Around this time, suspicions began to arise around a well-known rescue group operating in Contra Costa (encompassing Antioch) and Alameda counties. Julie talked with a number of veterinarians and/or their employees, whose stories followed the same pattern: that certain members of this group, believing that "any pet owner that allows their cat to have outdoor access, doesn't deserve to own a cat," would "rescue" these cats and refuse to return them to their rightful owners. According to Julie, the Antioch Animal Shelter employees echoed this refrain, that members of this group had "caused problems for the shelter, shelter officers, and staff members."

PeeWee Missing since 12/24/00

She says, "The stories I heard all had a familiar ring to them, each incident involved a member of [this group] either trapping, capturing, or stealing a neighbor's cat or multiple neighborhood cats. In several instances, they asked the shelter or the veterinarian to euthanize or dispose of the animals, stating that the animals were feral, or that they were abandoned or homeless cats that were ill. When the shelter or vets inspected the cats, they usually concluded that none of the above was true and that many of the animals brought to them were tame and most likely belonged to someone, and therefore refused to accept the animal. It should be noted that in Antioch an ordinance states that anyone who finds a stray, homeless, or abandoned animal" is required to report the same to the Antioch Animal Shelter. The shelter will only demand that finder relinquish the animal if the owner has been found. Atkinson believes that certain members of the organization in question rarely comply with the law, including those laws governing how many pets can be living in one household, as members of this group consistently hold anywhere from 35 - 50 adult cats in one single dwelling home, keeping in mind that the human family lives there as well.

Armed with this information, Atkinson began to investigate the organization in question. She visited member foster homes, under the guise of someone looking for a cat to adopt. She also spoke with former members of the organization, and others who have had direct dealings with this group. Through these contacts, Julie discovered several facts and conclusions:

• A [group] foster home located in Antioch (which fostered 35 cats) was under investigation of several violations of State Health and Welfare Regulations and codes. However, no citations had been issued for numerous violations of the Animal Welfare and Protection Act.
• Former members of this group have stated that there is a good possibility that quite a few cats listed in [Atkinson's] database could most definitely be in the possession of a [group] member or foster home.
• Many of the [group's] foster homes do not participate in the organization's adoption program.

The latter bit of information led Julie to infer that possibly, the foster homes in question could be "animal collectors" operating under the guise of rescuers, using the organization as a "protective umbrella for their obsessive activity."

Julie next contacted the president of the organization in question, tactfully suggesting that perhaps (cat-hating) neighbors had trapped cats and delivered them to the group's local foster homes, representing them as feral or stray cats. The president rejected the hypothosis, stating that the group "did not have any members in [the] area, and also refused to provide the names and locations of [the group's] foster homes.

The president also rejected a proposal to post photos of the [group's] rescued cats in a public forum (while withholding the location of the foster homes) so that owners of missing cats might have an avenue for the possible identification and return of the cats to their rightful homes. The proposal included a clause for the reimbursement of the group's spay/neuter costs, where appropriate.

Atkinson's ongoing investigation revealed that the rescue organization had failed to file required reports to the state's Attorney General's Office of Charitable Trusts for the previous four to five years. Ordinarily, failure to file would result in punitive actions, including revocation of an organization's non-profit status. Atkinson found out that after she requested their records from the Office of Charitable Trusts the state did suspend their non profit status. Their status remains suspended to this day however, they still continue to operate within the county, according to Atkinson.

In May of 2000, Atkinson wrote a letter to Bill Lockyer, California State Attorney General, requesting an investigation of these allegations. Atkinson says, "I did receive a response to a formal complaint I submitted to the Attorney General's Office and their response was this; Basically they do not investigate non profit organizations unless there is reason to believe that the organization is misappropriating their funds. In other words, it doesn't matter how they get their money as long as they spend it correctly. If this group adopts out a cat that was already spayed or neutered when it came into their possession, they still charge their regular adoption fee which is set to cover the cost of spay and neutering these so-called homeless and abandoned cats, suggesting that a small profit can be made on many of these cats. Also, they continue to accept donations, one of which consisted of nearly $35,000.00 which should be considered taxable because they no longer have non profit status, in fact any donations they have received since April 9th, 2001, should be considered taxable, and this means taxable to both parties, the giver and the receiver."

Impasse on Local Front
Meanwhile, Julie's efforts on the local front have met with avoidance and rejection. Indeed, she has apparently managed, through her heartfelt efforts on behalf of her and the community's cats, to alienate not only the Antioch Police Department, but most of the City Council members. The police department, understaffed and overburdened with "real crimes" has dismissed the missing cats as victims of automobiles or coyotes, despite the lack of any confirming evidence of these assumptions, according to Atkinson.

This was a letter to Julie Atkinson in response to an invitation to join a conference call with Capt. Machado, an expert on "cat collectors," and was received after the conference call took place. Another response to the invitation was even less cordial, saying in part:

Dear Ms. Atkinson:
"Let me begin this correspondence by telling you how much I detest the implied 'threat' that if this Council does not do something about your request that we will suffer politically from the '...votes of pet owners.' -- "I would strongly suggest that you apologize for your implied 'threat' to all of the Councilmembers. It was completely out of line."

(he goes on to explain why he won't be able to attend the conference call and suggests that "Possibly, repeat possibly," a meeting could be set up to discuss the matter.)

No such meeting ever took place.

Note: the "implied threat" was this closing statement in Atkinson's invitation:

"I do hope that each of you will do your best to attend this conference call. Remember, there is one group of voters that will always represent the largest majority in any population, and these are the votes from pet owners."