02/11/UPDATE: DOG IS RESCUED, 7-YEAR OLD SMILING 7-year old crying over dog

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

torpid

Lifer
Sep 14, 2003
11,631
11
76
I *may* have done the exact same thing the lawyer did up until a point. The laywer did not "steal" the dog [initially anyway]. He found it after it escaped due to probably irresponsible caretakers not keeping a proper eye on the dog. Would I have flown it home with me? Not sure, but maybe. If I weren't so busy that I couldn't, I probably would have found a no kill shelter that seemed responsible instead.

The point where the wrong action begins is in how he dealt with things once he got back to chicago.
 

AmericasTeam

Golden Member
Feb 4, 2003
1,132
0
0
Originally posted by: KK
Why are retards posting links to a site that have you register or login. I don't have a problem with linking the sites, but please for the love of god, cut and paste the fvckin story for people that don't want to log in/register.


I didn't have register or login. :confused:
 

DT4K

Diamond Member
Jan 21, 2002
6,944
3
81
Originally posted by: ghostmanThe original owner owes him for taking care of the dog. If I was the owner, I wouldn't have filed a police report until contact was made. And once contact is made, I'd offer to pay for his troubles. If I had already filed a police report, I'd apologize, drop the issue and again pay for his troubles. I wouldn't file a police report and demand the dog gets returned... or else! Now, both parties are too arrogant to back down.

The article set out to influence your opinion from the start; this story has nothing to do with the man's profession or a 7 year old boy. But it's a lot easier to talk about good and bad by playing on social stigmas than to write an unbiased news piece. The sad part is, most people bite, hook, line and sinker. Everybody loves a witch hunt.

You have got to be fvcking kidding. Some guy finds your dog and takes it home with him a thousand miles away, without even contacting the local pound to let them know he has it in case someone comes looking for it, and you are going to "offer to pay for his troubles"?

The only thing the owner owes this guy is a good beating.
 

KK

Lifer
Jan 2, 2001
15,903
4
81
Originally posted by: AmericasTeam
Originally posted by: KK
Why are retards posting links to a site that have you register or login. I don't have a problem with linking the sites, but please for the love of god, cut and paste the fvckin story for people that don't want to log in/register.


I didn't have register or login. :confused:

The main one you didn't but the reply ones you did.

Anyways, its good the dogs back were it belongs, but I have to question if there is more to the story than what is being written. Did the father say something/threaten the lawyer first?
 

isasir

Diamond Member
Aug 8, 2000
8,609
0
0
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: dman
Originally posted by: Amused
The Lawyer's email address:

foley@felahfd.com

Dog was returned, but because the OP didn't update nobody will notice that very shortly.

I know. But he still deserves hate mail for keeping the dog for 40+ days.

I'm actually a little surprised that you would jump on the hate mail bandwagon, especially since I've seen you post numerous times in threads about news items that the article only presents one side of the story. This article clearly was biased, as well as the follow-up article ("Funny, like a clown" - what is this, Goodfellas?) and while it's good to see a happy ending, I'm guessing there's a lot this story left out.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
56,515
16,236
146
Originally posted by: isasir
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: dman
Originally posted by: Amused
The Lawyer's email address:

foley@felahfd.com

Dog was returned, but because the OP didn't update nobody will notice that very shortly.

I know. But he still deserves hate mail for keeping the dog for 40+ days.

I'm actually a little surprised that you would jump on the hate mail bandwagon, especially since I've seen you post numerous times in threads about news items that the article only presents one side of the story. This article clearly was biased, as well as the follow-up article ("Funny, like a clown" - what is this, Goodfellas?) and while it's good to see a happy ending, I'm guessing there's a lot this story left out.

It's pretty hard to be "one sided" about factual quotes. From the factual quotes of both him, and his partners/bosses it's obvious he was being a prick.

 

Zysoclaplem

Diamond Member
Sep 26, 2003
8,799
0
0
Originally posted by: DT4K
Originally posted by: ghostmanThe original owner owes him for taking care of the dog. If I was the owner, I wouldn't have filed a police report until contact was made. And once contact is made, I'd offer to pay for his troubles. If I had already filed a police report, I'd apologize, drop the issue and again pay for his troubles. I wouldn't file a police report and demand the dog gets returned... or else! Now, both parties are too arrogant to back down.

The article set out to influence your opinion from the start; this story has nothing to do with the man's profession or a 7 year old boy. But it's a lot easier to talk about good and bad by playing on social stigmas than to write an unbiased news piece. The sad part is, most people bite, hook, line and sinker. Everybody loves a witch hunt.

You have got to be fvcking kidding. Some guy finds your dog and takes it home with him a thousand miles away, without even contacting the local pound to let them know he has it in case someone comes looking for it, and you are going to "offer to pay for his troubles"?

The only thing the owner owes this guy is a good beating.

The tag said Alaska. He contacted them. He said he feared the dog would be euthanized had he left it at the pound. The author gives no time frame between him calling the vet in Alaska, and when the owners finally contacted him. Who knows how long that was.
So he takes the dog with him, gets his shots (why would he need his shots if the owners had taken care of their dog?) and brings the dog with him. Sounds like the guy is a better owner than the original ones, but that is beside the point.
And what kind of man would want to take a dog back from a nun and disable children?
If the owners want the dog back, they should reimburse the man for taking care of the animals shots.
Personally I think the dog is much better off with the lawyer.
Next time don't leave a dog you care so much about with an incompetent neighbor.


 

classy

Lifer
Oct 12, 1999
15,219
1
81
I sent them this email. This is a flatout disgrace. :|



How can you accept, excuse, or tolerate the behavior of your attorney James Foley? A successful law firm such as this one, is suppose to help people. A person who has reached such a tremendous amount of success of becoming a lawyer like Mr. Foley, should inspire him to set an example for young children. And to read his comments of the father who is trying to retrieve a family pet, who is a member of that family, is a travesty. This story has now caught wind on the internet and I believe unless you have Mr. Foley return that dog, free of charge, the negative publicity will eventually result in the loss of financial gain. There is no excuse for his behavior. Does his actions reflect the character of the entire law firm?
 

NightCrawler

Diamond Member
Oct 15, 2003
3,179
0
0
Readers ring up a happy ending for dog story


Published February 10, 2005


Michael Korzeniewski's cell phone rang in Cape Coral, Fla., on Wednesday evening. Too bad the call came 40 days late.

It was from the alleged dognapper, Chicago lawyer James Foley, who found Ariel the dog while on vacation in Florida, took her home to Chicago and refused to send Ariel back to her master, Korzeniewski's 7-year-old son, Miles.

Foley had stalled for more than a month, saying he couldn't give the dog back because the family couldn't prove ownership and because he'd already given it to some mystery nun Foley refused to name.

That mystery nun finally figured right from wrong because Foley was on the phone telling Korzeniewski that the dog was coming home.

"I can't believe it," Korzeniewski told me, shortly before Ariel was brought into the baggage area at the Ft. Myers Airport and let out of the crate to jump up happily on her boy and his family.

"He said he was bringing the dog tonight," Korzeniewski said. "Your readers must have really put some pressure on his law firm."

How was your conversation?

"It was short. He asked me how I was and I said fine. I asked him how he was and he said, `Not so good,' and I said, `Well, I figured.'

"He said he'd be in the airport with the dog. That was it. Then he hung up."

I asked how his son had received the news.

"He's so excited," Korzeniewski said. "This will be way past his bedtime, but we're taking him to the airport. You should see him right now. He's running around as if his pants are on fire. He wouldn't miss this."

Korzeniewski said he didn't want the readers of this column to miss it either. He wanted you to see the reunion in the photograph running on Page 1 of today's newspaper.

That's only fair, since you're the ones who called Foley's law firm--Hoey & Farina--in such numbers that you swamped the office phones and panicked the secretaries and apparently blew out the computer server with angry anti-lawyer e-mails.

What bothered me and most readers is that weeks ago, after Foley knew the dog had a boy in Florida, he didn't return her. He continued to stall even after the Florida family wrote an angry letter to his law firm and called the police.

Foley told me that he and the other lawyers at the firm were amused by the letter from Miles' parents and said the lawyers "laughed at it."

That incensed you readers. Laughing at a boy and his family over a hostage dog might be funny to some people, but not to a 7-year-old boy, and not to the thousands of readers who called or e-mailed the law firm Wednesday.

So I called the boss of the firm, James Farina, and asked him whether the letter was indeed, funny, like a clown.

"I didn't laugh," he said. "There was no laughter at that letter. Nobody laughed."

I didn't have to mention that the firm received the letter weeks ago, yet no immediate action was taken to send the dog back home. So I asked if there was any news.

"Well, there is some good news to report," Farina said.

What good news?

"I had a discussion with Mr. Foley this morning," he said.

And what did you discuss?

"We talked about the dog," Farina said.

And what did you say about the dog?

"I told him to do the right thing," Farina said. "And I told him he should do the right thing immediately, if you get my meaning."

And what is the "right thing," exactly?

"The right thing was for him to personally bring that dog to that family," Farina said. "I mean personally. And I mean immediately. It will be done by today. I guarantee it. It shouldn't have gone this far. And now it's over."

No, it shouldn't have gone this far. But it did. And Farina helped end it, so he deserves some credit for that.

Still, the mystery-nun angle bothers me--since I don't believe in mystery nuns.

"As far as I know, the nun exists," Farina said.

What's her name? Where is she?

"[Foley] didn't tell me," Farina said. "He says the nun exists. The main thing is that the dog will be home in a few hours."

Korzeniewski and his wife, Stefanie, called late Wednesday. They were on their way home from the airport, with Ariel.

"Miles is really, really happy," Stefanie said. "She jumped up, he hugged her. He insists that Ariel will sleep with him. There are little tears in his eyes, he's so happy."

I could hear Miles and Ariel talking to each other in the background, but I didn't want to interrupt them.

"Miles is so impressed," his mother said. "He now realizes that there are good people in the world. And he kept saying to his dad, `Dad, you're the best dad in the world.'"

What did Lawyer Foley say?

"Nothing," she said. "Because he wasn't there. But the dog was there. And Miles was there. And we were there."

jskass@tribune.com
 

classy

Lifer
Oct 12, 1999
15,219
1
81
LOL I didn't read the thread. The dog was returned, hehehehehehe. Oh well, I got in my hate mail for the day anyway :)
 

Zysoclaplem

Diamond Member
Sep 26, 2003
8,799
0
0
Originally posted by: classy
I sent them this email. This is a flatout disgrace. :|



How can you accept, excuse, or tolerate the behavior of your attorney James Foley? A successful law firm such as this one, is suppose to help people. A person who has reached such a tremendous amount of success of becoming a lawyer like Mr. Foley, should inspire him to set an example for young children. And to read his comments of the father who is trying to retrieve a family pet, who is a member of that family, is a travesty. This story has now caught wind on the internet and I believe unless you have Mr. Foley return that dog, free of charge, the negative publicity will eventually result in the loss of financial gain. There is no excuse for his behavior. Does his actions reflect the character of the entire law firm?

If you believe everything in that story, I've got a bridge I would like to sell you. I'm willing to part with it real cheap.
 

DT4K

Diamond Member
Jan 21, 2002
6,944
3
81
Originally posted by: Zysoclaplem
Originally posted by: DT4K
Originally posted by: ghostmanThe original owner owes him for taking care of the dog. If I was the owner, I wouldn't have filed a police report until contact was made. And once contact is made, I'd offer to pay for his troubles. If I had already filed a police report, I'd apologize, drop the issue and again pay for his troubles. I wouldn't file a police report and demand the dog gets returned... or else! Now, both parties are too arrogant to back down.

The article set out to influence your opinion from the start; this story has nothing to do with the man's profession or a 7 year old boy. But it's a lot easier to talk about good and bad by playing on social stigmas than to write an unbiased news piece. The sad part is, most people bite, hook, line and sinker. Everybody loves a witch hunt.

You have got to be fvcking kidding. Some guy finds your dog and takes it home with him a thousand miles away, without even contacting the local pound to let them know he has it in case someone comes looking for it, and you are going to "offer to pay for his troubles"?

The only thing the owner owes this guy is a good beating.

The tag said Alaska. He contacted them. He said he feared the dog would be euthanized had he left it at the pound. The author gives no time frame between him calling the vet in Alaska, and when the owners finally contacted him. Who knows how long that was.
So he takes the dog with him, gets his shots (why would he need his shots if the owners had taken care of their dog?) and brings the dog with him. Sounds like the guy is a better owner than the original ones, but that is beside the point.
And what kind of man would want to take a dog back from a nun and disable children?
If the owners want the dog back, they should reimburse the man for taking care of the animals shots.
Personally I think the dog is much better off with the lawyer.
Next time don't leave a dog you care so much about with an incompetent neighbor.

Is there any reason to believe this nun exists?
No.
Is there any evidence that the guy actually got the dog shots?
No.
Why didn't he give the dog to a nun in Florida?
Why didn't he call the local shelter and ask them if there were any reports of a lost dog?

You are assuming things that you have no evidence of. I am only assuming things that everyone involved agrees is true. The guy took the dog to another state and refused to give it back.

I seriously don't understand how some of you can not understand this. It's really not complicated. You don't take a dog that doesn't belong with you home to another state and refuse to return it. None of the other details make any difference.
 

DT4K

Diamond Member
Jan 21, 2002
6,944
3
81
Originally posted by: ZysoclaplemIf you believe everything in that story, I've got a bridge I would like to sell you. I'm willing to part with it real cheap.

The only part you need to believe is the part that the lawyer fully admitted to.
 

Zysoclaplem

Diamond Member
Sep 26, 2003
8,799
0
0
Originally posted by: DT4K
Originally posted by: Zysoclaplem
Originally posted by: DT4K
Originally posted by: ghostmanThe original owner owes him for taking care of the dog. If I was the owner, I wouldn't have filed a police report until contact was made. And once contact is made, I'd offer to pay for his troubles. If I had already filed a police report, I'd apologize, drop the issue and again pay for his troubles. I wouldn't file a police report and demand the dog gets returned... or else! Now, both parties are too arrogant to back down.

The article set out to influence your opinion from the start; this story has nothing to do with the man's profession or a 7 year old boy. But it's a lot easier to talk about good and bad by playing on social stigmas than to write an unbiased news piece. The sad part is, most people bite, hook, line and sinker. Everybody loves a witch hunt.

You have got to be fvcking kidding. Some guy finds your dog and takes it home with him a thousand miles away, without even contacting the local pound to let them know he has it in case someone comes looking for it, and you are going to "offer to pay for his troubles"?

The only thing the owner owes this guy is a good beating.

The tag said Alaska. He contacted them. He said he feared the dog would be euthanized had he left it at the pound. The author gives no time frame between him calling the vet in Alaska, and when the owners finally contacted him. Who knows how long that was.
So he takes the dog with him, gets his shots (why would he need his shots if the owners had taken care of their dog?) and brings the dog with him. Sounds like the guy is a better owner than the original ones, but that is beside the point.
And what kind of man would want to take a dog back from a nun and disable children?
If the owners want the dog back, they should reimburse the man for taking care of the animals shots.
Personally I think the dog is much better off with the lawyer.
Next time don't leave a dog you care so much about with an incompetent neighbor.

Is there any reason to believe this nun exists?
No.
Is there any evidence that the guy actually got the dog shots?
No.
Why didn't he give the dog to a nun in Florida?
Why didn't he call the local shelter and ask them if there were any reports of a lost dog?

You are assuming things that you have no evidence of. I am only assuming things that everyone involved agrees is true. The guy took the dog to another state and refused to give it back.

I seriously don't understand how some of you can not understand this. It's really not complicated. You don't take a dog that doesn't belong with you home to another state and refuse to return it. None of the other details make any difference.

You are also assuming things you have no evidence of.
How do you know he didn't get the dog the shots?
How do you know he didn't give the dog to a nun who works with disabled children?
How do you know he didn't call the shelter?
May'be he personally knew the nun, or had a friend that worked there.
The fact is, you are eating up this guys story just like he wants you to.
This story is obviously very biased and opinionated.

All you know is what this author wants you to know.

For all you know this author is a friend of their family, or had a bad run in with the lawyer's company.
You don't know.
There are two sides to every story.
 

classy

Lifer
Oct 12, 1999
15,219
1
81
Originally posted by: Zysoclaplem
Originally posted by: classy
I sent them this email. This is a flatout disgrace. :|



How can you accept, excuse, or tolerate the behavior of your attorney James Foley? A successful law firm such as this one, is suppose to help people. A person who has reached such a tremendous amount of success of becoming a lawyer like Mr. Foley, should inspire him to set an example for young children. And to read his comments of the father who is trying to retrieve a family pet, who is a member of that family, is a travesty. This story has now caught wind on the internet and I believe unless you have Mr. Foley return that dog, free of charge, the negative publicity will eventually result in the loss of financial gain. There is no excuse for his behavior. Does his actions reflect the character of the entire law firm?

If you believe everything in that story, I've got a bridge I would like to sell you. I'm willing to part with it real cheap.

Can I buy it after you jump off of it? :p
 

Zysoclaplem

Diamond Member
Sep 26, 2003
8,799
0
0
Originally posted by: classy
Originally posted by: Zysoclaplem
Originally posted by: classy
I sent them this email. This is a flatout disgrace. :|



How can you accept, excuse, or tolerate the behavior of your attorney James Foley? A successful law firm such as this one, is suppose to help people. A person who has reached such a tremendous amount of success of becoming a lawyer like Mr. Foley, should inspire him to set an example for young children. And to read his comments of the father who is trying to retrieve a family pet, who is a member of that family, is a travesty. This story has now caught wind on the internet and I believe unless you have Mr. Foley return that dog, free of charge, the negative publicity will eventually result in the loss of financial gain. There is no excuse for his behavior. Does his actions reflect the character of the entire law firm?

If you believe everything in that story, I've got a bridge I would like to sell you. I'm willing to part with it real cheap.

Can I buy it after you jump off of it? :p

Oh come on, you could have come up with something better than that. :p
 

DT4K

Diamond Member
Jan 21, 2002
6,944
3
81
Originally posted by: ZysoclaplemYou are also assuming things you have no evidence of.
How do you know he didn't get the dog the shots?
I don't and I never made that claim

How do you know he didn't give the dog to a nun who works with disabled children?
I don't and I never made that claim

How do you know he didn't call the shelter?
I don't know, but I can make an educated guess that they would have told him to bring the dog in and NOT take it back to chicago.

May'be he personally knew the nun, or had a friend that worked there.
Maybe, so what

The fact is, you are eating up this guys story just like he wants you to.
This story is obviously very biased and opinionated.
It doesn't matter if the story is biased. As I said, the only thing I'm basing my opinion on are the facts that everyone agrees on. It wasn't his dog, he took it to Chicago, he didn't want to give it back. Unless you can contradict one of those facts, none of the other details make any difference.

All you know is what this author wants you to know.
See above.

For all you know this author is a friend of their family, or had a bad run in with the lawyer's company.
Again, this is irrelevant.

You don't know.
There are two sides to every story.
And yet again, I'm only basing my opinion on those facts that both sides of the story agree with. I'll repeat it once more just for fun: It wasn't his dog, he took it to Chicago, he didn't want to give it back.

 

Zysoclaplem

Diamond Member
Sep 26, 2003
8,799
0
0
Originally posted by: DT4K
Originally posted by: ZysoclaplemYou are also assuming things you have no evidence of.
How do you know he didn't get the dog the shots?
I don't and I never made that claim

How do you know he didn't give the dog to a nun who works with disabled children?
I don't and I never made that claim

How do you know he didn't call the shelter?
I don't know, but I can make an educated guess that they would have told him to bring the dog in and NOT take it back to chicago.

May'be he personally knew the nun, or had a friend that worked there.
Maybe, so what

The fact is, you are eating up this guys story just like he wants you to.
This story is obviously very biased and opinionated.
It doesn't matter if the story is biased. As I said, the only thing I'm basing my opinion on are the facts that everyone agrees on. It wasn't his dog, he took it to Chicago, he didn't want to give it back. Unless you can contradict one of those facts, none of the other details make any difference.

All you know is what this author wants you to know.
See above.

For all you know this author is a friend of their family, or had a bad run in with the lawyer's company.
Again, this is irrelevant.

You don't know.
There are two sides to every story.
And yet again, I'm only basing my opinion on those facts that both sides of the story agree with. I'll repeat it once more just for fun: It wasn't his dog, he took it to Chicago, he didn't want to give it back.


Hey if you think this guy needs a good beating, but aren't willing to listen to the reasons he did what he did, much less open your mind to the fact that the author is being biased and trying to sway your opinion, that's fine. Who needs details anyway. They are so overrated. Just stick to your three parts of the story. They may be important parts of the story, but they aren't the whole story.

 

TravisT

Golden Member
Sep 6, 2002
1,427
0
0
I think some of you guys that say that the lawyer did nothing wrong is missing the point here. There was nothing wrong with the lawyer taking care of the dog. There was nothing wrong with him taking him back to Chicago after not recieving a response. The problem begins when the kid and his father want their dog back and the lawyer ignores them and makes efforts to keep the dog.

Granted, the man wanting his dog back should pay for the expense to get him back, pay for all the fees that have been associated with losing the dog. But at that point it should be up to them whether they want to pay that or leave the dog with the lawyer, and by the sound of it, they just want it back.

This is like you finding my belongings that I lost on the side of the street, taking it home and not wanting to give it back. There is something morally wrong with that. And by the sound of it, this lawyer has none.

Is stealing only considered stealing if it is taken off of your property?
 

Dead3ye

Platinum Member
Sep 21, 2000
2,917
1
81
Here's why the lawyer's story is bogus. Why would he pay to have a vet give the dog shots? He already knew that the original vet was in Alaska. Not to hard to get the dog's medical info and probably the owner's name. It really would not have been that hard to find the rightful owner. I mean look at the information we can dig on up somone in FS/FT. If he didn't want to wait to contact the owner himself, leave it at the shelter and give them the information he had.

And even if he would have taken the dog to a shelter in FL, the dog would not have been killed that day. The article even said that there was someone from the family that had the dog looking in the shelters.

C'mon, this guys story stinks to high heaven. He might have paid extra to fly it back to Chicago, but I'm betting that's it.
 

torpid

Lifer
Sep 14, 2003
11,631
11
76
I think those of us who are partially defending the laywer, up to a certain point, are just responding to the people in this thread who unequivocably insult him and say everything he did was wrong. He obviously initially had good intentions. At some point he turned back into your average selfish and arrogant jerk, and that is where he started going really wrong.

I can conceive of situations where I would also have taken the dog back with me.
 

Zysoclaplem

Diamond Member
Sep 26, 2003
8,799
0
0
Originally posted by: Dead3ye
Here's why the lawyer's story is bogus. Why would he pay to have a vet give the dog shots? He already knew that the original vet was in Alaska. Not to hard to get the dog's medical info and probably the owner's name. It really would not have been that hard to find the rightful owner. I mean look at the information we can dig on up somone in FS/FT. If he didn't want to wait to contact the owner himself, leave it at the shelter and give them the information he had.

And even if he would have taken the dog to a shelter in FL, the dog would not have been killed that day. The article even said that there was someone from the family that had the dog looking in the shelters.

C'mon, this guys story stinks to high heaven. He might have paid extra to fly it back to Chicago, but I'm betting that's it.

The lawyer called the vet in Alaska. The author gives no time frame for a call back from the family to the lawyer. Why?
Seems to me the lawyer felt that the dog was abandoned, and was not going to let it die, knowing he had to go to Chicago soon. And he waited and no one called back. So he took him with him. He left his info with the vet in Alaska. That's how the family got the phone number. That's how they found him.

Personally, I would be scared that the dog was abandoned, and would not take it to the shelter in fear that they might euthanized it. He was doing the right thing for the dog.
 

TravisT

Golden Member
Sep 6, 2002
1,427
0
0
Originally posted by: Zysoclaplem
Originally posted by: Dead3ye
Here's why the lawyer's story is bogus. Why would he pay to have a vet give the dog shots? He already knew that the original vet was in Alaska. Not to hard to get the dog's medical info and probably the owner's name. It really would not have been that hard to find the rightful owner. I mean look at the information we can dig on up somone in FS/FT. If he didn't want to wait to contact the owner himself, leave it at the shelter and give them the information he had.

And even if he would have taken the dog to a shelter in FL, the dog would not have been killed that day. The article even said that there was someone from the family that had the dog looking in the shelters.

C'mon, this guys story stinks to high heaven. He might have paid extra to fly it back to Chicago, but I'm betting that's it.

The lawyer called the vet in Alaska. The author gives no time frame for a call back from the family to the lawyer. Why?
Seems to me the lawyer felt that the dog was abandoned, and was not going to let it die, knowing he had to go to Chicago soon. And he waited and no one called back. So he took him with him. He left his info with the vet in Alaska. That's how the family got the phone number. That's how they found him.

Personally, I would be scared that the dog was abandoned, and would not take it to the shelter in fear that they might euthanized it. He was doing the right thing for the dog.

Yeah, all the way up until the bright idea of choosing not to give it back after he got in contact with the RIGHTFUL owners.