Certain newspapers constantly report about 4 bitings.The City of Ann Arbor has alleged that Ato has bitten four people. The truth is that in fact it has been one bite; the one of the newspaper boy. The facts regarding these allegations are as follows:

On June 21, 1997, at the Plymouth Mall of Ann Arbor, Heidi Goldberg was 'bitten'  when she reached into the Ikumas' unattended car to pet Ato. Ato snipped her ! Ms. Goldberg has admitted the incident was her fault. 

On July 31, 1997, while chained to a gate at the home of an acquaintance of the Ikumas, a 17-year-old girl startled Ato when she opened that gate suddenly. He jumped and put his paws on her and she was scratched. Ato did not bite her. The City of Ann Arbor claims that Ato "bit at her rib cage and arm". There was no bite at all.

On October 3, 1998, during a test of his temperament by Linda Morin, an experienced, professional animal trainer, and after he had been intentionally provoked by Ms. Morin, Ato in the process of defending himself by attacking her. Contrary to many prior false reports, Ato only attempted to bite her. Further, Ms. Morin testified that Ato's reaction to this test was normal.
It must be noted that in the present civil case, Ms. Morin was called as a witness by the City of Ann Arbor. She affirmatively testified that Ato should not be euthanized. She also expressed the opinion that Ato would not have bitten Alex Newton unless Alex had provoked him.

On August 23, 1998,  Ato bit Alex Newton in his left buttock when he trespassed the Ikuma's house.

Conclusion: We are talking here about one bite and not four !!

Again and again certain newspapers are just writing that Ato has bitten a newspaper boy (Alex), when he delivered the newspaper (by the way he delivered Ann Arbor News !). Nothing is written that the newspaper boy intruded the house for delivering the paper ! Further nothing is written about the newspaper compnay being obliged to provide proper instructions to a deliverer. Has that be done ?
On August 23, 1998, Alex Newton, the 13 year old paperboy, actually entered the Ikumas' home. He has testified that he saw Ato through the Plexiglas front door before he opened the door. That is, he opened the door and went into the house. Alex testified in the present case that he merely cracked the storm door and placed the paper inside of the door where the doormat would be. The evidence suggests that he could not have done that because the newspaper was five feet inside of the house. Ato was resting ten feet inside of the house.

Alex in entering the Ikumas' home was trespassing. Further, he violated all instructions that he had received from the Ann Arbor News when he opened the storm door to either slip the paper into the home, or actually went into the house. He violated his instructions when he provoked Ato, and ran from him. There are other acts of indiscretion on the part of Alex.

Judge Creal-Goodridge actually found that Alex did commit a trespass, but she stated that it was not a "knowing trespass". Obviously Alex was sleepwalking when he opened the Ikumas' door.
If Judge Creal-Goodridge had found that Alex knowingly trespassed, she could not have found, under the Dangerous Animal Act, that Ato could be classified as a dangerous animal.

Again and again certain newspapers are giving the impression that the Ikumas are wrong. The problem is that the city of Ann Arbor, through assistant city attorney Robert West, is constantly ventilating statements, which are in many cases unethic (e.g. "We're not going to drop this case," West said. "We're winning. We just lost the prize." (FREEP, July, 19, 2000) and untrue !!
.In December 1998 a jury returned a not guilty verdict; i.e Ato is not a dangerous dog ! The city not to be out done sued the Ikumas in civil court under the claim that Ato had bitten four persons. The evidence produced showed that Ato bit one person. Alex Newton only, not four ! 
What is behind this action of the city ? This only can be guessed.......Money ? Elections ? A father who has a strong influence ?
In the meantime the city of Ann Arbor uses all means to bring Ato and his owners in discredit.

Some newspapers are referring to the assistant attorney Robert West who stated; "What is really a shame is that as long as the dog sites there, it takes up space that other dogs who could be adpoted have to be uethanized to keep this dog around". The impression is given that the Ikuma's are lucky people in having Ato at the HSHV.....Further that the Ikumas locked themsleves up when visiting Ato at the HSHV......
Having Ato sheltered at the HSHV has never been a choice of the Ikumas. They were ordered as a result of a judicial outcome. Besides they were not informed at all last year that 'officials' moved Ato to the HSHV ! Ato was locked up, as the Ikumas were during their daily 10- 20 minutes visit, in a 3-by-5 foot pen ! For that they had to pay initially $ 10.00 and later $ 25.00 per day ! The HSHV did not feed Ato, that was done by the Ikumas !
The Ikumas did not lock themselves up; that was done by the staff  of the HSHV.......

Up to now no newspaper took the time to look into more detail to the regulations for dangerous/vicious dogs and the interpretations. Neither did they check the City Code of Ann Arbor (Police regulations; CH. 107 Animals ). The Dangerous Animal Act, actually gives some consideration to the owners as well as to accused animals. For example, a dog cannot be classified a dangerous animal if it was provoked into biting a person. Further, a dog cannot be destroyed unless it kills a dog or a human, or inflicts a serious injury on a person, i.e. serious impairment of a health or bodily function or permanent serious disfigurement. The injuries inflicted on the paperboy were described as superficial and suprafacial, i.e. minor wounds.
The court insists in applying the (outdated) 1919 Dog Law and based on that ordering the euthanasia of Ato.
A lot is in favor to state that this statute is unconstitutional under the United States Constitution and the Constitution of the State of Michigan because the statute by not applying any standards for determining when a dog can be killed, violates the Due Process clauses of the aforementioned constitutions and thereby unlawfully negates Seiko Ikuma's constitutionally protected civil rights.  Nevertheless the judges (Goodridge, Connors) remain referring to the outdated 1919 Dog Law.

Certain newspapers are unethically making statements that Ato is doomed when he might be found and refer again to a statement made by assistant city attorney Robert West; "Now that the Ikumas signed the norm, I believe the case is over".
On the 21st. of July 2000 Seiko Ikuma signed, under protest and under duress, a so called waiver to agree that Ato, following the court decisions, will be euthanized. The terms 'under protest and under duress' means that this waiver is not legaly binding !