Board of Animal Services Commissioners moves to amend L.A. Code to free Stu!

The Board convened at about 10:30 (a half-hour late) and immediately began discussion of Item 3A regarding Stu. Although newly installed Interim General Manager, Kathy Davis was present for her first meeting ever, but she did not even get an introduction. I can't say I've ever even seen her before but she sat next to the City Attorney in the GM's spot...and was entirely silent.

The Board took Public Comment from a large group of concerned citizens, some who traveled from as far as southern Orange County to support Stu. The Board requested that no action to "euthanize" Stu be taken at this time. At 11:05 the Board withdrew to closed session to consult with Assistant City Attorney Laurie Rittenberg, the supervising attorney on Stu's court cases.

Although the Board estimated that they would return to open session at 11:45 , they did not return until past 12:30 p.m at which time, Commissioner Riordan introduced a motion that the Board make a recommendations to Council to amend the Los Angeles Municipal Code section covering "dangerous" dogs which would allow the Board to modify a "dangerous" designation made by a general manager, even long after the appeal process has been finalized. Commissioner Riordan stressed that the amendment be retroactive to cover Stu's case. Commissioner Ponce seconded the motion and it was passed 4-0 (Commissioner Secunda had left the meeting by this time and did not take part in the vote).

What this means is that , at a subsequent public meeting (presumably on July 27, 2009), the Board will actually make a recommendation to City Counicl to amend the code in order to give the Board the power to reverse a GM's decision AFTER the appeal had been finalized. I take this to mean that the Board, once empowered by the code change, intends to remove the "dangerous" designation from Stu which would allow the Board to send him home under reasonable terms and conditions for his care and control.

I do not know how long this will take, but apparently the Board intends to ask the Coucil for an expedited consideration of their request for the code change.

I'm a little frazzled by the whole thing beause it doesn't seem real. I'm encouraged, but I will believe it when I see it. This could take months or weeks or the Council could refuse to the amend the code.

NOTE: The Board will hold their annual elections for President and Vice President on July 27. Last time the "election" was more of a mayoral "appointment" of Tariq Khero as interim President following the resignation last fall of Glenn Brown. Who's up?

STU DIES July 23, 2009! Mark your calendar.

What?! That's right. The only thing keeping Stu alive right now is that the Court decision does not become final for 30 days after the ruling. The ruling was issued June 23, 2009--ONE DAY after Board President Tariq Khero and City Attorney Dov Lesel assured the public that there would be NO COURT DECISION for several weeks....at least. Let's listen, shall we?
(audio clip to come).

THE DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL SERVICES CAN KILL STU ON JULY 23
AND THERE IS NOTHING TO STOP THEM--
EXCEPT YOU.

The Board first took up the matter of revisiting Stu's case and his horrible care in the pound in May 2007. Several attempts were made by the Board to place the issue of Stu on the Board's agenda. All of them were blocked by Ed Boks and Linda Barth. Finally, after 3 months, the Board voted on August 27, 2007 to move Stu from the pound to Bobby Dorafshar's K9s Only facility for the duration of the legal proceedings.

Then we went through 2 years of Court proceedings and brief-writing, etc., etc. City Attorney Todd Leung lied to the Court in his briefs and blocked any attempt to allow the truth into the case.

So, here we are. The City had been successful in keeping the truth that Stu did not receive a fair hearing out of the Courts. Saving Stu and sending him home is now in the hands of the City government. Here's what has to happen:

1. The Board must call and hold a Special Meeting before July 13, which is the next regular Board meeting.The president may call the meeting or 3 Commissioners may call the meeting. As of this writing, no one has called a meeting. At this meeting, which is not scheduled, the Board must discuss the recommendation which they will make, in writing, to Council and the Mayor.
2. At the regular meeting on July 13, the Board must vote to send the recommendation to Council. Council will either refer the matter to the Public Safety Committee or the PS Committee may waive consideration and refer the matter back to the full Council. The City Attorney will advise Council on what powers they have to Save Stu and send him home. Because of the red tape that a recommendation will encounter, the Board must also vote to stay the order to kill Stu for 60 days to allow the matter to work its way through the bureaucracy.
   
3. If the Council votes to make a recommendation to the Mayor, then the Mayor will decide upon the recommendation.

Meanwhile, Board members AND THE PUBLIC may lobby Council members in favor of the recommendation. City Attorney Dov Lesel told them this on June 22, 2009-- that they may contact Councilmembers as individuals or as a Board.

Here's what's happened so far:

Members of the public , and myself, have urged the Board to hold a Special Meeting. The president, Tariq Khero OR 3 Commissioners may call a meeting with 24 hours notice. The Brown Act does not prohibit Commissioners from discussing the setting of a Special Meeting.

Here's what the Board has done: NOTHING.

Here's what you can do: Demand that a Special Meeting of the Board be called before July 13.

Email or preferably FAX your demand that the Board call and hold a Special Meeting before July 13.

1. FAX the Board 213-482-9511. On your Fax COVER SHEET, direct the Board Secretary to forward your fax to ALL Boardmembers IMMEDIATELY.
2. FAX Board president Tariq Khero at his office:

   Nasatir, Hirsch, Podberesky & Genego,PLC FAX: 310-392-9029 [corrected]
   

3. Call Tariq Khero at his office: 310-854-4170
   
4. Email all Boardmembers and REQUEST A REPLY: tariqkhero@gmail.com,
   ninekitties@aol.com, ireneponce@earthlink.net, secundar@unitedtalent.com,
   ajq1trq2@aol.com
5. CC Jeff on your emails: stu.911@gmail.com
6. Flood Animal Services' phones with calls demanding a meeting of the Board

213-482-9506, 9501, 9505,9504

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.

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.

An Open Letter to the Animal Services Board of Commisioners

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

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

Dear Commissioners,

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

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




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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you,
Jeff de la Rosa

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

Jane asks, "What happened today?" MINI RECAP 3/23 Board Meeting Part i

Irene Ponce Pounces after being told she's in Ed's pocket. " The lady doth protest too much, methinks." ~ Hamlet Act III, Sc. II

A very long meeting. I left long after 2PM and they were still going.

Tariq was elected interim president as I predicted on this BoardWatch blog yesterday.Before they voted, during public comment, I told the Board what they were about to do ; that we all know the elections are fixed and then they held their fixed election.Archie nominated Tariq for President, Ponce seconded the nomination and moved to nominate Kathy as VP even though VP is not up for grabs right now. Irene was told we have a VP and are only electing an interim President. "Oh."

I told them that they would elect Ruthanne Secunda as President in July. I told them that Quincey and Ponce are in Ed's pocket and Ponce flipped out. For 15 minutes , she kept yelling, "I'm pissed!" . Jeff yielded his speaking time for the next two agenda items to which Ponce exclaimed, "Good!" She continued her angry outbursts repeated how pissed she was until Dov told her to shut up (or whatever he said to her--maybe he said, "Don't worry about Jeff, we'll get him.")

~Editor

Jeff's Dog "Maeve" ends her 43 month exile! Board decides on
March 23 , 2009 to comply with November 20, 2008 Court Order.


As far as my issues are concerned here's what happened:

The Board debated what they were supposed to do to comply with the Court order.
Public Comments:
Me: I asked them to not only set-aside the decision to revoke Maeve's license (the court order) but to dismiss the charges and stop the Dept. from starting new proceedings on a 4 year old case involving a 14 year old dog. I also asked them to make a statement to the Court of Appeals admitting that the record in Stu's case was poorly prepared by the Dept. and because of that Stu may die for the lack of a piece of paper in the right file and the failure of the appeals Board on March 8, 2006, to address the denial of due process issue in Stu's appeal as they had just done in Maeve's appeal.Because of this, there is a 50/50 chance the Court of Appeals will deny my appeal.

Kim Carnochan: Said Jeff is a loving animal owner, loves all animals (not just dogs) and loves his dogs more than anything. Said the whole thing is ridiculous and that LAAS should live by their "tagline," "We bring people and animals together." Kim said the Board must take control of their meetings and their agenda and be Ed's boss like the law says--not the other way around.

Andy from Forte: Said basically that enough is enough. That City and Jeff's resources could be better utilized in some other way than prosecuting these now old dogs.

Marie Atake: Reiterated the need for the record to be corrected and a statement made to the Courts.I can't remember everything else but she was cool calm and well-received (she'll remind me in the next email.)

Andrea Nussbaum, Dog trainer: Evaluated Maeve for one hour with all kinds of dogs on Sat. 3/21 and could not find one ounce of aggression.

Phillip Butcher, Dog Trainer: Evaluated Maeve for two hours on Sun. 3/22 with a pack of 5 pitbulls and pitbull mixes. He poked her , prodded her , slapped her and pinched her and could not get her to show any aggression whatsoever to dogs or humans. Maeve should go home and spent the rest of her very short life with Jeff.

Bobby Dorafshar: Has had Stu in his care at K9s only for over a year and finds he is not dangerous. He thinks any issues of aggression now present in Stu are due to lack of socialization for 3 years and no sunlight. Regrets agreeing to the strict contract with the City that prevents Stu from being walked off the parking lot and the requirements that two people be with him at all times. Thinks Stu really needs human contact and very soon. Kathy Riordan thanked Bobby for his generosity of time and resources caring for Stu since October 2007. Bobby said he is fine doing more as long as there is a real resolution to this issue and a timely one.


The Board voted to comply with the Court Order and they set aside Stuckey's 2005 (yes, 4 years ago) decision to revoke her license. Khero asked Dov Lesel where the case goes now. Lesel said a new hearing to revoke her license is being planned. Khero said he does not believe Maeve could ever get a fair hearing and that this should stop. Riordan agreed. Lesel told them that if they wanted to address or take action on more than obeying the Court's order, they would have to schedule a new agenda item. Ross announced the next meeting is April 27.

END RECAP

April 13, 2009 is a scheduled meeting. They (Barth and Boks) have canceled it because Easter Sunday is the day before? Bullshit. I spoke to Riordan and she didn't even know it had been canceled and told me they (who is they?) should have it the next day. They will need to be forced to meet the mandatory two times per monthn and I am going to Court to forced them to do their job and follow the law. I don't know what agenda items were requested for the next meeting. 4 1/2 hours with them was enough.
My most sincere thanks go out to all of you who came to support my dogs, Maeve and Stu. There is a gift for you in your Karma box. Thank you. Thank you.
~Jeff

Ed Boks and the BIG FIX: New Board President To Be Assigned...err...ELECTED 3-23-09

We've been here before...Board Elections that are not really elections. BW (us) has been clamoring for the Board to choose a new president ever since Glenn Brown took a powder in October...which wasn't really "official" until 2 months later, which was convenient because the Board meeting for late November and all of December were canceled to keep Kathy Riordan from "doing any damage" (doing her job as she has faithfully done for ...what? ...9 years?) as acting President.

Nope. No "election" in January...or February, but wait... a new commissioner!-HAND PICKED BY ED BOKS (that's two now if you count Irene Ponce and you have to do that.) Ruth Ann Secunda of Boks's fave celebrity encrusted Much Love Animal Rescue (subtle Ed...very subtle as usual). So now we have five and can pick a new Pres. Our predictions (you heard it hear first):

Archie Quincey? No. Too honest and down to earth for Ed and the Mayor. Unpredictable.

Irene Ponce? No. Too obvious as in Ed's pocket (she doesn't even have to read the reports before she makes a motion to approve whatever Ed and the Mayor (Blackman, Bickhart, Kramer, (Knaan? Still?)) tell her she should approve-no questions asked.

Ruthanne Secunda ? No. Too obvious as a ringer(1). They'll groom her for the Summer election and order that she be "installed" as President.

Kathy Riordan? Go ahead laugh along with us. NEVER. They hate her because she is smart, conscientious, stands up for what's right (without getting axed) and actually researches the issues on her own time--a lot of time.

Okay, then they will be ORDERED TO ELECT TARIQ KHERO. AGAIN. Remember when they ORDERED Riordan to decline the nomination (and the vote!) way back when? Remember the note from Blackman, left in the trash for the Daily News to publish? --"Don't play games (Riordan). Decline."

Yep, democracy at it's finest. Yes, this is corruption and election fraud and it's serious shit. Question, can you be disbarred for participating in illegal activity? Check it out. We think you can be. Can it be proven? Can you be impeached for the same? Probably. Show up on Monday and find out. Go Tariq!!..only 3 months to serve; you can hang. No? You're a safe bet because everyone knows you won't make waves (stand up to the creeps or make much difference in anything that matters.

How many meetings will you miss? We guess 3 out of 6. Any takers?

¹ring·er

Pronunciation:

\ˈriŋ-ər\

Function:

noun

Date:

15th century

(1): one that sounds especially by ringing
(2): one that enters a competition under false representations
(2) a: imposter , fake
b: one that strongly resembles another —often used with dead "he's a ringer for the senator"

Board Considers Lawsuit(s) and the Fate of Geriatric Dogs

For updates on Stu's Case in the Court of Appeals,
go to the Court's web site here.

RECAP: On February 9, 2009 I appeared before the Animal Services Board of Commissioners at an "off-campus" and essentially "off-the-record" (see footnote #1) evening meeting of Board at the East Valley Animal Care and Control Center. Exactly 5 members of the public attended:

1. Laura Beth Heisen (chair of Spay Neuter Committee, so she really doesn't count),
2. A Golden Retriever rescuer
3. Kim Carnochan(at my request) and
4. myself.
5. Phyllis Daugherty (love her or hate her , she is always there, to her credit).
   

It would seem that either the public and the animal community has given up on the Board of Commissioners having any chance or desire of effecting any meaningful positive changes in the Department of Animal Services or the whole town was just too busy.

At that meeting, I spoke during Public Comment regarding the Order of the Court to set aside Stuckey's 4 year-old decision (which was upheld by the Board) to revoke my dog license for Maeve, now 13 or 14 years old. License revocation means that a dog must be immediately and permanently removed from the City and the dog's owner/guardian may not own other dogs for 3 years. I have lived under those conditions for 3 years at the cost of over $4000 in boarding fees, not to mention many times that in legal fees and costs.

Following my comments, Commissioners Khero, Quincey and VP Riordan expressed their opinion that "has gone on long enough." Commissioner Ponce had no comment, either because she is unfamiliar with the issues or because Boks has told her to have no comment. The Board then asked for an agenda item (they have to ask?) which would discuss:

1. Whether the Dept. (Boks) should continue to persecute me and hold yet another hearing to revoke Granny Maeve's license (death sentence unless you know of people that want to adopt an old dog who sleeps most of the day, is no longer housebroken after 3 years in boarding and has medical issues directly related to her 3 years of out-of-home boarding.)

2. (Closed Session) Whether the Board wants to direct the City Attorney to settle Stu's case (now in the Court of Appeals--with a decision about 4 months away-- at the current cost of about $11,000 plus lost wages) in light of impending litigation re: Denial of Due Process Under Color of Law (Federal Court), Libel suit against Ed Boks, Abuse of Process, Abuse of Power, Civil Harassment, Civil Conspiracty, etc.

On February 19, I sent a letter to VP Riordan and Barth asking whether or if the Board was going to address these issues. I asked for a call. Also on February 19, Barth replied by email:

from Linda Barth
to Jeff de la Rosa
cc Kathy Riordan
date Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 5:28 PM
subject Re: Correspondence
mailed-by lacity.org


hide details Feb 19 (5 days ago)


ReplyWe will have a discussion item on the Board's agenda for Monday, February 23, 2009, regarding the case with "Maeve," and should the Board wish to convene into Closed Session, about the status of the case with "Stu." Item 4.A. http://www.laanimalservices.com/PDF/commission/2009/022309-agd.pdf We will likely take it out of order in the meeting before the Licensing discussion (Item 3.A.)

I did not open this email until Friday 2/20 due to a massive virus attack on my computer. My response:

February 20, 2009 VIA EMAIL

Commissioner Kathleen Riordan

Linda Barth

City of Los Angeles

Dept. of Animal Services

221 N. Figueroa St 5^th fl.

Los Angeles CA 90012

Re: 2/23/09 Agenda and Closed Session

Dear Vice President Riordan and Ms. Barth,

Due to a very serious computer crash this week, I am only now in receipt of Ms. Barth's 2/19 email reply to my letter of February 19, 2009 concerning Board discussion of the cases involving my dogs, Stu and Maeve. Please understand that while I am certainly grateful for such fast action by the Board in response to my request made at the public meeting held February 9, 2009, your extremely short notice (only 1 business day) of 2 agenda items, one of which being a “closed session”, is not sufficient notice for me to attend the “open” portion of the meeting or prepare materials to be considered by the Board.

I would have appreciated a telephone call from you, Ms. Barth, regarding a matter of this importance which has apparently been so hastily planned.

I have spent a good portion of the last 4 years undoing the damage done by “staff” that are no longer with the department. Mr. Stuckey’s resignation was requested a few days before he signed Stu’s death warrant and he was fired in the same week; and Captain Karen Stepp, the initiator of these actions in 2005, “resigned” due to “poor employee morale.” Please ask yourselves how much notice you would expect for a meeting of government officials which might affect the rest of your lives.

Even more perplexing is Ms. Barth’s declaration that “We will likely take it [discussion of Maeve and Stu] out of order in the meeting before the Licensing discussion…” I am unaware that “staff” sets the agenda or the order of the agenda for the Board, although it is rumored to be so. It is my understanding that the Board sets the agenda and that the Board decides the order of a meeting. Please clarify and/or correct me if I am mistaken. And really, at what time should I plan to be there if I were available? Are there appeals? How many? Although it may seem that my full time occupation is battling your department, I do have other obligations, just like anyone else.

At this time I must object to the closed session scheduled for Monday February 23, 2009 if I am not included in that session or permitted to address the Board in open session. Am I asking for postponement? No. I imagine that were I to ask for a rescheduling, the matter would never again see the light of day.

While I fully understand that the Board may consult privately with counsel, I may be present for that portion of the meeting which is not privileged, and which should be “open;” and I therefore request to address the Board in closed or open session-- for more than the 60 seconds allotted in a public comment-- and prior to any closed session and certainly prior to any vote or resolution by the Board.

It is my understanding from your fist version of the agenda, that Deputy City Attorney Todd Leung, who has defended against my actions in Superior Court and the Court of Appeals, intends to address the Board during closed session. Because this meeting may result in a decision by the Board which would affect my personal life, my finances and my dogs (a.k.a “property”), I am entitled, by law, to a meaningful opportunity to be heard and to rebut any statements made or cherry-picked “exhibits” shown by Mr. Leung.

I must ask that Commissioner Riordan or Mr. Lesel contact me immediately and prior to the meeting to discuss the parameters of a closed session or any other session involving my dogs as well as to discuss my request to address the Board. I am available by telephone all weekend.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey de la Rosa

Cc: Ross Pool

Councilmembers Eric Garcetti; Dennis Zine; Tony Cardenas; Bernard Parks

Their reply: None.

So, I must assume that they went ahead and had their meeting about me without me. Since, no doubt, Phyllis Daugherty and Jim Bickhart were likely the only people in the peanut gallery, and since neither are likely to tell me what happened, I have no idea what happened, if anything.

Today's letter:

February 24, 2009 VIA EMAIL

Commissioner Kathleen Riordan, Vice President

Linda Barth

City of Los Angeles

Dept. of Animal Services

221 N. Figueroa St 5^th fl.

Los Angeles CA 90012

Re: 2/23/09 Agenda and Closed Session/LASC Case nos. BS104875, BS104836, Court of Appeal Case no. B202071

Dear Vice President Riordan and Ms. Barth,

Because I was unable to attend the Board’s meeting yesterday, as I have previously explained, I do not know what transpired in yesterday’s meeting regarding your agenda item 3A which dealt with my dogs and my cases. I would appreciate a call today or email summarizing the content of discussions and whether the Board took any action or whether either matter was continued to another date.

In lieu of a response, please prepare today a copy of the tape of the meeting and I will arrange for its pick-up. This is a public record and need not be delayed for approval of minutes. Approval of minutes will not change the content of the tape. You may charge my VISA XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX exp. 2/10 for not more than $15 to cover the cost of the cassette copy and postage. Of course, a note saying that you are sending the tape would be appreciated. If you are unable to prepare a copy today, please advise as to a time today, that I may listen to the tape in your offices as is provided by the California Public Records Act.

Additionally, and pursuant to the California Public Records Act, please send:

1. A cost estimate for copies (or just the copies) of all resolutions, passed motions, rulings and/or decisions (including appeals) made by the Board for years 2004 to present. While I understand that this may take some time, I assume that you can fulfill my request for documents from 11/1/2008 to year 2009 without much delay.

2. Copies of minutes of all 2004 Board meeting minutes (or you may email the PDF files) which have been removed from your website.

3. Any past or current rules, by-laws or policies governing meetings of the Board of Commissioners from 1998 to present. As in (1), the most current (2008-2009) should not be delayed.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey de la Rosa

Cc: Todd Leung;Councilmembers Eric Garcetti; Dennis Zine; Tony Cardenas; Bernard Parks

Stay tuned, I guess.

FN1 Somebody (Ross Pool) forgot to make sure the Public Address system got to the meeting, as a result, there is no tape recording. There is also no tape recording of the 2 Appeals they heard which means they are both INVALID.