Dog Rescues-The Good-The Bad-And The Ugly , Inspector Bark, and Darcy Ode Butkus

Recently a new contender in slander without providing proof page has popped up on Facebook. It is called Dog Rescues-The Good-The Bad-And The Ugly.  The page started commenting on several posts made by Rescue-Watch, getting into that same nasty kind of habit where they run their mouth but, offer up no valid proof.

Well as you all know that special little bs alarm started going off in my head the one that said something isn’t right. So I started digging I found that the page was created by Darcy Ode Butkus.


Ms. Butkus was really bad at covering her tracks she connected her radio show to that page as well as another Inspector Bark, which is also ran by her. I was able verify the information because she uses a picture of her dogs on the Inspector Bark Page.


On Dog Rescues The Good-The Bad… she made a post about a gift the dogs received with the same exact wording as on her personal page.

Now you are asking why am I posting such trivial things well let me explain before I dive into a more deeper subject.  Proof backs theories, if I can track back and prove a connection from point a to point b it has verified my theory and given me evidence to back it. It also allows me to start getting a read on someone.  When I first start looking into people I look at the most basic info to see if I see anything unusual.  Then I start branching out looking for information that may lead to bigger bits of information. So once I had Darcy’s name and I could connect her to the page that was harassing rescues and advocates I started looking nationally.


What I found was Darcy currently has an on going lawsuit against her. Ms. Butkus is being sued by a rescue she use to volunteer for but, was kicked out of the rescue for causing issues and making false allegations with the IRS among other things. They are suing her for defamation and abuse of process.  How I initially stumbled across this information was on my search there a news story done where it stated Ms. Butkus had used a false identity “Betty Grossm” to knowingly filed false allegations against the rescue with code enforcement. When Code Enforcement was confronted with this information they still refused to drop the allegation it was then found out Ms. Butkus’s mother worked in the HR department in the city of Boca.  Because of her mother’s position within the city code enforcement was unwilling to drop the charges even though they fradulently made. The Rescue, Dezzy’s Second Chance Rescue, Inc. filed suit on, April 30th, 2015, in Palm Beach County Florida.

In March of 2016 the owner of Dezzy’s Second Chance Rescue had to file a restraining order due to Darcy Butkus’s continued harassment and threats via various means.  Looking at the court records some serious threats had been made by Ms. Butkus putting Sandra in fear of her life. In the petition for restraining order it also mentioned that Darcy had been previously  ” Baker Acted” which means she was involuntarily committed under Florida Law 394.467.

Here is the Criteria that must be met for a person to fall under the Baker Act  394.467 Involuntary inpatient placement.—
(1) CRITERIA.—A person may be ordered for involuntary inpatient placement for treatment upon a finding of the court by clear and convincing evidence that:
(a) He or she has a mental illness and because of his or her mental illness:
1.a. He or she has refused voluntary inpatient placement for treatment after sufficient and conscientious explanation and disclosure of the purpose of inpatient placement for treatment; or
b. He or she is unable to determine for himself or herself whether inpatient placement is necessary; and
2.a. He or she is incapable of surviving alone or with the help of willing and responsible family or friends, including available alternative services, and, without treatment, is likely to suffer from neglect or refuse to care for himself or herself, and such neglect or refusal poses a real and present threat of substantial harm to his or her well-being; or
b. There is substantial likelihood that in the near future he or she will inflict serious bodily harm on self or others, as evidenced by recent behavior causing, attempting, or threatening such harm; and
(b) All available less restrictive treatment alternatives that would offer an opportunity for improvement of his or her condition have been judged to be inappropriate.
(2) ADMISSION TO A TREATMENT FACILITY.—A patient may be retained by a facility or involuntarily placed in a treatment facility upon the recommendation of the administrator of the facility where the patient has been examined and after adherence to the notice and hearing procedures provided in s. 394.4599. The recommendation must be supported by the opinion of a psychiatrist and the second opinion of a clinical psychologist or another psychiatrist, both of whom have personally examined the patient within the preceding 72 hours, that the criteria for involuntary inpatient placement are met. However, if the administrator certifies that a psychiatrist or clinical psychologist is not available to provide the second opinion, the second opinion may be provided by a licensed physician who has postgraduate training and experience in diagnosis and treatment of mental illness or by a psychiatric nurse. Any opinion authorized in this subsection may be conducted through a face-to-face examination, in person, or by electronic means. Such recommendation shall be entered on a petition for involuntary inpatient placement certificate that authorizes the facility to retain the patient pending transfer to a treatment facility or completion of a hearing.
(3) PETITION FOR INVOLUNTARY INPATIENT PLACEMENT.—The administrator of the facility shall file a petition for involuntary inpatient placement in the court in the county where the patient is located. Upon filing, the clerk of the court shall provide copies to the department, the patient, the patient’s guardian or representative, and the state attorney and public defender of the judicial circuit in which the patient is located. A fee may not be charged for the filing of a petition under this subsection.
(4) APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL.—Within 1 court working day after the filing of a petition for involuntary inpatient placement, the court shall appoint the public defender to represent the person who is the subject of the petition, unless the person is otherwise represented by counsel. The clerk of the court shall immediately notify the public defender of such appointment. Any attorney representing the patient shall have access to the patient, witnesses, and records relevant to the presentation of the patient’s case and shall represent the interests of the patient, regardless of the source of payment to the attorney.
(5) CONTINUANCE OF HEARING.—The patient is entitled, with the concurrence of the patient’s counsel, to at least one continuance of the hearing for up to 4 weeks.
(a)1. The court shall hold the hearing on involuntary inpatient placement within 5 court working days, unless a continuance is granted.
2. Except for good cause documented in the court file, the hearing must be held in the county or the facility, as appropriate, where the patient is located, must be as convenient to the patient as is consistent with orderly procedure, and shall be conducted in physical settings not likely to be injurious to the patient’s condition. If the court finds that the patient’s attendance at the hearing is not consistent with the best interests of the patient, and the patient’s counsel does not object, the court may waive the presence of the patient from all or any portion of the hearing. The state attorney for the circuit in which the patient is located shall represent the state, rather than the petitioning facility administrator, as the real party in interest in the proceeding.
3. The court may appoint a magistrate to preside at the hearing. One of the professionals who executed the petition for involuntary inpatient placement certificate shall be a witness. The patient and the patient’s guardian or representative shall be informed by the court of the right to an independent expert examination. If the patient cannot afford such an examination, the court shall ensure that one is provided, as otherwise provided for by law. The independent expert’s report is confidential and not discoverable, unless the expert is to be called as a witness for the patient at the hearing. The testimony in the hearing must be given under oath, and the proceedings must be recorded. The patient may refuse to testify at the hearing.
(b) If the court concludes that the patient meets the criteria for involuntary inpatient placement, it may order that the patient be transferred to a treatment facility or, if the patient is at a treatment facility, that the patient be retained there or be treated at any other appropriate facility, or that the patient receive services, on an involuntary basis, for up to 90 days. However, any order for involuntary mental health services in a treatment facility may be for up to 6 months. The order shall specify the nature and extent of the patient’s mental illness. The court may not order an individual with traumatic brain injury or dementia who lacks a co-occurring mental illness to be involuntarily placed in a state treatment facility. The facility shall discharge a patient any time the patient no longer meets the criteria for involuntary inpatient placement, unless the patient has transferred to voluntary status.
(c) If at any time before the conclusion of the hearing on involuntary inpatient placement it appears to the court that the person does not meet the criteria for involuntary inpatient placement under this section, but instead meets the criteria for involuntary outpatient services, the court may order the person evaluated for involuntary outpatient services pursuant to s. 394.4655. The petition and hearing procedures set forth in s. 394.4655 shall apply. If the person instead meets the criteria for involuntary assessment, protective custody, or involuntary admission pursuant to s. 397.675, then the court may order the person to be admitted for involuntary assessment for a period of 5 days pursuant to s. 397.6811. Thereafter, all proceedings are governed by chapter 397.
(d) At the hearing on involuntary inpatient placement, the court shall consider testimony and evidence regarding the patient’s competence to consent to treatment. If the court finds that the patient is incompetent to consent to treatment, it shall appoint a guardian advocate as provided in s. 394.4598.
(e) The administrator of the petitioning facility shall provide a copy of the court order and adequate documentation of a patient’s mental illness to the administrator of a treatment facility if the patient is ordered for involuntary inpatient placement, whether by civil or criminal court. The documentation must include any advance directives made by the patient, a psychiatric evaluation of the patient, and any evaluations of the patient performed by a psychiatric nurse, a clinical psychologist, a marriage and family therapist, a mental health counselor, or a clinical social worker. The administrator of a treatment facility may refuse admission to any patient directed to its facilities on an involuntary basis, whether by civil or criminal court order, who is not accompanied by adequate orders and documentation.
(a) Hearings on petitions for continued involuntary inpatient placement of an individual placed at any treatment facility are administrative hearings and must be conducted in accordance with s. 120.57(1), except that any order entered by the administrative law judge is final and subject to judicial review in accordance with s. 120.68. Orders concerning patients committed after successfully pleading not guilty by reason of insanity are governed by s. 916.15.
(b) If the patient continues to meet the criteria for involuntary inpatient placement and is being treated at a treatment facility, the administrator shall, before the expiration of the period the treatment facility is authorized to retain the patient, file a petition requesting authorization for continued involuntary inpatient placement. The request must be accompanied by a statement from the patient’s physician, psychiatrist, psychiatric nurse, or clinical psychologist justifying the request, a brief description of the patient’s treatment during the time he or she was involuntarily placed, and an individualized plan of continued treatment. Notice of the hearing must be provided as provided in s. 394.4599. If a patient’s attendance at the hearing is voluntarily waived, the administrative law judge must determine that the waiver is knowing and voluntary before waiving the presence of the patient from all or a portion of the hearing. Alternatively, if at the hearing the administrative law judge finds that attendance at the hearing is not consistent with the best interests of the patient, the administrative law judge may waive the presence of the patient from all or any portion of the hearing, unless the patient, through counsel, objects to the waiver of presence. The testimony in the hearing must be under oath, and the proceedings must be recorded.
(c) Unless the patient is otherwise represented or is ineligible, he or she shall be represented at the hearing on the petition for continued involuntary inpatient placement by the public defender of the circuit in which the facility is located.
(d) If at a hearing it is shown that the patient continues to meet the criteria for involuntary inpatient placement, the administrative law judge shall sign the order for continued involuntary inpatient placement for up to 90 days. However, any order for involuntary mental health services in a treatment facility may be for up to 6 months. The same procedure shall be repeated before the expiration of each additional period the patient is retained.
(e) If continued involuntary inpatient placement is necessary for a patient admitted while serving a criminal sentence, but his or her sentence is about to expire, or for a minor involuntarily placed, but who is about to reach the age of 18, the administrator shall petition the administrative law judge for an order authorizing continued involuntary inpatient placement.
(f) If the patient has been previously found incompetent to consent to treatment, the administrative law judge shall consider testimony and evidence regarding the patient’s competence. If the administrative law judge finds evidence that the patient is now competent to consent to treatment, the administrative law judge may issue a recommended order to the court that found the patient incompetent to consent to treatment that the patient’s competence be restored and that any guardian advocate previously appointed be discharged.
(g) If the patient has been ordered to undergo involuntary inpatient placement and has previously been found incompetent to consent to treatment, the court shall consider testimony and evidence regarding the patient’s incompetence. If the patient’s competency to consent to treatment is restored, the discharge of the guardian advocate shall be governed by s. 394.4598.
The procedure required in this subsection must be followed before the expiration of each additional period the patient is involuntarily receiving services.
(8) RETURN TO FACILITY.—If a patient involuntarily held at a treatment facility under this part leaves the facility without the administrator’s authorization, the administrator may authorize a search for the patient and his or her return to the facility. The administrator may request the assistance of a law enforcement agency in this regard”.

As far as when when Darcy was hospitalized under the Baker Act I am not sure nor am I exactly aware of the exact reason what prompted it. I just know it was used to substantiate proof of mental instalbility in order to get a temporary restraining order in March of 2016. When Sandra went back to court to request a more permanent restraining order the Judge recommended instead she file a Civil stalking case. The restraining order is currently inactive at this time.

On top of this Lawsuit another rescue Death Row Dog Rescue, Inc. Souther Florida / Diana Peters filed a law suit against Darcy on April 19th 2013. The case was filed in Broward County Florida and it was for Libel, Slander, Defamation, Civil Conspiracy, and for damages in excess of 15,000 plus punitive damages. The case ended up being settled on October 2nd 2013 with Darcy paying an undisclosed amount to the Plaintiff, Diana Peters and was slapped with a Gag order by the Judge. Darcy was ordered by the Judge that she could not mention Diana or the rescue in any form.


Also looking at Darcy’s Facebook profile she states she is a Private Investigator. She earned her certificate from an online College Asworth College, which has been under fire from the FTC about the school’s honesty with students on being able to transfer credits and misrepresenting the credentials they earn.

IMG_1108.PNGSo Let’s discuss the validity of this diploma.  In the State of Georgia in order to qualify as a Licensed Private Investigator she would have have either 2 yrs. Law enforcement experience or 4 yr Bachelor degree in Criminal Justice.  In addition there a full extensive background check done.  You can’t just earn a certificate and declare yourself self employed and work as a Private Investigator you go work under a licensed Private Investigator for 2 yrs and get an apprentice License. I am going to post the Georgia Law on Private Investigators and the requriements.

So what does that mean Darcy? You are not a licensed Private Investigator and just because it’s on Facebook doesn’t make it true!


25 thoughts on “Dog Rescues-The Good-The Bad-And The Ugly , Inspector Bark, and Darcy Ode Butkus

  1. Maybe you should investigate further…. the restraining order was NOT granted due to insufficient evidence. All this shows is a feud between DOB and SD.


    1. Actually you need to do research it was approved. There was a temporary one granted and then when the victim when back to court she was told she needed to file a case for stalking and harassment. Just because Darcy opens her mouth doesn’t means she is honest. In fact if you checked your facts you would find Amy from 100 Everglades was fully Exonerated.


      1. Darcy has the welfare of the animals in mind, unlike rescues who use donations to pay for their personal needs. You are slandering Darcy. For the record, 100+ is currently under investigation for misuse of funds. They have not been exonerated. They have been ordered to have a fully complete audit going back to when they went into “business” and any funds that were found to be misappropriated are going to have to be reported as “personal income” to Amy Joy Roman Restucci Daniello, so it’s not over yet. Not by a long shot.


      2. Jamie let me break down for you. They were exonerated. The investigation is over. They had to pay an administrative fee of 5000.00 and amend a few things on the tax records. They were cleared of any wrong doing. Now if I were you I would quit listening to Darcy and learn how to start looking up things for yourself. Darcy is out of touch with reality. She wouldn’t know the truth if it bit her in the ass. Apparently neither do you. You guys sure do like being up in Amy’s shit a lot if you want I can have her take a nice fresh one for you and you can go digging through it. Just let me know. I’m sure she wouldn’t mind.


  2. rhettbutler1873, hmmmm… you must be on the 100+ payroll too. If I were you I would quit listening to AMY and learn how to start looking things up for yourself. YOU wouldn’t know the truth if it bit you in the ass. I am a REAL person with a REAL profile. rhettbutler1873, WHO are you?


    1. Jamie you really are as dumb as you look? Who am I? I AM RHETT FUCKING BUTLER CUPCAKE! I hear Darcy stands on the street corner at night but, you know I was trying to be nice and not put that out there! I mean I thought you looked part inbred but, I was wrong you are full inbred! You are listening to a woman who was Baker Acted by her own husband for mental instability, has a long history of making and admitting to making false accusations. She has been sued once and lost. She currently has a lawsuit going against her for the same & is about to get another. Yet 100+ went through a 20 mos investigation and cleared. Every accusation Darcy accused them of was cleared. The 5,000.00 adminstrative fee was money they paid to the IRS for the time it took them to go through the records and find no wrong doing. Yes they will have to be audited for the next few years that is standard procedure. They also have to admend a few years so what doesn’t mean they misappropriated funds. It means the IRS didn’t agree with what they put on a few lines. Big fucking deal! Every Business Owner Deals with it! Now I can show you misappropriation of funds. Darcy’s friend Joan Sammond used SPCA funds to buy sex toys among other things. Go read the other blogs then come talk to me. That is the type of trash Darcy associates with. Fuck what am I saying she associates with you if the shoe fits!


      1. I can cuss too… but I prefer to speak intelligently. Sorry but it was a $5000 penalty FINE imposted by the Dept of Ag – it was NOT an administrative payment to reimburse the State of Florida for the 18 month accounting end of the investigation— not IRS – wow 2 different departments – the IRS – fact check? NOT. You look really stupid you know…


      2. Wrong it was an Administrative fee but, yes I do stand corrected it was to the Florida Department of Agriculture. Cussing doesn’t dictate wether or not someone lacks intelligence.I spoke with Amy directly I know what I was told. Jamie you are not that bright perhaps all that inbreeding in your family needs to stop. Like I said before you sure enjoy being up in Amy shit so much I can have her make fresh one for you and you can go digging in it if you like?


  3. I sure hope you aren’t defending Death Roe Dogs. I was the one who contacted a volunteer there because they were using a mom and her pups picture from Chipley Florida begging for donations. It just blew up from there with her constant lying.


    1. I am not defending anyone what I am defending is the fact Darcy went after and instead of just doing it leagally and using the truth, she made up false accusations got busted and sued. Darcy has a history of doing things improperly. She knowingly filed false complaints with code enforcement and IRS on Sandra Dezelan using fake identities. She has done the same with Amy and 100 +. Both ladies have been cleared. Do I agree Diana is not a great rescue absolutely but, Darcy lied about instead of using the truth and going about it the right way to get the rescue shut down.
      While we’re on it let’s talk about Darcy’s track record of being honest? She put on her resume on LinkedIn she was Law Enforcement a lie, she stated on her Facebook she was a private investigator another lie, she recently lied about a non existant private meeting that never took place, she lied about why Amy Dinello got the Bath & Body (it was for charity auction basket not for the dogs), she alters data to make it fit her facts (lying) again I can go on all day. As you can see on here I don’t alter my data. I redacted her personal info because even if I don’t like her I don’t think it’s ok for someone to be able to have it. I don’t add notes or alter the data in any way the most you get is an underline to highlight something important.


      1. My comment was strictly about Death Row Dogs. I personally saw the lies they told. And the lawsuit Diana filed—the judge laughed it out of court. I was involved with the entire process. It was such a joke the things Diana did. She put a volunteers child all over the internet. She also called social services on the same volunteer to distract what she was doing. I’m not going to speak about Sandra or Amy. I will say that I brought the pages to my brother who is a lawyer and my sister in law is an accountant and after looking at it, it was a $5000 fine. Not a fee. Also $700 for a night in the town and countless spa treatments? I don’t see how that went to the dogs.


      2. I do know that Amy was cleared. They called it an Adminitstrative Fee. We can argue semantics wether it was a fine or a fee either way it was 5000.00. See Diana I don’t know much about the case just that she won and there is a gag order in place. Yes but, some of those pages could have been Amy’s personal cards to pay rescue expenses so yes you would have seen personal expenses on the sheet. I can say this I have spoke with both Amy Roman-Dinello & Sandra Dezlan the hell that Darcy has put them through with false allegations and the maliciousness of her lies is ridiculous. If either one of them had been doing anything wrong they would have been shut down and charged. The car Amy bought is strictly used for the rescue. Darcy thinks it’s ok for her to act in such a manner, to destroy peoples’ lives and it’s not. She is being caught in lies herself major ones yet she continues to harass and stalk people. It’s not ok.


  4. I’m not here to discuss Darcy. But honestly, you and her are just alike. While she exposes rescues, you are on her exposing her personal life. So in truth, that in no way makes you any better.


  5. You can believe whatever you want. Honestly, I am just baffled that you believe everything that comes out of Amy’s mouth. Since she said it was an admin fee, then it must be true. I know the truth. You can debate back and forth all you want. I know what really went on with the Dept of Ag. 😉


    1. Were you the one doing the audit? Unless you were the one doing the audit you can’t say. Amy was cleared and no you don’t know what really went on, unless you were the one going through it.


  6. And one can say the same to you. Did you do the audit? No? Take your own advice. Btw—just because someone disagrees with you doesn’t make them wrong. It’s simply a difference of opinion.
    You sure are getting defensive over the audit. Sit back—there is more to come.


    1. Who is getting defensive? I am laughing at the fact you feel the need to be this far up Amy’s ass digging in her shit. Shit if I wanted to give Darcy a proctology exam I would contact the IRS but, that takes way too much effort.


    1. Facts are, Darcy continues doing this shit to rescues as she did then she does now. Claims without proof, conjecture, and spreading false information based on the vendettas of others. It is common place with her behavior, she is not stable. I made the mistake of getting in touch with her to do something and it erupted into hellish rumor mill wild-fires with essentially police swatting tactics being used. She is digusting.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s