10/05/2026
There has been a significant amount of misinformation shared online regarding the dog referred to as “Banjo. We have been reluctant to issue a response because we believe matters such as these should be addressed through appropriate channels rather than social media. Public speculation can fuel misinformation and distract from what matters most- the welfare of the dog. However, because inaccurate information and half truths continue to be shared, we believe it is important to clarify the documented timeline and provide a factual account of the events.
Stray Intake and Transfer
On 07/02/2026, a stray dog was brought to Jacksonville Humane Society (JHS) that JHS subsequently named “Moola.” No owner came forward during the applicable stray-hold period so JHS proceeded in accordance with its policies and the applicable laws and ordinances governing stray animals and ownership. Following the expiration of the mandatory 5 days hold period and completion of the shelter’s process, JHS subsequently transferred ownership of Moola to Able’s Legacy Rescue on 7/10/26.
As part of its process, JHS attempted to identify an owner through the dog’s microchip. The information available at that time did not identify a registered owner. The available records did however show prior involvement by multiple organizations. After the dog entered our care, we engaged a third party to independently review the microchip details and available shelter records. The information identified through that review did not identify a registered owner who could be contacted.
At intake, Moola was in poor emotional condition and exhibited significant fear, anxiety, and handling challenges. As a stray intake, the cause of those behaviors was unknown. JHS made multiple attempts to vaccinate him, but he was biting staff and could not be safely handled to complete his vaccinations. Because he required a different environment and additional behavioral support, JHS contacted a rescue for assistance.
After entering our care, the dog was renamed “Archie,” a name to which he responded immediately. Since that time, our rescue team has provided veterinary care, preventative medications, food, supplies, behavioral support, socialization, and ongoing care. Significant volunteer time and financial resources have been devoted to his health, rehabilitation, and well-being.
Subsequent Ownership Claim
On August 25, 2026, JHS was contacted by Christy regarding the dog. JHS reached out to us and asked if they could share our contact information with her, and we wholeheartedly agreed. Even though the dog had already been transferred to our care, we were happy to speak with her. Reuniting lost pets with their families whenever possible is something we genuinely care about and is an important part of why we do what we do.
Our first direct communication with Christy also occurred on August 25, 2026. We explained that we would need documentation and additional information allowing us to evaluate and verify the ownership. Christy declined to participate in that process, stating, “I can’t adopt some thing that is already mine.”
At no point did Able’s Legacy require Christy to pay an adoption fee or any other amount to claim the dog. No adoption fee was quoted or requested.
The rescue did not refuse to consider Christy’s claim. We have remained willing to review documentation supporting the claim, but the requested documentation was not provided. Communications subsequently became increasingly concerning in nature, including hostile communications from multiple phone numbers. The rescue has retained documentation of those communications. Given the sheer volume of the communications, hostility and imposed threats, law enforcement was contacted.
Until days ago, the last direct communication between Christy and the rescue was on 8/28/2026.
October 1, 2026 Incident
On October 1, 2026, the chip registration information was suddenly changed to reflect Christy as the owner. That same evening, Christy showed up to the private residence of a rescue supporter claiming her dog had been “stolen.” The rescue supporter was watching Archie temporarily; he was supposed to be picked up earlier that day, but there were some unanticipated events that delayed the pickup. Absent those events, Archie would have not even been at the supporter’s home at the time Christy arrived. Nonetheless in light of the allegation, we provided law enforcement with the documentation available to us concerning the dog’s intake, transfer, veterinary care, and subsequent communications from Christy. As a result of the incident, the supporter, rescue members (previous and current), and some volunteers have been expressed concerns for their own personal safety and the safety and their family members.
We know first hand that the loss of a beloved pet can be deeply emotional. However, the documented timeline remains important: the dog entered JHS as a stray on July 2, 2026, remained unclaimed during the applicable stray-hold period, was processed and transferred to Able’s Legacy on July 10, 2026, and the rescue was not contacted regarding a claimed ownership interest until August 25, 2026. Although provided the opportunity to verify ownership, Christy refused to provide us with the necessary documentation. There were no communications between the rescue from August 28, 2026 until October 1, 2026, which is the same day the chip registration was changed and Christy advised law enforcement that the rescue “stole” the dog and subsequently showed up to a supporter’s home after dark.
Able’s Legacy relied upon the records and ownership transfer provided by JHS and independently reviewed the information provided to us from the shelter and the third-party we utilized regarding the chip details when the rescue acquired ownership from JHS. When the ownership claim was raised, we requested documentation so that we could evaluate appropriately rather than making assumptions based solely on an assertion of ownership. As a rescue, we are required to maintain records for each transfer of ownership. The adoption application not only supports our verification process, it promotes our record retention requirements.
Our Position
We have acted in good faith and in accordance with the information and records available to us, applicable laws and ordinances, shelter procedures, and our rescue policies. We have retained the records supporting the timeline described above and will provide additional information through appropriate channels as necessary.
Our goal has never been to prevent a dog from being reunited with a legitimate owner. We simply need reliable information and documentation to evaluate. Irrespective of the hostility directed towards the rescue and its extended network, we remain open to the possibility of reunification despite Christy referring to Archie repeatedly as “personal property” / “some thing” rather than a living being and irrespective of the hostility towards the rescue, we remain open to the possibility of reunification.
We ask that any further questions or concerns be directed to Able’s Legacy Rescue through our official channels and not to individual volunteers, fosters, adopters, supporters, or partners. Regardless of anyone’s position on this matter, harassment, threats, intimidation, or unannounced visits to private residences is unacceptable. The safety and well-being of our rescue network, and the animals entrusted to our care remain a priority, and we will take appropriate steps to protect them as necessary.
Able’s Legacy Rescue remains focused on what we have always been here to do: saving lives, one paw 🐾 at a time.
