Explain Stu's case to me, Jeff...

As this saga come to what I hope will be a positive resolution for Stu and me, many people are still asking of me what the things were that the City did or did not do which resulted in Stu and me being deprived of Due Process and a fair hearing in this life and death decision process.
First let me explain what Due Process is. The Constitution of the United States and our California Constitution guarantee us certain inalienable rights.

1. We may not be deprived of life, liberty or property without Due Process of Law. That means that :
2. We must be properly notified of the accusations we face and notified of the time and place of a hearing or trial of the issues ;and
3. We must be given an opportunity to present evidence, witnesses in our defense and confront witnesses and cross-examine that witness who may offer testimony against us.
4. The matter must be heard by a neutral, disinterested and impartial trier of fact (judge). In this case, an Animal Control Officer acting as hearing examiner. For the appeal, a panel of Commissioners. We asked for all 5 but were given only 3—the most conservative three-3 lawyers.

Additionally, the Los Angeles Municipal Code is quite specific on how hearings for license revocation (for dogs) and dangerous animals shall be conducted.

The Initial Hearing and General Manager’s Decision:
So, in Stu’s case, what did they do right?


+/- Read more...

1. They notified me of the charges and the time and place of the hearing.
2. They allowed me to cross examine my accuser, but interrupted my questioning, prevented me from asking certain questions regarding the “victim’s” motivation for possibly being untruthful and ruled many of my questions as “irrelevant.”

What did they do wrong?
1. See (2) above.
2. Witnesses

a. The Department’s own Administrative Hearing Guide informs the public of the proper way to request that witnesses be called to appear. I followed it. They did not.

b. They received my written request for several department employees and one LAPD officer to be summoned to appear as witnesses but refused to summon them. Their explanation for this was that they didn’t have to summon any witnesses that the Department did not request.

3. They denied my request to have Stu (and Maeve, in her separate case) evaluated by Dr. Richard Polksy on shelter property. This prevented me from presented evidence which would have shown that Stu was not a dangerous animal and bit only in self-defense as reaction to :
a. Not being able to flee (she closed him into a room and approached him in a corner).
b. Having his wound irritated by the “victim.”

4. Helen Brakemeir. Los Angeles Municipal Code Section 53.18.5 provides that the Hearing Examiner make his report and recommendations from the hearing to the General Manager. Back then, it was Guerdon Stuckey who had just been asked for his resignation. The General Manager shall review the report and recommendations and either accept, reject or modify the Hearing Examiner’s recommendation. This recommendation was to revoke my license for Stu but not to declare him to be a “dangerous animal.” The G.M. may also return the case to the Hearing Examiner for further review modification, if necessary.

This didn’t happen the way the Municipal Code says it should have happened. Instead, somehow and for some reason (her friend, Capt. Karen Stepp despised me), Captain Helen Brakemeir, with no apparent authority, intercepted the Hearing Examiner’s report and wrote her own opinion which urged the G.M. to declare Stu to be “dangerous” and thus killed--even though she did not hear the testimony nor did she attend the hearing; nor was she a hearing examiner or in any other position of authority related to administrative hearings. Brakemeir’s memo states that she wrote the decision letter declaring Stu to be dangerous and placed in folder on the Department’s computer network for Stuckey to sign.

The Appeal before the Board of Animal Services Commissioners:
Grounds for Reversal of the General Manger’s decision.
At the appeal hearing held on March 8, 2006. My attorney (I did not have one at the original hearing) and I raised the issues above as grounds for reversal of the G.M. decision. At the time, we did not know about the Brakemeir memo and were very surprised that the G.M. was imposing a harsher penalty and a rejection of the Hearing Examiner’s recommendation. I did not learn of the Brakemeir memo, and the mystery was not solved, until I made a California Public Records Act request and the memo showed up in the pile of paper which I received from Ross Pool.

Debbie Knaan, The Biased Commissioner:

As my March 2006 appeal approached my attorney requested that all 5 Commissioners sit on the appeals Board (Khero, Riordan, Atake, Brown and Knaan). We felt that Atake and Riordan would pay closer attention to a decision which could end in the killing of an animal. We were denied this request as a “new” experimental appeal hearing calendar was being tried. This would involve only 3 Commissioners who would volunteer for evening appeal hearings held outside of regular Board meetings. We protested to no avail and were assigned Khero, Knaan, and Brown. Brown has been appointed to the Board only two months before.

On (or about) February 2, 2006 Deborah Knaan called me at my home. She was responding to my complaints that Stu was not being properly cared for at the pound (another story). After we discussed how that could or would be remedied, she said, “Tell me about the cases. And you have to tell the truth.” I found this to be unusual for a prospective “judge” to be interrogating me, but I knew she was a Deputy District Attorney and I was somewhat intimidated by what I viewed as her special authority. I told her everything I knew about both Stu’s and Maeve’s case.

Afterward, I called my attorney and he was shocked that she would engage in ex parte (without the other party) communication with a “defendant” prior to sitting on the appeal Board. Knaan also warned me, during the conversation, that the Board does not “always side with the animal.” In 2007, I discovered that Knaan had told both Marie Atake and Kathy Riordan that she thought I was a “liar and a creep.” She told them this before my appeal hearing and then participated in it. Ethically, and possibly legally, she should have disqualified herself if her feelings against me were so strong. My attorney should have disqualified her after she called me and interrogated me. Yes, she will be included in my lawsuit against the City of Los Angeles. Imagine you are arrested for …whatever. Before your trial, the judge calls you on the phone and asks for all the details about the case. Then he rules on your case. Whether he rules for or against you, both decisions would be tossed on appeal for judicial bias, or the appearance of that bias.

Knaan Runs the Appeal Hearing…Right into the Muck.

At the appeal hearing, Brakemeir appeared for the Department instead of the District Supervisor, Karen Stepp. I’ve always thought that Stepp would not hold up if she was accused of personal bias against me. Knaan took charge of the meeting, although technically, Khero as Vice President was supposed to run the thing. So there we were in front of 4 law degrees (City Attorney Dov Lesel included).

They took Maeve’s appeal hearing first and talked at length about my request for witnesses which was denied (this discussion and other documents is what caused the Judge in Maeve’s Superior Court Case to throw the case out).

After a short break, they started Stu’s appeal hearing. The “victim” was allowed to talk for awhile and even allowed to present new evidence. My attorney and I were constantly interrupted, by Knaan, and often precluded from finishing a point or topic. Because in depth discussion had already taken place in Maeve’s previous hearing, it was not repeated for Stu’s hearing. This is one of the things, discovered later, that caused Stu’s case in the Superior Court (different judge than Maeve’s) to suffer and which caused me to have to go on to the Court of Appeals, which added 2 years on to the already protracted process. If I were as experienced with legal procedure then as I am now, I would not have let this happen and world have forced the Board to allow us to repeat all of the discussion surrounding the requested, but denied, witnesses.

The Board's Appeal Decision.

On March 28, 2006, the Board rendered their decision at a regular Board Meeting held at a L.A. Library in the Valley. Can’t remember which. One might think that with two separate cases, they would take 2 votes and give 2 decisions. They didn’t. In one motion, they voted to uphold the General Manager’s decisions to revoke Maeve’s license and declare Stu to be dangerous (so he could be killed).
That ends the Department involvement as I headed on to Superior Court where I prevailed in Maeve’s case without an attorney—mostly due to a complete record which showed that 1) I had requested witnesses for my hearing and 2) that they were denied—a pretty clear cut case of denial of Due Process and that’s how the judge ruled. The lack of this evidence in Stu’s case is why we are where we are now.

I don’t know how the Court of Appeal will rule on Stu’s case. The record is spotty and the evidence of Due Process violations is not so obvious. However, the Brakemeir memo is there and I make a big deal about it in my briefs and in my oral argument. I can only hope that the justices look closely at this case, as I have asked them to do and make a decision which conforms to the one made for Maeve: that I am entitled to a new hearing on whether Stu should be declared a dangerous animal. Stay tuned.

BOARD Wants Settlement in 4-Year Old Cases

Last night, I attended the 1st 2009 "off-campus" (not at city hall at 10AM) meeting of the L.A. Animal Services Board of Commissioners. Attendance was DISMAL: the parties for 2 appeal hearings (who left after their gig), Phyllis Daugherty (never misses a meeting), Laura Beth Heisen (Chair of the Spay and Neuter Sub-Committee), Kim Carnochan(rescuer, volunteer and Stu supporter), Kathy Davis (AGM/Operations and relegated to a chair with the rest of us), Jim Bickart (Mayor's Office). THAT's IT! On a Monday evening. In the Valley! Has everyone given up? Don't, because progress+/- Read more...

is being made as BoardWatch will outline in the next post.

Lots of news-- both good and bad-- to report from the meeting, but I will start with my own selfish agenda, pun intended.

As many of you know, I have, for 3 years, urged the City of Los Angeles to come to an amicable settlement regarding my dogs, Maeve and Stu which would bring them both home alive and leave me to continue my life in peace. It seems that the Board is now willing to entertain just that and I welcome it and I'm grateful for their wisdom and compassion.

During Public Comments I asked the Board to take the matter of settlement up. I informed them that their own lawyer, Deputy City Attorney Todd Tak Shing Leung is waging an unholy war in Court on their behalf. Although everyone knows that Stu is not dangerous, even though that's the label Guerdon StuckeyBrakemeir (who?) slapped on him (rejecting the Hearing Examiner "not dangerous assessment") , along with a death sentence 4 years ago, Stu spent 2 years locked away at the "Annex", 4 months outdoors in the winter months at Tia's Villalobos Pitbull Rescue (no, he's not a pit bull), and then tossed back in the concrete jail at North Central for another 9 months in 2007, then finally moved to a happy place, thanks to the Board (Kathy Riordan,Marie Atake, Tariq Khero, Glenn Brown) who voted unanimously to accept the very generous offer of Bobby Dorafshar of New Leash on Life to house, feed and love Stu at the very posh K9s only boarding palace (see button at left).

Stu's case in now in the Court of Appeals, 2nd District , Division 4 Case no. B202071. You can go to the Court's website and see it's progress or lack thereof. The Court of Appeals reviews decisions by Superior Court Judge's. In this case, Judge David Yaffe (See (who?), at the under-the-table urging of Captain Helen Perched on a Throne in ‘Wonderland’) rushed through a 9 minute hearing on the life of a dog and slipped on some feeble caselaw offered up by City Attorney Leung. The very same case law that Judge Chalant said had no relevance in Maeve's case, hence the win for Maeve. The way it goes in Appellate Court is this:

1. Appellant (me) files their opening brief (this was delayed for many months due to me having to replace my former attorney with myself--but not before I racked up over $10, 000 in fees.) This sets forth the case history and reasons why the lower court's judge screwed up. Mine was 46 pages of the 50 page limit.
2. Mr. Leung was given 60 days to file his opposing brief which was due January 18, 2009. He didn't file it. This is called default. But because the law is fair, the clerk sends a notice saying that if the brief is not filed within 15 days, the case will be decided on my brief and the record alone. The City will be barred from appearing at the oral argument hearing of the case. So I wait.
3. On the 15th day , at 3:05 PM (court closes at 4:30) the clerk posted the following entry: NO RESPONSE TO RULE 8.211 NOTICE. CASE PLACED IN READY FILE. This means the case is ready for the 3 justices and the presiding justice to examine and set a hearing date. I was encouraged.
4. At 5:05 PM the clerk's notice was deleted and replace with RESPONDENT'S BRIEF ON APPEAL FILED. So, the City , at the very last moment, filed an 8 page, huge margins, double-spaced in 13 point type piece of crap brief which showed absolutely no effort yet took 79 days to make if from 200 N Main to 300 S Spring. That's 79 extra days that Stu and I had to wait with Stu away from home and me pining for his return, worried every day that he will be killed and tossed into a boiling vat ("rendering") with the rest of the carcasses of the 25, 000+ pets and companion animals who will be killed by Ed Boks and an uncaring Antonio Villaraigosa. this year. You can Google "rendering" but I suggest that you do not.

What did the brief say? Well the 8th page is just his signature, but prominently in there is this: "the attack was a vicious mauling." Problem is...there is nothing in the official record to back-up this lie. He forgets to mention that the Hearing Examiner and Preeminent Dog Behavior Expert Richard Polksy, PhD disagree and both believe Stu is NOT DANGEROUS.

In fact, the only folks who think Stu is dangerous are 1) the "victim"--- now $300, 000 richer from State Farm Insurance-- Tatiana Edwards a.k.a. Tati Edwards a.k.a. Tatiana Katryne (stripper name?), my one-time lover and employee, 2) Former Captain Karen Stepp (forced to quit due to "employee morale problems") who is now "stepping" on animals for Marcia Mayeda, 3) Guerdon Stuckey (fired by the Mayor and now gentrifying North Carolina as a bureaucrat) 4)Debbie Knaan, pulling down big money by not prosecuting animal cruelty cases for the County D.A and 5) Ed Boks (soon to be fired)...oh yeah 6) Todd TakShing Leung (pulling down nearly $200, 000 of your tax dollars fighting self-represented dog owners and LOSING).

So, as I am prone to do when one of my own is threatened, I fired off the following email:

To: Deputy City Attorney Todd Leung <Todd.Leung@lacity.org>
Cc: Ed Boks <Ed.Boks@lacity.org>, City Attorney Dov Lesel <Dov.Lesel@lacity.org>, Marie Atake, Bobby Dorafshar, Debbie Knaan <knaan@sbcglobal.net>, Assistant City Attorney Laurie Rittenberg <Laurie.Rittenberg@lacity.org.>
Subject: City's Brief on Appeal

Mr. Leung
.
I am in receipt of your 7-page brief on appeal. For the benefit of those copied on this message:

• Your brief was due on January 18, 2009.
• You had 60 days to prepare and file it, yet you did not.
• Court rules allowed you an additional 15 days following notice by the Court that unless you submit a brief within 15 days, you will not be able to file it and you will not be able to appear at oral argument.
• In total, including the 4 days it took for the court to send you notice that you were in danger of "default", you had 79 days to prepare and file this seven page brief which is basically a "pamphlet" comprised of "cherry-picking" and "scatter-gun" style tripe. It is unintelligible and a work of fiction.
• Your time to file this fish-wrap expired at 4:30pm on Friday 2/6.
• At 3PM the Court entered into it's docket that you had not filed a brief and that the case was "ready" to be submitted to the justices based solely on the record and my brief. There would be no oral argument permitted for the City.
• Then at the last minute, on the 79th day, you trotted your little brief over to the Court.
  

It's really typical of your style, this little brief, and an insult to your profession. When faced with a losing proposition, you just churn out a few lies, irrelevant case law, and blatant exaggeration like pasta tossed at a wall. It's really no wonder that they assign you the crap cases.

You should be ashamed of yourself for prolonging the suffering of an innocent animal and his owner by nearly 3 months, just to vex me and carry out the City's, Lesel's, Knaan's and Boks's agenda to harass and persecute Stu and me at at every opportunity for any reason. I didn't think I could ever be more disgusted by the lot of you. I was wrong. Thrashed in Dept. 85, by a layman in Maeve's case-- heard by a real judge and not that confirmed whacko in Dept. 86--you re-directed your humiliation onto Stu.

This fiasco began with a two-bit, wanna-be "actress" cashing in on her ex-boyfriend for $300, 000 in blood money and an illiterate "hearing examiner" attempting to reinvent the Constitution. Next, we had nonassignable-to-any-real-duties Brakemeir corrupting the process by inserting her fat thumb in the pie, followed by an under-fire G.M. who rubber-stamped Brakemeir's dirty work. For dessert, the "actress" giving unsworn testimony to three hand-picked buffoons-- all with law degrees-- who flunked the due-process course. They were led into the abyss by another overpaid shameful City Attorney who "decided" that violations of due process do not constitute a violation of due process. Then you entered the center ring with your childish antics,whining, hyperbole and fictional distortions of fact.

It is crystal clear to the entire public and even your own co-workers what has happened here: A huge. bloated and powerful government entity running roughshod over the law and it's own citizens for the amusement of it's "employees." On my mother's grave, you will not get away with this and I will use every legal means to make you pay. All of you. If, by chance, the Court is stupid--and I do not believe they are--and your band of corrupt idiots succeeds in killing my friend Stu, you will be held accountable.

See you in about a month or so for your thrashing by the Court of Appeals. Then in about 2 more years, when we do this again ad infinitum. You folks are really disturbed; and you , Ms. Knaan, are the scum of the earth. So, Todd, do they let you play in Federal Court? We'll see.

People constantly speak of 'the government' doing this or that, as they might speak of God doing it. But the government is really nothing but a group of men, and usually they are very inferior men. -- H.L. Mencken

NOTICE: This email may be copied, forwarded, printed and otherwise reproduced only in its entirety, including full reproduction and full expansion of any attachments at their original size (in this case all 60 pages of the file attached hereto), with full email headers and unredacted email addresses of the addressees. Any other use is strictly prohibited.

Yeah...rough, but he REALLY pisses me off!

Back to the Board Meeting:

After I let the Board know how their own lawyer is fighting dirty on their behalf, Kathy Riordan expressed that she would like to see a settlement. Commissioner Tariq Khero concurred. Commissioner Archie Quincey said something to the effect of "this has gone on long enough." No, Ed boks wasn't there. Linda Barth said that a "closed session" could be scheduled to discuss a settlement. Commissioner Irene Ponce made no comments but she looked shocked at the situation. In her defense, she knows nothing about the cases (unless Ed has filled her in). Too bad the room was empty. I think I may have seen a "nod" from Jim Bickart, but I can't be sure.

Then, Kim Carnochan read this letter/email from Marie Atake:

From: Marie <>
Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2009 15:58:04 -0800
Conversation: City Attorney casts cruelty on an old dog!
Subject: City Attorney casts cruelty on an old dog!

CROSS-POST PERMITTED

In my letter to Mayor Villaraigosa a year and half ago (http://marie310.blogspot.com/2007/09/resigning-from-laas-commission_03.html), I wrote the following, and it was referring to Stu’s case:

“Recently, the Commission discovered its serious procedural problems with a past appeal. I was not involved with this particular appeal, however, I felt it was the Commission’s sworn duty to right its wrongs, and restore its integrity, when the process was violated, with unfairness and prejudice appearing high and harmful.

“Unfortunately I have learned that certain members of your administration, this department and the Commission are incapable of acknowledging errors, therein misleading the public. Such actions (or inactions) are resulting in the needless suffering and death of many animals, mistreatment of the public, and wasting of financial and human capital.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bubMhSLA3sU

As of today, Stu is still in boarding after three long years. I wonder why people in power find tormenting the poor dog to be acceptable. If Mr. Boks has a vengeful vendetta, that’s one thing, but it is so wrong to use an innocent animal as a leverage. It’s time that they separate the two issues, and deal with them like adults.

Those who have not been following the case may not understand the complexity, but Stu could have been out of his confinement by now. The judge in the lower Court regarding his other dog (where he prevailed on exactly the same issues of due process) said “anything can be settled” referring to the City settling these issues with him and avoiding costly litigation. He has made offers of settlement, and they refused.

Not only have those in power failed to resolve the matter, but also they have engaged in an ongoing drain on city resources needed to fight this battle for three years and still counting.

I wish these people would use their tenacity and passion to actually make the world a better place, instead of focusing on making the lives of one dog and one man miserable — I’m really astonished with the wasteful and negative behavior of Mr. Todd Leung along with others who perpetuate this inhumane condition for Stu. I wholeheartedly understand his guardian’s frustration.

If we are to believe the Mayor’s statements that the city has a budget crisis, shouldn’t we see the City Attorney’s resources used to find a solution to this expensive and inhumane due process problem, rather than wasted on continuing years of litigation over a now 10-year old dog!

This is 1) sheer animal cruelty and 2) a total waste of our tax-dollars.

- Marie



Brief History of Maeve's Case

Maeve's license was revoked in a case of mistaken (lies) identity in 2005. A neighbor of mine (and former co-alumnus from NYU, who I used to have to toss out of editing rooms because she refused to leave when it was time for other students' editing session--It was my work-study job at NYU Film School in the glorious 80's). The Board denied my appeal and I have spent the last 3 years in Court securing a Court order to set that decision aside. From September 2005 to March 2006 Maeve lanquished at the "Annex" beating her tail to a bloody pulp. Then I was able to spring her, but since she was banned from the City, I boarded her at Bouquet Canyon Kennels, in the Santa Claria area to the tune of about $5,000 until the kennel owner left her to burn to death in the Santa Clarita fire of 2007.
I yanked her out of there when Charlotte Bell of Southbay Doggie Day Care came to the rescue and took-in Maeve since then in Manhattan Beach for over a year with tender loving care and lots of love, fresh air and exercise. I am forever indebted to Charlotte and reccomend that you trust her and her fine staff with you loved one.

The ruling to set aside the Department's decision (because they violated LA Municipal Code, their own hearing procedures and the 14th Amendment) was made on October 9, 2008 and judgment was entered November 13, 2008.

Not surprisingly, Ed Boks , in his continuing quest to maintain his personal vendetta against me (hey, I'm the Sicilian guy!) ordered Hearing Examiner George Mossman to hold a "continuation" hearing for Maeve's following the Court's Order. Problem is that the Order said I'm entitled to a "new hearing" and there is no such thing in the LA Muni. Code as a "continuation" hearing in a case in which a FINAL decision was made on March 28, 2005. So, Mr. Mossman plans to hold a "continuation" hearing and finally subpoena the witnesses he denied me 4 years ago. I wonder if they are even around or if they remember ANYTHING! The Board seemed to think that such a hearing would be silly, but I'm just going by their expressions. I did ask them if all of them had been given a copy of the Court Order tossing their decision...they stared at me blankly. I do think that if they were not given the order that it would be reason for Contempt of Court against Ross Pool, Ed Boks and whomever else made that dumb decision. That means monetary SANCTIONS for the City and Todd Tak Shing Leung and possible JAIL TIME. Santions would go in my pocket, by the way. YOUR TAX DOLLARS.

So now, we wait for Ed Boks, Dov Lesel, Linda Barth and Debbie Knaan to decide if the Board gets what they want. To follow-up, I sent this email to Linda Barth <linda.barth@lacity.org> today:


Ms. Barth,

As you know, the Board (3 Commissioners: Khero, Quincey and Riordan) requested, during the February 9, 2009 Board Meeting, that the cases regarding Maeve and Stu be addressed in the near future. I will assume, then that any actions to schedule a hearing in any matter by Mr. Mossman are thereby suspended pending action by the Board. Please confirm that this is the case.

Also, please advise as to what you will be needing from me in order to effect such a meeting. If the Board will require actual settlement proposals, I am certainly willing to prepare those in time for any open or closed session. It would be my preference that the subject of a closed or open session (or the session itself) be placed on the very next agenda for a vote. While it is normally and rightfully, the Board which sets it's agendas, I am aware that Management often "contributes" to decisions regarding agenda items. As you must realize, time is of the essence as current and future litigation plans are moving forward. Likewise my own schedule needs to be taken into account. I will hold the next meeting date open in my schedule until I hear from you. If you will require a transcript from Judge Chalfant's Court of the proceeding in which the Judge made his statements re: settlement, I am sure Mr. Leung can procure that for you. I will be glad to provide the date on which that hearing(s) took place.

I look forward to your timely response.

P.S. As I stated during the Public Comments: Unfortunately, both of the appeal hearings held on Monday are invalid and must be re-heard for various reasons (the first appellant must be given a new administrative hearing BEFORE an appeal is heard per L.A.M.C.), but most notably because the Board's own Resolution re: Appeals is clear that :

1. The Appeals Commissioner (Vice-President) or (acting) President shall chair the appeal hearing.
2. The hearing shall be audio recorded.

• Officially, what is the reason the Commissioner Riordan was excluded from the appeal and left waiting in the lobby for the entire two hearings?
• Before your time, but at my appeal hearing, the District Supervisor was present (in the form of Capt. Brakemeir, unfortunately, who was not my District Supervisor). Why were there no appearances by the respective District Supervisors on Monday? Usually, they have at least some familiarity with the complaint(s) and charges.
• Why don't the Commissioners know what they may and may not do, when it comes to their review? It seems strange that they have to ask you or the Board Secretary for guidances when they've been hearing appeals forever?
• At my appeal hearing, there was no "management" present. Please refer me to whatever document, code or otherwise authorizes or necessitates the presence of a GM (whose decisions are at issue) or an AGM.
  

In one of your briefing points, you mentioned that shelter employees would be apprised of the law in some fashion. That's really a great idea, late or not. I would humbly suggest that all Commissioners receive some kind of refresher on things like their own resolutions, due process at the administrative level and the Los Angeles Municipal Code, Charter and Admin. Code. I know that the State's Office of Administrative Hearings has a training program for Administrative Law Judges which they offer to Cities and local governments. Maybe that would be a solution to prevent more unnecessary expense and trips to the Courthouse for both appellants and claimants. Please understand that I make these suggestions in all sincerity and only with the intention of saving others from what I've been though for the last 4 years.

P.P.S. Shock collars on dogs (or any other animal) are considered by responsible trainers to be inhumane (besides being ineffective). I hope this remedy will be removed from the Board's bag of "terms and conditions" as soon as possible.
Perhaps I might offer my time for some fundraising efforts for expert training for income-challenged appellants whose dogs will not stop barking. because they are left to live out of doors (neglect). Your department will soon be receiving letter #1 re: my neighbor at 1881 Morton Ave. who refuses to do anything about his dog's incessant barking (also neglect, no socialization and no exercise--I've never seen that poor Choc. Lab outside his yard) . No, I will not be the sole complainant and I do hope that just because a complaint comes from me, will not mean that it is handled any differently from anyone else's complaint.
People have asked what they can do.

Well, I would suggest writing, on paper preferably, or by email, to any of the people mentioned above and making your voice heard (calling is good too). You might also consider writing to your Councilperson, posting your views on Craigslist where Ed Boks will flag them off in his spare time. You might consider commenting here by clicking on "comments." Anything you do FOR my dog friends would be appreciated. You might consider showing up at the next Board meeting and making your opinion known.

Stay tuned. While I'm encouraged by this turn by the Board, I've been here before. We'll keep our paws crossed.

Zine's Official Coverage of the "Boks Trial."

Dennis Zine, Councilperson for the 3rd District, has quite an extensive Newsletter available on the District's site. In the Fall 2008 issue of ZINE LINE, Legislative Deputies Brian Perry & Chris Olsen offer up extensive and unbiased coverage of the October special meeting of Personnel Committee of which Zine is the chairman (the only coverage by "them", the City). Click here for the Fall 2008 Zine Line .

If you missed the video of the October 9, 2008 Boks Trial, see the new 'videos' link in the left sidebar. Our favorite speaker on the tape is (former) Board President Glenn Brown (near the beginning) who mysteriously and quietly resigned from the Board immediately after the meeting. So quietly, that he's still shown as "President" on the Commissions web pages. Following Brown taking a powder, the Board went silent for the rest of the year, save for one lone meeting.

When's Part 2 of that Zine inquest, anyway?

We welcome your comments. Just make up a name if you don't want us or anyone to know who you are.

REWIND: 2008 January 14 Board Meeting

"The Board lacks the power and the will..." - fellow LAAS Critic, December, 2008.

Let's rewind through 2008 and see what got done and what didn't, shall we?
At the end we'll have a snappy spreadsheet and a performance grade for 2008.+/- Read more...

Well, let's see...why don't we start with the agenda of the first meeting of 2008.
BW Comments in italics

Drum roll!

Commission Meeting Agenda for January 14, 2008

10:00 a.m. City Hall

President: Tariq Khero, V.P.: Kathy Riordan;Glenn Brown, Irene Ponce, Archie Quincey, Commissioners.

There are no posted minutes nor cancellation notice for this meeting. Ross Pool's job.
Surprised?
Did it happen?
We don't know.
If it did happen, here's how they would have spent the meeting--

1. ORAL REPORT OF THE GENERAL MANAGER

No report filed on the Commission web pages. Ross Pool's job. It's okay, these are usually filled with skewed "euthanasia" statistics.

2. COMMISSION BUSINESS
A. Approval of the Commission Meeting Minutes for November 13 and December 10, 2007

That's it! That's all the Commissioners had planned to address at this first meeting
of the year. Minutes from 2 months ago from a meeting no one can remember. Ross Pool's job.

B.Oral Report by the Commission on Meetings and Events attended.
Oh, and this too. Sorry.

Here's Ed Boks's agenda:
3. GENERAL MANAGER RECOMMENDS FOR BOARD ACTION

(That's Ed Boks-"rhymes with 'hoax'"- for you newbies-sounds serious!)

A. Policy to Guide the Handling of Permit Applications which include Elephant Walks and Similar Events for the Public (Revised Report)
"Policy to Guide the Handling"? WTF is that if you translate from bureaucrat(EB) doublespeak?

Here's the summary:
That the Board adopt requirements for issuing permits for elephants or other inherently dangerous wild animals, as detailed in the body of this report, and direct staff (that's EB-he likes to be called "staff". It's works well when the blame finger swings around if he who fucked up was not Ed, but "staff.") to implement the requirements immediately.

Basically, this is aimed at the very controversial "elephant walks" staged by Ringling Bros. Circus which a lot of us despise. Lots of rules and regs for the Circus: IDs for each elephant, health records, "dangerous" history of the elephant, if any, etc. This is instead of banning the elephant exploitation because, hey, it's profitable!*

What did they decide?

Who knows? No minutes. Ross Pool's Job.

We'll see when/if they come back to this. Also Ross Pool's Job-to keep things on the agenda until they are disposed of.

4.DISCUSSION ITEMS

This is when they make a plan to talk about stuff they can do nothing about until they place it on the agenda for a vote or "board action." The "discussion" has to be placed on the agenda, prior to the meeting, too. No, it's good. They need to discuss things. This is when they usually ask "staff" (Ed) for more info or for a report to be generated which nobody has time to generate.
So, minimum time to get from discussion to voting= 6 weeks because Meeting 1 gets the discussion item on deck, Meeting 2, they discuss, meeting 3 they act --or not..maybe they need more info or forgot about the whole thing-it happens!

A. Update on City Attorney’s Draft of Revised Proposed Transfer Permit Ordinance
-Update report regarding Board’s modified approval to make Transfer Permit Ordinance apply to all animals.

Sheesh! That's Assistant City Attorney Dov Lesel, to you mister! This a new set of subsections in the L.A. Muni Code aimed at breeders and back alley animal peddlers. Pet stores and "other commercial" entities are exempt of course. Seems that the last time this was on in Nov. 07 (yes , 2 months ago), the board wanted to change it to cover "all animals, " not just dogs and cats. I sense Kathy Riordan in there. She's on top of it.

So, I guess this means that all non-commercial transporters of animals (who does that leave?) will be required
to purchase a permit and show where the animal came from and where its going. That little iguana has to be micro chipped, too. Yes, micro chip that snake and that little songbird in Santee alley.

• First offense-a warning.
• No permit 5 days after the warning-$500 fine.
• Still no permit in 45 days-A misdemeanor which the City Attorney will not prosecute and no one will go to jail or pay a fine.
• How will they catch these folks smuggling animals or selling pit bull puppies out of a pick-up truck? Why, it will be "complaint driven", of course, and those ACO's[Animal Control Officer] will rush right out there and ...give a warning.
• Then they'll follow up in 5 days and write a $500 citation.
• Then they'll follow up in 45 days and arrest someone. Right!
This is busy work for the Board to keep them distracted and another headline-seeking lame idea from Ed Boks that would accomplish nothing. He's good at that.

5. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD - (Comments from the public on items of public interest within the Board’s subject matter jurisdiction and on items not on the Agenda.)

This is you. Speaking your mind for the animals. You get 1 minute on each item and 3 minutes at the end to vent.
You got the cancellation notice, didn't you? Sorry, maybe Ross will pick up that $20 parking tab.

6. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
Requests from Commissioners for future Agenda Items.

Did they make any? No idea. No minutes of this meeting, if it ever took place.

7. ADJOURNMENT:
Next Commission Meeting is scheduled January 28, 2008, at Los Angeles City Hall, 200 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, California 90012.

[END OF AGENDA] (11:30 already?)
_______
Issues resolved: NONE (we don't count approving the minutes of past meetings).
Preview of 1/28/08: NONE of the above items are revisited.
BoardWatch Meeting Rating: F

We know, it's painful-- but stay with us. We don't get paid for this either.

*Care about Elephants?
Assembly Bill 777 which would have toughened the elephant cruelty lawin California died January 31, 2008- right around this meeting time. Ed Boks is a headline-seeker which is why, knowing that Sacramento would not pass this bill, he sought to be the elephant hero for L.A. Not a bad thing, but his motives are suspect. Remember the painted elephant for which Boks signed the permit ?



We welcome your comments. Just make up a name if you don't want us or anyone to know who you are.