Board Report Oct., 26, 2010

Yeah, I went... again. Here's what happened, if anyone cares:

The Board (they keep calling it a "Commission" but it ain't--more on that later) unanimously OVERTURNED a ruling by former interim General Manager to revoke the dog licenses (they'd have to leave the city) of a particular family with history of 1) having too many dogs (5) and 2) letting them run loose and "attack" the neighbors. In this setting, "attack" meant to approach "excitedly" as Melanie Ramsayer put it. So, even with their shoddy record of obeying the law and their apparent lax attitude toward previous warnings, these people get to keep their dogs (hear bitterness?).

If anyone doubted that a previously Barth-proposed appeal process reduced to the "General Manager or designee" "reviewing" a case was a recipe for unfairness and bias, you should have just seen Barth feverishly scrambling through papers and codes, trying to find anything to nail the appellants with, once it became obvious that the Board was not going to uphold the GM's decision to revoke these 3 dog licenses. Bias? Sure, she wanted these people punished and she was ready to banish 3 senior or disabled dogs to ...the trash can. She finally found her remedy and demanded that the Board include a $250 code-imposed "fee" to have their dog licenses reissued. No, nobody mentioned that it's supposed to be $250 per license. We won't mention it either.

Elections (actually, "appointments")

Ruthanne Secunda was elected to the Vice President's office, but to appease her distaste for appeal hearings, which are normally the responsibility of the VP, an "appeals commissioner" was appointed immediately to take the flack and the responsibility for screening appeals, etc. That very able Commissioner is attorney Terri Macellero. That's a good thing. Melanie Ramsayer was elected to a 2nd term as president. Also a good thing, we think. Anyone else think these elections are predetermined? Nah...

Phyllis
Once again, Phyllis Daugherty, the one-person "Animal Issues Movement" decried that the Board's previous endorsement of raising the pet limits (from 3 to 5 of each dogs and cats)--or more specifically, raising the number of animals a "household" may have without requiring a "kennel permit"--will result in a canine Helter Skelter with marauding "pit bulls and other aggressive breeds" running the streets in packs, shedding rivers of blood and eliciting terror and destruction. Daugherty dropped the "N" word ("Nuch" for Carmen Trutanich), putting us on notice that 1) she has Nuch's ear and 2) that Nuch will never go for this. Judging from the number of protests vs. supporting statements on that Council file number 10-0982, she might just be right. Folks, if your for this, you'd better chime in.

During public comment, I ...again... BEGGED/Demanded that the Board follow-up on Stu's Law or what is known around City Hall at Council File 09-1887. It's complicated, but the City Council approved this ordinance over a year ago and sent it to the City Attorney for drafting. THEN, Linda Barth, who had no real boss at that time, hijacked the ordinance --after it was approved--and added on a complete rewriting of the L.A. Municipal Code as it pertains to administrative hearings and appeals for "barking dog" cases and "dangerous animals." Barth measure is stalled in Committee but is very nicely holding up the finalization of Stu's law. Hate that? Write your council member about file 09-1887 and ask that it be passed as adopted by council without delay. This legislation which was purported to be the merciful answer for my dog, Stu's record-breaking confinement of 5 years, is so convoluted now with Barth's gameplaying, that not even Deputy City Attorney Dov Lesel knows what Council approved or didn't approve. Somewhere, that...woman... is chuckling at her own devious masterfulness (our word). That's fine. We hear she's not long for this Department, anyway--but none too soon.

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 athttp://myspace.com/Save_Stu. 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
[ADDRESS DELETED]

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

RE: VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA PUBLIC RECORDS ACT

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.

and

(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.


Sincerely,


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.

Who's (was) the boss?

7/27/2010 Meeting Agenda for Los Angeles Animal Services Board

 BOARD OF ANIMAL SERVICES COMMISSIONERS
CITY OF LOS ANGELES
Tuesday July 27, 2010
10:00 A.M.
LOS ANGELES CITY HALL
200 N. Spring St.
Room 1060
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Melanie Ramsayer, President
Irene Ponce,Vice-President
Tariq Khero,
Kathleen Riordan
Ruthanne Secunda

1. ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL HEARING
A. Barking Dog Revocation Case Number: BD 093128 WV
Appellant: Cesar Gomez and Margarita Esturban
Complaining Witness: Paulina Frias
Field Operations Supervisor, West Valley Animal Care Center, Lt. Susan Botta
Hearing Coordinator, Department of Animal Services, Ross Pool, Management Analyst II

Comment: This is only the third appeal held this year. Normally, there are about 12-20 or so done in a year. I'm guessing that they are back-logged and not scheduled while the dogs, owners and neighbors wait impatiently for the slow churn that is our government. Last fall, Barth was successful first in barraging the sensitive Commissioners with an avalanche of appeal hearings to determine the fates of dogs "up on charges" for barking or being "dangerous"; and then she  instituted a new ordinance in Oct. '09 which would, if passed:
1 Will strip the Board of the power and duty to adjudicate administrative appeals for dogs.They have had this duty since 1987 with not much whining. Their procedures have not been flawless but it was, when fair, the best hope for a dog owner or complainant short of an expensive legal battle in Superior court over a barking or biting incident/issue.

2. The new ordinance was shoved down the Board's throat on a day when Riordan could not attend, Ramsayer was attending her first meeting and Ponce was just MIA. So Tariq Khero (usually fair), Ruthanne Secunda (hates appeals) and Ramsayer(clueless at the time) allowed Barth to twist their little Board arms into exactly the position  which would put all the power in the GM's hands...i.e. Barth.

3.Stalled in Committee at present, but essentially a lock unless a successful protest is mounted or Brenda Barnette decides that Barth's skulduggery is not the best thing for the animals, the people or the Department.Whether you care or not about barking dog or dangerous dog hearings, you should care about fairness and due process.

4. Barth's new "law" wipes out the 1987 ordinance which gave us due process should our dogs get in a jam and makes a hearing examiner's (read: Animal Control Officer) decision final with only a "file review" by the GM or his/her "designee" (read: Barth). For the council record on this ordinance and also "'Stu's Law" which has become entangled in this ordiance by Barth see HERE.http://cityclerk.lacity.org/lacityclerkconnect/index.cfm?fa=ccfi.viewrecord&cfnumber=09-1887

NOTE: the 1987 ordinance was the result of many weeks of deliberating by a committee of "experts" charged with writing the ordinance. No committee this time...just "Linda."

COMMISSION MEETING

1. COMMISSION BUSINESS
A. Annual Election of Commission Officers for 2010-2011
Comment: Ramsayer is out of town. She is sitting president "unanimously" appointed--I mean elected--by last fall--months late but we had to fill the seat left by Quincey and we just can't have Riordan holding office. Can we? Expect no election until Melanie can be here to be re-crowned and nominate her chosen VP: Secunda or (eek!) Ponce again. Tariq wants nothing to do with this after serving as President for nearly 3 years.

B. Approval of the Commission Meeting Minutes for July 13, 2010
Comment: Essentially, a joke on us.  Whereas the "minutes" once actually included a summary of what really happened and who said what, they are now useless and not representative of the meeting proceedings.
Blame Ross Pool who does Barth's bidding and keeps the public (and the rest of City Hall) in the dark as far as what happens at Board meetings. After several terse demands, I just received (and they are now posted) the un-posted, yet long-ago approved minutes from March 2010 to the last approved minutes in June. They are fish wrap and to know what happened at the meetings, one must wade through hours of audio available as MP3 files on the Commission page. Try it, but have snacks and good beverages on hand. It's painful.

C. Oral Report by the Commissioners on Meetings and Events attended

Comment:  One thing is for sure. Tariq Khero will have nothing to report. I don't think he's ever had anything to report. He s on this Board to gain favor with the Mayor and to take up a seat. While he often has sound opinions and decent ideas, he allows himself to be slapped around by Barth and Bickhart. Also painful, but Tariq doesn't seem to mind...when he shows up. If Ramsayer were here, she might talk about her "media event" with Lu Parker's Lu Parker Project at the South L.A. shelter. Having missed this meeting, she won't have to talk about it later. There are some real questions about exactly how turning over the shelter for a whole day to a non-profit buddy came about without Board approval.

2. GENERAL MANAGER RECOMMENDS FOR BOARD ACTION
A.
None

Comment:  this is a good thing as we await the arrival of Brenda Barnette. Barth has slammed through enough ordinances, contracts and pet projects to last a lifetime. Hopefully , her lifetime at LAAS is limited.
Board of Animal Services Commission Meeting

Commission Meeting Agenda for July 27, 2010
Page 2

3. DISCUSSION ITEMS
A. Fund Raising (Continued from the February 9th, February 23rd, March 23rd, April 27th, and May 11, May 25 and June 22, and July 13, 2010, Commission Meetings)
Discussion and input from the public on effective and efficient ideas for raising money to supplement funding for Department core responsibilities of greatest financial need, and direction to staff relative to ideas presented.
Comment: huh? again? This is the 10th meeting with this lame item and no resolution or plan. This is a municipal shelter operating from your tax and fee dollars, not a charity. If they want a charity, they can form one like the Police Athletic League or something similar. If they can't care for the animals on their budget they should quit or fire some fat captains.

B. Report and discussion of Activity Statistics for Animal Control Officers, by shelters for Fiscal Year 2009-10.
Comment: might be intersting...if the numbers are real.
4.ORAL REPORT OF THE GENERAL MANAGER
Comment: more pablum from Davis and some smiles from the Board. How many cute dogs did we ship out to other cities this time at the expense of the taxpayer for full vaccinations and spay/neuter surgeries?

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.)

Comment:  The Phyllis Daugherty show because you didn't show up along with her comments during all of the above. Chances are she will thank some officer for their service or maybe she will thank Davis and Barth for holding the fort...if you can call it that. Maybe there will be a cake for Kathy Davis as this should be her last meeting as Interim General Manager. Then she will disappear from whence she came into the woodwork on a near $200K salary.

Public Comments: The Brown Act prohibits the Board and staff from responding to the speakers' comments. Some of the matters raised in public comment may appear on a future agenda.
Comment: This is a god-damned lie and it may take a court order to remove it. Don't dare me.
6.FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
A. Additions to, and prioritizing the list of pending reports and future agenda items.
This is when the Commssioners ask for agenda items that never see the light of day. this should be the last time this happens as I have hopes that Barnette will seek the board's help without interference by Barth...if she's still around.
7. ADJOURNMENT  
Comment:prediction: 11:50 a.m. depending on when Tariq shows up so that the meeting can begin.
Next Commission Meeting is scheduled for 10:00 A.M., August 10, 2010, Los Angeles City Hall, Room 1060, 200 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, California 90012.
Comment: Be there, send a public comment or shut the hell up.  Whoops, Barnette still not in office. Put the cake back in the freezer.

The post-Phyllis Daugherty Dept. of Animal Services--Enter: Brenda Barnette

 In response to Ed Muzika's call to "stop" Phyllis Daugherty.

It's almost like we need to teach people how to participate in their government in this town. Why is that? Look at the last mayoral election. Pitiful, yet everyone complains about AV.

What is it about this city that makes people whine but do nothing?

Yes, chances are that no council members will be in their seats when you make your public comment. They're in the back making deals. Still, you must go if you are able. You can get free parking from your council district office with a phone call.


There was a time..oh... 5 years ago...when people besides Phyllis went to Animal Services Commissioners' Board  meetings. At night, on an off campus meeting (4x a year) there might have  be 100 people or more. Even in the daytime there were more than just Phyllis in her regular seat.

People gave up on the Board/Commission (it's a "Board" of Commissioners BTW...not a Commission). They are thought of as a rubber stamp and a lot of times they have been. Conscientious and courageous Commissioners have resigned or been fired for speaking their true opinions and trying to effect real change. Elections for officers are often fixed by the Mayor's office.

So why participate? Because only you can change it. I can't even count the number of times I have moved the Board or the Department to submit to the law. I was loud--persistent. They couldn't take it anymore and gave in.  Today, the last 5 months of meeting minutes were posted on the Board's LAAS page. Why? Because I demanded it...openly. Why were they withheld for so long when they had been approved a long time ago? Guess. The Secretary forgot? No. By design. Whose design? Guess.

Look at the city clerk's site. Search "animal." See how much LAAS legislation has been slammed through which you probably know nothing about since Boks left. Who did this? Kathy Davis? The Board?
Nope.

Don't call Phyllis or email her or harass her. She's excercising her rights from her one-person "movement." The only way to defeat her...if that's your aim...is to play the same game and outnumber her and out-argue her. These council members get antsy when the public shows up and get more "reasonable" and fair-minded. Magically. So show up.

Sadly, there are no night Board meetings this year. Budget cuts-- but that suits Linda Barth just fine. I think it's $400 per meeting for security and whatever. I can raise that. Do you think they'll accept it? I'm sure Barnette will like the idea of night meetings. We'll see. There will be changes big and small.

Personally, I'm hoping that Barth's (Phyllis has WAY too much influence over Barth) head rolls right over to another Department. Anybody?

About those meeting minutes...and the Board Secretary, Ross Pool

For as long as I've known there was  Department of Animal Services Board of Commissioners, Ross Pool, a Management Analyst (grade/salary/job description unknown), has been it's Secretary. Unlike other Boards and Commissions, this Board/staff seems to like to give Pool power that is not within the job description of Secretary. One of those powers is to pretend to be a Commissioner. Others are to open and close the meetings, determine agenda items, comment on agenda items, re-arrange their order and, in general , to be a pompous ass.

Los Angeles Charter and Administrative Code references:
Sec. 21.3.  Assignment of Employee as Commission Secretary.
     As required by Charter Section 504, the general manager of each department under the control and management of a general manager shall assign an employee of that department, other than a member of the board, as the secretary to the board of commissioners of the department, if any. The Council may by ordinance, at the request of the general manager concerned, combine the position of secretary with any other position in any department.  The board of each department under the control of a board of commissioners shall assign an employee of that department, other than a member of the board,  as the secretary to the board of commissioners.

I know of no record where this Board assigned Ross Pool to this position. I'll ask (LOL). I also know of no Council ordinance which permits Pool to hold both a "management analyst" position AND the position of Board Secretary. I'll ask about that, too. If neither exists, then there is a violation (s) of the Administrative code by this Board and the General Managers and/or interim general managers.

Sec. 21.4.  Duties of the Secretary.

   The secretary of each board created by the Charter or by ordinance shall keep a record of the proceedings and transactions of the board, specifying the names of the commissioners at all meetings and giving the ayes and noes upon all votes. The secretary shall post and publish all orders, resolutions and notices which the board shall order to be posted or published, and shall perform such other duties as are imposed upon him or her by the Charter, ordinance, or order of the board.

Why should we care? Because, for one (there are many issues concerning Pool's "work" as secretary and more of them will be reported in forthcoming blog posts), there have been no minutes of Board meetings posted since the posting of minutes for a February meeting. Normally, at each Board meeting, there is an item in which the Board is asked to approve the minutes as compiled by Pool. Often, Commissioners request changes to the minutes to reflect what actually happened and what was said, rather than Pool's often bent interpretation of what was said and/or done. Often, at subsequent meetings, Pool does not make the requested changes or the changes are just ignored either by Pool or at the direction of whichever person seems to be controlling the Board at a given time. Since Boks's demise, it has been Linda Barth (and Jim Bickhart since forever) who controls the Board, what they may place on their agendas and when.

All of this obstruction serves the purpose of keeping the public in the dark. In order to determine what happened at a Board meeting, one must either attend on a weekday at 10:00 a.m (call first..they may have canceled due to a  controversial issue being threatened to be addressed by the public) or download a gigantic 30+megabytes file of audio and wade through the whole thing. I suppose you could call Barth and ask her or call Pool, but that is not what is supposed to happen and you are not likely to get a straight answer, if any.

Sec. 21.20.  Applicability of Charter Provision 506.

     Each city department, office or commission created by ordinance shall comply with Charter Section 506, unless expressly provided otherwise by ordinance.

(To be continued...)

Minutes- Where are they?

from Jeff de la Rosa to Linda Barth , Kathy Davis , Melanie Ramsayer , Irene Ponce , Ross Pool cc Councilmember Dennis Zine date Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 4:25 PM subject Minutes- Where are they? mailed-by gmail.com

Where are they past February? It's nearly August. If they have been approved, please post them on the website. Downloading gigantic files posted by a person with no understanding of digital audio files is not a substitute for the actual MINUTES as approved by the Board.

As you know, the City and the room where the Board meets is fully capable of "LIVE" and on-demand meeting video/audio. The taxpayers have paid for that. We also pay Ross Pool's salary and Linda Barth's salary and we don't do that in order to be dis-informed .

Thanks.

Dear Commissioners (and Brenda Barnette):

Dear Commissioners-

I think you know that the animal community in Los Angeles is less than enthusiastic over the lingering doubts about Brenda Barnette's methods of attaining lower kill rate numbers. I have been contacted by numerous people in the community and also many supporters of my dog, Stu who remains in your impound system after 5 years of lies, broken promises and back room dealing.

While I am certainly willing to give Ms. Barnette a fair chance to show us what she intends to do-- and how-- and I don't care "what kind of clothes" she wears or "which church" she attends, I do care about the creepy tone of the various councilmembers' comments on the "pit bull problem." As you know, the problem is not within these wonderful creatures, it is in the back yards of those who breed them for profit and the cruelty of fighting.


Below is an email from the "open door" shelter from which Brenda Barnette has come which you have no doubt seen. This email was sent from Seattle Humane on the day of Ms. Barnette's appointment to GM of LAAS.

Please be advised that any similar policy, or plan to export pit and pit mixes to other cities to be killed there or the institution of in-shelter temperament testing will not be tolerated in Los Angeles. As a so-called "student" of Winograd's No Kill philosophy it is abhorrent that Barnette would have ever practiced what you read below. We are watching and listening. For many, many years the Board upon which you sit has forbidden temperament testing in our shelters and you must continue to do so. For the moment, we are at peace with the department and although Pamelyn Ferdin has decided to turn in her conscience, the rest of us have not done so.

Finally, while recorded versions of your meeting are useful for anyone who has the time to wade through hours of audio, written minutes which are promptly posted upon approval by the Board are essential for the public, especially now. You have allowed your Board secretary and Ms. Barth to keep the minutes of your meetings from the public for at least 4 months. Please have all approved minutes posted to the city's website without delay.

Thank you.

Jeff de la Rosa

P.S. For Winograd's opinion of this sort of testing, please see http://www.nokilladvocacycenter.org/pdf/Temperament%20Testing.pdf

From: admissions@seattlehumane.org
To:
Sent: 6/18/2010 1:15:01 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time
Subj: RE: Relinquish a dog


Hello,

With any Pit Bull or Pit Bull mix we place for adoption embassadors to the breed. This means that the dog cannot have any previous history of aggression of any kind. If the dog does not have a history of aggression than the dog will recieve a behavior assessment after it has been surrendered to our shelter. During that assessment our behavior program manager and behavior team assess the dog's temperament. If the dog passes the behavior assessment then we place the dog out for adoption. If the dog does not pass the assessment we will not place the dog up for adoption. There are no rescue organizations that work with us and pit bulls . If the dog is not an adoption candidate with us the only option is euthenasia.

We do have a callback option. With a mandatory donation of 200$ at time of surrender we give you the oppportunity to claim your pet if he/she is not an adoption candidate with us. That $200 is not refundable.

We would like to speak with you about your dog's temperament and our policies before scheduling an appointment. You may leave us with a phone number where you can be best contacted.

Thank you,
Admissions

She's in. Can the Campaign for Brenda Barnette be over now?

In response to Ed Muzika who is still campaigning for Brenda Barnette's appointment even though she's already been approved by Los Angeles City Council:

(My comment was too large for Ed's comments and he's not publishing mine anymore anyway).

Ed-


Are you asking us if we want Ed Boks or Stuckey back? I think you know that answer. Does "open door" mean mean that they do not charge to leave an animal? I think we charge $25 (I could be wrong)...it used to be $5.

Regardless. This is not Seattle and this is not a "Humane Society." I welcome her experience in those types of organizations and hope she can make a difference here, but you must admit that Zine, etc. are correct. The obstacles are enormous. There is no money for her to work with and she will have to go private for money which will may be successful or not. I'd be interested to know how much money she needs to get to her 80% promised save rate and how it gets spent.

I can't say that there are better candidates. There is no experience that would prepare one for this job which is why "previous" non-profit experience is nearly irrelevant. While I didn't even know that Heisen was applying, her insider experience (Commissioner, Chair of Spay/Neuter Committee) with the Department and the City and her knowledge of City politics --AND THE CITY ITSELF, as well as her professional experience as an attorney would have qualified her in my book.

Barnette will need to take an extensive tour of the City starting with Jan Perry's district as Perry requested. I think that with all of the homework and shelter hours (necessary) that Barnette will have to do over the first year, what we will have is Barth running the department as she has done (poorly) for 2 years.


There was before the Board today a proposal to take $30,000 from the spay/neuter resources to target free pit bull sterilizations. While we need to address this issue right away, this did not come from Barnette. It came from Barth with Davis's signature on it.

An in depth look at what taking $30K from that fund would do is needed. I don't know if the Board passed it. There have been no written minutes from the Board since February (Barth again).

Isn't the pre-appointment campaign over? What's the point of more Seattle comparisons now?

Barnette Critics Labeled as "KOOKS!"- ADL-LA

You've seen the emails pushing for an unquestioned Brenda Barnette confirmation by Council which are now coming in

GIANT BOLD RED FONT.

[originally posted as comment at Ed Muzika's LA Animal Watch]

Shame on those who characterize respected members of the animal community as KOOKS! Exactly how is Atake a "stakeholder" in a Heisen appointment? Heisen would never be appointed. Everyone knows that. She's too smart and wouldn't play their game.

Marie Atake is a tireless advocate for animals and resigned her commission post in protest of a flawed department and corrupt system.

Following that, she received a commendation for her service from the L.A. City Council.

Though not mentioned here --it is assumed that Carole Raphaelle Davis--is also meant to be called a KOOK. Carole, along with Carol Sax and hundreds of others have vigorously protested against puppy mill dogs being sold in our neighborhoods at pet stores. Because of her work, West Hollywood has banned the sale of dogs at pet stores AND Orangebone on Melrose Ave. has signed an agreement to only "sell" animals from the L.A. City Shelters.

These women are not "KOOKS" and do not make statements lightly. They are both the real deal. Marie Atake's piece at http://www.examiner.com/x-47471-LA-Animal-Rescue-Examiner~y2010m7d9-Mayor-appoints-new-General-Manager-for-LA-Animal-Services

is neither filled with "rumor" or "lies."

It is factual that:
1. The "92% save rate" at Seattle Humane is -- at best-- misleading. SHS is NOT an open door shelter and everyone who has a brain knows that.

2. Barnette's AKC lobbying position was not on her resume an was kept from the selection committee. If it had not been, there would have been questions--at least--about it.

3. The AKC derives a LARGE portion of its income from "AKC" registrations of PUPPY MILL DOGS.

4. ON TELEVISION in Seattle, Barnette advised anyone who wanted a pit bull dog to FIRST "check out the breeder."

These are not rumors and lies. They are legitimate concerns.

If Pam Ferdin had any credibility, she would be asking the same questions instead of leading a bizarre and unnecessary siege on people who have voice genuine concerns. But hey..The Barbi Twins are supporting Barnette. What else do you need to know?

Now we hear that the ALF has made it known that anyone who opposes Barnette could be a target. Huh?

Maybe she's the right person. Maybe she isn't. But this campaign of rolling over and quashing all skeptics and critics is in the style of Ed Boks and is reprehensible. We have questions. So far...there have been no answers. Just a misrepresentation of a "92% save rate" and statements like "I have a good feeling" about her.

Again...to succeed she will have to turn this department UPSIDE DOWN with full cooperation from the Mayor. With the foaming mob pushing her confirmation without question and with no critique...she doesn't really have to do anything at all. If she fails, it will be the City's fault and the fault of the animal community...so they say.

Ed, I'm very surprised that [you] have left your post as investigative writer and instead have joined in the mucking of a few people who are still courageous enough to state their opinion. We still have free speech in this country, don't we?

Without the watchful eyes who have constantly monitored this department, how will we know WHAT is going on at all?

-Jeff de la Rosa

The Brenda Barnette "APPROVED" Train Marches On!

(Previously posted as a comment to Ed Muzika's LA Animal Watch)

I have (the) utmost respect for Michael Bell, and for good reason.

That being said, do we need more positive endorsements (for Barnette) with the ADL-LA still slamming-home their recent reincarnation to "friend of the Mayor?"

It seems to me that the purpose of this avalanche of "APPROVED" stamps only serves one purpose (because, hey...she's in, okay?): Discredit all detractors and skeptics.

It's really too bad that Barnette will have to depend on one "staffer" to "train" her in the ways of the Department, the Council and the City --the other "staffer" will fade back into the woodwork where she quietly collected her enormous pay before--and it's even more too bad that the former "staffer" will be her most "trusted" adviser.

If Ms. Barnett is as savvy as she appears (read: able to politic with the best of them), she will make a big media splash, be the nice lady on TV with the cute little animals (read: NOT PIT BULLS) and watch and listen closely to what is available to her.

Then, after we're all cozy-- someone should get the axe and move on to yet another City Department--or not. Only then, will Barnette have a real chance to make a difference..if that is possible.

None of her SHS (Seattle Humane Society) policies will work here. Not the selective intake policy, nor the pit bull policy, nor the temperament test policy. Will this Board, who has forever forbade temperament testing give in (to Bickhart) and allow these "un-adoptable" dogs to be labeled to death? That's one way to bring up your save rate numbers....but that kind of sounds like Ed Boks-style tactics... which fooled quite a few people before. We can only wait and see.

Seattle's Brenda Barnette Picked for New General Manager of Los Angeles Animal Services

You can read about Ms. Barnette in this nice fluff piece and wonder for yourself whether this is the right choice for a huge , near bankrupt city wrought with city and union politics and back-stabbing. Will she bring her 6 dogs ("most" are rescues) with her where we can only have 3?

Is this like recruiting Sheriff Taylor from Mayberry?

I don't really feel like writing about this. Linda Barth will eat her alive if she's not smart or even if she is. I wish her luck, but predict that she will soon long for her quiet life on the boat at Lake Union. At her new salary, she could dock at Marina del Rey...

Waiting for Nathan reaction...and Pam's. Small dogs will have a friend. What about the pit bulls?



Photo: Dan Shclatter

Linda Barth. The new face of L.A. Animal Services.

While Barth is only the Asst. GM, Kathy Davis has been propped up in the GM chair as a placeholder. In reality, Barth has been running the Department for at least 6 months while Ed Boks was being groomed for the exit door.

Davis has never been to a Board meeting and nobody knows anything about her. Don't expect a new GM anytime soon. They are either putting her there to fail, so Barth can take over or will let her sit there and take the heat and the money as long as she toes the party line.

Board of Animal Services Slips it's Collar

Somebody forgot to tighten the choke collar which has plagued the Los Angeles Board of Animals Services Commissioners since...forever? At their meeting on June 22, 2009, the Board seemed to go rogue and would not take "no" for an answer. Nor would they take "no answer" for an answer.

For a full week, since Kate Woodviolet's piece on Stu's story appeared at Examiner.com, the Board,City Attorney's office and Linda Barth have been barraged with emails, calls and messages from countless Stu supporters demanding and pleading for mercy and justice.

Item 4A on the agenda, the case of Stu, the evidence dog, which has been impounded for 4 years while his owner/guardian has battled to save him from Death Row and certain execution, was the impetus for the Board shaking off their restraints, but this very admirable show of blazing courage from a Board which has, for years, been accused of being a rubber stamp for the General Manager(s) and the Mayor quickly spread to all business within the Board's control. The last time the Board took bold action in the case of Stu, on August 27, 2007, when they voted unanimously to release Stu from the pound after 2 years and move him to the luxury digs at K9s Only in Tarzana, the Mayor's office clamped down hard. Former Commissioner Marie Atake resigned in protest and disgust and Commissioner Riordan is rumored to have been threatened with removal from the Board after 9 dedicated years of service.

From the 6/22/09 Agenda:

4. DISCUSSION ITEMS
A. Oral Report from the City Attorney on status of Case: Jeffrey Peter De La Rosa v. Animal
Control Board of the City of Los Angeles, et al.; Los Angeles Superior Court Case #
BS104836; Court of Appeal, Case # B202071.

CLOSED SESSION: The Board of Animal Services Commissioners may meet in closed
session with the City Attorney as its legal counsel pursuant to Government Code section
54956.9(a).

First, the was no oral report from the City Attorney. Dov Lesel claimed that Todd Leung, the "litigation attorney" was "not available" to come to the meeting (his office is next door in City Hall East), but sources tell BoardWatch that Mr. Leung was not otherwise engaged in court appearances but was, instead, sitting in his office when the agenda item was called.

+/- Read more...

On the Board's first pitch to the City Attorney at hand, Dov Lesel, Board members asked what actions were in their ability to take to stop the madness of the 4 year persecution of this innocent animal. Mr. Lesel's first response: The Board can do nothing. It's in the hands of the Court of Appeals, he claimed, as the case was submitted (final argument was heard) to the Court on June 18.

Commissioner Quincey was boiling. He stated the he had asked for his motion regarding Stu (the motion was for the Board to direct the City Attorney to withdraw opposition to Stu's owner's appeal in the Courts) to be placed on the agenda more than a month prior (actually , it was more than two months ago, on April 14, 2009) but it had never appeared on the agenda and now his motion was moot. He had intended, apparently, to save the Court the burden of rendering a decision over the life or death of the dog, Stu by instructing the City Attorney's Office to throw in the towel on a case it should not have opposed in the first place, in Quincey's opinion. Quincey wanted an explanation. Commissioner Riordan asked for an explanation. Commissioner Ponce demanded an explanation. Dov Lesel said, "I don't set the Board's agenda. Assistant General Manager Linda Barth disappeared into her chair back and remained silent. There would be no explanation.

At considerable length, Quincey went on to report to the Board and to the public, that he had reviewed the "whole" case file. The 30-year veteran Animal Control Officer reported that he had determined that the case should have been dismissed from the get go. Quincey reported that the bite was reported over a month after the incident and that it was a civil matter--that "there was no violation of the Municipal Code" by Mr. de la Rosa and therefore, there should have been no involvement by the Department of Animal Services. Following Quincey's statements, Commissioner Irene Ponce said, "you could hear a pin drop in here." The Board was stymied and the supporters of Stu, seated in the gallery, just smiled.

It was then that President Tariq Khero told Quincey that if he ever wanted an item placed on the agenda, that he need only send Khero an email. Riordan cautiously erupted.Vice President Kathy Riordan told the room that she had not had much (or any) success in having items placed on the agenda. She implied that not only was it difficult for her to have items placed on the agenda for consideration by the Board, that it was near impossible to achieve this over the obstruction by management.

In the end, through dogged persistence, the Board was able to force City Attorney Dov Lesel, to lay out exactly what the Board could do to settle Stu's case, save his life and return him to his home. Lesel came forth with all kinds of ideas for the Board. They could:

1. Recommend whatever they wanted to City Council as a Board or as individuals. Lesel corrected himself (from his earlier statments that action was out of the City's hands) by saying that settlement of this case was actually in the hands of City Council.
2. Make recommendations to the Council's Public Safety committee which oversees the Department of Animal Services.
3. Direct the City Attorney to file a supplemental paper to the Court of Appeals which stated the Board's position that the Department had botched the case and denied Due Process of law (this is our favorite- Ed.)
4. Schedule an "emergency meeting" of the Board to take whatever action it deemed appropriate.

All of these things are a far cry from Linda Barth's assertions to concerned callers that the Board can "do nothing." Throughout the heated discussion of this item, President Khero appeared to feign that Department management was innocent of any obstruction of the Board 's intentions. It is worth saying that along with the usual copies of the agenda and accompanying documents laid out at the back of the room, were several sets of full-color pictures of Tatiana Edwards's (the dog bite "victim") injuries to her right arm. Nobody seemed interested in them and they did not even bear any identifying information which might have informed the public as to what these pictures were and what they were doing spread out among the meeing literature.

Khero persuaded the Commissioners that no emergency meeting was necessary. Lesel and the Board forced Linda Barth to pledge that , in the event of an unfavorable decision for Stu by the Court, prior to the next regularly scheduled meeting, that the Department would take no action to kill Stu. She added that it was the General Manager who had made the gallant committment that Stu would not be "euthnanized" (read: KILLED) while any actions in the the Court of Appeals or the California Supreme Court were still possible.

So, we wait. We wait to see what, if any, action the Board will take to move City Council to end this fiasco. Will they appear as individuals during the Public Comment period at the next Council Meeting? Will they draft and approve a resolution decrying Stu's innocence and the Department's denial of Due Process of Law in this case? Only time will tell. Meanwhile, we await the opinion of the Court of Appeals. President Khero said , as though he knew, that the Court would surely not release their decision before the next regularly scheduled Board Meeting currently on the books for July 13.

By the way, where was the fifth Commissioner, Ruthanne Secunda? She was conspicuously absent. If the Board had tried to take action, Secunda's vote may have been crucial, since she has previously been sympathetic to the cause of Stu and has let it be known that she would like to see this nightmare end favorably for Stu.

City Attorney Todd Leung Goes to Court...to try to kill a dog. But... Preview.

This story is on the burner and simmering.



There is a lot to report and we want to do it right. The hearing for Stu --his last in the California Court system--was both exciting and down right embarrassing. We do not know how the justices will rule. If Mr. Leung's "performance" has any effect on them, whatsoever, then Stu should be walking down North Figueroa in a couple of weeks. Stay tuned. This is not to be missed.

If you are not subscribed to our blog by email, please do so now. Over there...on the left.

SKG

Birthday Letter to the Board of Commissioners

Email addresses for your convenience:
"Tariq Khero" <tariqkhero@gmail.com>,
"Kathy Riordan" <ninekitties@aol.com>,
"Archie Quincey" <ajq1trq2@aol.com> ,
"Irene Ponce" <ireneponce@earthlink.net>,
"Ruthanne Secunda" <secundar@unitedtalent.com>,

Jeffrey de la Rosa
1880 Morton Ave.
Los Angeles CA 90026


June 7, 2009

RE: Cancellation of the June 8, 2009 Board Meeting.



Board of Animal Services Commissioners
City of Los Angeles
221 N. Figueroa St. 5th Floor
Los Angeles CA 90026


Dear Commissioners,

Today is my birthday and rather than “celebrating,” I am spending it on the issue which matters most to me. I have turned 49 today, but I was 40 years old when I rescued Stu from a place known to LAPD as “The Jungle” , a cul-de-sac in the Crenshaw area where officers will not respond because so many have been killed there. For the film, Training Day, The Jungle was, for the first time, used as a filming location. We, the film crew, moved in for 3 weeks of night shooting. Our security within the location was provided by members of the Bloods. LAPD provided security at the perimeter. On my first night there, I met Stu. He was running loose and was skinny and flea infested but he still gave a warm welcome to a crew of 300 with whom he socialized for 20 nights of shooting. When we left, I took him with me because he had no home and needed to be rescued. Before I knew of the Board’s existence, I use to spend birthdays the same way you do. I would like to return to some semblance of my previous life and am writing, again, to ask for your help in achieving that goal.

I can’t seem to find a Commissioner who knows why your June 8 meeting was canceled—for you. If you do not schedule and cancel your own meetings, who does—and why?


At the April 14, 2009 meeting of your Board, Commissioner Archie J. Quincey introduced the following motion:

“I would like to make a motion that the Commission overturn Mr. Stuckey’s decision on the Stu case based on an unfair hearing. Errors were made in the records of Stu; and the evidence must be considered in the case. The two small pieces of Maeve’s record are material to Stu’s case and should be included therein.

I therefore move that the Board direct the City Attorney to withdraw opposition to the appeal.

I further move that the City Attorney send a letter to the Court of Appeals asking them to send
the case back to Superior Court and direct the court to issue a Writ of Mandate for Stu’s decision to be set aside based on due process considerations".

Yet, the motion has not been placed on any agenda and has not been acted on by your Board. Six weeks later, at the May 26, 2009 meeting of your Board, Commissioner Irene Ponce requested that the motion be placed on the very next agenda for a vote by the Board. That vote would have taken place on June 8, 2009. At the last minute on Friday June 5, 2009 this meeting was cancelled without explanation. We are not fooled, Commissioners. We suspect that you did not cancel this meeting. So why was it cancelled and by whom?

For too long, this Board has been controlled by a dishonest and corrupt General Manager. Ed Boks was forced to resign because he betrayed the trust of the City, its citizens and its animals. Two prominent lawsuits, on two coasts, showed that he was not only inept, but that he abused his position and power by discriminating against an employee based on race in New York City; and that he wrongfully terminated a female employee/volunteer who sued for sexual harassment. This last case cost the taxpayers of Los Angeles a $130,000 settlement which was recently approved by City Council.

Now, even as Ed Boks slowly backs out the door and continues to collect a huge salary paid from my taxes, you are allowing the mismanagement and interference with your Board to continue. I will not stand by silently and allow this to happen.

While I appreciate the recent efforts this Board has made to correct is lax and unlawful practice of failing to hold meetings, the cancellation of the June 8, 2009 meeting of your Board is a despicable act. I am well aware that your Board desires to have jurisdiction of this case returned to you so that a fair and just decision can be made which will result in Stu being allowed to return to his loving home after 4 years of horrible imprisonment. I am aware that your Board was to address and act on Stu's case at the meeting scheduled for June 8, 2009. We in the animal community are not stupid; and we see, very clearly, what is happening and how your Board is being manipulated in order to prolong and continue the persecution of this poor dog Stu and me.

I believe that Mr. Boks, various City Attorneys, Asst. General Manager Linda Barth, and Ross Pool are actively blocking an equitable and fair settlement of this issue. This is wrong. You have proposed settlement but are now permitting that negotiations on settlement to be obstructed by those who seek to continue to corrupt the work of the Board.

I believe that these people caused the cancellation of this meeting in order to silence the Board and keep them from taking action on Stu's case.

This has to stop. Now.

I am appalled that your Board allows itself to be manipulated by the very “staff” and Department which is, by law, under your control.

Please adhere to the law, search your consciences, back-up your words and immediately schedule a Special Meeting to take place without delay and well prior to the June 18, 2009 hearing in the Court of Appeals regarding Stu's appeal.

There is no need for another closed session. You have all of the information you need; and the City Attorney, who will soon have a new boss, has had ample opportunity to further his agenda by persuading and strong-arming you to refrain from doing the right thing. Please, instead of doing the work of the City Attorney, do the work of the animals and the people of the City of Los Angeles and take your position on the Board of Commissioners as an assignment of the public trust. You need only amend your motion and/or pass Commissioner Quincey’s motion to put this matter to rest. For you convenience, I attach a written motion. This is what all Board actions should look like, according Los Angeles [Administrative] Code Section 503 (c).

You must end this horrible tragic miscarriage of justice now with meaningful, definitive and unquestionably clear and bold action.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey de la Rosa (and Stu)




Enc. 4/14/09 Motion by Council member Dennis Zine

CC: everyone





Stu-Thanksgiving 2008

We Are Not Stupid, Commissioners!

[SAMPLE LETTER TO THE BOARD OF ANIMAL SERVICES COMMISSIONERS]
Email Blocks

To: Commissioners
"Tariq Khero" <tariqkhero@gmail.com>, "Kathy Riordan" <ninekitties@aol.com>, "Archie Quincey" , "Irene Ponce" <ireneponce@earthlink.net>, "Ruthanne Secunda" <secundar@unitedtalent.com>,

CC: Department of Animal Services
"Ed Boks" Boks@lacity.org>,, "Council President Eric Garcetti" Garcetti@lacity.org>, " Councilmember Richard Alarcon" <councilmember.alarcon@lacity.org>, "Councilmember Dennis Zine" lacity.org>, "Councimember Tony Cardenas" <cardenas@council.lacity.org>, "Councimember Jack Weiss" <weiss@lacity.org>,"Councimember Wendy Gruel" <greuel@lacity.org>,

Board of Animal Services Commissioners
City of Los Angeles
221 N. Figueroa St. 5th Floor
Los Angeles CA 90026

Dear Commissioners,

At the April 14, 2009 meeting of your Board, Commissioner Archie J. Quincey introduced the following motion:

“I would like to make a motion that the Commission overturn Mr. Stuckey’s decision
on the Stu case based on an unfair hearing. Errors were made in the records of Stu
and the evidence must be considered in the case. The two small pieces of Maeve’s
record are material to Stu’s case and should be included therein.


I therefore move that the Board direct the City Attorney to withdraw opposition to the appeal.


I further move that the City Attorney send a letter to the Court of Appeals asking them to send
the case back to Superior Court and direct the court to issue a Writ of Mandate for
Stu’s decision to be set aside based on due process considerations".

Yet, the motion has not been placed on any agenda and has not been acted on by your Board. Six weeks later, at the May 26, 2009 meeting of your Board, Commissioner Irene Ponce requested that the motion be placed on the very next agenda for a vote by the Board. That vote would have taken place on June 8, 2009. At the last minute on Friday June 5, 2009 this meeting was cancelled without explanation.
We are not fooled, Commissioners. We suspect that you did not cancel this meeting. So why was it cancelled and by whom?

For too long, this Board has been controlled by a dishonest and corrupt General Manager. Ed Boks was forced to resign because he betrayed the trust of the City, its citizens and its animals. Two prominent lawsuits, on two coasts, showed that he was not only inept, but that he abused his position and power by discriminating against an employee based on race in New York City; and that he wrongfully terminated a female employee/volunteer who sued for sexual harassment. This last case cost the taxpayers of Los Angeles a $130,000 settlement which was recently approved by City Council. This is not how I want my tax dollars and the resources of my City Attorney's office used.

Now, even as Ed Boks slowly backs out the door and continues to collect a huge salary paid from my taxes, you are allowing the mismanagement and interference with your Board to continue. I will not stand by silently and allow this to happen.

While I appreciate the recent efforts this Board has made to correct is lax and unlawful practice of failing to hold meetings, the cancellation of the June 8, 2009 meeting of your Board is a despicable act. I am well aware of the case involving Jeff de la Rosa's dog, Stu; and that your Board desires to have jurisdiction of this case returned to you so that a fair and just decision can be made which will result in Stu being allowed to return to his loving home after 4 years of horrible imprisonment. I am also aware that your Board has opened discussions with Mr. de la Rosa in order to achieve an out of court settlement of this issue and a soon to be filed lawsuit against Mr Boks and other Department employees, as well as the City of Los Angeles. I am aware that your Board was to address and act on Stu's case at the meeting scheduled for June 8, 2009. We in the animal community are not stupid; and we see, very clearly, what is happening and how your Board is being manipulated in order to prolong and continue the persecution of this poor dog Stu and his owner. I do not want my tax dollars spent defending the vengeful actions of the Department of Animal Services and the City Attorneys which wrongfully condemned an innocent dog named Stu and turned the life of a citizen, Jeff de la Rosa, upside down for the last 4 years.

I believe that Mr. Boks, various City Attorneys, Asst. General Manager Linda . Barth, and Mr. Ross Pool are actively blocking an equitable and fair settlement of this issue. This is wrong. You have proposed settlement but are now permitting that settlement to be blocked by those who seek to continue to corrupt the work of the Board.

I believe that these people caused the cancellation of this meeting in order to silence the Board and keep them from taking action on Stu's case.

I want this to stop. Now.

I am appalled that your Board allows itself to be manipulated by the very staff and Department which is, by law, under your control.


Please adhere to the law, search your consciences and immediately schedule a Special Meeting to take place without delay and well prior to the June 18, 2009 hearing in the Court of Appeals regarding Stu's appeal. Please do the work of the animals and the people of the City of Los Angeles and take your position on the Board of Commissioners as an assignment of the public trust. We will not
stand by and allow this injustice to continue.

Please include me on a list of people who will be notified of the immediate scheduling of a special meeting, at which Commissioner Quincey's motion regarding Mr. de la Rosa and his dog Stu may be heard, seconded and passed.

You must end this horrible tragic miscarriage of justice now. Please take meaningful action now.


Sincerely,

[YOUR NAME] DELETE THIS FROM YOUR LETTER/EMAIL

City Attorney (the old one) offers "Stu" Life without Parole.

Last April 14, 2009, Animal Services Commissioner, Archie Quincey introduced the following motion:


"At the next meeting (4/27) , I would like to make a motion that the Board direct the City Attorney to withdraw opposition to Jeff's de la Rosa's appeal in the Court of Appeals; and to direct the City Attorney to request that the Court of Appeals return the case to the Superior Court; and direct the Superior Court to issue a Writ of Mandate which shall order this Board to set-aside the decision declaring the dog, Stu as dangerous. I make this motion because the hearings in our Department were unfair and violated Due Process. This has gone on long enough."

Well, following that, the Board held a "closed session" on April 27, 2009. That's when they throw everyone out and talk to their "attorney." In this case, the City Attorney is Todd Leung, who lost to me in Court on my other dog, Maeve--same reason-Due Process was violated in that they refused to summon my requested witnesses and thereby did not afford me a fair hearing before depriving me of my "property." That's the 14th Amendment at work. After 3 years, Maeve is exonerated and according to Boks and Linda Barth, "the case is closed." Great, but what about Stu?

Stu Supporter, Marie Atake with Stu
(The only Commissioner to ever meet him. Atake quit the Board of Commissioners
partially because of the unfair treatment in Stu's case and impound)

Stu's hearing was held back to back with Maeve's (see http://myspace.com/save_stu forthe full story) by the same Hearing Examiner, George Mossman. Mossman also refused to summon the same witnesses for Stu's hearing, but that doesn't show in the record before the Court, because he didn't actually speak those words at Stu's hearing..only at Maeve's. Such is the rule of evidence. My first lawyer did not catch that the record for Stu was defective; neither did the second lawyer; and had they done that, they could have corrected the record in the Superior Court and Stu would most likely be home by now, having been deprived of a fair hearing before being sentenced to death.

For the last several months, I (and other Stu supporters) have been lobbying the Board of Commissioners to settle this matter before the final hearing in the Court of Appeals on June 18, 2009. With a defective record, I could lose the case and Stu would then be killed based on Stuckey's last word before he left with the door swinging. Boks picked up where he left off and made Stu out to be a vicious terrorist of a dog and tried to make this into L.A.'s own Whipple case, which it is not, by any means.

Experts and trainers (including New Leash on Life's and K9s ONLY's Bobby Dorafshar and Richard Polksy, Ph.D. http://dogexpert.com ) have examined and evaluated Stu. He is "not dangerous", they say.

In 5 years of being with me , he never hurt another animal or a human, until he was left with my former girlfriend/assistant when my mother was on her death bed in Ohio. Tatiana did something to cause a fight to break out in which Stu was injured-his ear was torn. Ignoring my instructions to let him out of the locked small office to chill out , she went in and closed the door behind her, and then cornered Stu. Then, she attempted to slide a harness over his torn ear, when he already was wearing a collar. He apparently bit her, though we are taking her word for this...it's probable that he did. He bit her twice on the same arm and retreated to a corner, so said she on her first explanation to me. However, once her mother convinced her to sue me for $6 MILLION (she settled for $300K), her "dog-bite" lawyer instructed her to weave a dramatic and tearful tale for Animal Control which included her being "dragged" back and forth across the floor by a, supposedly, death-seeking Stu. "I knew he would kill me." "I was screaming...I had to crawl out of the room after playing dead."

Well, not even that story persuaded the Hearing Examiner. He found Stu to be "NOT DANGEROUS" and reasoned that Stu had been provoked. But Captain Helen Brakemeir stuck her big thumb in the pie and before the report from the Hearing Examiner could even get to the GM, she wrote what is now known as The Brakemeir Memo, in which she disagrees with Mossman and lobbies for Stu to be killed because it was a "mauling" and he is "dangerous." Stuckey, who had just been asked to resign, rubber stamped the letter written by Brakemeir.

Now, four years later, it seems that someone in the Mayor's office (or perhaps Debbie Knaan, because I exposed her for having ex parte communications with appellant parties and witnesses while she was already selected to be a "quasi judge") still has it in for me and will not allow the Board to do what the Board seems to want to do--put an end to this nightmare and send S
tu home.

The City Attorney's offer is this (in an email...not even a letter):

They won't kill Stu as settlement of the case (and my lawsuit against the City), but he cannot come home. He must go to a "sanctuary" or "approved kennel." Basically, he will spend the rest of his life, like the last 4 years, confined. He does not deserve that and has not deserved any of this. If you agree, then please come to the Commission meeting on Tuesday May 26, 2009 and tell the Board they are wrong to listen to the City Attorney. Especially since the City Attorney has just lost his job!

BOARD OF ANIMAL SERVICES COMMISSIONERS CITY OF LOS ANGELES
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
6:00 P.M.
Exposition Park
Dr. Mary McLeod Bethune Regional Branch Library
3900 South Western Avenue.
Los Angeles, CA 90062
click for Google map