Kristen Lindsey not required to attend Veterinary Board meeting because she has done no wrong?

I’m told by Elisa Black-Taylor that the news circulating on the grapevine is that Kristen will not be required to attend the Veterinary Board conference due to take place on 28th August because there is no evidence that she has done anything wrong. In addition, if the “Veterinary Board” (Texas Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners) does sanction her by, for example, suspending her license then she plans to sue them. The same goes for the AVMA. [Note: by ‘not be required’ I mean she believes that she has done no wrong and therefore has no reason to attend. Attending is not mandatory.]


Two useful tags. Click either to see the articles:- Toxic to cats | Dangers to cats

The first question then is whether she has, or has not, done anything wrong when she killed Tiger with a bow and arrow. She has done wrong but the problem is EVIDENCE.

It’s a boring subject but you have to refer to Texas law for the answer (ยง 42.092). And the answer is clear: a person cannot kill a feral cat or any cat for that matter, and it makes no difference how you kill the cat, unless one of the exceptions is applicable. You can kill a feral cat under certain circumstances and get away with it in Texas.

One exception is that if the “actor” had a reasonable fear of being injured by a dangerous wild animal. This is inapplicable in this instance as it is about dangerous dogs. The only other possibility in defence is that she killed the cat because he was on her property in the act of or after injuring or killing “the person’s livestock animals or damaging the person’s crops”. That’s the only other defence and it makes you laugh to read it because it is totally inapplicable.

The problem that the Veterinary Board has in this case and the same applies to the AVMA is that the Grand Jury decided that she had not committed a crime and therefore should not go to trial. Therefore there is no formal, verified evidence she has done anything wrong from a criminal standpoint. This was an incorrect decision. In fact it is obviously incorrect but no doubt her lawyer will use that in her defence and it may well be effective.

But she has committed a crime. In fact I have discussed this earlier in a previous post because she could be prosecuted under a different and lesser offence.

In addition the Tiger’s Justice Team have written the most comprehensive complaint to the Veterinary Board setting out in the clearest terms what she has done wrong and why she should be sanctioned.

Therefore if she states through her attorney that she has not done anything wrong, she is incorrect and the Board should be aware of that. There is no doubt in my mind that she really must attend because she has a case to answer. It isn’t just about the criminal evidence it’s about the complaint. The complaint is a bigger matter and covers more issues than just the criminal aspects of this case.

It would seem to me that the argument in discussion at the conference will hinge on the complaints as set out by Tiger’s Justice Team and the criminal matter will be put to one side because of the Grand Jury’s decision. It’s a great shame that the Grand Jury was manipulated by the district attorney into coming up with the wrong decision. You could argue that the attorney behaved in a criminal manner in engineering that outcome.

Please comment on Facebook as well as it helps spread the word – thanks.

21 thoughts on “Kristen Lindsey not required to attend Veterinary Board meeting because she has done no wrong?”

  1. In the important spirit of accuracy, I want to address parts of my previous comments on this post (written 24 August, before the 28 Aug informal conference in Austin, TX).

    I’ve since made inquiries both to the TBVME and to an attorney on Tiger’s justice team. Firstly, I referred to the informal conference at the Texas Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners (TBVME) as a hearing rather than an informal conference. At this stage in their protocol, it was an informal conference.

    According to the TBVME protocol, the vet in questioned is invited, and allowed to attend, but is not required to attend. The vet in question may decide not to attend for whatever reason s/he chooses. There are not disciplinary actions against the vet in question if s/he chooses not to attend the informal conference. Thinking it was a hearing, I had implied there would be disciplinary consequences if the vet in question did not attend.

    As a matter of fact, according to my sources, Lindsey and her attorney both chose to waive their right to attend the informal conference. The TBVME found her in violation anyway. More information regarding the violation and the TBVME disciplinary enforcement decision will be forthcoming no earlier than 13 October.

    I am advised that then, a letter is sent to the vet in question, who can agree with or reject the finding. The TBVME acts on the vet’s response according to the next phase of the protocol.

    • It is very true that I called the TBVME and spoke to a representative the day I read this article. I think most of the misunderstanding all around was not from whether or not the vet was required to attend, but the assumptive clause “because she had done no wrong”. So, when the person at TBVME reassured me “that the rumor was not true”, it’s possible that reference was made to the idea “the TBVME thought the vet had done no wrong and therefore was exonerating the vet”. That as a rumor, certainly was untrue! The vet waived her right to attend, and the Board still found her in violation.


Leave a Comment

follow it link and logo