Truthfulness

Sunday, 26 July 2026

The Bait and Switch How Paws for Hope better together program is Ripping Me Off HOW LONG HAS THIS BEEN GOING ON!

Caught hope for paws foundation and hope for paws better together program lying again!

If you are going to run a non-profit organization, the absolute bare minimum you need to do is honor the legally binding contracts you sign with people. But apparently, Paws for Hope thinks they can just change the rules and the math whenever the feel like it.

I just caught them in another massive, undeniable lie, and this time it involves them directly reaching into my pocket and ripping me off.

Let’s look at the cold, hard facts.

When I enrolled in the Better Together program, I signed a contract. That contract explicitly states, in black and white, that my co-payment for veterinary services is strictly 20%.

But I just looked at the recent veterinary services voucher they issued for my dog’s food. Right there on the voucher, it completely contradicts the contract I signed. It breaks down the costs like this:

My dog isn't 11 shes 13 years old but that's besides the point, the point is, is that on my contract, I'm gonna post it again underneath this, it states that I am to only pay 20%. I am gonna go back all the way back to when I first started in the program. And look at a voucher from there. And i'm gonna post it on here and show you that day.Our liars and they are not only ripping off.Donors and people that are in, but their own people that they have enrolled in their program!

Veterinary Service Provider Discount: 33%

Client Pays: 33%

Paws for Hope Pays: Balance (34%)

Since when is 33% the same as 20%?

How do you legally sign an agreement with a client stating they are responsible for a 20% co-pay, and then turn around and issue a voucher forcing them to pay 33%? That is an arbitrary 13% markup that I am being forced to swallow, while they claim to the world and to their donors that they are footing the bill.

This completely begs the question: How long have they been doing this? How many times have I gone to the clinic, swiped my debit card, and paid 33% when my legal agreement says I only owe 20%?

They clearly underestimated who they are dealing with. I systematically retain all of my emails, I keep all of my correspondence, and I never delete my contracts or receipts. I have the bank statements to match every single time I have walked into the Scottsdale Veterinary Hospital. I am currently going through every single receipt to calculate exactly how much extra money they have scammed out of me by ignoring their own signed contract.

This is a complete bait and switch. You don't get to hand someone a contract for a 20% co-pay, quietly bump it up to 33% on the backend, and then parade around telling lawyers and donors that your services are 100% free.

It is disgusting, it is entirely unethical, and I have the paper trail to prove every single word of it. Donors, pay attention to where your money is actually going, because it is certainly not covering what they claim it is.

Let’s anticipate their excuses right now. They might try to claim that the cost of living went up, inflation hit, or that taxes like GST and PST forced them to adjust their rates. Legally speaking, that is entirely irrelevant. In contract law, one party cannot impose a unilateral modification to a signed agreement. An executed contract dictates the specific, binding terms both parties consented to. My contract unequivocally states my financial obligation is capped at a 20% co-payment. Any arbitrary deviation from that specific term such as secretly bumping my rate to 33% to cover their own rising costs without a newly signed, mutually agreed-upon amendment constitutes a fundamental breach of contract. You do not get to just change the math because the economy shifted. When a legally binding contract says 20%, you abide by that 20%.

definition of lie +1 lie/lī/A lie is a false statement made on purpose to trick someone. The word also means to rest flat on a surface or to be in a certain place.Telling an Untruth (Verb and Noun)To lie: To say something you know is not true so that people will believe it is true.A lie: The false statement itself, or something meant to trick people.Past tense: When talking about telling a falsehood, the past tense is lied (example: "He lied to me yesterday").Resting Flat (Reclining)To lie: To put your body in a flat or resting position on the floor, a bed, or the ground.Past tense: The past tense of this action is lay (example: "I lay down for a nap"), and the past participle is lain.Being Located (Position)To lie: To be in a specific spot or direction (example: "The town lies near the big river").

And there it is !

The Truth Behind the "Free" care Holding paws for hope and better together program accountable

The Truth Behind the so called "Free" Care Holding Paws for Hope btter together program accountable

When a non-profit organization receives hard-earned money from generous donors, the absolute bare minimum we should expect from them is transparency and honesty. Unfortunately, I am finding out the hard way that the Paws for Hope Better Together program seems to have a real problem with the truth.

They are even attempting to tell their own legal representation that the veterinary care provided through their program is completely free to the pet owners. Let me share exactly what is being said verbatim:

"without any charge to you and in accordance with the organization’s mandate as a non-profit organization and program requirements."

This is a blatant lie.

You cannot just invent your own facts when there is a solid paper trail proving otherwise. And let me be clear, it is not just a paper trail I have multiple forms of proof that destroy this "free care" narrative:

The Contract: I have attached the pages of my legally binding contract that clearly outline and verify a 20% co-payment agreement.

And I'll also show you the vouchers that they give you so that when you go to the veterinary clinic, they get an email to them. Or you show it to them, and you get your copay took off, and then you pay your twenty percent copay, but I guess it's just a lie because everything is just free, apparently.

The Receipts and Bank Statements: I have kept every single receipt from my bank. Every time I have gone to the Scottsdale Veterinarian Clinic, I have paid with debit. It is not hard to do the math on a bag of food or a vet visit and see exactly what percentage I was paying out of pocket.

The Audio Recording: I have a recording of an employee explicitly stating my co-pay amount. Why would an employee quote me a specific co-pay if the services are supposedly 100% free?

Nothing in this world is free, and ironically, it states right on their own website that clients pay a co-pay. This brings me to a deeply concerning point about their legal representation. The fact that their lawyer would put in writing that this program is "without any charge" shows that they clearly did not even bother to go on their own client's website. They did not do the basic research a lawyer should do to see how this organization actually operates or if they abide by their own claims.

Well, I can tell you firsthand: they do not abide by what they claim. They state that they provide a range of resources for disabled people. My dog was enrolled in this program for the last five years, and I have never non the of the resources they publicly claim to offer. Not once.

It blows my mind that these people have the nerve to lie to their donors, lie to the public, and lie to their own lawyer and those enrolled in the paws for hope better together program.

This brings me to my next question for Paws for Hope:

If you are going around claiming you give people 100% free healthcare for their animals, what exactly are you doing with the donations?

Where is the accountability?

I want to see a public, accounted-for breakdown of the annual donations.

I want to see exactly where every single cent of that money is going.

Because if you are comfortable making a totally false statement about the financial realities of your own contracts, I have zero reason to believe you are properly managing the funds you are trusted with.

To the donors of the Paws for Hope Better Together program: You deserve credit for the help you provide, and you deserve to know how your money is actually being framed behind closed doors. Demand transparency.

Ohh, ohh, and it also shows in their manual As well

And shows 20% then 33%.

Paws for hope foundation paws for hope better together program hired a lawyer I wonder how that lawyer is being paid

Saying: you offered help without any charge to me what the f*** is wrong with you people? I paid 20%. You paid 80%, nobody got anything for free.What the f*** are you talking about and THE 80% COPAY HOPE FOR PAYS FOUNDATION HOPE FOR PAWS BETTER TOGETHER PROGRAM PAYS IS DONATIONS! ITS NOT THERE MONEY IT'S PEOPLES MONEY THAT HAVE DONATED DONORS PAY THAT COPAY WITHOUT DONATIONS THEY WOULDN'T BEABLE TO HELP PEOPLE ITS THE DONORS SO GIVE CREDIT WHERE ITS DUE!

Agreement showing obligations (20% co-pay, treatment requirements, proof of income, etc.).

Better Together Enrolment Agreement, Section 2(c): "By signing hereunder, I agree to pay the required copayment of 20% of the total invoice to the designated Veterinary Service Provider for services rendered under Better Together's coverage."

"I was terminated twice."

July emails and terminations.

I can post on my blog its out the scope the program just like the 1st termination I never asked for a review on July 14th I told them my posts on my blog is out the scope the program and thats why 10 days later I received a 2nd termination which with res judicata law you can't do that educate you're clinics and your selves because its not my responsibility to do anything for you I was nice enough to send both termination letters to prof that they can't do that and actions prove alot about a person or person's intentions and giving 1 but 2 termination papers shows there desperately trying anything and everything to terminate me and its not me it's a 13-year-old senior dog there harming her and my community deserves to know there donates aren't going or being used where there suppose to be and the fact that they stated that it's free I pay a copay look the contract clearly you didn't do you dediligence before contacting me and its something that's not my responsibility I was kept from resources such as transportation and food delivery I have previous post talking about that apparently asking for food support puts undue stress on the staff and program then why offer it to disabled individuals if I ever asked for anything it was a problem or Executive Director Kathy Powelson created it to be a problem and would cause and create problems because she doesn't like me but it's like Dr Llewellyn said you don't have to like eachother I don't like certain people but you just be civil because at the end the day it's about the animals and thats what we need to focus on a 13-year-old senior dog that needs medical care and a puppy that's going to be trained to be a certified service dog which I need with the disabilities I deal with everyday I am not going to argue with people that are only looking for a reason to get rid me my 13-year-old senior dog like trying to get Dr Llewellyn to offer me a 80% copay and the vet clinic pays 20% when Hope for Paws foundation and hope for paws better together program pays 80% and my copay is 20% make that make sense that was a away to try manipulate me into leaving the program said, not to mention, it says in the 2nd termination that Dr Llewellyn :

You will note that Dr. Llewellyn is not responding to your correspondence personally, notwithstanding his role as President of the Board. Dr. Llewellyn is also the treating veterinarian responsible for Zoe's medical care, and your correspondence raises both the termination dispute and matters concerning that ongoing medical relationship together. To avoid any real or perceived conflict of interest, the Board has asked me, as Vice President, to act as the point of contact for this matter and to respond on the Board's behalf.

But then calls me twice I have the voicemail and recorded the call recording has date stamps I'm not going no where and I will fight till the end for my 13-year-old senior dog I'm her advocate and I will always and always have avocated for her and I'll never give up on here a 13-year-old senior dog needs medical care more then any other dogs out there due to her age with comes more health problems and Executive Director Kathy Powelson would say I love her everytime I'd send her photos she'd use them for donations for the program so my dog since 2021-2026 has helped with donations and my community helps with donations for dogs like mine and shes earned her position in the program and the community donates to her and she earned her own donations in the last 5 years and I also wanna bring up the fact that there's no human resource coordinator to help coordinate through the issues that have aroused since 2025. And that is considered a breach. You are supposed to provide a human resource coordinator for issues like this so that they don't escalate to the point that they have. So at the end of the day, my dog should not have to suffer the consequences of hope. For pause, foundation and hope for pause Better Together. Program breaching conditions, not a vibing. By the contract, trying to attempt to terminate my poor 13-year-old senior dog that severely needs medical care, and they are putting her in harm's way by neglecting her and rejecting her from the program. And honestly, I've been in the program for 5 years, and I've seen a lot of stuff, and I've seen a lot of staff come and go, and I'm telling you right now. I'm not going anywhere. I will fight for my dog until the day. I die, I do not care. I will not stop. I will continue to advocate for her. And whatever evidence needs to be proven, I can provide And get it but I'm not gonna do anybody's job for them. It is not my job to send papers or send this and send that. Do your job yourself at the end of the day? I've done enough on my blog I have a lot of documentation on here and you know, you get hired in less than 24 hours. And you contact me and act like, you know, the whole situation. And act like, you know, all the details of the situation. You should educate yourself before you write a letter. It's very on professional for you to take just what your clients say and not actually look at the victim here. Cause I am the victim here, and so is my poor 13-year-old senior dog.

Laura and my 13-year-old senior dog 🐕 ❤️ 🐾

Ps since board members like to watch my blog and read my blog, you might as well have your lawyer go through my blog too. And take a read, look at the evidence.And the proof.🐾

And I never received any the resources that I was suppose to receive they state all these resources to disabled individuals on there website I never received 1 I had to pay Uber to get my food home they never helped with any transportation support nothing you guys fabricate things on your website and falsify. Things and say you are going to give people things and give these type of resources to people.That are disabled individuals and you don.'t.You don't provide them with those resources.You lie it is considered a lie.When you say you're gonna do something, and you don't do it.That's a lie.Want me to look up the definition?Here's the definition of a lie:

There you go you lied about my contract, you lied about breaching. The contract you lied about How many terminations you gave me the lies keeps growing?And growing and growing🐾 you lie about the resources you provide you lie about helping humans. And pets to stay together, you lie about what your organization does for people. And especially disabled individuals.Hey, it's your own words you use on your website.

Saturday, 25 July 2026

Paws for hope foundation and paws for hope better together program nice to meet youre lawyer

When Advocacy Requires Advocating for Yourself

Over the past several weeks, I have been dealing with an extremely stressful situation involving access to supports for my medically necessary dog and my puppy that's going to get trained to become a certified service.Dog.

Recently, I received a response from legal counsel representing the organization involved. While I cannot share private correspondence, I can share some concerns about the information that was communicated.

One of the issues that stood out to me was that the response referred to only one termination notice. However, I have documentation showing that there were two separate termination communications, and I had to provide those documents to clarify the timeline.

This situation has been incredibly overwhelming because, instead of focusing on my health, my disabilities, and the needs of my animals, I have found myself having to repeatedly explain the history of what happened and provide information that should have been fully reviewed.

I also found it concerning to be told that I was not entitled to access support through an organization whose stated purpose is to assist members of the community, including people with disabilities and those facing barriers to caring for their animals.

I am part of the community these types of programs are designed to support. I live with significant disabilities and health challenges, and my animals play an important role in my daily life and wellbeing.

My concern is not about claiming ownership of charitable donations. My concern is about whether organizations that exist to support vulnerable members of the community are applying their mission, values, and programs fairly and consistently.

Before making decisions about someone’s eligibility or needs, it is important to understand the full story, review all documentation, and understand the purpose of the program itself.

This experience has caused me significant stress and anxiety, but I will continue advocating for myself, my animals, and others who may find themselves in similar situations.

People who rely on community support deserve to be heard, treated with respect, and given a fair review.The domino effect. One decision leads to another. One termination turns into two. One unanswered email turns into another. One breach of contract turns into hours upon hours of unnecessary work that never should have existed in the first place. Instead of focusing on my health, my dogs, and simply living my life, I now find myself contacting a legal advocate, consulting with a pro bono lawyer, and reaching out to the British Columbia Civil Resolution Tribunal. None of this should have been necessary had my current concerns been addressed when I first raised them, had the agreement been followed, and the contract had been followed, and had meaningful communication taken place. None of this have snowballed into what it has become today. Instead, every action has created another reaction. More paperwork, more documentation, more emails, more recordings, more timelines, more evidence, more stress, more anxiety, more time taken away from my health, my dogs, my life. The board's letter states that its decision is final, that no further internal appeal will be considered, and that the matter is closed. From their perspective, it is. From mine, it isn't. You don't get to close a matter simply because you decide you're finished talking about it. Not when there are unresolved contractual concerns, not when there are unanswered questions, not when the documentation tells a different story. This isn't over because someone typed the words, this matter is closed. It's not over because the facts still exist, the documentation still exists, the timelines still exist, the recordings still exist, the contract still exists, and every one of those pieces deserves to be examined. I never wanted to spend my time documenting years of correspondings, organizing evidence, and seeking legal assistance. I wanted to spend my time caring for my dogs. Instead, I have to spend countless hours dealing with something that, in my view, should never have reached this point. Yet, here I am, still documenting, still preserving the evidence, still standing up for myself, because sometimes the truth doesn't disappear simply because someone decides the conversation is over.

Paws for hope foundation paws for hope better together program moving forward

Update: Seeking Support and Taking Further Steps

I wanted to provide an update regarding the ongoing situation with Paws for Hope and the Better Together Program.

I have contacted a legal advocate.

I also have a consultation with a pro bono lawyer.

I will also be reaching out to the British Columbia Civil Resolution Tribunal.

This is not a step I wanted to take. I made many attempts to address these concerns directly and resolve them respectfully. However, because my communications have not been meaningfully addressed, I need to seek outside assistance.

I have continued to preserve my documentation, including my enrollment agreement, termination notices, correspondence, timeline of events, recordings, and emails. My goal is to ensure that the facts and the truth contained within these records are documented and properly reviewed.

This situation is about advocating for myself and protecting Zoe’s access to necessary veterinary care. Zoe is my 13-year-old senior Papillon and is medically necessary for me. My puppy is also an important part of my future plans as she continues through the process of becoming a certified service dog.

The Better Together Program presents itself as a resource that supports people with disabilities and their animals. I was enrolled in this program from 2021 to 2026, and my personal experience did not reflect the level of support that I believe they state is available.

When I tried to access assistance with something as basic as getting Zoe’s food due to my disability-related limitations, I was told that this placed pressure on the program. That was extremely difficult for me to understand, especially when the program describes itself as supporting people who face barriers accessing resources.

I am documenting this because this situation has affected my life, my health, and my ability to feel secure about Zoe’s future care and the puppies care. I have kept records throughout this entire process, and I will continue to document what has happened and what continues to happen.

Paws for hope foundation paws for hope better together program the affect its put on

The personal impact this ongoing situation has taken a significant toll on both my physical and mental health. I live with severe fibromyalgia, complex PTSD and severe OCD and prolonged stress has a profound effect on my nervous system. The uncertainty repeated disputes and lack of communication have contributed to pain. Anxiety and emotional distress. I am also dealing with additional medical concerns, making the situation even more difficult to manage rather than improving my health continues to be affected by the ongoing stress surrounding this matter. Because of the impact this has had on me. I intend to discuss and document these concerns with my physician. As part of my medical record, I believe it is important to document. Not only the contractual issues, but also the effect this prolonged dispute has had on my overall well-being. I never wanted this matter to. Reach this point I wanted it to resolve through respectful communication. Unfortunately, after repeated attempts to engage with paws for hope foundation, and paws for hope better together program. I have been left with little choice but to continue documenting my experience and pursuing the appropriate avenues available to me.

Friday, 24 July 2026

Paws for hope foundation paws for hope better together program follow up

Follow-Up Notice

Following my previous publication outlining the contractual and legal concerns surrounding my Better Together enrollment, I remain disappointed that Paws for Hope has chosen not to respond to my communications.

Multiple emails have been sent in good faith in an effort to resolve this matter respectfully and without litigation. To date, those communications have gone unanswered.

Silence does not resolve contractual disputes. It simply leaves the documented issues unaddressed.

I have now clearly explained my position, cited the relevant provisions of the signed enrollment agreement, and outlined the legal principles I believe apply. The evidence, correspondence, and contractual documentation continue to be preserved.

I remain willing to resolve this matter professionally if Paws for Hope chooses to engage in meaningful dialogue. However, if the organization continues to ignore these concerns, I will proceed with the legal and administrative remedies available to me under British Columbia law.

This matter is not about personal conflict. It is about contractual accountability, procedural fairness, and ensuring that organizations entrusted with serving vulnerable members of the community honour the agreements they ask people to sign.

The opportunity to resolve this matter remains open. The choice to do so rests with Paws for Hope.

After publishing my previous post outlining my contractual concerns with Paws for Hope's Better Together Program, I have continued to reflect on one issue that I believe deserves attention.

The agreement I signed in 2021 is a specific enrollment contract. It outlines the services provided, the responsibilities of both parties, the role of the Human Support Coordinator, and the expectations for participation in the program. It is not a contract requiring me to surrender my ability to speak publicly about my own experiences.

My blog exists outside the scope of that agreement. It is my personal platform, where I document my life, my experiences, and the events that have affected me and my dogs over the past several years. Sharing my own experiences is not the same as violating the terms of a veterinary care agreement.

What I find particularly concerning is that Paws for Hope has publicly promoted participants sharing their stories through media interviews and public awareness campaigns when those stories reflect positively on the organization. Yet when my experience was different, my public commentary became part of the justification for terminating my enrollment.

To me, that is an inconsistency that cannot be ignored.

If participants are encouraged to speak publicly when the message benefits the organization, they should not be discouraged or penalized for honestly describing experiences that are less favourable. My experience is still my experience, whether it is positive or negative.

The Board's own response confirms that my blog posts were considered as part of their decision-making process. That is why I continue to question whether relying on my personal blog was consistent with the scope of the agreement I signed.

This has never been about attacking anyone personally. It has always been about documenting what happened, explaining why I believe the agreement was not followed, and standing up for myself and my dogs.

I have made every reasonable effort to communicate directly with the organization before speaking publicly. Those efforts have largely gone unanswered. My blog has become the place where I preserve the timeline, the documents, and my perspective.

I will continue to document this matter truthfully, accurately, and with supporting evidence as events unfold.