Don’t believe Kimi Peck was such a CRATE WOMAN! You will when you go to the gallery section. Notice the filthy dirty house (Ms. Peck referred to as ‘Disneyland’) housing 100+ dogs (many living in filthy dirty crates). Also visit the warehouse (known as the ‘Sanctuary) that housed over 200+ doggies (most living in filthy dirty crates or in enclosed pens on the cold concrete floor). CLICK ON THE PHOTOS TO GET A GOOD LOOK AT THE CONDITIONS THESE POOR ANIMALS WERE LIVING IN. Mice, rats and bugs were everywhere – Ask why and how this woman can still be considered a RESCUER.

Below is a message I recently posted on a rescue discussion group that apparently got me kicked out. I was making some valid points supported by fact and it appeared I ruffled some feathers. Feel free to let me know what you think. Sincerely, Adrian * * * * * * * * * * * Crossposting is OK. Hello, my name is Adrian and I’m new to this rescue business here in the "Southland." Before moving to California just over a year ago, I spent time in Arizona caring for an ill relative where I also practically ran a small independent all breed rescue for a woman who owned a wildlife sanctuary. Anyway, I’ve been fortunate enough to meet a lot of great rescue people in my excursions to the shelters in and around Los Angeles and I look forward to getting to know more of you in the months and years to come. To those of you who have helped me out so far, I thank you wholeheartedly! I do have a question for any of you out there who can enlighten me about someone who is supposed to be highly regarded in the rescue community. A couple of weeks ago, I attended a meeting with a friend of mine from San Diego who also does rescue on a small scale as I do. The main speaker at the meeting was a guy named Warren Eckstein and he moderated a really good discussion. The focus of it was animal shelter reform. I have witnessed a fair number of abuses since I’ve been doing this for the past six months that would make you all sick, but I’m sure many of you already know what I’m talking about. Getting back to the point, also speaking at the meeting was a woman named Kimi Peck. I knew of her from all those news stories about the two hundred Chihuahuas that needed to be saved last year. Yes, we even heard about it in Arizona, because I guess there’s so little of interest happening in our state, we have to borrow news from other states! Her talk started off kind of interesting, once you got past the gloating, but then she started to talk about going after the breeders and her successful career in the film business and that she wanted to do a movie about the life of a shelter dog that was geared towards children. I don’t know if anyone else out there who was in attendance can concur with my reaction, but it seemed a bit fanatical and she kind of scared me. I decided to do some research because a fair amount of the information she mentioned seemed erroneous to me, based on what I’ve heard from shelter employees, breeders, and other rescuers. By the way, professional breeders won’t go away, so we might as well try to work with them to educate or eradicate the irresponsible backyard types who create a lot of the problem that we, as rescuers, have to clean up. Back to Mrs. Peck, a couple months back, I ran into a breeder who told me an interesting story about a rescuer who bought a puppy from a breeder. Now, I can understand a rescuer taking an older or "spent" animal from a breeder that may have otherwise been put to sleep, but buying a puppy? A rescuer? I was intrigued, so I decided to call this guy and pick his brain further about the rescuer who bought a puppy from a breeder. It turned out that this rescuer not only bought one puppy, but purchased at least four over the past year. Four puppies that he claimed probably cost well over two thousand dollars. I believe him because he knows almost every breeder, large and small, in this entire state. Oh yah, the rescuer? Kimi Peck. Well, I was dumbfounded as to why someone I had just heard breeder-bashing only a week earlier would buy a Maltese, a Golden Retriever puppy as well as two other small breed puppies that I can’t remember at the moment. In addition, after speaking with an employee of a San Fernando Valley shelter, I learned that Peck’s rescue is overflowing and that she doesn’t seem to adopt any dogs out. The officer claimed that the same dogs are always there when animal control visits her shelter and she just keeps getting more, in addition to the collection of birds and fish she apparently keeps. I seriously hope that the "more" dogs referred to doesn’t mean animals she purchased from breeders. I knew a woman in Arizona claiming to be a rescuer who had a habit of collecting dogs much in the same way, but she was eventually shut down. I worry about someone like Peck because it appears that she is on that same path. Another shelter employee told me that she was under investigation for the mismanagement of donations and misrepresentation in the solicitation of large amounts of money, playing upon the public’s sympathy and then not turning money over to the rescues and individuals who actually adopted, took in, or fostered all those "Angels on Death Row." I had also heard the same thing from a few rescuers who never received a penny from the purported tens of thousands of dollars that came in, even though they took some of those dogs off of her hands. Didn’t Peck get an award or something for the whole "Angels" rescue thing? I was on a roll, so I decided to research this amazing paradox of a woman even further. Curious to see just what made a "successful" career in the film business, I called an old friend of mine who works at a TV archival company. They supply every major network and studio here in town with any footage from any show ever aired on any network. They log everything. On top of that, their research division has the dish on everyone in this town, from DUIs to DNCs. Don’t ask me how. I asked him to search for "Kimi Peck" and see what he came up with. Just the film stuff, I wasn’t interested in her personal life. A couple of days later he called me, and I learned that aside from co-writing one marginally successful coming-of-pubescence flick in the early eighties, she really didn’t do anything else in the mainstream film business. She did, however, have a big hand in the creation of a fairly substantial volume of pornography. Yup. The lady who wants to write and shoot a film about shelter dogs for the children of the world was a porn magnate. Let me clarify something here. I’m not saying I’m for or against porn nor am I placing judgment on those who participate in the creation of it. I do know that it helps some people in their relationships, and I’m aware of the harm it can do, also. However, I am taking a closer look at a woman who created a fairly large body of it and who now wants to do a children’s film. Michael Jackson, take a back seat, this one is getting interesting! Doesn’t that make anyone here worry? I mean, this is a woman who represents what we rescuers do, and sometimes in front of a TV camera. Any insights about anything I’ve mentioned here? Please, I’m all ears. If this self-appointed representative of our community is supposed to be the best example of the rescue "breed," then I think we ought to hold an election or something. It worries me that such a walking contradiction is the only face people attach to the word "rescuer" here in California. Because I do rescue Chihuahuas from time to time, people always ask or assume that I have something to do with her whenever I bail out a Chi. I think it’s in our best interest that the general public doesn’t think of someone like Peck whenever they see a rescuer…or me. Yours truly, Adrian H. All 4 Dogs Rescue North Hollywood, California

Kimi Peck had a high of over 350 animals ‘living’ in her Burbank ‘Sanctuary’ before her court ordered shut down. People ask ‘how could she take care of that many animals?’ The answer: She couldn’t and didn’t. Another ‘hoarder’ that was kicked out of Los Angeles County is Cindy Bemis. Not surprising, both Ms. Bemis and Ms. Peck chose Kern County as the place they would be calling ‘home’ and the place they would now be ‘housing’ their hundreds of animals when they both received court ordered shut downs of their ‘Sanctuaries’ in Los Angeles County. In addition, both Ms. Peck and Ms. Bemis are on Los Angeles shelters DNA (DO NOT ADOPT) lists. Will Kern County ever wake up and smell the CRAP living in their community and change their laws to help animals? According to the many hoarders that move into Kern County and feel safe there, it appears the answer is NO. Encourage Kern County to help the animals not assist those who hoard them. ***UPDATE: May 4, 2007….Ms. Cindy Bemis has been BUSTED (FINALLY!) in Kern County. Kern County Animal Control’s Denise Haynes finally admits "Ms. Bemis might just be an animal hoarder…" We say to Denise Haynes…MAKE THOSE UNANNOUNCED ‘VISITS’ ON PEOPLE LIVING IN YOUR COMMUNITY WHO HAVE HISTORIES OF MOVING FROM ‘SANCTUARY TO SANCTUARY’ WITH THEIR HUNDREDS OF ANIMALS. DON’T BE FOOLED BY SMOOTH TALKING OLD LADIES…

-Los Angeles Shelters will not give Kimi Peck, or anybody affiliated with Chihuahua Rescue, ANY ANIMALS, INCLUDING CHIHUAHUAS. Kimi Peck is on their DNA(Do Not Adopt) list. If the Los Angeles shelters refuse to give her an animal, why would you give her

In January of 2007, attorney Theresa Macellaro filed a 30 page lawsuit against ten (10) former volunteers who she claims have caused her client, Ms. Kimi Peck, to suffer from SEVERE EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, SLEEP DEPRIVATION, ANXIETY, NERVOUSNESS, IRRITABILITY, and, last, but not least, the LOSS OF CONCENTRATION. Ms. Macellaro claims Ms. Peck suffers from all of the above disorders because of a court ordered shut down of Ms. Peck’s Burbank ‘Sanctuary’ – who Ms. Peck and Ms. Macellaro blame on former volunteers. With all due respect, not only did these former volunteers have nothing whatsoever to do with this closure (and this was obvious when no witnesses were needed at the hearing), many people felt that Ms. Peck had been suffering from all of these MENTAL DISORDERS AND MAJOR MENTAL ILLNESS LONG BEFORE her court ordered shut down of her Burbank ‘Sanctuary’. Well, that’s neither here nor there because Ms. Macellaro and Ms. Peck dismissed this lawsuit less than a month after they filed it so many hope, for the animals’ sake, that Ms. Peck is now taking the proper medication to help her deal with her many mental disorders and possible OCD (that is associated with animal hoarding). The comments section contains an article that was published in the Burbank Leader giving a brief summary of this suit. The lawsuit will be available to read in the lawsuits section of this website. Many feel that this lawsuit was just another bullying and harassment technique by Ms. Peck because most of the claims were frivilous and it was obvious that Ms. Macellaro did not bother to not only research the LAWS, she obviously did not bother to research OR review her own client’s charges and convictions, throughout the years, in Burbank’s Criminal Court. If Ms. Macellaro would like to view Ms. Peck’s MANY CHARGES AND CONVICTIONS, they are available on this website. ***This was not the first lawsuit Ms. Peck has filed against former volunteers regarding the court ordered shut down of her Burbank ‘Sanctuary’. This was lawsuit number four (4). With each lawsuit Ms. Peck files, more ‘lies’ are added to the claims. All four (4) lawsuits were either dismissed by the courts or by Ms. Peck. We’ll keep you posted if and when she files lawsuit number five (5). Please READ MORE to see the article published in the Burbank Leader in regards to Ms. Peck’s latest FRIVILOUS LAWSUIT.

What makes this SO fascinating is the fact that Ms. Peck, herself, contacted the Burbank Leader and informed them about the lawsuit she had filed. She did this before all of the defendants had even been served. We’re gonna give Ms. Peck the benefit of the doubt and state she was probably suffering from memory loss due to her extreme anxiety because she obviously forgot one of her claims in the lawsuit was the fact that she was upset the press was even involved in any aspect of her court ordered move out of Burbank. Here’s the piece: Shelter files suit against volunteers Director of Chihuahua Rescue opens an action claiming slander and defamation against 10 former unpaid workers. By Chris Wiebe BURBANK — The director of a Chihuahua rescue shelter, which operated out of Burbank for more than four years, has filed a 10-party lawsuit against some of her former volunteers, accusing them of a smear campaign that tarnished her business reputation. Kimi Peck, director of Chihuahua Rescue — which relocated to Tehachapi after a court order forced the shelter out of Burbank — contends in her lawsuit that former volunteers committed slander and defamation against her when they told police in 2005 that Peck kept Chihuahuas in unsafe and squalid conditions. The volunteers also alleged that Peck was hoarding dogs rather than finding them new homes. After Burbank Police and animal control officials investigated, Peck was charged with having insufficient food and water for her animals, failing to maintain sanitary and safe conditions and keeping insufficient records for her animals. She pleaded no contest to the latter charge in June 2005 and the other two were set aside. By October 2005, she had cleared out of her Burbank facility, moving to Tehachapi, where she says her rescue operation has suffered as a result of the complaints of the volunteers. "It’s been very painful, very hard," she said "And I can handle everything, but it has affected the dogs, and that hurts me." But attorney Larry Rudd, who represents the 10 defendants named in the suit, said that Peck has no evidence of defamation and slander and that the law protects the rights of people to make critical statements to authorities about bad business practices. "This is an attempt to harass people who only sought the best interest of the animals," he said. "These are people who left because of despicable conditions." Volunteers reported seeing dogs that were seldom released from their cages, living in their own feces, he said. A veterinarian who leased a space next door to Chihuahua Rescue on Moss Street terminated his portion of the lease, saying he could no longer carry on his practice so near to the shelter’s conditions, Rudd added. "Kimi Peck, in keeping with her prior actions, files suits against anyone who disagrees with her, anyone who comments about her poor care and treatment of animals," he said. Rudd is filing a motion disputing Peck’s complaint as a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation suit, which is a litigation strategy intended to stifle or intimidate the critics of the plaintiff. He will also pursue Peck for his attorney’s fees and may pursue her attorney on grounds of malicious prosecution. "This is just an absurd suit and it should never have been brought," he said. Peck grabbed headlines in 2003, when she saved 170 Chihuahuas from being euthanized after Los Angeles County animal control officials confiscated the dogs from breeder Emma Harter. Harter was subsequently convicted of animal abuse for housing 235 Chihuahuas in fetid, unsanitary conditions. But two years later, Peck found herself the target of accusations from volunteers at her own shelter, which ultimately drove her from Burbank. [ Reply to This | Delete | 75.212.71.54 ]

Timeline of events surrounding Mary Lou Voils’ sad plight to get her pet , Baby, back from Kimi Peck/Chihuahua Rescue 11/03/04 – Mary Lou Voils, a 78 year old woman, adopted two dogs, Mitzi and Baby, from Chihuahua Rescue (located in Burbank, CA at the time.) She paid 300$ for each dog – CR’s adoption fee. 11/08/04 – (approximate date) – Mitzi became very ill and was taken by a representative of Chihuahua Rescue (CR) to a local vet, Dr. Schwartz. Afew days later, Mary Lou called Kimi Peck and found out Mizti "had died." Mary Lou trusted Kimi and her judgment and did not question what happened. She was surprised, though, that Kimi never called her to tell her of her adopted dog’s death. 2/04 – Mary Lou began visiting CR regularly so she could see the other little dogs that were housed there. 4/04 – Mary Lou made plans to move from Burbank to Virginia. Her sister and brother-in -law were building a guest house for her. While waiting for the guest house to be completed, Mary Lou would stay in their basement bedroom and use the rest of the house shared with her family. 05/04 – Mary Lou took Baby to get her rabies shot so that Baby could fly on the plane back to Virginia with her. Baby had a reaction to the shot, so Kimi Peck offered to board her since Mary Lou’s Flight was leaving in a couple of days. No mention of boarding fees as CR promised "lifetime boarding" for adopters. Kimi told Mary Lou to not worry and that whenever the house was finished, Janet Wingfield would bring Baby to Virginia since she "had relatives in Virginia." In fact, Kimi not only convinced her to leave Baby while she recovered from the vaccine, she convinced her that Baby should stay while the house was being built. Because Mary Lou felt Kimi was her friend, she agreed to leave Baby. 12/04 – Mary Lou sent a check for 1000$ to Kimi as a kind gesture and way of thanking Kimi for taking care of Baby. Kimi Peck CASHED this check. 12/04 – 5/05 – Mary Lou wrote to Kimi several times asking how Baby was doing. Kimi never wrote back, but they did speak on the phone and Kimi was cordial and told her Baby was "fine." Mary Lou also sent her friend, Linda, to take pictures and sit with Baby. During this time, Mary Lou felt Kimi was a friend and believed that Baby was being taken care of. Kimi lied to Mary Lou and told her that Baby was "sleeping with her in her bed." In fact, Kimi gave Mary Lou the impression she did not live at the kennel, rather she lived in Brentwood (which was untrue) In reality, Baby was taken from Mary Lou in December and simply placed in a small crate, where she remained the entire time – 6 months. Volunteers saw Baby, week after week, in the front portion of 421 Moss St., in a crate, always. She was never with Kimi, who had moved her bed next door to a warehouse at 425 Moss St. 6/05 – Mary Lou’s guest house was finally finished. She immediately wrote Kimi a letter, No reply. She wrote and called a few more times and finally got a hold of Kimi. Kimi told her Janet WIngfield, CR’s "Vice- President" would bring Baby to Virginia, but not right away since she "was having work done on her condo." 6/05 – A week later, Mary Lou called Kimi again. Kimi told her Baby was "fine." and that someone named Heather was going down to Virginia at the end of August. 6/05 – Another week later, Mary Lou called Kimi and, out of the blue, was told "Baby had glaucoma" and was "receiving medication." 6/05 – At that time, Mary Lou was very concerned for the health of her little dog. She contacted her sister’s vet and they assured Mary Lou they could help control and medicate Baby’s glaucoma. She then called Kimi back to tell her this, and Kimi suddenly told her that ”Baby’s eye was painful” and she left Baby at Dr. Schwartz’ office. She told Mary Lou to call him. When she did, she was stunned to learn from the receptionist that Baby’s eye was removed. Mary Lou became extrememly concerned. When she tried to talk to Dr. Scwhwartz, he refused to come to the phone. 6/05 – Mary Lou Immediately called Kimi back and told her she wanted Baby to come home now. Kimi told her that Dr. Schwartz said Baby couldn’t fly for one month. She also asked Mary Lou to pay the vet bill of 546$ (which she promptly did in good faith). 6/05 – Mary Lou, no longer trusting anything Kimi said, called Boulevard Pet CLinic and was told Baby couldn’t fly for two weeks. Again, Kimi had been caught in a lie. 7/05 – Poor Mary Lou, distraught and consumed with the need to help her dog, called Kimi and told her that her good friend of many years, Linda, would be coming to CR to pick up Baby. Kimi, despite this being Mary Lou’s legally adopted pet, told her no in a condescending tone. She told her she would only release Baby to Linda if she ”could meet Linda at the airport and Linda had a plane ticket to Virginia in her hand.” 7/23/05 – Realizing the seriousness of this situation, Mary Lou faxed a Power of Attorney to Linda and Linda agreed to go get Baby despite Kimi’s earlier refusal. When Linda went to CR , Kimi became enraged and demanded to see her airline ticket. She also angrily accused Linda of only being at CR ”because of the recent stories on TV” about Kim being closed down. Linda told her she was only there to get her friend’s pet back. Kimi screamed at her that "no one could give Baby the care" she was giving her.and that Mary Lou "owed" her 5000$ in boarding fees.Linda called the police and when they arrived, Kimi handed them a bill she had just written out, with no signature of Mary Lou, and insisted Mary Lou owed her 5000$. The police then decided, based on this hurriedly written "bill" that it was a "civil matter." ***Kimi Peck legally cannot charge any monies for boarding because Kimi Peck did not have a license or a permit to board. As a matter of public record, Kimi Peck had a court order at that time for her ‘kennel’ to be shut within a few months. Kimi Peck runs a non-profit and non-profits are not allowed to profit??? Sounds like Kimi Peck is unethical. 7/23/05 Linda told Mary Lou that Baby , who was in Kimi’s hands during this episode, was "shaking , ungroomed, and underweight." 8/05 Throughout most of the month of August, Mary Lou corresponded with former CR volunteers and tried to figure out a way to get her pet back. 8/05 – Mary Lou was referred to an attorney, Arlan Cohen, and they began discussing the best way to get Baby back. Taking Ms. Voils age of 78 into consideration, Mr. Cohen believed the pursuing a lawsuit would end up in a lengthy court battle that would be especially hard, emotionally, on Mary Lou. He also feared that Baby, who was obviously not receiving proper care, would not survive throughout the court battle. He suggested to Mary Lou that they try to deal with Kimi in a cordial manner that would achieve a mutual agreement that Baby should be returned to Mary Lou. 8/30/05 – Mr Cohen wrote a letter to Kimi Peck that reiterated Mary Lou’s love for her pet and that Kimi had many other dogs at the rescue needing her attention, and asked her to please consider allowing Baby to reunite with her mom. 9/01/05 – Kimi Peck calls Mr. Cohen after receiving the letter. She angrily claimed this was all happening because she was Gregory Peck’s daughter-in-law AND because a former CR volunteer’s husband used a dentist that knows the husband of Kimi’s accountant, Susan Marlowe. Her requirements included 50$ to pay for a health certificate, a signed letter from Mary Lou’s sister stating CR gets Baby back should Mary Lou die, and and proof of airline ticket to Virginia. Then and only then would she bring Baby to the airport to hand her to the person delivering Baby. 9/02/05 – Mr. Cohen writes Kimi a letter agreeing to all the conditions she made the day earlier. 9/15/05 – Mr. Cohen sends a letter to Kimi summarizing the conditions that had been met, including a 50$ check had been sent to Kimi, and the sister and brother-in-law of Mary Lou signed the agreement to return Baby should Mary Lou die. A ticket needed to be purchased next, and Mr. Cohen wanted to coordinate the date with Kimi. 10/03/05 – A round trip ticket is purchased by Laura Dash, a former CR volunteer and friend of Mary Lou’s, who agrees to fly to Virginia with Baby. The copy of the ticket is sent via email to Kimi. 10/04/05 (10:30 am) – Kim and Arlan spoke on the phone and Kimi agreed to meet Laura Dash at the Northwest Airline Check-in area at 11:35 , 10/08. She insisted she would find a way to get past security to watch Laura actually get on the plane. 10/04/05 (12:15 pm) – Kimi sent a long, angry email to Mr. Cohen detailing her hatred of Laura Dash. She uses vile language to describe Ms. Dash and fictionalizes stories about her trying to kill CR dogs. She then lists new requirements, including Laura Dash must agree to pay $10, 000 to CR should she ever write about this event on a website that details Kimi’s neglect of her rescue animals. She then writes two long paragraphs fictionalizing the care Baby has been receiving, despite former volunteers knowing that Baby was living in a cage with no attention whatsoever, other than theirs. She claimed among other things that Baby "eats cut up chicken and fruits and vegetables." She described Baby’s weight as "perfect," and claimed Baby was "very attached" to her (despite Baby living in a completely different facility than Kimi did.) 10/04/05 (1:45 pm) – Mr. Cohen writes an email to Kimi letting her know this is about Mary Lou and her dog. This is not about Laura, CR , or anything else. He urges her to honor her promise. He lets her know that not doing so only hurts the dog. He assures her Laura Dash’s only goal is to safely return Mary Lou’s little dog to her. 10/04/05 (time unknown) – Kimi writes back and asserts she has "no intention of not returning Baby to Mary Lou." and then writes a long paragraph detailing her hatred of the former volunteers who reported her animal neglect to authorities. She again reiterates that her relationship to Gregory Peck is the catalyst to all of these events. 10/04/05 (5:18 pm) – Mr Cohen writes her back and thanks her for staying committed to returning Baby.He verifies that, as mutually planned, he will pick her up 10:30 on the 8th.to take Baby to the airport. 10/04/05 (10:22 pm) – Kimi emails Mr.Cohen and tell her that she cannot bear that thought of allowing Laura Dash to take Baby. She informs him that her ex-boyfriend’s son, Jordan, will take the dog instead. 10/05/04 – Luckily, Laura Dash’s ticket is refundable and is cancelled. Mr. Cohen and Laura try to figure out a good flight for Jordan but it becomes apparent he will have to spend the first night in a dog friendly hotel, then travel out to Roanoke to deliver Baby the next morning, all at Ms. Voils’ expense, Laura Dash had been willing to incur these costs herself. Mr. Cohen writes a long email to Kimi unwittingly appealing to her sense of right from wrong. Mr. Cohen then has Mary Lou purchase a ticket for Jordan Mabra. Mary Lou also graciously agrees to allow him to spend the night at her and sister’s house so he can take the return flight the following day. She purchases Jordan Mabra a non-refundable round trip ticket for $1,084. 10/08/05 The day of the flight, Mr. Cohen assumed everything was a go. Little did he know, as he was preparing to drive to Burbank to pick up Jordan, Kimi calls Mary Lou’s sister and tells her Baby cannot fly because "Baby did not have proper shots." Mary Lou’s sister immediately called Mr. Cohen and he said the airline he had chosen did not require vaccine proof. He told Mary Lou’s sister he was still driving down to Burbank. Shortly after that, Kimi called Mary Lou’s sister and said Baby was "sick, she only weighed 5 pounds" and she would not allow her to go. This claim was despite writing an email just four days earlier stating Baby was healthy and at the "perfect" weight. Kimi never had the decency to call Mr.Cohen or Mary Lou. 78 year old Mary Lou lost $1,100 on this ticket and was never reimbursed by Miss Peck. Instead of nursing the supposedly sick Baby back to health and rearranging a new flight, Kimi kept Mary Lou’s beloved dog and has never returned her. 4/06 After receiving an Easter card from Mary Lou, Mr. Cohen sent another letter to Kimi Peck reminding her that Mary Lou was still anxious to have Baby back . Kimi has not responded. ***Kimi Peck’s now shut down Burbank Chihuahua Rescue and ‘Sanctuary’ was NOT a licensed boarding facility; therefore, she was NOT legally allowed to charge a for profit fee as she was illegally claiming to do in an attempt to not give Mary Lou back her dog and to keep the monies Mary Lou had given Kimi for Baby. Poor Baby had to live with Kimi Peck…many feel Ms. Peck is an ANIMAL HOARDER…

Kimi Peck didn’t even take care of her flesh and blood animals let alone little dogs.

Kimi Peck gave her first born baby away to the father of the baby’s parents. Her first born son, Cameron, was raised by his grandparents. Though Kimi Peck had every opportunity to raise Cameron she declined to do so. Kimi was only 19 when she had Cameron. Cameron is now 38 and has very little contact with Kimi. Cameron has a new baby, making Kimi Peck a grandmother. Hoardingchihuahuas received an e-mail stating that Kimi Peck didn’t even know she was a grandmother. What a shame that Ms. Peck has an opportunity at this point in her life to reach out and do the right thing. Kimi Peck’s youngest son was also raised by his father and his stepmother. We won’t go into details of how Ms. Peck was described to us. We do ask how a person who claims to be a saint can have little or no contact with her own children and grandchilden. Here’s a quote from a person who knows Kimi Peck: "Kimi Peck couldn’t even take care of her own flesh and blood how can she take care of so many dogs"

I have followed the Chihuahua Rescue story from the start. I volunteered there and I know that this place needed lots of work. Dogs in cages. Dirty cages. So why do some people defend her? Why did one of her hugest enablers "Megan" start a website attacking people for telling the truth? Some of the people we are told not to trust are simply listed as adopters. WOW what a crime. I find it unimaginable that Megan does not take a long hard look in the mirror and remember how she came to CR and sat around doing nothing. I also find it hysterical that she attacks and criticizes people and how unsavory they are, yet a simple search of the internet shows how pure and untainted Megan is. http://www.playachicken.com/burn/gallery/display.php?p=122 Step back. Way back and look at yourself. Don’t criticize people whose character far exceeds what little you have. Nevermind that picture, your most disgusting trait is you lie through your teeth to defend crappy living conditions for hundreds of little dogs.