Thursday, October 7, 2010

Time to review

Yesterday, Ross Pool and Animals Services stated that "there are no records" for medical for Stu for 2009. Strange because there are records going back to 2005 and also 2010. Wonder what happened to them...

First posted WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 24, 2008

The High Cost of Doing Nothing. Part I (or "Merry Christmas, Stu.")

More Law Breaking and Wasting of Your Tax Dollars:
Los Angeles Animal Services Board Secretary Ross Pool Violates Califorina Public Records Act - AGAIN .

We know from reading Ed Muzika's LA Animal Watch that requests to Board Secretary, "Hoss Fool", for Public Records under the Califorina Public Records Act often go ignored and mishandled by Ross Pool, whose official title is now "Senior Management Analyst" (last salary as "Management Anylyst II" $71,032.72). Linda Gordon who is a "Senior Management Anayst II" makes $115,466.40. 
SHOCKING, I know. No wonder the City's broke. We are paying million$ in HIGH salaries to people who can't or won't or are not permitted to do their jobs.

It seems that Jeff's poor dog Stu's teeth have been rotting in his mouth since he first, in 2006, complained to Ed Boks and the Board in the form of an email blast complete with video postings on Stu's site at No. they never did anything for Stu's teeth and wouldn't allow him +/- Read more...
to have bones or chew toys which might have helped.

Well, more than two years later and after Stu has suffered for that long with pain, bleeding gums and now lost teeth, Jeff's at it again.

With renewed prodding (and because Jeff has had a win in Superior Court (see caseBS104874) over his Constitutional Rights being violated by Stuckey-remember him?- and the Hearing Examiner George Mossman and Capt. Karen Stepp -remember her?-and Debbie Knaan-remember her?) LAAS has finally succumbed to getting what's left of Stu's teeth "cleaned." However, they did it without Jeff's permission (after they asked for his permission and he imposed terms) and PUT STU UNDER GENERAL ANESTHESIA WITHOUT FIRST PERFORMING A BLOOD TEST-also without Jeff's permission.
Ed Boks is burning mad because Jeff has beat the City in court, without a lawyer, and is about to do so again for Stu and himself. Cost to you , the taxpayer in the above case was $736 in costs plus many hours of your City Attorney's time. Attorney Todd Leung makes about $200,000 defending Jeff's legal actions over his dogs. Your money.
In Part II, we'll look at Boks's lies (with actual letters and emails) and most recent effort to prey on Stu and Jeff; and Dr. Jeremy Prupas's blunders and poor judgment (which may end up as being determined to be malpractice) and the Board's refusal to address this matter at the direction of Ed Boks , Dov Lesel and the Mayor's buffoons.
Merry Christmas, Stu.

Here's today's letter from Jeff to "Hoss" re: California Public Records Act.

Jeffrey de la Rosa

December 24, 2008

via EMAIL and FAX to: (213) 482-9511

Ross Pool
City of Los Angeles
Department of Animal Services
221 N. Figueroa Street, 5th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Dear Mr. Pool,
On Wednesday, December 17, I wrote to Mr. Boks, Dr. Prupas and Board Vice President Commissioner Riordan and requested copies of the following Public Records:

  1. The contract executed in or about September 2007 between the City of Los Angeles and/or Department of Animals Services and Bobby Dorafshar’s K9s Only.
  2. All veterinary records for my dog, Stu, since 2005 including Stu’s exam and treatment at North Figueroa Animal Hospital which took place on or about December 4, 2008.
I received no response.
On Friday, December 19, 2008 I spoke with administrative assistant Maria Gomez($74,103.12 per year) in your offices and again requested copies of the above records. Ms. Gomez informed me that I would need to speak with you about my request because you are “in charge of ALL the records; and she also said you had “left for the day.” She took my number and assured me that you would call on Monday December 22.

You did not return my call. I later discovered that you were actually in your offices at the time of my call on Friday and had not “left for the day.”

Today I telephoned your offices, shortly after 4 p.m. and spoke to you and renewed my request to inspect the above public records at your offices. You asked me when I wanted to look at them and I replied that I was near your offices and would come by before your close of business at 5 p.m. You replied, “I’m getting’ ready to go home” and attempted to put me off until December 24. When I arrived at your offices, you told me that you did not know where those records are located and that you would have to “hunt for them.”

Mr. Pool, I am not stupid, as you very well know. I have the right to immediate access to these records during business hours. It is common knowledge that my dog, Stu, is the most well-known dog abused by your department in recent history. Any fool would assume, and rightly so, that all records pertaining to Stu are within a few seconds of you and General Manager Ed Boks at your main administrative offices. It is equally unbelievable that you “don’t know where the records are” when you are apparently “in charge of ALL the records.”

As has been the case many times in the past regarding my requests for public records as well as those by others: You are in violation of the California Public Records Act,particularly California Civil Code (C.C.C.) §6253 (a) which states:

(a) Public records are open to inspection at all times during the office hours of the state or local agency and every person has a right to inspect any public record, except as hereafter provided. Any reasonably segregable portion of a record shall be available for inspection by any person requesting the record after deletion of the portions that are exempted by law.


(d) Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to permit an agency to delay or obstruct the inspection or copying of public records.

You have been aware of my request since December 17, 2008 and have done nothing to comply with it. After you disingenuously stated that you “don’t even know where they are” I asked you to specify which shelter may have the records so that I may go there to inspect them. You failed to furnish that information. Regarding the requested contract-- please be aware that public contracts are not excepted under the CPRA.
(San Diego Union v. City Council, 146 Cal.App.3d 947 (1983)).

Please also be advised that you and the City are now liable for damages, costs and attorney fees pursuant to California Civil Code §§1798.45-1798.48 You may be personally liable for damages as well as the City being liable for damages. If Mr. Boks has instructed you to “delay or obstruct” the inspection of these records, they are equally liable.

As you know, I have been for a very long time urgently concerned about Stu’s health and the delay tactics and cruelty by your department in these matters has caused me severe emotional distress which is compensable under applicable law.
When you are served with the court action for the most recent act of your habitual transgressions of the law, please do not misconstrue legal action as a withdrawal of my request.


Jeffrey de la Rosa

CC: Council President Eric Garcetti; Councilperson Dennis Zine; Councilperson Tony Cardenas; Councilperson Bernard Parks; Commissioner Kathleen Riordan; Ed Boks, General Manager ; Jim Bickart Edmund Brown, Attorney General, BoardWatch, LA Animal Watch.

Bookmark and Share

New Protests against proposed pet limit increases lodged with City Clerk

Since the new GM of Animal Services Brenda Barnette's September town hall meeting, regarding the proposal by Councilmembers Rosendahl and Koretz to increase the number of dogs and cats allowed in a "household," new protests have been lodged with the Los Angeles City Clerk. They appear below. It seems that the advocates for this proposal are unaware of the process by which they may make their opinions known to Council. Better get on it.
Protests to date: 8
Supporters: 13

This, like any other legislation , is a numbers game.


Please file with city clerk in Council file 10-0982 to protest.
-----Original Message-----
From: Kathleen Johnson
Sent: Fri, Oct 1,20104:57 pm
Subject: Re:
here is what i sent:
October-1, 2010
Dear Mr. Koretz;
I have recently become aware of a proposed ordinance to allow individuals
to take in five dogs. This proposal seems very untenable, without any
monitoring or control over who gets the animals, no measure to prevent
abandonment, nor any oversight on how many dogs anyone might
possibly take in.
With noise pollution already a serious issue, the last thing our neighborhoods
need is more barking-not to mention the inherent mess of careless owners.
We all love animals, but surely there are far better ways to spend our
money to ensure their well-being.
Thanks for your time and consideration,
Kathleen Johnson
South Carthay


Please file with City Clerk in council file 10-0982 as a protest.
-----Original Message-----
From: alex collins
Sent: Sun, Oct 3, 2010 2:12 pm
Subject: Opposition to increase in dogs/cats per residence
Council members,
Please know that as a resident in the Miracle Mile, I'm opposed to the proposition
currently being discussed that would allow residents to increase the number of pets
from three to five. I don't agree with the assertions that it would decrease the number of
pets in shelters, however, I believe it would increase the potential for safety issues
within residences, increase potential noise violations from louder animals, as well as
increase the potential for animal cruelty.
Thank you.
Alex Collins

please file with city clerk in council file 10-0982 (Protest)
-----Original Message----- PROTEST
From: Sofia Speth
Sent: Tue, Oct 5, 2010 1:38 am
Subject: Protest Against Proposed City Ordinance to Allow More Dogs per Household
It is extremely important that the proposed City Ordinance to allow more dogs per household (Council file
10-0982) be tabled indefinitely in order to consider the unintended and highly negative impacts to the
City of Los Angeles.
This City Ordinance, if approved, will impact our urban environment in enormous and highly negative
This City Ordinance, if approved, will impact our City budget by increasing the need for additional funds to
administer it, which we certainly cannot afford.
Thank you for considering my protest.
Please think before you act. Study the negative environmental impact and increased costs to our City.
Sofia G. Speth
4874 W. 2nd Street
Los Angeles, CA 90036
(323) 934-1901
011 -<
-----Original Message-----
From: Devin Galaudet
Sent: Tue, Oct 5, 2010 12:55 pm
Subject: Here is what I sent PROTEST
Dear Mr. Koretz and Mr. Rosendahl,
It has come to my attention that there is a consideration of making it legal to allow an average family within city
limits to have up to five dogs, raising it from three.
I would appreciate to know who might be helped by this increase? As it stands there are too many unwanted dogs
and too many irresponsible dog owners to make sense making a change like this. My main concern is the safety
issues associated with giving dog owners to bite off more than they can chew (pardon the pun). Managing three
dogs is difficult. Managing five is a public nuisance and a problem waiting to happen. Five dogs are a pack and more
dangerous in a group -- on a leash or not. They require too much supervision. A loose gate allows five into populated
areas with children and no simple way of wrangling them. The choice is asking for trouble.
This does not even take into consideration the amount of dog owners who allow dogs to bark at all hours, do not
pick up after their dogs or abandon them in the streets. As, I am sure you know, too many strays and over populated
animal sanctuaries.
Simply put, the consideration is selfish and puts non-dog owners, tax-payers, and voters to carry the burden of
having to deal with even more dogs in a major city.
In the end, five dogs in a crowded city is completely unnecessary. Of course, this one is easy, do not pass the
Devin Galaudet
Editor In The Know Traveler
-----Original Message-----

From: Lenore Sachs
To: Amy Galaudet
Sent: Tue, Oct 5, 20102:56 pm
Subject: Fw: 5 dogs per household legislation:

Amy, I just sent this off to Paul Koretz. Hope it helps. I
also intend to call his office on Robertson Blvd. Lenore
----- Forwarded Message ----
From: Lenore Sachs
Sent: Tue, October 5, 2010 12:54:30 PM
Subject: 5 dogs per household legislation:
Dear Councilman Koretz, lam writing to you to express my
opposition to the proposed legislation that would .permit up to
5 dogs in households in the 5th District. Consider this
scenario: Because there are all kinds of reasons your
neighbor might use to justify either a constantly barking dog
or one that messes up the easement in front of your home twice
daily while it's being walked by its owner, before you can
convince that owner to stop the barking and to cleanup the
daily mess, it takes determination, time and energy
(yours), plus the intervention of the Animal Services
Unit. Multiply that by5 and you have a neighborhood
disaster. The present limit of3 dogs per household seems to
be reasonable, but when you increase the number to 5, you cross
the line into the realm of unreasonableness. One way for you
to resolve this is to ask yourself if you would be agreeable
about accepting this (the new rules allowing 5 dogs) if it were
your neighbor keeping 5 dogs. Your honest answer to this
question should be the one you use to cast a vote.

Levine Sachs
6628 West 6th Street
Los Angeles, California 90048


Please file with city clerk in Council File 10-0982 (Protest). Thank you. PROTEST
-----Origif)al Message-----
From: jesse sugarman
Sent: Thu, Sep 30, 2010 7:21 pm
Subject: Misguided Dog Ordinance
Dear Councilman,
5 animals, (Dogs specifically) in a.{Lapartm~flt or house is way too much.
is a major issue.
save dogs by this
that gave them up
Dog harding has become
misguided ordinance? It
in the first place will
a problem and how do you expect to
doesn't make sense. The same people
just do the same thing.
There will always be abandonded dogs. People can't afford their upkeep or
for their vet bills now, and you want to give them the ability to have more
dogs. Ridiculous. And most of all the city does not maintain any sembellance
monitoring now. How do you plan to do this in the future?
This ordinance is an awful idea. Please come to your senses for all our
- Jesse Sugarman
Jesse Sugarman
216 1/4 S Poinsettia Place
LA, CA, 90036
Please file this protest with city clerk in Council file 10-0982
-----Original Message-----
From: Mark DeCouto
To: amyg93@aoLcom
Sent: Thu, Sep 30, 2010 12:59 pm
Subject: FWD: 5 dog ordinance
>-----Original Message-----
>From: "Mark OeCouto"
>Sent: 09/30/10 - 10:58
>Subject: 5 dog ordinance
>Dear Mr Koretz
>The proposed ordinance allowing up to 5 dogs per residence will create a
bigger nuisance than the one you are trying to solve.
>I send this email in objection to such an ill concieved idea, based on
many reasons you've heard already (breeding, noise, feces, etc ...).
>Solutions to the population problem need to be re-enforced.
>Mark DeCouto
>Los Angeles 90048

Bookmark and Share

Share this blog...

Share |