The Board of Directors, Paws for hope animal foundation lied in termination papers prof screenshots

Three Fabrications in the July 16, 2026 Termination Letter and Rejection of Bad Faith Offers

​I am writing to formally address the contents of the termination letter dated July 16, 2026. This official document contains three blatant fabrications and contradictions that completely invalidate the Board's position.

​Lie #1: The Conflict of Interest Protocol Violation

In the July 16, 2026 letter, Katelynn Denny explicitly states: "You will note that Dr. Llewellyn is not responding to your correspondence personally... 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."

​This statement is entirely false in practice. Yesterday, July 17, 2026, Dr. Llewellyn personally contacted me, leaving a voicemail, which was followed by a direct phone conversation today, July 18, 2026, where he attempted to broker a private 20% discount at his veterinary clinic. Both Katelynn Denny and Dr. Llewellyn are actively violating the exact boundaries established in their own termination paperwork.

​Dr. Llewellyn attempting to claim on the phone that he is calling "not as a board member" but "as a veterinarian," and stating he has stepped down as President to be a Board Director, is a meaningless semantic game. You cannot formally recuse a Board Director in writing due to a conflict of interest, only to have him repeatedly contact me privately to negotiate a financial settlement that directly results in my exit from the Better Together program.

​Lie #2 and Lie #3: Fabricated Disciplinary Dates

Furthermore, the termination letter attempts to justify my removal by citing a fabricated timeline of conduct warnings.

​The February 25, 2024 Date: The incident you are attempting to weaponize me with dates with no context. 

There is no email corresponding on February 25th/2025 I keep all my emails and there's no February 25th/2025 only February 24th/2025 I don't know where you're getting these dates explain to me what I did and to who and where and what time and date because I'm seeing nothing but February 24th/2025 and going back a year to something that happened over a year and half ago really shows how desperate you are to find something on me you have nothing on me so stop lying or prove me otherwise this all I can find I have severe OCD I document everything and organize all my emails and paper work so Katelynn Denny Acting President you're sadly mistaken you're just creating dates and thinking they'll stick my OCD and my OCD is severe there's nothing on February 25th/2025.

​The June 1, 2025 Date: You have falsely classified this date as a disciplinary warning. As Katelynn Denny was present and is fully aware, this was a vital discussion regarding the severe physical and financial impact that mandatory weekly vet visits were having on my health. It was not a conduct issue it was a discussion.

Screen shots are below 

​By falsifying the context of these dates and violating your own stated rules regarding Dr. Llewellyn's contact, this entire termination process is exposed as an administrative sham.

​The Financial Reality of the 20% Offer

I am formally rejecting the 20% discount offer because it is mathematically impossible for an individual relying on Persons with Disabilities (PWD) income.

​My monthly budget is strictly fixed. Due to the extra, unavoidable costs required to survive with severe fibromyalgia, I am left with a maximum of $100 to $150 after rent and basic necessities. A 20% discount at Scottsdale Veterinary Hospital, a clinic publicly documented as heavily overpriced, leaves out of pocket costs that would consume my entire remaining budget for a single visit for one dog. Factoring in a 13 year old senior dog and a puppy, this discount would literally leave me unable to buy groceries.

​Attempting to pass the buck to a private clinic's discount program does not absolve the Board of its obligations. My dogs are medically necessary, and I am fully entitled to the support this program publicly claims to provide.

​I expect my 13 year old senior dog's medical care to be reinstated and my puppy to be enrolled immediately. If I do not receive a satisfactory response correcting these three documented lies by Monday morning, I will proceed with formal legal action.

​Finally, I have re examined my Better Together Enrollment Agreement and Consent Form, signed in 2021. That contract explicitly mandates that Paws for Hope pays 80% of veterinary charges, with a required copayment from me of only 20%. It is frankly insulting that you would attempt to bypass this contractual 80% coverage mandate by pressuring me to accept a 20% discount at a private clinic instead. Do you genuinely believe that any reasonable person would voluntarily trade a guaranteed 80% coverage model for a 20% discount that leaves them in financial ruin? This attempt to unilaterally rewrite the terms of my support is a clear indicator that the organization is acting in bad faith.