Wednesday, June 17, 2009

An Open Letter to the Animal Services Board of Commisioners

Tariq Khero
Kathleen Riordan
Archie J. Quincey
Irene Ponce
Ruthanne Secunda
Board of Commissioners
Department of Animal Services
City of Los Angeles
221 N Figueroa St. , 5th floor
Los Agneles CA 90012

RE: LA Superior Court Case no. BS104936/Court of Appeals Case B202071

Dear Commissioners,

As you may know, I requested a continuance/postponement of my oral argument in the Court of Appeals. which is scheduled for Thursday 6/18. It was my hope that the additional time might assist us all in coming to a reasonable solution.

Today, I received word that the Court denied my request. I also received a copy of the letter from Mr. Leung to the Court, vigorously opposing my request. I attach it for your info. As usual, Mr. Leung's writing is full of venom and loaded accusations. He asserts that I have no interest in settlement. I think that you know that is far from the truth. I have asked several times to have discussions. Just like the Corwins had...for hours....and hours.....two appeal hearings. A hearing which went on so long, that you had no time to discuss Stu's case.

What the City Attorney's office has proposed is an impossible situation which comes with the following realities:

1. Some unknown approved "facility" which will step up and take on the legacy of Stu. I spoke to Bobby Dorafshar yesterday and his feeling is that there is no such "facility" that would accept what the City is proposing. If you have not read the contract which Bobby had to sign, it is a very unfair and constraining agreement. Is is Bobby's opinion, and I agree, that there is no organization who will agree to do what the City is proposing. If any of you have suggestions, i would ask you to make them now.

2. For me to find an organization to take in Stu would require a lot of research ,networking and time. More time than Stu has. Mr Leung's proposal states that this all must be finalized and approved by Council prior to the Court's decision which could be announced in 3 days or 3 months. Nobody knows.

3. I must "bear the expense" of this facility's care for Stu. Truthfully, this fight has tapped me out I have nothing to offer anyone, which makes it less likely that a group will appear out of thin air.

4. Although I asked for clarification of the terms of the proposal over a month ago, Mr. Leung only sent them on June 8th. Then he made a bold statement to the Court that I have had the terms for "over a month." This is your lawyer. He works for you. Ironically, he works for me, too and the rest of the people in the City. Ross Pool also works for you. It is not the other way around.

All of these terms in Mr. Leung's proposal force me to agree that :

1. Stu is a dangerous dog. We and all the experts know that this is not true. If my hearings had been fair and if the proper file had been submitted to the Courts, Maeve, Stu and I would be out for our evening walk right now.

2. That Stu and I received a fair hearing and a fair appeal in your Department.

3. That I am incapable of properly caring for Stu. Anyone who knows me will tell you that I am more than capable. In fact, the absolute best place for Stu is with me, at home. Anywhere else his future is uncertain. Some organizations may decide to forego veterinary costs should he develop a health
problem--aside from the severe dental disease he already has. Who is going to spend money to prolong a 10 year old mutt's life? Only me.

None of these are true. You cannot wait for the Court's opinion. I am confident they will deny me. This is no time for politics and the whims of higher ups. You were entrusted to care for these animals and Stu is one of them. Please care for him.

So I ask you. I beg you. Please ensure that you meet on Monday and that you take meaningful and conclusive action to right this wrong and send Stu home. Believe it or not, you do have the power to send him home. You know the truth. You know he was treated unfairly. If you'd like to have a new hearing, let's do that; BUT PLEASE, DO NOT DO NOTHING; and DO NOT allow a pissed off City Attorney to take his wrath for me out on an innocent animal. This matter is as simple at this:

* Stu is not dangerous.
* The department screwed up.
* The lawyers screwed up.
* Judge Chalfant saw that this is true.
* Judge Yaffe did not have all of the facts. Neither does the Court of Appeals.
* The right thing to do is to amend your motion and overturn Mr. Stuckey's decision.
* Courts have this power. YOU HAVE THIS POWER. Mr. Leung will tell you that you don't. Why not ask the Attorney General's Office? They would be happy to give their opinion.

Rather than make me show you where it says that you can do this. SHOW ME WHERE IT SAYS YOU CANNOT. The Corwins still have their dog which has attacked 7 times. If I were white and rich, would I have Stu home already...?

This City Attorney's department will undergo major changes in a few days. Please let Stu benefit from what Mr. Trutanich is calling "public integrity enforcement" The last person who used that word --integrity--in this case was Marie Atake. There is no General Manager. There is a lame duck City attorney with some underlings who despise me. You are the Department. Please do the right thing.

Please do not be manipulated into making a decsion, or failing to act which will result either Stu's death or eternity behind bars...without comfort, love and the securtiy of his dad.

Thank you,
Jeff de la Rosa

No comments:

Post a Comment

Please make up a name other than "Anonymous" so we can keep track of who says what.No, we don't need your real name. How to do this? Below, select "Name/Url" and type in a name. That's it. You will still be "anonymous" but we'll know which "anonymous" you are. Thanks.

Share this blog...

Share |