______________________________Tony Watson

Signed and sworn before me the undersigned notary public on this the ____ day of September,

2011 to witness which my hand and seal of office.


(seal)



No. 30-E-11-03305-01



) Precinct 3


vs. ))

)

)


Defendant )

_____________________________________)

AMENDED AFFIDAVIT OF LISSA TUTTLE

BEFORE ME the undersigned notary public on this day personally appeared Lissa Tuttle

who, being known to me, did on her oath depose and say as follows:

My name is Lissa Tuttle. The matters stated herein are true and correct and within my

personal knowledge.

1. I reside in Bexar County, State of Texas.

2.

I volunteered at Animal Friends Humane Society (“AF”), shortly after it relocated toproperty at 213 W. Borgfeld Drive, in San Antonio, Texas (the “Property”) in July 2009.On January 11, 2011, through March 2, 2011, AF hired me to work there. While I was

there, I witnessed many things that troubled me.

Refusal to Return Dogs to Rightful Owner/Euthanasia of Dog

3. For example, within one or two days after “Bear” and “Buddy” showed up at AF in early2011, their owner came to ask if they were there. He came back several times and each

time the manager, Cheryl Wildenstein, denied it.

4.

Cheryl renamed the dogs, respectively, “Satan” and “Newbie.” Although he was a verynice dog, Cheryl took an intense dislike to Satan.

5. One day while I was working, a small dog attacked Satan. When I tried to intervene,while defending himself against the other dog, Satan accidentally bit me. Cheryl insisted

that I take Satan to be euthanized. Cheryl did not take any action against the dog that had

been the aggressor.



2

6. I drove Satan to Bulverde Bexar Veterinary Clinic, located at 23365 U.S. Highway 281,in San Antonio, Texas, where Dr. Elbel euthanized him. It broke my heart to have to do

this, but I knew that if I refused, Cheryl would fire me, and it was important to me to

continue to be able to care for AF’s animals.

Retaliation

7. My experience and that of other workers and volunteers was that if anyone complained

about the way a particular dog was treated, Cheryl would treat it even worse as a way to

punish us for complaining or bringing attention to the problem. This included, among

other things, putting the dog in a small kennel and throwing a blanket over it.

8. Cheryl was very secretive and would not allow the workers and volunteers to go in any

room in an apartment in the warehouse except for the kitchen, or to go behind a fence andgate that ran across divided the Property between the warehouse and some dog kennels.

There were a lot of dogs behind the fence, but their kennels were covered with blue

plastic sheeting so that none of us could see them.

Failure to Properly Store Food and Medicine; Use of Other Animal’s Medications

9. Conditions at AF were very unsanitary. For example, open bags of dog and cat foodwere left laying around the Property and, until some of the volunteers and employees

chipped to purchase metal garbage cans, rats and mice would eat the food and leave their

droppings in it.

10. I witnessed veterinary medicine such as heartworm and flea medications, prescriptionmedications, etc., being left outside for days, exposed to the hot sun.

11. I also witnessed people give Cheryl prescription medications that their animals no longerneeded and, without the oversight of a veterinarian, her giving these medications to other

animals.

Administering Rabies Vaccinations/Dishonesty About Status of Vaccinations

12. I personally witnessed Cheryl give animals rabies shots without a veterinarian being on

site, a violation of Texas Health and Safety Code (“THSC”) §826.023(a), and a Class Cmisdemeanor.

13. In November 2010, Cheryl gave me a syringe full of what she told me was rabiesvaccine, and asked me to administer it to “Austen,” an AF dog that I was fostering. I put

the vaccination in a container in my refrigerator so that it was properly stored. However,

even though at that time I did not know that it was a violation of the law to administer arabies vaccination without a veterinarian being present, I still did not feel comfortable

doing so, and had a veterinarian give Austen a rabies shot instead. I still have the rabies

vaccination today.



3

14. I have since learned that it is a violation of THSC §826.023(c), and a Class C

misdemeanor, for a person to distribute rabies vaccine for animals to any person except a

licensed veterinarian or to a person working in a veterinary clinic who accepts thevaccine on behalf of the veterinarian.

15. When an animal was being adopted, I also saw Cheryl come into the warehouse and graba booklet that dog food companies hand out for recording the dates and types of vaccines

that an animal has received.

16. Cheryl would fill it out, just pulling dates out of the air. When I told her that she couldnot do that, she told me, “I don’t have time for this shit!”

Feline Leukemia

17. I am aware that new cats were not routinely tested for feline leukemia, which is incurable

and easily passed from one cat to another. Untested cats were often placed in the generalcat population.

18. I am aware of one person who had her cat tested at her veterinarian’s for feline leukemia

shortly after it was adopted from AF, and that it tested positive for feline leukemia. If afeline-leukemia positive cat is adopted out, other cats at the adopter’s house can catch it.

Continuing to Take in Dogs

19. I have been told by Laura Alderman that Cheryl was directed by the AF Board of Directors in mid-March 2011 not to take in anymore dogs. I am personally aware that

she continued to do so.

20. For example, in early July 2011, a man, “Randall,” contacted the Animal Defense

League, a no-kill shelter where I am employed as the Intake Manager. He was trying to

find a shelter to place his dog, “Ikal,” a Labrador Retriever/German Shepherd mix that hetold me was 5 years old.

21. Attached hereto is an e-mail string between Randall and a volunteer from AAPAWs, an

animal rescue organization in which Randall references his and my meeting to discuss hisdog. (See Exhibit C-3[a]-[b], attached hereto).

22. Also attached hereto is another e-mail from Randall sent on July 14, 2011, in which heindicates that Cheryl at AF had taken in the dog. (See Exhibit C-3[c]-[d], attached

hereto).

23. Attached hereto is a screen shot of a website called “tracysdogs.com” that has videotaped

some of AF’s dogs in an attempt to help it find homes for adoption. The site shows a

video of an available Labrador/Shepherd mix named “Elkal.” (See Exhibit C-3[e]-[f],attached hereto). Although AF apparently lowered Ikal’s age from five to three years old,



4

I have viewed the video and it is the same dog that Randall referred to as “Ikal.”

24. I have also attached a copy of a picture of Ikal that Randall provided me. (See Exhibit C-

3[g], attached hereto).

Adoption of Dog Under Potentially Dangerous Conditions

25. On Wednesday, August 24, 2011, AF held an open adoption event that was covered by

the local news media. The local Fox news affiliate covered the adoption of a pit bull

named “Molly.” I understand that Molly was adopted by a family with a six-month old

infant.

26. The first time that I walked Molly at AF, Cheryl told me to keep her away from other cats

and dogs because she previously had mauled two dogs and killed a cat. Cheryl told myfriend, Mary Alvarado, that Molly was “dangerous,” and the workers and volunteers

knew not to walk her with or around other dogs.

27. Attached is a screenshot of a page from a website, “Petfinder.com,” that is dedicated to

finding homes for dogs and cats. (See Exhibit C-3[h], attached hereto). The site lists a pit

bull named “Molly” as being available at AF, but warns that she does not get along with

dogs and cats.

Dishonesty About Animal Records, Wallet and Cell Phone

28. I understand that Cheryl and AF president and member of the board of directors, Paula

Oberle, have been claiming that I stole Cheryl’s wallet and cell phone in the summer of 2010, and that I took all of AF’s animal records when I left the Property for the last time

on March 2, 2011.

29. They have made these claims without a shred of evidence, and I consider their allegations

to be defamatory. I am personally aware that AF kept very few, and completely

inadequate, animal records, and I believe that they are trying to blame me as a way to“cover their tracks” about the inadequacy of their record-keeping, and to deflect blame

Ms. Alderman began to ask to review AF’s animal records after she discovered the

damage to the Property in mid-March.

30. I would further argue that AF’s hiring me in January 2011 would be inconsistent with any

alleged belief that I had stolen from Cheryl the summer before.

Knowledge About Mold

31. I understand that an apartment in the warehouse (the “Apartment”) is covered withmildew and mold, and that Ms. Wildenstein has claimed that she was unaware of it until

the day before Ms. Alderman discovered it in mid-March 2011. Although Ms.

Wildenstein did not let the employees or volunteers go in any room in the apartmentexcept for the kitchen, Ms. Wildenstein frequently went into the other rooms and locked



5

those doors behind her. I believe that is impossible that she could not have known aboutthe mold.

32. Furthermore, as a result of an anonymous call to Animal Control Services {“ACS”}, onMarch 2, 2011, in which the caller complained about animal abuse occurring at AF, ACS

personnel, sheriffs and a local television came to the Property.

33. Cheryl was required to allow the officers to inspect the Property, including the

Apartment. Cheryl claimed that she did not have a key to the Apartment, but a sheriff

saw an open window and told Cheryl to climb through and open the front door.

34. I understand that that room of the Apartment was filled with mold, and I observed Cheryl

walking through the apartment with the officers. It is therefore impossible that Cheryl

did not know about the mold until approximately two weeks later.

35. Cheryl called Ms. Oberle on the telephone after ACS, the sheriffs and the media arrived,

and Ms. Oberle showed up at AF shortly thereafter. I had heard an officer talking aboutthe mold and, although I did not see it, later, Cheryl, Paula and I sat on a flatbed truck

and discussed the inspection, including the officer’s reference to the mold.

Broken Water Pipe

36. In the summer of 2010, a local Boy Scout troop built a small building behind the

warehouse to house dogs. They had to walk back and forth through deep mud in order toaccess the site.

37. I heard Cheryl tell them that the mud was created by a broken pipe in the warehouse’s

concrete slab foundation, but that AF did not have the money to repair it.

Taking in Additional Dogs

38. Through either personally caring for them or seeing others walking them, I was familiarwith almost every one of AF’s dogs when I was last on the Property on March 2, 2011.

39. I have looked at videos of all of AF’s dogs that were posted on “tracysdogs.com” website

at the end of August 2011, as dogs that were adoptable at AF.

40. Only 29 of what I am told are as many as 142 AF dogs were posted on that website, and I

did not recognize the great majority of them. This leads me to believe that AF continuedto take in dogs after I left in March.

Goat

41. In 2010, Cheryl kept a goat on the Property. One day I heard a noise and observed that

the goat had butted its head into the front door of the yellow house on the Property,knocking the door in and shattering the glass.



6

Dishonesty About Adoption Status

42. On numerous occasions, I observed Cheryl tell a person who wanted to adopt a dog thatsomeone had already filed papers to adopt the animal. I believed that this was not true

and in every case, weeks and months later, the dog was still at AF.

Abuse of Animals

43. When she got overwhelmed or frustrated, which was often her state, Cheryl would take it

out on the animals.

44. I observed her put dogs and rabbits in small plastic crates and put them outside covered

with blankets or rugs, ignoring them for the day. Sometimes I would see feces on theground and realize that they were from a crate next to it and find a dog in the crate.

45. Cheryl often withheld food and water as punishment for dogs that she disliked, took herfrustrations out on, and tried to “break.”

46. Cheryl put one dog, “Buster Brown” behind a wooden fence next to the yellow house on

the Property, and one day he was so hungry, he busted through it and killed and ate arabbit. I was the person who pulled him away and he was very underweight.

47. As a result of the rabbit attack, Cheryl had Buster Brown euthanized.

Improper Use of AF Money

48. Cheryl does not drive, so three or four times a week, she would give me money receivedfrom adoptions or the sale of thrift store items and ask me to go buy her lunch andcigarettes.

,

______________________________

.Lissa Tuttle



_________________________NOTARY PUBLIC in and

for the State of Texas

(seal)



No. 30-E-11-03305-01



) Precinct 3


vs. ))

)

)


Defendant )

_____________________________________)

AFFIDAVIT OF CATHI PETTERSEN

BEFORE ME the undersigned notary public on this day personally appeared Cathi

Pettersen who, being known to me, did on her oath depose and say as follows:

My name is Cathi Petterson. The matters stated herein are true and correct and within my

personal knowledge.


2.

I had volunteered at the Animal Defense League (“ADL”), a local, no-kill shelter in SanAntonio, Texas.

3. In May 2009, another animal shelter, Animal Friends Humane Society (“AF”), was

moving onto property located at 213 W. Borgfeld Drive (the “Property”), just a few milesfrom my home, and I welcomed the opportunity to volunteer at a shelter closer to my

home.

4. That month, I went to the Property with bags of dog food to donate. Paula Oberle, who I

now know to the president and a member of the Board of Directors of AF, met me at

AF’s front gate. She rudely asked me, in effect, what did I want and why was I there?

When I inquired about volunteering, she told me that they did not need me, and that Ishould call before just showing up. I left feeling very unwelcome, and thinking I should

reevaluate whether to volunteer there.

5. In June 2009, I became aware that AF was in need of volunteers, so I decided to give it

another chance. In July 2009, I began to volunteer there in earnest after my husband was

deployed.



2

6. I offered to assist in fostering dogs, and did artwork to promote AF’s new thrift store. Idesigned AF’s current logo, and had AF bumper stickers printed up at my own expense.

I arranged for two military groups at Lackland Air Force Base (“Lackland”) where I work

to volunteer at AF and do service projects there. I purchased and donated at least foursmall kennels (4’ x 6’ x 5’), and two large chain link kennels, as well. Despite numerous

attempts to have AF send me receipts for my charitable donations, it has never respondedor provided me with any documentation.

7. My purpose was to allow dogs that were kept in small pens in the back of a warehouse on

the Property to be moved outside with more space. Unfortunately, the pens that I donated

were not used for those dogs, but simply to house more dogs AF took in.

8. I arranged for the low cost donation from Lowe’s and the Antique Rose Emporium of

shrubs, plants and materials to landscape the front of the Property, and for the Air Forceto perform landscaping and an improvement detail as a service project.

9.

I personally arranged for breakfast and lunch to be provided at these projects; I askedAF’s manager, Cheryl Wildenstein, simply to provide the projects for these volunteers to

perform, as well as any materials that I had not arranged to be provided, whenever we

volunteered.

10. I arranged for a small Navy unit at Lackland to volunteer the third Saturday of each

month. The unit was very enthusiastic about it and wanted to improve the quality of life

for the animals.

11. Initially all of the volunteers enjoyed their work, but soon I began receiving complaints.Despite having given advance notice and setting pre-approved dates and times, Ms.

Wildenstein would leave the volunteers waiting at the gate (sometimes up to an hour),and would have no projects planned for them to do. The service members ended up justwalking dogs on a limited part of the Property, or cleaning junk out of the thrift store.

Each month, they would clean up the Property and the thrift store, and the next month

they would be back in the same condition.

12. Upholstered furniture would be donated, then left out in the rain, and there appeared to be

no discretion regarding the quality or amount of what was taken in.

13. On more than one occasion, I found Cheryl asleep on a couch in the warehouse, with a

burning cigarette in an ashtray nearby.

14. Within a few months, Ms. Wildenstein’s demeanor had changed and she became

increasingly rude towards the volunteers.

15. Ms. Wildenstein began making comments that offended the volunteers, including that she

would never adopt an animal to a member of the military. On numerous occasions Ms.

Wildenstein told me that she turned prospective adopters away, based on her visualimpression that they were “trailer trash,” seemed “crazy,” or were “lousy Mexicans.”



3

Although I do not believe that Ms. Wildenstein harbors discriminatory animus towardspeople of Mexican national origin, I do think that she harbors a negative stereotype of the

Hispanic culture’s attitude towards animals.

16. Within a few months, believing that they were enabling a hoarding situation, the military

volunteers refused to return to AF. They have now moved on to another organizationwhere they feel that they can make a difference.

17. My co-worker’s son wanted to do his Eagle Scout project at AF, but Ms. Wildenstein

treated them rudely when they approached her and they went elsewhere.

18. I observed Ms. Wildenstein giving adoptive animals shots in the warehouse, with no

veterinarian on site. The conditions were most unsanitary, and there was complete

disorganization regarding adoption applications and records, medical records and otherdocumentation.

19. Although we made many offers to provide computer and telephone support, all of ourefforts were rebuffed. Ms. Wildenstein preferred to communicate almost solely by text

message, and AF rarely answered its telephone, and its voice mailbox was often full.

20. On two occasions, Ms. Wildenstein called me at home and asked me if I had anyacepromazine (used in animals as a sedative and antiemetic) that she could give AF’s

dogs. Acepromazine is a medicine that had been prescribed by my veterinarian to be

occasionally taken by my dogs.

21. Like all prescription medicines, the dosage has to be calibrated to the symptoms and sizeof the dog, and should not be passed indiscriminately. I felt that what Ms. Wildenstein

was doing was wrong, and I told her I did not have any more.

22. When I first volunteered at AF, I was allowed to walk all over the Property. I even

visited an Craftsman-style brown and white house at the back of the Property, which I

remember as being exquisite, with all its original gingerbread, walls and built-in cabinets.I understand that it has been heavily damaged, and I think that that is a great shame.

23. Sometime in 2010, I noticed a lot of mud and water at the back of the warehouse, and

Ms. Wildenstein made a comment about there being “broke pipes” on the Property.

24. Within a short time, Ms. Wildenstein banned all of the volunteers from going anywhere

except the front of the Property. There were dogs in kennels behind blue plastic tarpsthat we never saw and I don’t think were walked much or socialized with humans or

other dogs.

25. I once walked into an apartment in the warehouse, and Ms. Wildenstein became irritated

with me. Although it was not well illuminated, I could see that it had crates and kennels

holding cats and dogs.



4

26. There were many hard-working and loyal volunteers at AF whom Ms. Wildenstein neverseemed to appreciate. She gossiped about most of them behind their backs, and often

referred to them as “crazy.” One by one they lost their enthusiasm and stopped coming to

AF to volunteer.

27. The final straw for me occurred in October 2010 when I returned to the shelter for asecond time a big, sweet, beautiful dog found running the streets. The first time, Ms.Wildenstein put a microchip in him and returned him to his owner, but the second time

she kept the dog. I understood her concern that a dog escaping its home so frequently

might not be adequately cared for, and therefore, I offered to let AF borrow a large

kennel for the dog that I had in my back yard.

28. Ms. Wildenstein accepted it to use for the dog, but I understand that she then put the

kennel at the back of the Property. Because she got tired of his barking at the cats thatfreely roamed the Property, she covered his kennel with plastic tarp. I wanted to return

the dog to his rightful owner, but Ms. Wildenstein called him “crazy,” and refused.

29. Volunteers have told me that the dog itself is now “crazy” from being shut up in a tarped-

over kennel, and that no one walks him because he is hard to control and too much of a

“hassle.”

30. I have never forgiven myself for turning over that dog to AF, or not somehow trying to

get the identity of its owner. I have not been back to AF since then, and I no longer

advocate for it as a place for other to volunteer.

31. If I find a stray animal, I refuse to take it to AF, as I believe that ultimately, its chances of ever leaving the Property, or of being given proper care and socialization with humans

and other dogs, are slim.

32. I believe that AF and Ms. Wildenstein started out with the best of intentions, but that

something terrible went wrong along the way. I hope Ms. Wildenstein gets the help that

she so sorely needs, and that she can move on to another endeavor that does not involvethe care of animals.

______________________________Cathi Pettersen






5

for the State of Florida(seal)



No. 30-E-11-03305-01



) Precinct 3


vs. ))

)

)


Defendant )

_____________________________________)

AFFIDAVIT OF MARY BETH MERRITT

BEFORE ME the undersigned notary public on this day personally appeared Mary BethMerritt who, being known to me, did on her oath depose and say as follows:

My name is Mary Beth Merritt. The matters stated herein are true and correct and withinmy personal knowledge.

1.

I reside in Bexar County, State of Texas.

2. In July 2011, I learned that Animal Friends Humane Society (“AF”), an animal shelter

located at 213 W. Borgfeld Drive, in San Antonio, Texas (the “Property”), might be

closing down, and that it had some rabbits that it would like to find homes for.

3. At that time, I had three “show rabbits” that I entered in rabbit competitions.

4. My daughter and I went to AF on a day in early to late-July and saw approximately 30

live rabbits in a rabbit pen. There were also 10 dead rabbits strewn around the pen.

5.

I went home to think it over, and the next day we went back and adopted a mother rabbitand her four bunnies. On that day, we saw six dead rabbits in the pen.

6. On Tuesday, August 23, 2011, I returned to AF to attempt to adopt the last two remainingrabbits. While I was there, I saw a goat that was in a fenced-in side yard of the yellow



2

house on the Property ram into the wooden fence and knock a slat out of it.

______________________________

Mary Beth Merritt



_________________________

NOTARY PUBLIC in andfor the State of Texas

(seal)



No. 30-E-11-03305-01



) Precinct 3


vs. ))

)

)


Defendant )

_____________________________________)

AFFIDAVIT OF KELLI ROSTVOLD

BEFORE ME the undersigned notary public on this day personally appeared Kelli

Rostovld who, being known to me, did on her oath depose and say as follows:

My name is Kelli Rostvold. The matters stated herein are true and correct and within my

personal knowledge.


2. I first became familiar with Animal Friends Humane Society (“AF”) approximately tenyears ago when it was located at on U.S. Highway 281, and my daughter would volunteer

there.

3. During mid-2010, AF hired me to work on Tuesdays and Thursdays as a veterinary

technician at its shelter located at 213 W. Borgfeld Drive, in San Antonio, Texas (the

“Property”).

Poor Sanitation; Overcrowding

4.

I immediately knew that something was quite wrong at AF. Among other things, I wasnot allowed to go into certain areas of the shelter where animals were. “Mike,” an

employee who walked dogs at AF, told me that there were 50 cats in a yellow house on

the Property, but I never saw a single one of them.

5. Sanitation was poor at the shelter, and many dogs developed mange after being at AF for

a short time.



2

Unlicensed Practice of Medicine

6. Although I never saw Cheryl give a rabies shot, she insisted to me that she had the

authority to do so, even when no veterinarian was on site. Medications were not storedproperly, and Cheryl solicited unused medications for others’ pets to use on AF dogs.

Refusal to Return Dogs to Rightful Owners

7. Adoptions were relatively slow, and prospective adopters were frequently summarily

turned away.

8. On one occasion, there was a poodle and a Boston Terrier at AF, both of whom had

microchips identifying their owners. The poodle had a little pink “coloring” applied to his

hair, and her eye had been professionally removed by a surgeon. The Boston Terrier waslikewise well taken care of, and both dogs appeared to have owners who loved them.

However, because the owners lived on the south side of San Antonio—a location that

Cheryl deemed “undesirable”—she was adamant that she would not return them.

Hoarding

9. Volunteers once moved a cat cage and AF’s manager, Cheryl Wildenstein, flew into arage, afraid that someone had thrown anything away.

Animal Abuse

10. One day I saw what looked like an odd little table, covered with a blanket with anassortment of items placed on top of it.

11. When I looked closer, I saw that even though there was a large rabbit pen that housedover 100 rabbits, Cheryl had placed 10 rabbits into a small crate, and covered them up.

12. Six of the rabbits were dead and, after I put them back in the large pen, another one laterdied. When I asked Cheryl why she had done it, her response was, “Survival of the

fittest!”

13. Another dog, “Annie,” was “gorgeous” when she arrived at AF, but soon developedterrible mange, but Cheryl would not let me treat it. Cheryl claimed that Annie was being

treated by a veterinarian, but I never saw a veterinarian on site.

14. Cheryl hated another friendly dog named “Buster Brown,” a dog that she claimed was

part pit bull, but to me looked more like a beagle mix.

15. Cheryl told me that Buster Brown had attacked another dog, and set it aside in a cage for

four or five days with a blanket over it, then had it euthanized.

16. If employees or volunteers complained about the way animal was treated, Cheryl would



3

isolate it and treat it worse as punishment for bringing problems to anyone’s attention. Many of the volunteers and employees were afraid of Cheryl, and to this day some still

are.

17. Conditions were never like this at AF’s other shelter, and I think that any other

community would have shut AF down.

18. I ultimately left after approximately four months because I had inadequate and

insufficient medication to properly treat the animals at the shelter, and I felt that my skills

were not being properly utilized. I also was uncomfortable with the conditions at AF,

and the way Ms. Wildenstein treated the animals, volunteers and employees.

19. Nevertheless, I did not leave on bad terms, and I stopped by to visit AF as recently as

several weeks ago to say, “Hello.”

______________________________

Kelli Rostvold



_________________________


(seal)



No. 30-E-11-03305-01

PUNKIN PAULA, LLC, ))

Plaintiff ) In Justice Court) Precinct 3) Bexar County, Texas

vs. )

))

)


Defendant )_____________________________________)

AFFIDAVIT OF ANITA ANDERSON

BEFORE ME the undersigned notary public on this day personally appeared Anita J.

Anderson who being known to me did on her oath depose and say as follows:

My name is Anita J. Anderson. The matters stated herein are true and correct and within

my personal knowledge.


2. In November 2007, I became aware that Ms. Alderman was forming a corporation she

named PUNKIN PAULA, INC. in order to purchase a five-acre property located at 213W. Borgfeld Drive, in San Antonio, Texas (the “Property”). Ms. Alderman was on the

board of directors (“BOD”) of Animal Friends Humane Society (“AF”), and AF was

concerned that as a result of the proposed widening of Highway 281, it would lose thecurrent site that it rented. In May of 2008 I viewed the property with her husband

Gordon King before the shelter moved in.

3. In mid-March 2011, Ms. Alderman told me that she was very distressed to discover that

AF had allowed extensive water damage and mold to occur in a warehouse and an

apartment on the Property. Ms. Alderman was also concerned that the shelter manager,Cheryl Wildenstein--who lived on the property and ran the operation--and Paula Oberle,

AF’s president and member of the BOD who volunteered at the shelter most weekends,had taken in many more animals than the 80-dog limit that Ms. Alderman had insisted onas a condition precedent to AF’s use of the Property.

4. Laura was very upset because Ms. Wildenstein had failed to notify her about the damage

and had failed to do anything clean it up. She also complained that there were windowsbroken out in both of the houses on the Property, and that there was rubbish and

discarded furniture and other items strewn all over the Property.



2

5. In addition, in and before March 2011, there had also been complaints to the media, the

Bexar County Sheriffs and Animal Control Services by people who had previously

volunteered or worked at AF, lived nearby or who had adopted an animal from AF, aboutAF’s management and the condition of its animals.

6. Thereafter, Ms. Alderman and Paula Oberle met with an individual who had made somecredible claims about problems at the shelter. Ms. Alderman was intent on investigating

the claims responsibly. The allegations included animal hoarding, overpopulation at the

shelter due to Ms. Wildenstein’s and Ms. Oberle’s apparent refusal to permit most

adoptions to take place, failure to answer the telephone or to respond to inquiriesconcerning adoptions, and failure to keep adequate adoption and veterinary (including

vaccination) records.

7. In April 2011, Ms. Alderman asked me to join the AF BOD. At the time that I joined, the

BOD consisted of Ms. Alderman; Ms. Oberle; Ms. Wildenstein’s boyfriend, Gary

Rodriguez; and Ms. Wildenstein’s mother, Billie Wildenstein. On April 26, 2011, theBOD voted to add me; Ms. Oberle’s sister, Jeanne Kordus; and, Tracey Greene, a former

board member, to the BOD.

8. I learned around that time that the organization had lost a significant grant from theSan Antonio Area Foundation which it had usually received and which would have

funded staff. Staff members were not being paid--there were no cash reserves, just

reliance on donations -- and staff members had left. Within a few months, only two full-time employees remained (Ms. Wildenstein and a man named “Mike”), and I learned in

late August 2011 that they were no longer being paid, but were being consideredvolunteers.

9. Ms. Alderman attempted to learn more from people who were raising concerns about AF.I observed that Ms. Oberle had no interest in attempting to investigate these allegations,

dismissing the concerns as those of “crazy” people and, at one time, considering a BOD

motion to prevent Ms. Alderman from discussing the allegations with such people. Theperson had taken photographs of “problems” at AF such as dog mange and a tick

infestation, etc., but Ms. Oberle dismissed them, claiming that the photographs “could

have been taken anywhere.”

10. Ms. Oberle and Ms. Wildenstein began to display a siege mentality, assuming that

anyone who did not agree with their viewpoint had a vendetta against them, and that they

were “just trying to take AF down.” Donations had dropped off and their immediateconclusion was that someone was stealing mail and “checks’ from AF’s mailbox.

11. On May 15th

, I visited the Property with Ms. Alderman, who was becoming more andmore frustrated that nothing was being done to repair the damage or adopt out the dogs.

While she talked to Ms. Wildenstein, I inspected the Property on my own.



3

12. I was appalled by what I saw--the dogs I was able to see appeared to be well fed--but theProperty had been trashed.

13. The Property is five acres and has lots of trees and open space. There is a largewarehouse with a large front room and smaller back room, and an attached three-

bedroom, two and a half bath apartment. There are also two small houses.

14. The warehouse’s larger front room housed a thrift store operated as raise money. This

front room was overflowing with items—much of what appeared to be junk—and the

aisles were mostly blocked. I could not see any fire extinguishers.

15. Ms. Wildenstein’s personal bed was at the front of the thrift store, un-made, with a dog

asleep under the covers. I learned that Ms. Wildenstein had not stepped foot off the

Property in almost a year, since the end of July 2010.

16. What were apparently thrift store donations, much of which should have been discarded

as trash, were scattered randomly all over the Property, including the entrances to the“thrift store” and the apartment. Mattresses, pillows and bedding items were lying out in

the open. Furniture and junked equipment was stacked against the buildings or in piles.

The appearance was one of total neglect and hoarded trash. Much of it was in areas not

open to the public or visible through a fence that blocked off the front of the Propertyfrom the back, an area I later learned the public, volunteers and employees were

prohibited from entering.

17. There were a number of large cages in the front of the property made of hurricane fencing

panels. They were covered with tarps and the floor consisted of cedar chips; there wasroom for the animals to move around and they were sheltered from the rain and sun.

18. However, in a small back room of the warehouse there were a large number of dogs in3’x 4’ foot kennel cages stacked two or three high and several cages deep. When I

entered the room, all of the dogs started barking and howling, and did not stop until well

after I exited. I estimated around thirty dogs in those cages, but could not count them thatday. I was told that a number of them had been there several years. When I asked board

members why these dogs did not have enclosures like the others outside, I was told that

they were “diggers” and needed “escape-proof cages.”

19. The conditions for the dogs in the backroom were appalling. Kennels were stacked wall-

to-wall and on top of each other. (See attached Exs. B-7[a]-[j]). The room was very dark

and stuffy, and illuminated with only a little light from a partially blocked-out door.Some of the kennels are far too small for the larger dogs. The dogs, clearly agitated,

howled and barked when I entered the room. Although AF claims that these dogs

kennels are cleaned, and the dogs are walked, every day, given that on some days, nomore than two or three people are available, I find that claim to be suspect. Furthermore,

dogs need to urinate more than one time a day, and there is no evidence that these dogs

were taken out of their kennels to walk more than one day a day.



4

20. Cats were all sheltered in one or two open-air enclosures or roamed the property. Therewas one open-air cage for rabbits, which I estimated numbered around fifty.

21. It appears that AF was violating established policies and recommendations made byvarious animal welfare organizations. For example, the United States Humane Society

states that as a minimum standard male and female animals should be segregated. Not allof AF’s animals had been spayed or neutered, and it appeared that the sexes wereintegrated. Texas law states that sick animals must be segregated from others. Although

some dogs had obvious manage, they were housed with dogs that appeared to have none.

Some cats that had green discharge coming from their eyes and noses were housed with

those that did not. I did not see separate facilities for sick animals, or learn of any routinetesting for feline leukemia or other diseases on admission.

22. Ms. Alderman had asked me specifically to look at the damage to the warehouseapartment with her. Inasmuch as Ms. Wildenstein has changed her story several times

about what had appened and when she discovered the damage, it has never become clear

what actually happened or when. Mold damage ran up the walls of the apartmentbedrooms, and covered the sinks, tubs, showers and bathroom walls. There was thick

brown sludge in the tubs. The damage had not been reported to Ms. Alderman and had

been allowed to sit un-addressed for a long time.

23. There was also a lot of mud, standing water and a small pond at the back of the

warehouse. Ms. Wildenstein and Ms. Oberle related that two different plumbers had

diagnosed a naturally occurring spring. It later became obvious that the leak was comingfrom the foundation at the back the warehouse, which kept the ground all along the

warehouse and behind the warehouse’s kennel room constantly wet.

24. A brown and white house (the “Brown house”) located at the rear of the Property had anoverpowering stench of urine and feces. Dried dog feces, rat droppings and garbagecovered the floor and the walls, and one room was overflowing with what appeared to be

someone’s personal belongings. Several glass windows were broken and the netting on

the screen door was torn. Ms. Wildenstein acknowledged that her brother had been livingthere with 11 dogs, and that although she was manager of the Property, she had never

bothered to inspect the condition of the Brown house until Ms. Alderman had objected to

his presence.

25. There was a pickup truck sitting outside the Brown house with 2006 inspection stickers

stuffed full with personal belongings and bags. Ms. Wildenstein also admitted in my

presence that it was her brother’s vehicle was not drivable, and that it had been sittingthere for more than a year. Both the cab of the truck and a small garage next to the pickup

were stacked high with full black garbage bags and other personal belongings.

26. I was surprised and disappointed to see that there were no fenced-in areas or zip lines

which would allow the dogs to run and exercise despite the fact that more than two-thirds

of the Property was not being used.



5

27. A “cat house” had been built by volunteers as the shelter moved to the property – but Ilearned it had never been used because the floors were not appropriate. (They were wood

and could have been tiled or covered with linoleum. There were even linoleum tiles on

the property.) A small “puppy house” had been built by Boy Scouts – but never usedbecause electricity had not been connected.

28. A number of large dogs were housed in chain link cages behind the front house. I wasnot able to see these dogs the first time I visited because the kennels were covered in

sheets of blue plastic, which kept them from being seen from the public areas. If not for

their barking, one would not be aware that there were dogs there. This area was strictly

off limits to visitors, volunteers and employees except Ms. Wildenstein and a man named“Mike.”

29. The last building I looked at was a yellow house (the “Yellow house”). It too smelled of animal feces and urine, and several rooms were filled with so much furniture and items as

to be almost impassable. The front door was off of its hinges and all of the glass in the

door was broken. I later learned that contrary to Ms. Alderman’s instructions, the Yellowhouse had been used to shelter dogs and cats.

30. I was not able to accurately count dogs the first day, but there appeared to be many more

than the 80 that the shelter was supposed to house. Ms. Oberle repeatedly insisted thatthere were 106 dogs there on the Property, and that AF was working hard to adopt them

out. Ms. Alderman insisted, and Ms. Wildenstein and Ms. Oberle promised, that no more

dogs would be taken in until adoptions reduced the number to well below 80, and AFcould focus on fixing the Property damage, reorganizing the way AF was run, and finding

volunteers. Ms. Oberle admitted to me that Ms. Wildenstein had alienated most of theformer volunteers and that AF was constantly shorthanded.

31. Throughout the time that I was on the BOD, nothing seemed to get accomplished otherthan some clean up of the public areas. Although at first she was patient, I was aware

that Ms. Alderman was becoming more and more upset about AF’s failure to do anything

even as minimal as cleaning out the Brown house or replacing the broken glass. Shefinally resigned the board to more effectively exercise PUNKIN PAULA’s powers as

landlord to fix the damage, and to be able to deal with the BOD at arm’s length.

32. My suggestions about ways to increase adoptions were met with constant objections andobstacles. AF often was closed, and allowed adoptions to take place by appointment only

a few hours every weekend. Animals were shown based on what people saw on AF’s

website, and requested to see. Ms. Wildenstein and Ms. Oberle did not permit potentialadopters to walk around the Property or to select dogs that they might like. A few dogs

might be brought out from the back of the warehouse, but generally there was no

opportunity to meet and greet the dogs when potential adopters arrived.

33. When nothing happened to repair the Property, and nothing was being done to increase

adoptions or find new funding, Ms. Alderman gave Animal Friends deadlines forimprovements. Still nothing moved or changed. It was not until she actually had stated



6

she intended to give the shelter notice to vacate that there was an attempt to comply withher requests.

34. Ms. Alderman was especially frustrated at not being able to contact Ms. Wildenstein,who did not answer her cell or AF’s shelter phone, and whose voice mailboxes frequently

were full.

35. Since adoptions were by appointment only, and only by Ms. Wildenstein, it was clear

why adoptions were not being made. Even after AF went on television to plea for people

to call the shelter to adopt its animals, I was unable to get through when I needed to relay

a message to Cheryl for more than half a day because the mailbox was full. Whensomeone finally answered, a voice in the background said, “Hang up!” and the person

did.

36. Even people who came to the gate could not get anyone to respond. When I visited the

Property in July, as I parked at the gate I was approached by person who represented

herself as being with an organization working with teenagers who needed volunteeropportunities. She also worked for a donor who made very large charitable donations—

including to animal shelters—in the San Antonio area. She told me that she had been to

AF at least five times in the past two weeks to see if AF was interested in having the

teenagers volunteer. She could see that people on the Property were aware of herpresence, but they refused to come to the gate. Nor could she get anyone to return her

phone calls, although she had left very specific messages. An opportunity not just for

more help, but for donations, had been lost by being ignored.

37. Although on several occasions I had considered resigning from AF’s BOD, I decided tocontinue on in the hopes of effecting change. I was disturbed because none of the

allegations about the shelter management were being addressed by the board and thatthey were being dismissed as coming from mean and crazy people who had no interest inthe animals.

38. The day after AF’s annual fundraiser, at the request of another board member, I attendeda seminar for animal rescue not-for-profits put on by the San Antonio Area Foundation

designed to teach them how raise money and apply for grants. I was surprised at the

hostility engendered when I announced that I was a new AF BOD; one person

representing a charitable foundation told me that “[AF] does not play well with others,”refused to accept spay and neuter services through the Animal Defense League, and had

refused to participate in the rescue of dogs from Hurricane Katrina.

39. I also met a woman from the Animal Defense League who confirmed what I had heard –

that the Animal Defense League had offered to take half a dozen dogs to reduce AF’s dog

population – but that Animal Friends did not want to release any more than four, thentwo, and then finally none were brought over or allowed to be picked up. Ms. Oberle

later confirmed that she had been the person dealing with the Animal Defense League.

Her objection was that the Animal Defense League was not strict enough with itsadoption screening.



7

40. The PETCO Foundation was at the seminar, and I learned that their stores partnered with

rescue organizations, held adoption events and would even place cats in their stores for

adoption. Ms. Oberle’s objection to working with PETCO was that it was toocomplicated to work with them.

41. At the last BOD meeting I attended, after Ms. Alderman had resigned, the remainder of the BOD apparently had already decided that they no longer wanted to work with

PUNKIN PAULA, LLC, as a landlord, and instead wanted to move on and find another

property.

42. On a Saturday in mid-August, I went to the Property to talk to Ms. Wildenstein, Ms.

Oberle and Mr. Rodriguez about what could be done to address the property issues and

help adopt out the dogs. They were too busy walking dogs and cleaning out cages to talk to me, and I pitched in to help. It took an entire day to clean the kennel cages in just the

back room of the warehouse alone, and to walk just the dogs in the back room of the

warehouse. I did not see any of the dogs in the back or in the larger chain link cages infront being walked at all.

43. On that day, I was able to count 140 dogs in cages, not including Cheryl’s dogs which

were allowed to roam free. This included 50 that were stacked in the small cages at theback of the warehouse. These were the dogs that had been represented as “escape artists”

who could not be placed in regular pens. The public and many volunteers are strictly

prohibited from entering this area. Two new male dogs were in the kennels and neitherhad been neutered.

44. Forty or so dogs were in the public area in the chain link open air kennels. But more than

fifty were behind the blue plastic sheeting, and behind closed gates, unavailable to thepublic, employees and volunteers. These were almost all big, black dogs in much smalleropen air chain link cages, with dirt floors, and poor ventilation because the blue plastic

sheeting on the walls blocked the wind. Their white water buckets had green mold on

the side.

45. When I reported the number of dogs to Ms. Alderman, she understandably was upset.

She had been told since early May, as had I, that there were 106 dogs on the Property,

and that AF was continuing to find them homes. After my count, board member GaryRodriguez finally personally counted the dogs and reported that there were 142 dogs on

the Property, of which 13 allegedly now belonged to Ms. Wildenstein.

46. There were fewer cats in the cage, but many were roaming free, so it was impossible to

count them. The rabbits, except for one, were gone.

47. Nothing in the Brown house, not even the feces-covered floors, had been cleaned up, and

it smelled as bad as it had when I had first seen it three months earlier. Furniture had

been piled against the inside of the Yellow house’s front door so that it was impossible toenter. Nothing had been repaired or restored in the warehouse apartment, and many of



8

the thrift store items still remained. None of the broken glass had been repaired in any of the buildings. All that had been done was to clean up some of the trashed furniture and

items from the public areas. There were four rolling tennis ball containers with colored

balls for the dogs to chase placed around the public area even though the dogs were neverallowed off their leashes.

48. On August 23, 2011, Ms. Oberle moved to dismiss me from the board, arguing that I hada conflict of interest because I was a friend of Ms. Alderman. The irony is that for years,

the BOD had consisted almost exclusively of Ms. Wildenstein close friend, Ms. Oberle,

her mother and her boyfriend.

49. I had made it clear that communications between the board and Ms. Alderman were kept

confidential unless direct communication was requested, and that I would not offer legal

advice to either side other than that they should get independent counsel. I made it clearto the BOD and to Ms. Alderman that as a BOD member, my loyalties were to AF’s

mission—the rescue and adoption of abandoned animals.

50. Because Animal Friends Humane Society was clearly in trouble in more ways than have

been described here, and because nothing I had done other than to get an accurate count

of the animals, had made any difference in the BOD’s progress, I was only too glad to

make the vote unanimous and have myself removed from the BOD.

Further affiant sayeth not.

______________________________ANITA J. ANDERSON

Signed and sworn before me the undersigned Notary Public this ___ day of _________,

2011.

_________________________

NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the

State of Texas(seal)



No. 30-E-11-03305-01



) Precinct 3


vs. ))

)

)


Defendant )

_____________________________________)

AFFIDAVIT OF FARAH JOY EBADI

BEFORE ME the undersigned notary public on this day personally appeared Farah Joy

Ebadi who, being known to me, did on her oath depose and say as follows:

My name is Joy Ebadi. The matters stated herein are true and correct and within my

personal knowledge.


2.

From on or around November 4, 2010, through March 2011, I worked at Animal FriendsHumane Society (“AF”), an animal shelter located at 213 W. Borgfeld Drive, in SanAntonio, Texas (the “Property”). Cheryl Wildenstein was AF’s manager.

3. During this time, I witnessed many things occur at AF that troubled me. Cheryl oftenseemed overwhelmed, and she would target her anger and frustration towards particular

dogs.

4. For example, two dogs showed up together one day at the shelter. The dogs’ owner came

to AF within a day or two to ask if they were there. Cheryl lied to him and told him that

they were not.

5. I was shocked and asked Cheryl why she had lied to the man. Cheryl responded that the

man had not had neutered either of the dogs, and that she had “heard” that one dog, that

Cheryl renamed “Newbie,” chased people around the neighborhood where the man lived.

6. Cheryl renamed the other dog “Satan,” and put him in a cage that was much too small for

him. Despite his name, Satan was a friendly dog.



2

7. The volunteers were told that Satan found a foster home. However, I have since learnedfrom a volunteer, Lissa Tuttle, that she drove him to a veterinarian, where Cheryl had him

euthanized.

8. Another case involved a friendly pit bull mix named “Buster Brown”.

9. Cheryl put Buster Brown in a plastic dog carrier, covered him with a blanket and isolatedhim for months at a time. Cheryl had a tendency to do this with dogs that she deemed

“dangerous” or “troublesome.”

10. Cheryl would also withhold food from dogs who she believed were “bad.” I heard her tellcertain dogs that she wasn’t going to feed them that day because they had been bad. I am

personally aware that Cheryl withheld food and water from dogs as a means of

punishment.

11. Although she could put on a good “act,” Cheryl hated to deal with public. We kept the

front gate locked and when someone came to the gate, her standard response would be toask, “What do those f*cking idiots want?” and send an employee or volunteer to talk to

them.

12. Even though AF never had a high rate of adoptions, the majority of the time, Cherylrefused to allow people who came to the Property to adopt an animal unless it was on the

weekend and Cheryl had made an appointment. However, Cheryl frequently deliberately

did not answer her cell or the shelter phones and based upon personal experience, themajority of the time, the voice mailboxes were full.

13. Many of the workers and volunteers were afraid of Cheryl. They learned that if they

complained about the way an animal was treated, Cheryl would treat it worse as a way to“teach us a lesson” for drawing attention to the problem.

______________________________Farah Joy Ebadi


_________________________

NOTARY PUBLIC in and

for the State of Texas(seal)



No. 30-E-11-03305-01




vs. ))))


_____________________________________)

AFFIDAVIT OF NANCY CORONADO

BEFORE ME the undersigned notary public on this day personally appeared NancyCoronado who, being known to me, did on her oath depose and say as follows:

My name is Nancy Coronado. The matters stated herein are true and correct and withinmy personal knowledge.


Annie and Mange

2. I volunteered every Thursday between July 2010 and March 2011 at Animal FriendsHumane Society (“AF”), an animal shelter located at 213 W. Borgfeld Drive, in SanAntonio, Texas (the “Property”).

3. A dog that was named “Annie” arrived at AF around the end of August 2010. Annie wasplaced in an outdoor pen with three other dogs and one doghouse. She jumped on top of the doghouse and pretty much stayed there for the next few months.

4. As time went on, the other volunteers, workers and I began to notice that Annie’s hair

was thinning and her skin was getting red from mange. By the end of November 2010,another volunteer and I decided that something needed to be done. The volunteer putAnnie on a leash and took her to AF’s manager, Cheryl Wildenstein.

5. Cheryl put Annie in a kennel in the back of the warehouse, and I did not see her forseveral weeks.



2

6. Workers and volunteers were not allowed to go into any rooms in an apartment in thewarehouse except for the kitchen, and we were not allowed to go beyond a fence that hadbeen built across the Property. Dogs were kept in cages behind that fence, but the cageswere covered with blue plastic so that no on could see the dogs.

7.

I kept asking about Annie, and was told that she was “sick” and that no one was allowedto walk her. On the third Thursday after she had been put in the back of the warehouse, Iasked Cheryl to walk Annie and she told me that I could.

8. I found Annie in a walk space at the back of the warehouse in a small kennel that wascovered with blankets or rugs. Newspaper in the kennel was soaked through with urineand feces. She had some food that appeared to be old and no water.

9. I was shocked by Annie’s condition. She was covered in open sores, her skin was hot andred, and her limbs were twice their normal size. She was obviously in great pain.

10. I asked Cheryl if I could take Annie home with me the next day, and she told me that Icould. However, when I returned the next day, Cheryl had changed her mind. Cherylclaimed that she had started treatment for Annie for mange, and that “there was no needfor me to take her.” I told her I would take her and pay for veterinary costs, but she stillsaid “No.”

11. Every week I tried to walk Annie, and her condition never improved; in fact, she gotworse. She had no hair except a little on her head, and she had sores and puss spots allover her body. Neither I nor any other volunteers ever saw a veterinarian on theProperty, and Cheryl claimed that they came at night. I know of several veterinarianswho used to do volunteer work for AF, but I understand that they now refuse to have

anything to do with the shelter.

12. Finally, on February 10, 2011, Cheryl told me that I could adopt Annie. I gave Cherylthe $200 adoption fee in cash and made a veterinary appointment for the next day. Ireturned on February 11th, and Cheryl gave me some rancid fish oil, some “enzymes” thathad rat droppings in them, and 7 syringes of Ivermectin. She also gave me a receipt froma veterinarian dated February 10, 2011, showing that Annie had been seen by aveterinarian on the day that Cheryl told me that I could adopt her.

13. I took Annie to my veterinarian, and he told me that Annie had never been treated formange, and that the Ivermectin that Cheryl had given me was at the level that one

administers when one is just beginning treatment.

14. Cheryl had been telling me since the beginning of December 2010 that Annie was beingtreated for mange, yet there had been no improvement. I believe that she just wanted tokeep Annie at the shelter and, based on her behavior, I and many other volunteers andworkers believe that she is an animal hoarder.



3

15. I have been told by a person who spoke with a veterinary technician who occasionallyworked at AF that Cheryl denied her permission to treat Annie’s mange, telling her thatshe was being treated by a veterinarian. The veterinary technician said she never oncesay a veterinarian come to the Property, and that Cheryl also told her the veterinariancame at night.

16. I understand that the veterinary technician stated that there was always very littlemedication for the animals available, and that she finally quit after the only work that shehad available was picking up dog feces on the Property.

17. In approximately 10 weeks after I began treatment for Annie’s mange, all of her hair hadgrown back, and the redness and sores were gone.

18. I have attached pictures four pictures of Annie at the time I adopted her, and two picturesafter I had her treated for mange.

Loretta and Inhumane Treatment

19. “Loretta” was a medium-size black dog at the AF shelter. The first time I went to walk her, I found her in a small kennel inside at the back of the warehouse. Although theweather was very warm, her kennel was completely covered with a blanket. When Iopened the kennel, the smell was horrible. Loretta’s water bowl had spilled and thenewspaper on the floor of the kennel was soaked. There were urine and feces coveringthe kennel’s floor.

20. I went to AF every week for five weeks and her conditions were always the same. It wasdark, damp, cramped and smelly and, in my opinion, completely inhumane.

21. When dogs were brought out from behind a walled off area at the back of the warehouse,they would walk right by Loretta, and each time she would bark and spill her water bowl.

22. Cheryl told me that Loretta was confined like that because she was an “escape artist.”However, all of the workers and volunteers told me that Loretta had never been kept inanything other than that kennel at AF, and no one was aware of her every having“escaped.” She finally was moved to an outdoor pen, and she never tried to escape fromit.

23. I have since learned that in early August 2011, Anita Anderson, a member of AF’s board

of directors counted 140 dogs on the property, and that 50 of them were at the back of thewarehouse in cages because they allegedly were “escape artists.” I do not believe thatfully one third of AF’s dogs were such escape artists that they could not be kept inregular kennels.

Violation of Texas Administrative Code

24. I adopted a Dachshund, “Olive,” from AF on July 29, 2010. As I was preparing to leave



4

with Olive, Cheryl approached me and told me that Olive needed her rabies shot. I heldOlive in my arms while Cheryl administered the shot. Cheryl gave me a rabiescertification that she had filled out.

25. I have since learned that it is a violation of Texas Administrative Code 1 for a dog or cat to

be vaccinated with a rabies vaccine by anyone other than a veterinarian, or who is underthe direct supervision of a veterinarian. There was no veterinarian at AF when Cherylgave Olive her shot.

26. Olive had back problems, and Cheryl told me that a veterinarian, Dr. J. VeronikaKiklevich, would give Olive free lifetime care because she had treated Olive and hadbecome fond of her.

27. A day or two after I took Olive home, she developed bloody stools and I took her to Dr.Kiklevich. Dr. Kiklevich’s employee, Paula Oberle, who is an AF board member, wasworking there. Paula told me that she had Olive’s “rabies information” at her house, and

would send it to me.

28. I told Paula that Cheryl had given Olive the rabies shot when I had adopted her, and shelooked surprised and asked, “She did?” I told her that Cheryl had also given me therabies certification. Paula did not say anything else.

29. In mid- to late-January 2011, Cheryl called me late on a Friday afternoon and asked if myhusband, Robert, and I would foster a male Labrador Retriever that had just been broughtto AF. I called my husband and he agreed. I told Cheryl that my husband would pick upthe dog around 5:30 p.m.

30. As more fully set forth in my husband’s sworn statement, Cheryl gave the dog, whom welater named “Tug,” a rabies shot while he held him. He did not give her a rabiescertificate or tag, or any other documentation.

31. After we had had Tug for about a week, I told Cheryl that my husband’s brother wantedto adopt him. Cheryl told me that he needed to be neutered, and that Paula Oberle wouldmake the arrangements. Paula made an appointment with a veterinarian on Babcock Road for about a week after that.

32. When I took Tug to the veterinarian’s office, they wanted to give him a rabies shot, but Itold the lady at the front desk that he had already given a shot by Cheryl at AF. She told

me that Paula Oberle, who had made the appointment, had told her that the Tug had notbeen given the shot.

33. We discussed it for a few minutes, and she told me that she would call Paula and tell herthat I said that Cheryl had given Tug his rabies shot.

1 Title 25, Part 1, Chapter 169, Subchapter A, Rule §169.29(a).



5

34. When I returned later that day to pick up Tug, the lady told me that she had been able tocontact Paula, and that Paula had said that Tug had not been vaccinated and to go ahead and give him a rabies shot.

______________________________

Nancy Coronado



(seal)



No. 30-E-11-03305-01



) Precinct 3


vs. ))

)

)


Defendant )

_____________________________________)

AFFIDAVIT OF ROBERT CORONADO

BEFORE ME the undersigned notary public on this day personally appeared RobertCoronado who, being known to me, did on his oath depose and say as follows:

My name is Robert Coronado. The matters stated herein are true and correct and withinmy personal knowledge.

1.

I reside in the city of San Antonio, Bexar County, State of Texas.

2. In mid- to late-January 2011, Cheryl Wildenstein, the manager of Animal Friends

Humane Society (“AF”), an animal shelter located at 213 W. Borgfeld Drive, in San

Antonio, Texas, called my wife, Nancy Coronado, late on a Friday afternoon and asked if she and I would foster a male Labrador Retriever that had just been brought to AF. My

wife called me and we agreed to foster the dog.

3. I went to AF around 5:30 p.m. that same day to pick up the dog, whom we later named

“Tug.” Before I left, Cheryl told me that Tug needed to be given his rabies shot. Cheryl

administered the shot while I held him. Cheryl did not give me a rabies vaccination

certificate or tag, or any other rabies documentation.

4. I have since learned that it is a violation of Texas Administrative Code Title 25, Part 1,

Chapter 169, Subchapter A, Rule §169.29, for a dog or cat to be vaccinated with a rabiesvaccine by anyone other than a veterinarian, or who is under the direct supervision of a

veterinarian. There was no veterinarian at AF when Cheryl gave Tug his shot.

5. I understand that it is a violation of the same code not to issue at the time that a rabies



2

shot is administered an official rabies vaccination certificate.6.

Date: ______________, 2011 ______________________________

Robert Coronado


_________________________





No. 30-E-11-03305-01



) Precinct 3


vs. ))

)

)


Defendant )

_____________________________________)

AFFIDAVIT OF JOANNIE DUNN

BEFORE ME the undersigned notary public on this day personally appeared Joannie

Dunn who, being known to me, did on her oath depose and say as follows:

My name is Joannie Dunn. The matters stated herein are true and correct and within my

personal knowledge.

1. I reside in Pinellas County, State of Florida.

2.

In late November or early December 2010, I adopted a dog, “Winnie,” from AnimalFriends Humane Society (“AF”), located at 213 W. Borgfeld Drive, in San Antonio,Texas (the “Property”).

3. Before I left AF with Winnie, Cheryl Wildenstein, who I knew to be AF’s manager, toldme that she needed to give Winnie a rabies shot, and she proceeded to do so in front of

me. I did not see a veterinarian present at any time that I was there.

4. I repeatedly tried to get a rabies vaccine certification from Cheryl so that I would not

have to have her get another shot from my own veterinarian.

5.

I called AF more than 15 times, but left a message only about 5 times because on theother occasions, the voice mailbox was full. I also sent AF a letter. No one from AF ever

returned my telephone calls and I was forced to get Winnie a second rabies shot.

6. Before I moved from Texas, Winnie got a rabies shot from my veterinarian. He then told

me that it was illegal for Cheryl to have administered the vaccination without a

veterinarian being



2

present.

______________________________

Joannie Dunn




for the State of Florida

(seal)



No. 30-E-11-03305-01



) Precinct 3


vs. ))

)

)


Defendant )

_____________________________________)

AFFIDAVIT OF ROSMARIE ROBBINS

BEFORE ME the undersigned notary public on this day personally appeared Rosemarie

Robbins who, being known to me, did on her oath depose and say as follows:

My name is Rosemarie Robbins. The matters stated herein are true and correct and

within my personal knowledge.


2.

In February 2011, I decided to adopt a dog from Animal Friends Humane Society (“AF”)located at 213 W. Borgfeld Road, in San Antonio, Texas (the “Property”). I called AF’stelephone number numerous times to ask about adopting a dog. When the voice mailbox

was not full, I left messages, but my calls were never returned. I finally got the name of

Paula Oberle, AF’s president and a member of its board of directors, from AF’s websiteand she told me how to proceed.

3. I decided to foster a dog named “Georgie,” with plans to adopt him if everything wentwell. AF’s manager, Cheryl Wildenstein, told me that Georgie had not had his rabies

shot, and that I would have to return with him the next day so that the “doctor” could give

him his shot.

4. I returned with my husband and Georgie the next day. Cheryl took Georgie into a

warehouse on the Property and my husband heard Georgie give a loud squeal. I did not

see a veterinarian anywhere on site, and when I asked Cheryl about it, she told me thatshe was authorized to give rabies shots. Cheryl did not give me a rabies vaccine

certification or any other medical documentation.

5. I found the condition of the Property to be appalling. It was strewn with trash, the



2

warehouse appeared to be filled with junk, and the animals’ food and water bowls did notappear to be clean.

6. On February 21, 2011, I took Georgie to my veterinarian, and he asked for his AFmedical and vaccination records. I called AF frequently over the next several weeks,

trying to get the documentation.

7. No one returned any of my telephone messages, including one where I indicated that I

wanted to adopt, and not just foster Georgie, and needed to pay the adoption fee. I finally

was told confidentially by an AF volunteer to forget about getting any documentation or

medical records, and to treat Georgie as if I had found him on the side of the road.

8. I heard that AF was looking for volunteers on Easter Sunday, April 24, 2011, so my

daughter and I went there to help walk the dogs. Many of the dogs did not look well; onehad mange and sores covering almost all over her body, and had very little hair.

9.

AF looked dirty, the dogs seemed unhappy, and we could hear a lot of dogs barking inpens or kennels on the side of the Property. I do not know how many were back there,

because the pens were covered with blue plastic, and we were told that we could not go

over there.

10. Through the windows of a yellow house on the Property, my daughter and I could see

furniture and other items stacked high and wall to wall. It seemed as if it would be

impossible to walk in that house. My daughter, who has a Masters in Psychology, opinedthat in her opinion, Cheryl appeared to be a property and an animal hoarder.

11. I have been unable to put my finger on it, but there is something “off” about Cheryl and

AF, and I wish that Bexar County Animal Control Services would investigate.

______________________________

Rosemarie Robbins



_________________________





No. 30-E-11-03305-01



) Precinct 3


vs. ))

)

)


Defendant )

_____________________________________)

AMENDED AFFIDAVIT OF MARY ALVARADO

BEFORE ME the undersigned notary public on this day personally appeared Mary

Alvarado who, being known to me, did on her oath depose and say as follows:

My name is Mary Alvarado. The matters stated herein are true and correct and within my

personal knowledge.


2.

Between approximately September 2009 and March 2011, I was a volunteer at AnimalFriends Humane Society (“AF”), an animal shelter located at 213 W. Borgfeld Drive, inSan Antonio, Texas (the “Property”).

3. During my time spent at AF, I witnessed many disturbing things.

Refusal to Adopt Out Animals

4. AF prevented adoptions by failing to answer the telephone or to return telephone calls

from people wanting to adopt. This made it difficult because Cheryl required people to

make an appointment in order to adopt an animal, and to do that they first had to call. If

someone came to the gate without first making an appointment, she turned him or heraway. On Saturday, February 5, 2011, I witnessed four families who wanted to adopt a

dog being turned away at the gate because they did not have an appointment.

5. Cheryl limited the dogs that people could look at to those in the front. No one was

allowed to walk around the Property to look at the dogs in the warehouse or behind the

plastic tarp, which meant that some dogs never had the opportunity to be adopted.



2

6. I frequently witnessed Cheryl tell people who wanted to adopt a specific animal thatsomeone had already filed an application to adopt it. I knew that it was not true because

weeks and months later, the animal would still be there.

7. There is no explanation or excuse for many of the dogs and cats not to have been

adopted. One dog, “Monkey Face,” came into AF as a friendly, energetic puppy. Shenow has gray hair and is “shelter crazy.” She did not like to leave her kennel and, whenwalked, always wanted to return to her kennel.

Crowded, Unsanitary Conditions

8. There were a lot of dogs crammed into a room at the back of a warehouse on the

Property. Employees and volunteers were told not to go back there.

9. There was another section of the Property where kennels were covered with blue tarp,

obstructing anyone’s view. The employees and volunteers were not allowed to go over

there, but I could hear a lot of dogs barking, and I know that in all of the time that Ivolunteered, I never once saw those dogs walked.

10. At the time that I left, there was a dog named “Ty” listed on AF’s website as available for

adoption. Not a single employee or volunteer whom I talked to had ever seen or knewwho Ty was. I assume that he was one of the dogs in the kennels behind the tarp that was

never walked.

11. At one time, there were more than 100 rabbits in a pen that was much too small to hold

them. They were mainly fed dead-looking hay. One day I brought them some alfalfa andthey nearly fought each other to eat it.

12. The rabbits’ pen was surrounded by dog kennels with dogs constantly barking. Some of the small bunnies could get through the enclosure and hopped into a dog pen or kennel,

where the dogs tore them apart.

13. Under the outdoor dog pens, there is mulch on top of concrete. Although feces were

picked up, the mulch was hardly ever changed and thick mold grew underneath it.

14. During the first week that I volunteered at AF, there was a heavy overnight rainstorm andthe doghouse in a pen where two dogs lived was flooded and the pen, the dogs, and their

food and water bowls were covered in mud. When I told Paula Oberle and Cheryl about

it, they went to look. Paula made a face and said, “Well, I’m not going to clean it up,”and they both walked away. I felt so bad for the dogs that I cleaned it all up by myself.

Inadequate Medical Care

15. At the time that I left in March 2011, there were at least five dogs (“Bentley,” “Annie,”

“Junior,” “Chupa,” and “Drifter”) who had had long-term mange. AF’s manager, Cheryl



3

Wildenstein, kept insisting that they were all being treated for the mange, but I never sawany improvement.

16. On a number of occasions, I saw at least four different dogs defecating blood. When Ipointed it out to Cheryl, she did not seem interested in investigating any further, and

claimed that it was food coloring from the dog food.

17. Employees and volunteers knew better than to complain about the way an animal was

treated, as Cheryl would treat it even worse as a way to “teach us a lesson.”

Lack of Volunteers

18. In 2010, the Boy Scouts of America built a small building on the shelter that was

supposed to house animals. I was present one day when the Boy Scout troop leader cameto AF to seek another community project for the boy scouts.

19. Cheryl refused to talk with him, telling him that she was too busy, and that he needed tocall first before coming over to talk. The troop leader responded that he had called

numerous times, but that she had not returned his calls. I understand that after that, the

boy scouts never returned.

Molly

20. My duties included walking dogs.

21. The first time I attempted to walk “Molly,” a pit bull, AF’s manager, Cheryl Wildenstein,told me that Molly was “dangerous,” and should not be walked around other dogs or cats.

22. Molly was too strong a dog for me to feel comfortable walking, so I always let otherswalk her instead.

23. I saw on a KENS 5 television news report broadcast on September 14, 2011, that Mollyhad been adopted during an “adoption event” on August 24, 2011, by a family. I have

since learned that the family included a six-month old infant.

______________________________Mary Alvarado


_________________________





No. 30-E-11-03305-01



) Precinct 3


vs. ))

)

)


Defendant )

_____________________________________) .

AFFIDAVIT OF TRACY NEVILLE

BEFORE ME the undersigned notary public on this day personally appeared Tracy

Neville, who, being known to me, did on her oath depose and say as follows:

My name Tracy Neville (née Voss). The matters stated herein are true and correct and

within my personal knowledge.

1. I live in Wilson County, State of Texas.

2.

Upon learning that Animal Friends Human Society (“AF”) was being evicted from itsshelter, located at 213 W. Borgfeld Road, San Antonio, Texas (the “Property”), Icontacted AF manager, Cheryl Wildenstein, and AF president, Paula Oberle, to arrange

for media coverage and set up a three-day adoption event beginning August 24, 2011.

3. I found myself approving potential adopters, only to have Ms. Wildenstein and Ms.

Oberle reject them. For example, a family with five children fell in love with a dog,

“Foxy,” but Ms. Wildenstein and Ms. Oberle refused to let the dog be adopted because afence the family was planning was not yet built.

4. Both women finally consented, but Ms. Wildenstein told me that before the adoption

could take place, Foxy would have to be spayed. I checked on Foxy with Ms.Wildenstein twice after that to see if the adoption process was continuing, and she did not

indicate that there were any problems.

5. On Friday, September 2nd, I visited AF and was surprised to see that Foxy was still in a

kennel. I asked Ms. Wildenstein whether Foxy had been spayed, and she responded that

she had not been because Foxy had bitten her. Therefore, AF was not going to let thefamily adopt the dog.



2

6. I was skeptical that Foxy had bit anyone, as she was an extremely affectionate and gentle

dog. I believe wholeheartedly that this was just another ploy by AF not to adopt out

dogs. Notwithstanding that AF had more than 100 dogs on the Property, and was facingeviction with nowhere else to go, there appeared no sense of urgency to adopt out

animals, and my efforts to help were consistently met with intransigence and. in myopinion, artificially manufactured roadblocks.

7. On the first night of the adoption event, Rosemarie, an animal rescue volunteer who is a

friend of mine, wanted to adopt a very friendly black and white cat. Ms. Wildenstein told

her that adoption papers had already been filed on the cat, and she refused to letRosemarie adopt it. On September 2, 2011, the last time I was on the Property, the cat

was still there.

8. In an e-mail to me sent on September 7, 2011, Ms. Oberle told me that she “was told”

that the cat “did go home with someone that night.” (See e-mail string between Ms.

Oberle and Tracy Neville on September 6-7, 2011, attached as B-14[a]). Ms. Oberleknew very well that the cat did not go home with anyone because that same evening I

complained to her about Ms. Wildenstein’s refusal to let the cat be adopted and, although

she looked annoyed, Ms. Oberle did not talk to Ms. Wildenstein and did nothing to

intervene with her decision.

9. On September 19, 2011, I was able to obtain the telephone number of Carman Cockrell, a

woman who has continued to volunteer to take care of the cats at AF. I asked her aboutthe black and white cat and she knew which one I was talking about. I asked her if it was

available to adopt and she told me she had accidently grazed its leg when she was cuttingmatted fur off the cat the week before. She added that she had taken the cat to a

veterinarian that day, and she decided to adopt it herself. When asked, she also told methat no one had ever told her that anyone had filed an application to adopt the cat.

10. On Labor Day weekend this year, my volunteer organization arranged to have a vehicle

transport a homeless dog to a no-kill shelter in Minnesota. I spoke with Ms. Wildensteinand Ms. Oberle about this many times, and arranged to have spaces available for some

AF dogs. Neither one returned my calls regarding what dogs to send, and the transport

left with only one dog.

11. When I subsequently addressed the matter with Ms. Oberle, she insisted that, “I am sure

Cheryl forgot about your transport date as she was very excited about it when she first

told me.” ( Id.) Ms. Oberle did not address why she never followed up with Ms.Wildenstein or contacted me herself to advise what dogs could be transported.

12. I declined to attend any more AF adoption events, as it became a constant battle to getMs. Wildenstein and Ms. Oberle to permit adoptions to be carried out, and I felt that my

time would be more constructively spent elsewhere.

13. In a September 6, 2010, e-mail, I advised Ms. Oberle, that I was no longer willing to help



3

AF with its adoptions, and stated that my decision was made, in part, on AF’s refusal toadopt out Foxy.

14. On September 6, 2011, Ms. Oberle responded. Ms. Oberle contradicted what Ms.Wildenstein had told me, insisting that Foxy had been spayed, and that she had bit Ms.

Wildenstein after she had returned from being spayed. Ms. Oberle suggested that, whatwith the dog bite and the prospective adoptive family having a baby in the house,“[m]aybe it was the best decision” not to adopt Foxy to the family. ( Id.)

15. She added, “Foxy did find a home a few days ago, the right home for her.” ( Id.)

16. Texas Health and Safety Code §826.041 provides that a person who knows of an animal

bite or scratch to an individual must report the incident or animal to the local rabies

control authority of the county or municipality in which the person lives, in which theanimal is located, or in which the exposure occurs. I do not believe that AF reported

Foxy’s bite to Bexar County Animal Care Services, as required.

17. Bexar County requires that every animal involved in a human bite or scratch be examined

by a licensed veterinarian and quarantined for a period of ten days from the bite or the

scratch.

18. There is no evidence that AF quarantined Foxy after she allegedly bit Ms. Wildenstein,

and in fact, it appears that AF adopted Foxy to a family within the ten-day period in

which she should have been quarantined.

19. There have been times when I talked with Ms. Wildenstein that it appeared to me that shewas not thinking rationally. For example, the first time I met her in August 2011, she

told me that she would shoot herself and all of the dogs before she let Bexar CountyAnimal Control Services take them.

______________________________

Tracy Neville



_________________________ NOTARY PUBLIC in and

for the State of Texas

(seal)



No. 30-E-11-03305-01




vs. ))))


_____________________________________)

AFFIDAVIT OF AMANDA EVRARD

BEFORE ME the undersigned notary public on this day personally appeared AmandaEvrard who, being known to me, did on her oath depose and say as follows:

My name is Amanda Evrard. The matters stated herein are true and correct and within mypersonal knowledge.

1. I reside in the city of Fort Collins, Laramie County, State of Colorado.

2.

I volunteered at Animal Friends Humane Society (“AF”) from January 2007 through thesummer of 2008. At that time, AF’s shelter was located at 23445 U.S. Highway 281 inSan Antonio, Texas. Cheryl Wildenstein was AF’s manager, and Paula Oberle was itsvice-president and a member of its board of directors.

Hoarding Animals

3. In my opinion, Cheryl is an animal hoarder who believes that no one can care for AF’sanimals as well as she can. As a result, dogs perfectly suitable for adoption spend theirentire lives at the shelter.

4.

“Red” came into the shelter only a few months old, and soon had to have a hind legamputated. From the beginning, a number of people wanted to adopt him, but Cherylrefused, saying that she wanted Red to be a “mascot” for AF. In August 2011, when AFwas facing eviction, KENS 5 showed video of Red in connection with a story about AF’sefforts to find homes for its dogs, or property where the shelter could relocate.



2

5. Although I am sure that the public felt sympathy for Red, what people did not know isthat Red was not unadoptable, and that it was Cheryl who stood in the way of him beingadopted out.

6. After volunteering for several months, I wanted to adopt a dog named “CJ.” Cheryl let

me adopt CJ only if I promised to bring him back to the shelter every weekend. I did sountil CJ got tapeworms, which quite a few of AF’s dogs had. Shortly after that, I wasasked not to return to AF.

7. When other volunteers left suddenly, Cheryl and Paula would disparage them, tellingother employees and volunteers that they were “crazy,” “nuts,” or having a “mentalbreakdown.” Sure enough, after I left, they started spreading such rumors about me. Ilater was able to contact some of the volunteers who had left, and was not surprised thattheir mental status had nothing to do with their reasons for leaving.

8. When I learned recently that AF was being evicted from its current site, I so strongly

wanted certain dogs that I remembered from when I was there to be adopted out of AFthat I offered to sponsor/donate $50 to any organization that could facilitate the transferor adoption. I also offered to pay Paula if she could provide me with a list of dogs thatAF had adopted out or placed itself. Paula rejected my offer, sending me an e-mailstating that, “I will be happy to forward [your] email to out attorney and have themrespond if wish (sic) to go in that direction.” (See e-mail string between Ms. Oberle,myself and members of AAPAWs on May 12-13, 2011, and August 6-7, respectivelyattached as B-15[a] and B-15[b]).

9. I believe that overcrowding and hoarding problems were beginning even at AF’s formershelter on U.S. Highway 281. That building was never designed to be used as a shelter,

and similar buildings on the lot were rented by a veterinarian and a sole medicalpractitioner.

10. There was one small room in the building that was used to house all of AF’s cats.Without being tested for disease, each new cat was put in that room with all of the othercats.

11. The cat room became so crowded that mother cats started eating their kittens. One cat atetwo of her kittens and had eaten the leg off of a third before it was discovered. The kittendied shortly thereafter.

Improper Use of Donations

12. To my knowledge, AF’s financial records were not kept at the shelter. However, Cherylwould take cash received from adoption fees or donations and put it in a drawer. Shewould then take the money and give it to a volunteer or an employee and ask him or herto go buy her (Cheryl) food and cigarettes.



3

13. Cheryl would randomly decide that certain dogs turned in to AF belonged to her. Sheused food and supplies purchased by or donated to AF for “her” dogs, includingveterinary services and medical care.

Failure to Properly Train and Socialize and Care for Animals

14. Dogs would come into AF at a young age and be parked in a kennel or crate with notraining and little socialization.

15. One dog arrived at AF when he was approximately two months old. He remained at theshelter, and he later killed a cat, then a poodle. I do not believe that AF even bothered toname him at first; I think that he was later called “Hunter” because of those attacks.

16. At two months old, a puppy can be trained to be sociable, and to play with, not kill, otheranimals. By virtue of AF’s actions, Hunter was unadoptable to anyone who had otheranimals or children, and he is still listed as an AF dog on AF’s website and petfinder.com.

17. A heeler, “JoJo,” arrived at AF with an injured leg. Cheryl told me that x-rays weretaken, and that they did not show anything wrong. Upon closer inspection, I saw thatthere were stitches in JoJo’s leg from a previous surgery, and I wondered how theveterinarian who supposedly had x-rayed the leg could have missed them.

18. JoJo had a good temperament when she arrived at the shelter, but soon turned aggressiveand began to bite people and other dogs.

19. I ended up fostering JoJo, then decided to adopt her. I took JoJo to my own veterinarianand had her leg x-rayed. The x-rays showed that a pin that had previously been used to

stabilize a broken thigh bone had broken loose and migrated down into her knee joint,causing her pain. I believe it would have been impossible for a veterinarian to miss thepin, as it was metal and highly visible on the x-rays. Cheryl claimed that she had no ideahow the veterinarian failed to notice the pin, but refused to follow up on the matter,claiming that she was “too busy.”

20. I ultimately spent nearly $3,000 for surgery on JoJo and rehabilitation for her knee. Iremain disgusted that Cheryl knowingly allowed an animal to suffer for an extendedperiod of time in pain, all of the while being dishonest about the medical care that it hadreceived.

21. JoJo ultimately recovered and, after a trainer helped her with her behavioral issues, shebecame the loving, gentle dog she had been when she first arrived at AF.

Shutdown of Volunteer/Dog Training Program

22. When I first began volunteering, AF had no established volunteer program, so I created“Positive Attitudes with Shelters,” or “PAWS.”



4

23. PAWS was designed to train and match volunteers with dogs for the purpose of trainingand socializing the dogs and turning unruly animals into adoptable pets. The programwas intended to rehabilitate and adopt out eight dogs in eight weeks. PAWS was wellregarded, and was written up in the local newspapers.

24. Cheryl never appeared to embrace the program, and I think that was because she did notwant to adopt out dogs.

25. Cheryl halted the program during week four, telling me that she had not approved week five’s training on how to allow a dog to ride safely in a car or a truck. Cheryl told methat she did not want any of the dogs to leave the shelter. I offered to have the vehicleremain in the shelter’s parking lot, but this option was also rejected.

26. The program was revised to remove this part of the training. However, by the time thesixth week of the program began, I could no longer tolerate the conditions at the shelter,and I decided to resign. I understand that PAWS was terminated, and that the volunteers

were driven away.

27. A number of dogs who were trained under the program are still listed on “petfinder.com”as AF shelter dogs. I imagine that after years of being in kennels with little socialization,they would now be difficult to adopt.

Alienation of Volunteers

28. As they gained experience, the volunteers began to come to me with complaints. Forexample, they would go to AF to drop off donations and be told that they were notallowed in and to leave. If they went to AF to volunteer, and Cheryl was not ready for

them, she would ignore them and again they would leave. I spoke with Paula Oberleabout these problems, but she was rude and defended Cheryl.

29. AF was my first experience volunteering at an animal shelter. If I thought thatvolunteering at every animal shelter would have been like my experience at AF, I wouldnever have volunteered at a shelter again.

______________________________Amanda Evrard




(seal)



No. 30-E-11-03305-01



) Precinct 3


vs. ))

)

)


Defendant )

_____________________________________)

.

AFFIDAVIT OF LYNDA BINKLEY

BEFORE ME the undersigned notary public on this day personally appeared Lynda

Binkley, who, being known to me, did on her oath depose and say as follows:

My name Lynda Binkley. The matters stated herein are true and correct and within my

personal knowledge.

1. I live in Bulverde, Comal County, State of Texas.

2. I am the vice-president of the Bulverde Area Humane Society (“BAHS”), a no-killanimal shelter located at 3563 Kingsnake in Bulverde, Texas.

3. I established BAHS in 1983.

4. In mid-August 2011, I learned that another local shelter, AF Humane Society (“AF”) was

being evicted from the property on which it was located (the “Property”). I knew that AFhad a large number of animals, particularly dogs and, given the short notice, I was

concerned about what would happen to them.

5.

I learned that the Property’s owner was Laura Alderman and I was able to get hertelephone number. I called Ms. Alderman and left her a voice mail message asking

whether there was anything BAHS and the local animal rescue community could do to

help AF place its animals.

6. On August 15, 2011, I e-mailed AF board member and vice-president Paula Oberle,

advised her that I was attempting to contact the Property owner, and offered the servicesof BAHS and the Alamo Area Partners for Animal Welfare (“AAPAW”)—an umbrella



2

organization for area shelters and the local animal rescue community—to help get theanimals placed/adopted before AF’s eviction date. (See e-mails between Lynda Binkley

and Paula Oberle on August 15-16, 2011, attached as B-16[a]).

7. I had heard rumors for some time through former employees and volunteers about many

problems at AF, including poor sanitary conditions, animal hoarding, too few employeesand volunteers to adequately care for the animals, its refusal to adopt out animals, andeven animal abuse.

8. Therefore, I asked to tour AF to see for myself the conditions that the animals were in,

the records on each animal, and the medicines that were being used. If animals weregoing to be adopted out or transferred to other shelters, it was important that their

vaccinations were current and that they were free from disease.

9. I added that, “At this point, BAHS is prepared to take as many animals as we can that are

healthy.” ( Id.)

10. The next day, Ms. Oberle responded, beginning her e-mail by asking, “Contacting the

property owner, why would you do that? Seems a bit odd to me, even sneaky?????” ( Id.)

11. In that same e-mail, Ms. Oberle rejected my offer, adding that AF would let me know if itneeded any help. To this day, despite facing eviction, and with nowhere else to go, AF

has not contacted me. I have since learned that at the time that Ms. Oberle wrote her e-

mail, there were more than 140 dogs on the Property, 30 to 40 cats, and many rabbits.

12. I have also since learned that Ms. Oberle subsequently sent an e-mail to a volunteeranimal rescuer, Tracy Neville, and to KENS 5 television reporter Joe Conger, in which

she claimed, “BHS (sic) did not offer to help [AF], again you should check yourinformation.” (See e-mail from Paula Oberle to Tracy Neville sent on September 16,2011, attached as B-16[b]).

13. In that same e-mail, Ms. Oberle claimed that she had called another no-kill shelter, theAnimal Defense League (“ADL”) “several times,” but that she “never got a live person,

always had to leave a message.” In fact, I understand that a July 8, 2011, e-mail from

Ms. Oberle to Ms. Alderman, attached to PUNKIN PAULA’s Complaint for Forcible

Detainer as Exhibit D-5, makes clear that Ms. Oberle did talk to people at ADL, and thatMs. Oberle rejected their offer to take some AF dogs as well.

14. Ms. Oberle’s September 16, 2011, e-mail also claimed that although she had “postedmessages for help on the AAPAW website twice, not one group or individual replied.”

( Id.)

15. As is evident from a compilation of e-mails that I have attached hereto as Ex. B-16(c), a

number of AAPAWs members tried to help AF, but its voice mailbox was often full, or

no one responded to their messages. The only e-mail that Ms. Oberle appears to have



3

responded to directly was when it appeared that someone might be offering AF some landto which it could move its shelter.

16. Both times that Ms. Oberle asked for help on the AAPAWs website, member Deanna Leesuggested that she bring some animals to upcoming adoption events. The second time,

Ms. Lee wrote, “[P]lease sign up to participate in AAPAW Mega Adoption events toshowcase some of your dogs and cats and get them adopted. The more exposure they get,the better their chances of getting adopted! The next event is this Sat-Sun at the Petco

store on 410/San Pedro. We'd love to see you there with as many pets as you can bring . .

.” ( Id.) According to Ms. Lee, Ms. Oberle never responded.

17. In contrast to Ms. Oberle’s claim to Ms. Neville and Mr. Conger that not one individual

or group from AAPAWS replied to her requests for help, in her second e-mail to the

AAPAWs website, Ms. Oberle wrote, “I also wanted to thank everyone who hasexpressed their support and offered to help us through this unexpected, horrible time.”

( Id.)

18. After I contacted Ms. Alderman, she invited me to tour the Property with her and

contractor Tony Watson and his wife, Lisa, on August 17, 2011. I was appalled at what I

saw.

19. An apartment in a warehouse on the Property was covered with mold. A yellow house on

the Property smelled strongly of animal urine and there were dried feces on the floor.

The condition of a brown and white house was the worst: its floors were covered withdog feces, and the smell of urine was overpowering. The Property itself was strewn with

garbage, broken equipment and other discarded pieces, and pillows, blankets and otherporous items were left exposed to the elements.

20. Ms. Alderman told me that Ms. Wildenstein had claimed that she had not discovered themold in the apartment until the day before Ms. Alderman did. However, during the visit

to the Property, I heard Ms. Wildenstein tell Ms. Alderman that she actually had

discovered the mold in one room months before Ms. Alderman had visited, but that shehad not bothered to check the condition of any other room.

21. Despite the local drought, a large area on the side of and behind the warehouse was

covered with water and mud. On closer inspection, one could see water flowing from apoint where the warehouse wall met the concrete foundation.

22. Dogs were stacked—many in cages too small for them—in a dark, hot and stuffy room atthe back of the warehouse, and others were in kennels off to the side, blocked from view

by a blue tarp. Many of these dogs’ water bowls were filled with water that did not look

clean, and the bowls themselves were filthy.

23. Some of these dogs did not look healthy and some had obvious mange or other diseases.



4

24. It appeared to me that the people who run AF are hoarders and are either unwilling orunable to properly care for animals. I believe that they have no business running an

animal shelter.

______________________________

Lynda Binkley



_________________________


(seal)



No. 30-E-11-03305-01




vs. ))))


_____________________________________)

AFFIDAVIT OF HOLLEY PRIDMORE

BEFORE ME the undersigned notary public on this day personally appeared HolleyPridmore who, being known to me, did on her oath depose and say as follows:

My name is Holley Pridmore. The matters stated herein are true and correct and withinmy personal knowledge.


2.

I first became aware of Animal Friends Humane Society (“AF”) in April 2007, when Ifound a stray dog, and did not know how to find its owners. I contacted AF, then locatedat 23445 U.S. Highway 281 in San Antonio, Texas, and AF’s manager, CherylWildenstein, told me to bring it to the shelter and she would see whether it wasmicrochipped.

3. My first impression of the AF shelter were not positive, as it had a very strong urinesmell which seemed to emanate from everywhere. Cheryl appeared overwhelmed, andtold me that she had no help. When I inquired about volunteers, she responded that theyalways said that they would come back, but that “they never do.”

4.

I offered to come back the next day to help, and I volunteered for the next nine months,helping to clean the shelter, picking up food donated by another shelter and a localgrocery store chain. During this period I also spent the better part of three monthsactively soliciting by telephone donations for AF’s annual Comedy Club fundraiser, thencollecting the donations. Cheryl told me that AF had “never had so many donations,” andshe was elated.



2

5. Since I had never before stepped foot in an animal shelter, at first I did not know howthey were run, or what were considered to be acceptable practices and standards. By thetime that I left, I knew that much of what I had observed at AF could not be consideredacceptable anywhere.

6.

The “Cat Room”

7. The building that housed AF was very small. It obviously was not built to be a shelter,and was more like a small doctor’s office.

8. Approximately 60 cats of all ages, sexes and in various states of health were kept in asmall interior room. The cats were kept in rolling cages with shelves. With the exceptionof one feral cat that was vicious and constantly sprayed urine from his cage, the doors tothe cages were left open.

9. There were six or seven litter boxes on the floor of the room, which were cleaned and

emptied once a day. The stench of urine was so overpowering as to be nauseating. Eachmorning, the boxes were full of bloody feces. Cats routinely would throw up, sometimeswith worms in their vomit, and most of them had runny noses and eyes.

10. Finally, I got Cheryl’s permission to design something that would allow the cats to gooutside for some fresh air, and she reluctantly agreed. My husband cut a hole in the walland made a tunnel to a small outside enclosure that he and Cheryl’s boyfriend built. Theair in the cat room was so bad that my husband wore a mask, and he was upset that I hadsubjected myself to that situation for so long. Some of the cats had not been outdoors inwell over a year, and were so afraid to go outside that not even a can of tuna could enticethem.

11. During this time, I saw at least two litters of kittens born to cats at the shelter. Themother cats were not segregated from the general cat population and were so stressed thatboth killed their new kittens.

The Dog Crates and Outdoor Kennels

12. Most of the dogs were kept either inside the shelter in crates that were stacked one on topof the other, or outside in outdoor kennel enclosures. I was very distressed about bothsituations.

13. The dogs outdoors were constantly exposed to the elements. They were forced to eat,sleep, urinate and defecate in their enclosures. Because the kennels were simply placedon top of gravel, with a bit of mulch on top, there was no way to hose the area down ormake it sanitary.

14. These dogs were seldom walked and were never trained or socialized, and many of thedogs went “kennel crazy.”



3

15. These dogs were also were completely vulnerable from any kind of vandalism that mightoccur between the time that Cheryl and her brother left the shelter between 5:00 and 8:00p.m. and 10:00 or 11:00 a.m. when they returned.

16. That also meant that the dogs inside the shelter were forced to sleep and lie in their own

excrement throughout that period of time. If they knocked over their water bowls, theyhad nothing to drink until the next day. The crates had wire floors with plastic insertswhich often were broken or cracked. Most of the dogs suffered from loose stools.Because the dog crates were stacked, the other urine and excrement from the top cratecould leak or seep through into the bottom crate.

17. If there was a second dog in a crate (most crates held at least two dogs), then fightingcould—and did—occur. Cheryl also routinely allowed five to eight small dogs to runloose in the utility room each night. These dogs would fight among themselves when leftunattended, and many times the floor was bloody from altercations that took placebetween them the night before. It was not unusual for one or two of these dogs to have

puncture or open wounds. I was also bitten by a dog when I reached down to put himback in the utility room. Cheryl advised me NOT to go to the doctor and, if I did, to lieabout it being a dog bite because, she said, Animal Control Services would take the dogand euthanize it.

Unhealthy, Unsafe Conditions

18. The cat and dog food was stored directly outside the cat room, as well as in outsidestorage sheds, and both these areas routinely had bugs and mouse droppings. Many of thedonated cans of food had no labels on them and therefore no way to tell which foodswere out of date or who the manufacture was.

19. Many of the donated cans of food that I opened had no labels and therefore no way to tellwhich foods had passed their expiration dates. Cheryl told me that AF “lost a lot” of dogs during the period of 2006-2007 when there were major recalls of dog food due totainted ingredients sourced from China, and there was no way to know if the cans withoutlabels may have been part of the recall.

20. Cat food bowls were routinely cleaned with the same scrubbing brushes used to clean thedirty cat boxes.

21. Despite the shelter not having a dedicated intake isolation or puppy area, Cheryl would

take in puppies and put them in crates or pens anywhere in the shelter. In the ninemonths that I volunteered there, at least three sets of puppies contracted parvovirus anddied. Although standard shelter practice is to return dogs back to their same crate aftercleaning them, dogs were routinely moved from crate to crate with no more than a quick swipe down.

22. Cheryl routinely placed “sick” dogs in her tiny, dirty office, where she would close thedoor and chain smoke. I was especially upset when she insisted on doing this right after a



4

dog had had a leg amputated.

23. Cheryl appeared to have an affinity for Dachshunds and kept six or more of them in thefront of the shelter, all day, every day in a small penned area. One dachshund was sofrustrated at being constantly penned up that it would dig holes incessantly; it ended up

injuring its back and needing surgery. Cheryl would stuff these dogs into her brother'scar each night to take home with her, none of them in proper car carriers. She also toldme that she had 11 other dogs at her home during this time.

24. Cheryl also let the employees blare loud acid rock music from a boom box that sat on topof the indoor crates. I attempted to show Cheryl documentation that reflected that a dog’shearing is much more sensitive to loud noises than a human’s is, but she just laughed andcalled it “bullshit.”

25. There was one particularly aggressive pit bull mix in an outside kennel that did not getalong with other dogs. Despite knowing this, Cheryl would routinely put a second dog in

the kennel, and sooner or later it would be attacked.

26. Cheryl’s brother would have to go into the kennel to break up the fight, while Cheryl beatthe pit bull with a stick. The dog that was attacked always ended up with a bleedingwound. It would be removed from the kennel but, invariably, after a period of time hadpassed, Cheryl would put another dog in the kennel.

Inadequate Volunteer Training

27. Attempts at setting up volunteer or foster programs were always met with the sameexcuse that Cheryl “didn’t have time” to do it, or that “nobody will show up and, if they

do, they will just be in the way.” Cheryl also refused to attend city adoption events.

28. On one occasion, an inexperienced volunteer, along with her 10-year old son, took anelderly, frail Toy Poodle to a fenced in part of the property and two of the big dogsescaped a kennel and attacked and killed the dog, completely ripping it to shreds, in frontof the child. Instead of examining AF’s failure to adequately training its volunteers,Cheryl blamed the new volunteer for “not listening” to her.

29. I routinely saw minor children, some under the age of 16, administer dips for mangewithout using gloves. I refused to do this myself, as the dip solution was toxic and, evenwith gloves on, made my hands tingle.

30. I also observed that the dips were done in the same sink where the dog and cat fooddishes were cleaned.

31. Minor children were allowed to walk dogs that were too powerful for them to handle, andI myself was dragged along the parking lot by a powerful Labrador Retriever. After that,I refused to walk any more dogs of that size.



5

Refusal to Adopt Out

32. On many occasions, I spoke with people who came to the shelter to fill out an applicationto adopt a dog, but when I subsequently asked Cheryl about them, she would tell me that“it was not a good home” or that the dog “was already promised to someone.” In almost

every case, months later, the dog was still there.

33. My husband and I witnessed one interaction between Cheryl and a very nice Indianwoman who came to the shelter with her father to adopt a dog. Cheryl misunderstood thelady when she said that she would allow her dog access to the outside, and verballyattacked her for intending to “keep the dog outside all the time,” which was not thewoman’s intent.

34. Both she and her father were mortified at the way they were treated and left in a state of utter shock. I also witnessed Cheryl blatantly dismissing Hispanic applicants as “stupidMexicans” and calling applicants “white trash.”

35. The Animal Friends voicemail was always full, calls were very rarely returned, and e-mail was not routinely answered because the computer was broken.

36. After the new property’s owner, Laura Alderman, learned in mid-May 2011 about AF’sdamage to the property, she insisted that AF immediately take steps to drastically reducethe number of dogs on the property so that time and resources could be spent repairingthe damage. Cheryl, and particularly Paula, promised that they were doing so.

37. In a June 13, 2011, Paula advised Ms. Alderman that a Cocker Spaniel rescueorganization was coming from Austin to San Antonio to adopt a Cocker Spaniel named

“Wilson” from AF. (See e-mail from Ms. Oberle to Ms. Alderman on June 13, 2011,attached as Ex. B-17[a]).

38. By then, Paula was well aware that for more than a month, Cheryl had been resistingreleasing Wilson to the Austin shelter. (See e-mail string between Ms. Oberle and LesleyTurner from May 19 – August 24, 2011, attached as B-17[b]). Paula was not honest withMs. Alderman about the reasons for the delay, telling her instead that it was because therescue volunteer had “hurt her leg,” and was unable to drive. In response, Ms. Aldermanoffered to drive Wilson to Austin herself. In a June 21st e-mail, she repeated her offer.(See e-mail from Ms. Oberle to Ms. Alderman on June 21, 2011, attached as B-17[c]).

39. Despite the rescue volunteer, Lesley Turner’s, offer to take Wilson, months later heremained at AF. Excuses offered for not being able to meet with Ms. Wilson includedthat Cheryl was sick; that there had been a flood at the shelter; that Cheryl lost her phone;and that AF was trying to get a “flea problem” under control. (B-17[b]). Cheryl refused toanswer her cell phone or AF’s phone when Ms. Turner called, and did not respond tomessages left in her voice mailbox. ( Id.) On July 1st, when Ms. Turner called, someoneat the shelter picked up the phone, then hung up. ( Id.)



6

40. At 9:31 a.m. on July 8th, Ms. Oberle admitted to Ms. Turner that, “Cheryl is a littledifficult right now,” adding that she would try to text Cheryl to set up a meeting for Ms.Turner to meet Wilson. ( Id.) Notwithstanding her knowledge regarding Cheryl’sintransigence in releasing the dog, that afternoon, Paula responded to Ms. Alderman’squery regarding whether the Austin shelter had taken Wilson: “[R]emember, I told you

that they were coming to get him. Because something kept coming up and it was takingto long for them to get here, I contacted a person in SA and she is coming this week.”(See e-mail from Ms. Oberle to Ms. Alderman on July 8, 2011, attached as B-17[d]).

41. Ms. Alderman responded with some surprise, reminding Paula that she had offered todrive Wilson to Austin herself. (See e-mail from Ms. Alderman to Ms. Oberle on July 13,2011, attached as B-17[e]).

42. Faced with repeated delays and excuses, on July 12 th, Ms. Turner e-mailed Paula, “Think it would be best for Cheryl to call me when she’s ready.” (B-17[b]).

43. According to AF’s page on petfinder.com, as of September 20, 2011, Wilson remained atAF’s shelter. (See photographs of Wilson downloaded from petfinder.com on September20, 2011, and attached B-17[f][1] and [f][2]).

Failure to Keep Records

44. I never saw any records kept on any of the animals, and AF’s computer never worked,nor did I see Cheryl record anything when she vaccinated an animal. One day I asked herhow she kept up with all the animals’ various vaccinations and monthly medications, andshe replied, “It’s all in my head.”

45. I observed that on many occasions, vials of vaccinations and needles were left out strewnabout. The vaccinations were not kept refrigerated, as was required, and the needles werenot disposed of properly.

Inappropriate Use of Adoption Fees/Donations

46. Cheryl kept all of the cash donations that I saw people give to her in a drawer in heroffice. I observed her use this money on several occasions to pay for personal items likepizza or groceries. She justified this by telling me that AF “paid [her] only a lousy $10an hour for everything that [she did] at the place.”

47. I made numerous donations (food, litter, etc.) and did not receive any receipts ordocumentation.

Conditions Hidden from Public

48. When anyone of “importance” came to the shelter, Cheryl was very good at hiding itsusual state of filth.



7

49. Whenever a board meeting was going to be held there, she would instruct all of theemployees and volunteers to clean for three days. Then, on the day of the meeting, shewould remove half the cages from the main interior space of the building to make it look like fewer animals were there. She would light candles, put in an automatic air freshenerand instruct everyone—volunteers and employees alike—to be at the shelter all that day

in order to keep things cleaned up.

50. The same process was followed before any media came to AF. When anyone whom sheperceived as being able to help her came, she put on a good show, but in private, shedisplayed a completely different personality that was, in my opinion, mean and paranoid.

51. Cheryl appeared to rule the shelter with an iron fist, and it seemed to me that theemployees worked there because they could not find a job anywhere else. They werepaid minimum wage, and most had no shelter or animal handling experience. They werefrequently bitten and scratched by the dogs.

52. Cheryl would routinely use the “F” word in relation to the dogs, volunteers, employeesand people who were trying to adopt. One more than one occasion, I witnessed herhitting dogs with her fist, a broom, or leash.

53. Cheryl would also gossip about any employee, volunteer or even a board member, whenthey were not present. She seemed to thrive on drama and in my opinion, had a severemartyr complex.

New Location

54. Around the time that I finally realized that the conditions at AF would never change until

Cheryl was replaced, Cheryl became concerned that a proposed widening of U.S.Highway 281 would eliminate the shelter.

55. Cheryl told me that she had no formal shelter management training, and she did notemploy any of the programs necessary to run a successful shelter (adoption, volunteers,fundraising, community involvement, etc.). I knew in my heart that anywhere she moved,the shelter would end up in the same state.

56. After property located at 213 W. Borgfeld Road, in San Antonio, Texas, was purchasedto lease to the shelter, Cheryl told me that her plan was to have an “animal sanctuary”—in other words, a place to keep the animals for life. When I pointed out that due to the

new property’s proximity to upscale neighborhoods, AF might have to actually reduceAF’s animal count, she responded that because the new property was “rated commercial,”that “it was the neighborhood’s problem.”

57. I visited the new property right after it was purchased. A yellow house on the propertywas very clean and charming, and it made me sick to think that Cheryl might fill it upwith kennels, and that soon it would be ruined.



8

58. I also saw an older house in the back of the property, and guessed that she would fill thatup with animals as well. The third building on the property, a large metal structure, wasalso very nice, with one side made into a “home” and the rest to be used as storage. Inmy mind, I could already envision the crates of dogs that would be stacked in there.

59. The rest of the property was in “natural” state, and appeared to have been very well caredfor by the previous owners.

Lying About Adoption

60. In March 2008, Cheryl told me that she had found an adoptive home for a dog that I wasfostering, and asked me to return it to the shelter.

61. Two weeks later, when I stopped by the shelter, the dog was in an “x-pen” in the front of the building. Upon seeing me, the dog became distraught and tried to escape the pen andrun to me.

62. I was disgusted and disheartened that Cheryl would allow the dog to be caged at theshelter, and to suffer, just so she could maintain “control” over it and every other animalthere.

63. I left that day and never returned.

______________________________Holley Pridmore



(seal)













n\

f I





(\I00



































































r\

.L





































RE: Borgfeld property

From: Paula O ([email protected])

Sent: Sun 7/17/11 7:36 PM

To: 'Gary Rodriguez' ([email protected]); 'Tracey Green' ([email protected]); 'jeanne

kordus' ([email protected]); 'billie wildenstein' ([email protected]); 'laura

alderman' ([email protected]); Anita J. Anderson ([email protected])

I know everyone hearts are in the right place for the shelter but it does seem to be "too much to soon". I

remember the conversation that Laura, Cheryl and myself had before moving to the property.

"Just because we have more room does not mean more animals." Laura also turned everything over to

Cheryl with no question. Shame on all of us.

The thriftstore I could care less about. So what ever is decided so be it.

The animals are my priority. I now see why so many people get burned out on rescue and give up. And I

some how knew moving out to a bigger property was going to create more responsibilities and just too

much more. We all let Cheryl run things as promised and stepped back to see what would happen. . . .

now, if AF is to survive, we need to step in.

Anita has some good points, and all have been talked about before but that was as far as it got, I would

like to address a few:

First, the warehouse. . . .I hate that those animals are back there, but quite a few of them cannot be kept

anywhere else right now. This is what the escape proof cages are for. Also, each dog is in an appropriate

size cage and can move around comfortably and is walked daily. If you have seen something different let

me know. I am out there every weekend and move them if I feel they are not in an appropriate size cage.

Over crowded, yes, under ventilated, no. The two big doors and fans are always going I don't know how

much better it can get.

Ultimately they need to be in outdoor pens, or better, adopted.

The old cat building. Take a look inside and tell me what you guys think. Its good for storage or mayberabbits but ????? It takes money to do things and fixing it is easier said than done. My husband and I

have tried. That building was done by someone that didn't know what he was doing. Again, a volunteer

and was trying to help. The new cat building will be great, once we get electricity to it. Again, that costs

money because we have to have a certified person do that.

The small dog building was being used for awhile but we had to run electric from the warehouse which I

was not comfortable with. . . then came the water/spring problem which flooded the entire area and

continues to flow. I would love to have electric put in it and some how fix the spring that flows down

that way. I actually wish we could move it. The spring or whatever it is, was nothing that we did or didn't

do but still needs to be addressed.

We don't really need a bathroom to wash dogs. We have a grooming tub outside which is used, though

with the hose, it works. It was intended to use the back bathroom to bathe dogs because it had

wheelchair access which would make it easy to walk a dog right on in. I am not sure why that didn't

happen.

The treatment room, or vet area, is in our 5 year plan but things like that cannot happen overnight. I

wrote a grant to have one of the rooms in the apartment turned into a "clinic" but it was declined. Then

other things came up that were more important that we needed funds for. In a perfect world I would

love to do this. We had one at the old place and it worked well.

There are alot of things in our plan that would be great. . . they just take money.

Page 1 of 9Windows Live Hotmail Print Message

9/18/2011http://co103w.col103.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpids=02d4e41c-b0d6-11e0- ...



p g p p

Escape proofing the outdoor kennels my husband and I have mastered. We came up with the idea of

putting chainlink fence on the ground, securing it to the actual kennel and putting a cattle panel on the

top, securing that as well. We have been doing that since the beginning. The problem is, the chainlink

kennels are not that secure. I have seen with my own eyes, dogs eat right through and/or get out

through a hole no bigger than a softball. Quite amazing actually. Anyway, that is why the galvanized

cages are needed.

The condition of the brown house is unacceptable. That was neglect on John's part and unfortunately

now Cheryl's responsibility to fix. The flood that happened in the apartment, though it may not have

been Cheryl's fault, it should have been reported to us immediately. That is also unacceptable.

I don't know what to do here.

As for adoptions: We do go out to the community and attend events, but we have not done many lately

due to the heat. I am usually the one that does them. And I don't really like to do big animal events

because it is like a needle in a haystack trying to get an adoption. It is better when there are not many

groups, or just us. Trust me, I done enough to see the difference.

Follow up visits. . . again, we use to do them and me or Tracey were the only ones that did them. We also

did the pre-adoption home visits. Just anyone cannot be trusted to do these as it takes experience,

knowledge and training to know what to look for, questions to ask, etc.Vets- they do alot for us at no charge or discounted, you have no idea, and we really can't ask for more.

Well we could but not all vets are willing to help. If anyone would like to try be my guest. Yes, they love

animals but they also love their money. They have bills to pay too.

I will not lower our standards for adoption, I have lowered the price and will do what we can for more

exposure. When you have been doing adoptions as long as I have you learn alot from mistakes. . . I like

to sleep at night, and refuse to think of the dogs as just a number.

If we all can't agree on this, we have a problem.

There is more evil in the world than you can even imagine.

And euthanizing dogs is not an option unless the dog meets the euthanasia criteria of the bylaws.

I agree with Anita that we can make this work, it will just take time. And I think that Laura's deadlines aregood, but we can't expect Cheryl to meet them all - alone.

And, if AF has to move we will have a whole bunch of other issues to address so either way we have

things to address. . . so which is easier.

Thanks for your input Anita.

You can't change the whole world by adopting a dog, but . . .

You can change the whole world or that dog.

--- On Sun, 7/17/11, Anita J. Anderson <[email protected]> wrote:

From: Anita J. Anderson <[email protected]>

Subject: RE: Borgfeld property

To: "'Paula O'" <[email protected]>, "'Gary Rodriguez'" <[email protected]>,

"'Tracey Green'" <[email protected]>, "'jeanne kordus'" <[email protected]>,

"' '" "' '"





p g p p

Date: Sunday, July 17, 2011, 1:04 PM

I know it was with a great deal of pain and discouragement that Laura put a deadlineon repairs and improvements to the property.

This is a serious and sad situation. The organization seems to have downgradedrather than upgraded since moving to Borgfield Rd.

The repairs are not so much about “protecting the value” of Laura’s property, but aboutvaluing it and treating it as the one major material asset the organization has.

The failure to appropriately use the property not just the condition of the propertyshows a profound disregard for it as the organization’s main asset. The property is notbeing utilitzed to its potential and is being treated as if it was something that could beeasily replaced – just move.

This is what depressed, dismayed and appalled me when Laura asked me to be onthe board and I went out there:

Overcrowding:

The pens with the cedar chip floors are beautiful happy places for dogs.BUT

The “back room” of the warehouse is a hell-house prison. It is seriouslyunder-ventilated, over-crowded, and horribly stressful for the animals.

Some of those animals cannot even stand up in the cages. Those dogswould be better off roaming the streets.

Under-use of facilities:

The cat house is not being used because “the floors are not appropriate.”That needs to be figured out and corrected.

The puppy house needs electricity. What will it take to do that … and whatcan we take to work toward it?

There are three bathrooms in the warehouse – none is set up to wash dogs.There should be a “vet” room for treatment.

There’s plenty of room for a free-run facility for play and exercise.

Escape proof pens can be created by putting down fencing material as a





p g p p

floor on the pen extending out a little from the pen area and secured to the uprights,then putting the cedar chips over it.

Fencing. Fund raising for a specific purpose always works better than forgeneral operations. Craig’s list requests for donations of old fencing might help.

Condition of the property:

Flooding and plumbing problems ignored while mildew crawls up the walls isprofound neglect and disrespect.

Feces, urine and broken windows in living spaces are signs of profoundneglect and disrespect.

(There is a substitute for window glass at Lowe’s and Home Depot – it isplastic and significantly if not completely shatterproof. Dogs jumping on windows iswhy they are broken out.)

Mattresses and donated goods sitting around in the open are signs ofprofound disarrary and neglect.

Thrift store:

It is a sign of hoarding to be fearful of letting go of something because it is“still good.”

What is the cost of the thrift store versus the benefit?

Loss of space for the dogs… No place to put the dogs in severe coldweather

Perception by the community of “trashiness” – “flea bit clothes”

DANGER!!! There are no sprinklers and no fire extinguishers in thewarehouse. WHAT ABOUT THE DOGS IN CASE OF A FIRE???

Adoptions –

People need an opportunity to see lots of dogs to see who they can connectwith.

Taking the dogs out to the community rather than waiting for them to find thewebsite and make an appointment,

Training the dogs and training the owners -- but first we need to train sometrainers.





p g p p

Requiring follow up visits

Asking vets for donated time in return for paying referrals. I.e. “This is thepuppy’s vet”

There are lots of ways to make this work…and I know the volunteers wouldbe happy to make it work.

Outreach adoptions would also attract more volunteers.

Cheryl …

I would love to see a continuing place for Cheryl, just not in charge of alloperations and maintenance. It’s too much.

Let’s be grateful to her for her sacrifices and devotion … and help her do

what she knows and loves how to do.

If the direction of Animal Friends cannot be changed, then I would supportLaura in doing a notice to vacate the premises. The organization needs to grow up.

The place to start is with significantly changed adoption practices – then clean up,repairs and upgrades . A lease, set at a real dollar value, but not billed, which specifiesminimum standards of maintenance and conduct of operations as a condition fortermination of the lease, is very much overdue. A recognition of the value to theorganization of the property and a willingness to utilize it to the max is essential to the

success of the organization.

I intend to help as much as I can --- but if this is like herding cats I don’t knowhow long I can last.

Anita Anderson

From: Paula O [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2011 9:46 AMTo: Anita Anderson; Gary Rodriguez; Tracey Green; jeanne kordus; billie wildenstein; lauraaldermanSubject: Re: Borgfeld property





p g p p

The repairs to the property definately must take priority. We do not want to decrease the value

of the property for Laura. And I do think deadlines are good because without them it seems

that things don't get done. I will help more in this area as Gary has done alot to this point on his own.

Two things my husband reminded me of though:

One, wasn't the brown house not suppose to be used anyway. Isn't that what the realtor and

orginal inspector told us? Also, leaving a building vacant does not change your premium, at

least when we sold real estate it didn't. Homes would stay vacant for months and the owner's

premium never changed.

???????

Second: Did the insurance guy tell us that the thrift store is a fire hazard? It has ample exits in

the event of a fire, and it is a steel building. Just a question he posed. If any of those buildings

needs a sprinkler system it would be the yellow and brown houses.

Here is where it is a catch 22. As a landlord Laura needs to be concerned with the property, but

as a board member we need to think about the income it generates. I can go either way on this

one but I do think we need to talk about it at the next meeting.

Adoptions, though I do agree that they need to increase, I personally have been trying to get

them done and it is not as easy as it seems. We did lower the adoption fee, a few months ago. I

made 3 apptmts last weekend and none showed. And some of the people that apply I wouldn'tadopt a hamster to. Being an outdoor facility in this heat I am sure is not helping.

I did talk with Cheryl and Mike about having to concentrate on adoptions after the comedy club

so I think everyone is on the same page with that. And not take anymore in.

One of the responsibilities as board members is to make sure money keeps coming from other

sources. If we are not willing to that we cannot point fingers solely at the lack of adoptions. I am

ust as guilty of slacking in this area as the whole Alice, Lissa thing pushed me to the brink of

insanity and derailed me.

It is so easy to run a business when you have money, and so easy to give up when you don't.Decisions are made easier, moral is up, things are just done better. Quite sad.

The escape proof kennels purpose is to get the dogs out of the warehouse and lessen the work

load. . . thus, freeing up staff to do more constructive things and also to reduce staff expense.

The less work the less staff hours needed.





p g p p

Anyway, enough from me. I will be scheduling a board meeting for after the comedy club and

we all dicuss everything then. With the event nearing, I want to make sure we make as much

money as possible so everything needs to be on track.

You can't change the whole world by adopting a dog, but . . .You can change the whole world or that dog.

--- On Sat, 7/16/11, laura alderman <[email protected]> wrote:

From: laura alderman <[email protected]>

Subject: Borgfeld property

To: "Anita Anderson" <[email protected]>, "Gary Rodriguez"

<[email protected]>, "Tracey Green" <[email protected]>, "Paula

O" <[email protected]>, "jeanne kordus" <[email protected]>, "billiewildenstein" <[email protected]>

Date: Saturday, July 16, 2011, 5:14 AM

I know how hard everyone has worked for the good of the shelter, including theupcoming auction. However, it has been three years since AF first moved tothe Borgfeld property, and we need to take an honest look at where thingsstand. As the property owner, I have a particulary strong interest in doing so.

First, as the insurer advised me, water damage is not covered on rentalproperty. Furthermore, because Cheryl did not inform me as soon as practicableafter the door to the house blew in, the adjustor said that that likely also will not

be covered.

Also, the insurance company does not cover rental property on which there is abusiness. Since I told the adjustor at the time the policy was first written that adog shelter would be using the property, I don't know why it was written in thefirst place. Nevertheless, I will have to obtain other insurance, definitley at ahigher cost. Also, if that back building is not occupied for more than 6o days, Iwill have to pay more for insurance for it. I expect that our current insurer willrevoke the policy any day now.

As far as AF, we are in much worse shape then before we moved there. Some

problems may be attributable to Alice, et al, but the mess in the back building,the apartment, etc, cannot be blamed on her. Furthermore, Cheryl knew thatLisa was trouble, but kept her on, so she bears some responsibility. The lack of money which resulted in Paula putting her own credit on the line predatedAlice, Lisa and Mary, as well as our failure to get a grant from SAAF. Evenwith a SAAF grant, we would be barely solvent. We certainly are in no bettercondition now than three years ago.

The number of dogs taken in has put a strain on the few workers that we canafford to pay, as well as our financial resources. When I agreed to buy the





p g p p

land, I had Cheryl first give me her word that she would not increase thenumber of dogs, as I didn't want the property to be just a larger holding pen formore dogs. She gave me her word, then almost doubled the number of dogs. If we place 5 dogs a month--which is optimistic--it will still take 6 months ormore just to get near the numbers at the old shelter. That is unacceptable.

Furthermore, because of the number, a lot of the dogs are penned in a kennelwithout any socialization at all. The result is that they will become even moredifficult to place.

I also have to be honest--I am no longer comfortable having Cheryl live at--andtherefore be responsible for--the safety and maintainence of the property. Ibelieve that she knew about the water damage, but said nothing. On themorning I first discovered it, there was an unattended candle burning in there--which means she either discovered the damage only hours before I did, or sheknew about it.

After I discovered the damage and mess in the back building, I told Cheryl that

she needed to insure that her brother cleaned it up within one week. Not onlydid Cheryl do nothing, she had not even looked in the building when Paula andI returned almost 10 days later--and even then she refused to go in. Although itmay be a defense mechanism, I cannot have someone responsible for myproperty who chooses to be in denial rather than confront problems.

I feel that I have been generous to allow AF to use the property, and as a resultof the damage, today it is worth thousands of dollars less than what I purchasedit for. On top of that, Paula has had to put her own credit on the line for AF, andhad to take off work to transport dogs since Cheryl doesn't drive.

Unfortunately, I haven't seen any improvement since I first discovered theproblems with AF in early March and, it pains me to say, I am not veryoptimistic about the future.

Therefore, I am putting AF on notice that the following steps must be taken bythe following deadlines:

1. No later than August 15, 2011, the thrift store must be completely emptiedof all items. We have no sprinkler, and I consider it a fire hazard. When I firstdiscovered the property damage, Cheryl was sound asleep in the warehouse,and in addition to the apartment, there was an unattended burning candle in theyellow house, so I cannot rely on her judgment. The board was never informed

originally that AF was going into the thrift store business and, as the landowner,I certainly should have been informed and given approval.

2. The apartment must be completely renovated and back into its originalcondition no later than October 15, 2011.

3. The brown and yellow houses must be completely cleaned, the smell of dogurine and feces must be eliminated and all broken windows on the propertymust repaired no later than Sept 30, 2011.





p g p p

4. We need to find homes for dogs. I offered to drive one of the dogs to Austinto a rescue organization that rescues the breed. My offer still stands. Apparentlywe have a dachshund back on the property now, and there are dachshund rescueorganizations who might take it. Paula, if you know of the organization, give itto me and I will call.

We must reduce the number of dogs by six a month. I am going to do a dogcount first thing tomorrow morning. If we can't adopt out that number, thenperhaps we should reduce the adoption costs. If we can't adopt out six by theend of the month, then we will have to take them to animal control. As I said, Iagreed to let AF use the property on the condition that we have no more thanthe number of dogs at the other place which, I was told, topped out at 80. I havekept my part of the bargain, and AF is going to have to keep its part.

If the deadlines are not met, I will have to ask AF to leave the property.Furthermore, if it does not appear that AF is going to be able to meet thedeadlines, I will not be willing to wait until the deadline is reached before I takeaction.

I am disappointed that it has come to this, but I feel that I have been given nochoice--I cannot wait for something worse to happen to the property or for moredamage to occur.

In the meantime, we need to start making contingency plans for the animals inthe event that AF is evicted (I haven't actually accepted any money from AFand we do not have a lease, so AF is essentially a "guest" on the property andeviction proceedings would not be necessary). The bottom line is I cannot waituntil all of the dogs are placed in order to ask AF to leave, so they will have toeither go to other shelters or be euthanized.

This has been an incredibly hard decision to reach, but I have not seen any realprogress since I discovered the damage--the windows apparently are still notrepaired; the brown house is still a mess; Cheryl has done nothing to obtaineven simple identification, much less a driver's license; etc. I honestly believethat if we continue with the status quo, I will lose substantially more of myinvestment.

In the meantime, AF should probably hold off on buying any more of thoseescape-proof kennels.





p g p p

RE: Head count

From: laura alderman ([email protected])

Sent: Wed 8/17/11 7:48 AM

To: Paula O ([email protected]); Anita Anderson ([email protected]); jeanne kordus

([email protected]); gary rodriguez ([email protected]); billie wildenstein

([email protected]); Tracey Green ([email protected])

Paula,

The number of nearly 150 was based on the fact that Anita counted 140, and she didn't check to see if

there were any in the apartment. A week ago when I was there, there were at four or five in there, so

that would bring the count up to mid-140's.

I still would like an explanation regarding how the dog count could be so off.

According to Gary, the count on Saturday was a total of 141. According to you, the total count the first

week in May was 117. If you

add up all of the adoptions between May and Saturday,

eitherthe May head count was off by more than more than 35 dogs, or dogs have continued to be taken in--

something you and Cheryl have repeatedly assured me is not being done.

Did you personally count the dogs in May or did someone provide you with that information?

Laura

Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2011 06:53:16 -0700

From: [email protected]

Subject: RE: Head count

To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]

You're right, I do own Anita an apology. Sorry, Anita. Though it was not near 150, it was more than the

count I received a few months back.

I want to assure everyone, Cheryl and I have drawn new lines and made it clear that we need to keep the

adoptions moving. We had 10 in the past week and though that meets Laura's 6 per month quota, I want

to keep moving them out.

You can't change the whole world by adopting a dog, but . . .

You can change the whole world or that dog.

--- On Mon, 8/15/11, laura alderman <[email protected]> wrote:

From: laura alderman <[email protected]>

Subject: RE: Head count

To: "Paula O" <[email protected]>, "Anita Anderson" <[email protected]>,

"jeanne kordus" <[email protected]>, [email protected], "billie wildenstein"


9/18/2011http://co103w.col103.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpids=c3201e17-9633-49a7-...



p g p p

<[email protected]>, "Tracey Green" <[email protected]>

Date: Monday, August 15, 2011, 7:11 PM

Can someone please explain how Cheryl does not know how many dogs she owns?

On May 9th, it was 11. A few days ago, it was 15.

Now it is 13. I challenge any board member to find any respected member of the community who doesn't

know how many dogs they own.

Oh, and some of you may owe Anita an apology. Apparently, she can count after all.

Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2011 14:40:59 -0700

From: [email protected]

Subject: Re: Head count

To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];[email protected]

note: A few of the 128 have been adopted but not picked up yet.


--- On Mon, 8/15/11, Gerard Rodriguez <[email protected]> wrote:

From: Gerard Rodriguez <[email protected]>

Subject: Head count

To: [email protected], "Anita J. Anderson" <[email protected]>,

[email protected], [email protected]

Date: Monday, August 15, 2011, 10:34 AM

Paula and I counted all of the dogs yesterday and here's the tally:142- Total dogs13- Cheryl's128 Dogs up for adoption

gary


9/18/2011http://co103w.col103.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpids=c3201e17-9633-49a7-...



p g p p

ANIMAL FRIENDS PHONE

From: Anita J. Anderson ([email protected])

Sent: Tue 8/16/11 4:42 PM

To: [email protected]; 'Tracey Green' ([email protected]); 'Gary

Rodriguez' ([email protected]); 'jeanne kordus' ([email protected]); 'billie

wildenstein' ([email protected])

Cc: 'laura alderman' ([email protected])

I have been trying to call out to Animal Friends all day to tell Cheryl that Laura was going to send a contractor named Tony out tomorrow morning to make estimates on repairs. The mail box is full. I called from 12 to 6p. At 4p someone picked up but was told to hang up by someone in the back ground.

Anita


9/18/2011http://co103w.col103.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpids=9777b53d-c850-11e0- ...



p g p p

Animal Shelter

From: [email protected] ([email protected])

Sent: Wed 8/10/11 5:58 PM

To: laura alderman ([email protected])

Dear Aunt Laura,

I'm not sure what's going on but I've called the Animal Friends shelter several times in the last few days

(Sunday afternoon, Tuesday afternoon). I've left messages including my name, phone number and

intention to make an appointment and adopt a dog this week, but I've not received a call back.

Not only that I have a friend who called and left a message because she is interested in one specific dog

to adopt.

I'm baffled because I was under the impression the shelter is not only full (as stated on the answering

machine) but that Animal Friends was eagerly trying to place all their dogs as quickly as possible. I've

personally send out 200+ messages to friends and family urging them to adopt. I have multiple friendswho have placed Animal Friends information on their Facebook page. Three people have sought me out

to get more information, but if the shelter isn't returning phone calls, and its by appointment only (also

clearly stated on the machine) how is ANYONE supposed to adopt a pet?

I'm very concerned. Can you get back to me on this? Thanks, love you.

-Erin


9/18/2011http://co103w.col103.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpids=3a97e1d0-c3a4-11e0-...



p g p p

(No Subject)

From: Paula O ([email protected])

Sent: Fri 7/08/11 3:57 PM

To: Laura Alderman ([email protected])

On the cocker, remember I told you that they were coming to get him. Because something kept comingup and it was taking too long for them to get here I contacted a person here in SA and she is coming

this week. But, again, they have to eval him first.

As far as the ADL. . . what a mess. I took a day off work to take some dogs over there, because their

schedule and ours did not coordinate, and the night before they called me to let me know who I was

bringing. So I called, left a message and gave them a for sure one and some others that we may send.

The next morning I got a message that they could not take any dogs that looked like they had pitbull in

them or were not adoptable. - Well hell, that's what we need help with. - The mgr over there is very

rude too. The message then continued naming some dogs they could possibly take, all small and

medium. At that point I was at the end of my rope dealing with them and told them no thank you. I

needed to re-group.

The small dogs are the only ones we are able to adopt right now and that is our only source of income.Of course they want them and not the hard to place dogs, that would make their numbers look bad.

Anyway, the shelter person called me back and left a message stating that they could take larger dogs

but only if they were adoptable. What the hell does that mean? So leave us with the dogs WE cannot

place even longer AND have no income from adoptions because the ADL took all of our adoptable dogs.

No thank you. Not feeling warm fuzzies for them right now.

They are all about numbers over there and that was one reason why I never volunteered over there or

helped them before coming to AF. Half the dogs they adopt out end up by us or ad ACS because they

don't screen people well enough.

Anyway, 2 of the dogs I wanted to sent over there were adopted over the weekend and two more have

visits set up this weekend, so I began to think. . . .Maybe I should just concentrate and help Cheryl to get

on adoptions so we don't have to send any animals out. (as that is money in our acct) I will still work with

any rescue groups but as far as the ADL or Humane Society, no thanks.We can talk about it as a board if you feel differently. I am just so fed up with them with all the Alice crap

and then taking off work for them and last minute stuff. We can re-visit the idea after the comedy club

but I really don't want to add anything more to our plates before.

Anyway, done ranting. . . . .I will talk to you soon.



9/18/2011http://co103w.col103.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpids=ec110056-a9a4-11e0- ...



p g p p







Page 1 of 6Untitled Document

9/25/2011http://www.illyria.com/cheryl.htm



p y y





p y yPage 3 of 6Untitled Document




p y y





p y y





p y yPage 6 of 6Untitled Document

Documents

Animal Friends Humane Society Complaint, Affidavits and Exhibits