Groundswell of Disgust Grows Over Delgadillo's 4 Year Persecution of a Dog.

Will Carmen Trutanich put an end to misery for a man and his dog which Delgadillo's attorneys have perpetuated for 4 years?

If you would like to urge City Attorney Elect Carmen Trutanich to take immediate action to stop this madness as soon as he takes office on July 1, write, call and fax him at:

		Trutanich Mitchell, LLP 180 East Ocean Boulevard
		Long Beach CA 90802-4079 Tel: 562) 216-4444 Fax: (562) 216-4445

Kinship Circle organizes and facilitates public support for animal welfare causes. KC's most recent
Action Alert regarding Stu's case can be viewed at Change.org or at KC's own blog.

Examiner.com has published a terrific article by Kate Woodviolet on the "Stu, the Dog" case. At our publishing time, 48 comments have been registered AGAINST actions of the City of Los Angeles--the most comments ever lodged in any of Woodviolet's articles on pet issues in Los Angeles. The recently updated piece appears in its entirety:

Playing political games with a dog's life

http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-1779-LA-Pet-Rescue-Examiner~y2009m6d17-Playing-political-games-with-a-dogs-life

June 17, 12:10 PM

By Kate Woodviolet

UPDATED After sitting in what amounts to dog jail for almost four years, a dog named Stu could be put to death soon; or he could finally go home to an owner who's been fighting for his life since 2005.

Rescued from the streets in 2000 by Jeff de la Rosa, for five years Stu lived peacefully with de la Rosa and his two other dogs. In August of 2005 de la Rosa was called out of town by a family emergency. He left the dogs in the care of an assistant who knew them. Following an uncharacteristic scuffle between Stu and one of the other dogs during which Stu's ear was torn, the assistant, in an attempt to take Stu to the vet, approached the wounded dog and tried to put a harness on him, over his injured ear (pet care experts always recommend using extreme caution, even a muzzle, when dealing with injured pets, because often even a normally friendly pet can lash out when fearful and in pain). During her attempt to harness him, a frightened Stu bit the assistant twice on the arm.

De la Rosa offered to pay the assistant's medical bills and says she initially told him she "didn't want to get Stu in trouble." He says when she went to the hospital she told emergency room staff that she didn't know the dog who had bitten her. She didn't call the police or L.A. Animal Services.+/- Read more...

According to de la Rosa, three weeks after the incident, without warning, he was served with a lawsuit. Ten days later he came home to find Stu missing from a locked outdoor kennel, and the gate on his fence pried open from the outside. He received a call from Animal Services that Stu had been "found and brought in by an unidentified private citizen." When de la Rosa arrived to retrieve his dog, Animal Services staff told him they had just received a bite report, one month after the incident, and they refused to release Stu.

The assistant, by that time represented by a law firm specializing in wresting large dog-bite settlements from homeowners' insurance carriers, now claimed that Stu had "dragged her back and forth across the floor." De la Rosa says she was seeking six million dollars in damages.

Stu with former Animal Services Board Commissioner Marie Atake. Atake famously resigned in 2007, frustrated in her attempts to increase Department integrity and professionalism

Following LAAS policy, a hearing was held to determine whether Stu had a history of aggression and whether he was likely to bite again if released. While the Hearing Examiner found that Stu had caused an injury, he felt it was sufficient to revoke the dog's license, which would have given de la Rosa the opportunity to find a place for Stu outside City limits, or to move. It was a verdict that would have given Stu back his life.

But that's when Animal Services Departmental policy went off the rails. Although LAAS policy was, and is, that the Hearing Examiner's recommendations determine the outcome, a Department captain apparently unrelated to the matter, a Captain Helen Brakemeier, interceded, telling then-General Manager Guerdon Stuckey in a memo that, "After reviewing the [Hearing Examiner's] report and all of the exhibits, I disagree with [his] recommendation and think that the dog should be deemed dangerous." Nowhere in the memo does Brakemeier indicate that she has personally met or evaluated the dog, nor what if any authority she has to overrule the hearing officer's verdict. Nevertheless, Stuckey concurred with Brakemeier, allegedly without even reading the report. His decision to deem Stu a "dangerous dog" was a sentence of death.

Animal Services Commissioner Kathy Riordan told me, "That's the first time I'd ever seen a General Manager increase the penalty [for an animal]." Within days, Stuckey was fired as General Manager by Mayor Villaraigosa, ironically, according to the L.A. Times, for failing to reduce shelter killing. De la Rosa says he was never informed about the role Brakemeier had played in condemning Stu. Her seemingly irregular participation in the process of determining the dog's fate came to light only after de la Rosa requested all documents related to the case in the wake of the unexpected LAAS verdict that Stu was too dangerous to live.

Since then Stu has been held by the City, or in City-designated facilities, and de la Rosa has been fighting to save his dog's life. Respected dog behaviorists, including Dr. Richard Polsky, who in 1987 helped formulate the City standards for assessing dangerous dogs; and Bobby Dorofshar of New Leash on Life, who has also worked with the City and been a member of the Spay/Neuter Advisory Committee, have stated that Stu is not aggressive toward humans. Their opinions are based on behavioral evaluations, assessments of his behavior prior to the incident, and an understanding of the ways the victim's actions towards Stu when he was injured may have unintentionally provoked the bites. In Dorofshar's case, he has voluntarily housed Stu at his own facility and has had the opportunity to get to know Stu over many months.

Nevertheless, Animal Services and the City Attorney's office have refused to budge, continuing to insist that the now-elderly Stu must die. Arguments in the Court of Appeals are scheduled for June 18th.

Stu, on the day he was impounded by L.A. Animal Services

Ironically, de la Rosa's fight to ensure humane treatment for his dog while in custody, and to save Stu's life, may have made his battle tougher. Allegations of a pattern of retaliatory behavior on the part of Animal Services management towards critics have surfaced repeatedly in the humane/rescue community over the years. In the days prior to the forced resignation of the most recent General Manager, Ed Boks, the City Council rebuked him publicly for blogging against his critics, including de la Rosa, on City time.

Even the Animal Services Commission, which was instituted as a supervisory body to the Animal Services Department, has fought for mercy for Stu. Commissioner Archie Quincey, who boasts a thirty-year career in L.A. County animal control, authored a motion that directs the City Attorney to drop his opposition to de la Rosa's appeal. Quincey wants the case returned to the Superior Court and wants that court to set aside Stu’s sentence based on evidence that the dog was denied due process. However, in subsequent meetings Commissioner Quincey's motion has not appeared on the agenda. Then, without warning or explanation, the June 8th meeting, the last scheduled before Stu’s Appeals Court arguments, was cancelled.

This points out another puzzling aspect of this story: the fact that even though the Animal Services Commission has a supervisory role over the Animal Services Department, it's unclear who determines the agenda for Commission meetings. Although nominally the Board President sets the agenda, in the minutes for the April 14th meeting, after Commissioner Quincey introduced his motion to free Stu, it was Department Assistant General Manager Linda Barth, not Board President Tariq Khero, who tells the Commission that, "the item is already agendized for the next meeting." Reached for comment, Barth stated that the Board President sets the agenda. She said the matter was subsequently discussed in closed session, but it was unclear if she meant specifically Commissioner Quincey's motion or Stu's case in general. She referred further questions to the City Attorney's office. A call to Deputy City Attorney Todd Leung, who has spearheaded the City's case against Stu, was not returned. Nor was a call to Board President Tariq Khero, and a call and email to incoming City Attorney Carmen Trutanich, who takes office July 1st.

[June 18th: Interestingly, although Assistant General Manager Linda Barth referred all further inquiries to the City Attorney's office, when I called the City Attorney's office today they were referring calls back to L.A. Animal Services.]

The next Commission meeting is scheduled for June 22. When asked if the motion would be discussed, Commissioner Quincey said, "If it's not on the agenda, I'm going to raise hell." He said, "I think it's gone too far. I have a lot of Animal Control experience. I saw the pictures [of the human victim's injuries], there were a couple of small puncture wounds -- and the dog was injured when it happened. On that one bite Stu gets the ultimate penalty? That's like getting the electric chair for a misdemeanor!"

When asked what he thought would be a just outcome, Quincey said, "I think Stu should go home."

If you would like to register your opinion on Stu's fate, you can contact the City Attorney's office at: (213) 978-8100

(end of repost)

If you would like to urge Carmen Trutanich to take immediate action to stop this madness as soon as he takes office on July 1, write, call and fax him at:

	Trutanich Mitchell, LLP 180 East Ocean Boulevard
	Long Beach
	CA
	USA
	90802-4079

(Tel: 562) 216-4444

Fax: (562) 216-4445

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

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

Ed Boks: I Don't Like Mondays

Will Ed Boks show his shiny head in City Hall on Monday March 23? I'm betting he will not.


Ed may have hammered the last nail in his own carpet-bag coffin all by his lonesome this week by announcing that he was nixing the spay/neuter vouchers which have made compliance with the months-old Mandatory Spay/Neuter law possible for many. Rescue organizations with tight budget will also feel the pinch but the worst product of this lame-brained stunt by our own Ed Boks will be more killed animals. More animals who won't get adopted, rescued or otherwise given a second chance at a happy life--or any life.

One article claims that Boks created a new class of criminals, those who can't afford to follow the law, in one swoop of his pointy tail. We agree. Council, who are always ready to pounce on a tasty PR morsel converged on Boks. Garcetti and Zine both say this pulling of the low cost spay/neuter vouchers cannot stand. But where will the money come from? Let's remember that Council was presented with a budget for the department of Animal Services for 2008/2009 many months ago. Let's also remember that they bankrupted the City by shoveling , on average, $500,000 more into salaries. Yep, no increases for services, food, blankets or bowls for the animals , or for the real work of the people-- just more salaries. I wonder how many ACTs and ACOs will have their hours cut or laid off all together so that the lucky ones who keep their jobs could have a raise. Yes, Ed and Linda Barth and Kathy Davis split about $30,000 of that money amongst themselves in raises for mismanagement. Don't you wish you could get a raise for not doing your job?

So, activists, rescuers and others will cram the the Public Safety Committee ( Animal Services is under Public Safety in the Administrative and Municipal Codes) and once again call for Ed's head on a stick.

We'll be there AND we'll be down the hall at the Animal Services Board meeting watching Jeff de la Rosa call for Ed's (and Barth's) head again. Why? Failure to obey a Court order and unnecessarily causing Jeff to incur $1400 in private boarding charges for his dog,Maeve. Maeve's license was revoked in 2005-06 due to a case of mistaken identity when a neighbor's dog got bit by some unknown, "red and white" or" brown and black" or "orange and tan" colored dog. The 'complaining witness' used all of those descriptions for Maeve; however she is none of those dogs. Jeff was at the beach in Ventura County that day (Don't forget to get receipts for something--anything-- next time you go to the beach in case you need an alibi for your dog).

The decision was tossed by Superior Cout Judge James C. Chalfant in October 2008. The judge citedDue Process violations in the hearing process and said the whole hearing was a sham.. Didn't help that former commish Debbie Knaan failed to recuse herself from the appeal hearings , even after telling the whole world she thought Jeff was lying and that he was "a creep." How did she come to this realization? SHE CALLED HIM BEFORE THE APPEAL HEARING AND INTERROGATED HIM in her D.A. style. No, silly--this is not ethical. It's called ex parte communication and when you're in a quasi judicial position, as she was, one should not engage in ex parte communications with a party--ESPECIALLY WHEN HE HAS A LAWYER!. Dip shit Debbie the lawyer! Judge Chalfant didn't like that either but since the whole intitial hearing was a sham kangaroo court, he didn't even have to get to the Debbie Knaan part before quashing the whole decision. Actually , he ORDERED the Board to set aside their decision to uphold the GM (Stuckey! Yes, that long ago.)'s decision to ban Maeve from the City and order that Jeff could own no other dogs for three years. Problem is that in 4 months since the ruling, the Board hasn't gotten around to to following orders and had not 'acted' to comply with the Writ of Mandate. Judge Chalfant reviews to pursue a Contempt order on Monday, but he invited Jeff back to "renew" his request should Barth continue to obstruct the judicial process. See you at City Hall. Save the date: Monday, March 23, 2009. The 1oth floor will be a rockin'!

BOARD Wants Settlement in 4-Year Old Cases

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Back to the Board Meeting:

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

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

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

CROSS-POST PERMITTED

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- Marie



Brief History of Maeve's Case

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

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

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

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


Ms. Barth,

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

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

I look forward to your timely response.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The High Cost of Doing Nothing Part II

More Law Breaking and Wasting of Your Tax Dollars or "Dollars and Nonsense"

Recently, the L.A. Daily News began a series of articles on City salaries increasing, while our Mayor increases fees and other tid-bits for City Services and cries, "The City is broke!" Armed with the results of their Public Records request to Laura Chick, City Controller, the Daily News has given the People of Los Angeles a Christmas present in a year of tough financial times for all of us: a searchable database of City employees salaries. That's right! You can now see how much you're paying these folks to run your City. Try it. One can pull up salaries by name, department or salary range. I believe the info is current as of April 2008.

What did we learn from this database?+/- Read more...

That 25 Los Angeles Animal Services employees are paid, from your tax dollars and your sanitation fees, etc., over $70, 000 per year! I know, you wish you would have dedicated your life to civil service! 14 of these folks are making over $90,000 and 6 are making over $100,000, yet we see miserable results in the improvement of care for the animals and a dismal success rate in the "No Kill" goal which Ed Boks has stated we've already achieved. These high priced civil servants are not the hard working folks you meet at the shelters who are actually doing the daily work of caring for our abandoned and sick animal friends--they are the Management. Let's remember that the Commissioners are paid nothing but are charged , by the Administrative Code with running this band of overpaid failures.

So, with all these well-compensated managers sucking in millions of dollars they can't seem to do what the law says the must do. This series focuses on two issues: Violations of the California Public Records Act and the neglect of an dog held in impound for 3 years while his owner battles the goons in Court.(See item #3).

Stu, the dog in question was impounded on September 16, 2005. Here's a time line and summary of the ordeal of an innocent dog:

August 2005: Jeff de la Rosa flies home to Ohio to his dying mother's bedside. Due to his urgent departure, he leaves his dogs in the care of his employee, Tatiana Edwards, at his rented building until he can make arrangements for boarding. Something Edwards does or doesn't do instigates a fight between two of the dogs that don't fight normally.
Stu's ear is torn in the fight. Edwards gets instructions from Jeff on what to do and she ignores them. Instead, she locks Stu in a small office and corners him. She attempts to slide a harness over Stu's injured ear and he bites her arm. Twice. She does not report the bite and makes an agreement with Jeff to cover her medical expenses.

September 15, 2005: Jeff comes home and finds that Stu has been stolen from his locked kennel.

September 16, 2005: North Central Shelter calls Jeff and tells him that Stu has been "turned-in" by a private citizen. He is told upon his arrival at NC that LAAS has just received a bite report from Edwards (a month later and the day after Stu was stolen. Coincidence?) and Stu will be impounded pending an administrative hearing to determine whether he is dangerous and should be killed.

November 2005: Hearing Examiner Mossman finds that Stu is not dangerous but was provoked.

December 2005: Former GM Stuckey rejects Mossman's findings and declares Stu to be dangerous.

March 2005: Yes, 4 months later. Jeff appeals Stuckey's decision to the Board of Commissioners. On the panel, two lawyers (Tariq Khero and Debbie Knaan) and a Commissioner with a law degree who does not practice law, Glenn Brown. Jeff claims Mossman violated due process and refused to summon department witnesses. LAAS also denied Jeff's request to have Dr. Richard Polksy evaluate Stu so Jeff could use his report as evidence that Stu is not dangerous. These 3 legal geniuses fail to see that due process has been violated (prodded on by Dov Lesel, Assistant City Attorney-salary $173,136.96) and refuse to grant Jeff's appeal. Jeff's legal costs to date: $5,000.

August 2006: Jeff takes the case to Superior Court charging due process violations and abuse of discretion by the Board and Stuckey. He also takes his other dog's (Maeve-license revoked) to Superior Court charding the same due process violations. He is opposed by Deputy City Attorney Todd Leung (annual salary $115,153.20).

Septmber 2006: Jeff visits Stu who is locked up in the "Annex" at the South L.A. "Shelter." He finds Stu filthy, tick ridden and with bleeding gums and a cracked tooth. He complains to Boks (annual salary $152,064.86) and the Board. They do nothing about Stu's health. Dr. Polksy examines Stu at Villalobos Pitbull Rescue and determines that he is not dangerous. Jeff complains and begs for medical care for Stu for the next two years. Cost to have Stu's teeth cleaned at this point-maybe $100.

June 2007: Stu now in jail 21 months. Judge David P. Yaffe (renowned wacko) denies Jeff's appeal to overturn the Board's decision. Tatiana Edwards is paid a $300,000 settlement by Jeff's homeowner insurance company or two bites on the arm Boks posts defamatory statements on the LAAS website which are 90% false and grounds for a lawsuit (case pending and award paid from your tax dollars). He also published Jeff's home address. Jeff is harassed by anonymous visitors to his home. Jeff continues to complain to the Board and they do nothing about Stu's health care. His teeth continue to rot in his mouth.

December 2006: Boks orders a night time raid on Jeff's home. Two Animal Control trucks position themselves SWAT-style in the street and light up Jeff's house like Dodger Stadium. Charges? None. Boks denies it ever happened (on the phone to Lindy Greene). Your tax dollars spent harassing a private citizen because Uncle Ed Boks is waging a personal vendetta against an outspoken citizen.

August 2007: Jeff appeals Stu's case to the Court of Appeals. Filing fee $625. Fee is waived due to Jeff's depressed financial condition brought on by the above events. If not waived, you would have had to pay this to Jeff if he wins.)
The Board of Commissioners votes unanimously to move Stu to sanctuary pending his appeal. If he loses, he will die.
Still no medical care for Stu. Jeff also learns that Debbie Knaan has violated ethical practices and due process by contacting him prior to ruling on his appeal, forming a bias and failng to recuse herself from the appeal hearings. She tells two other Commissioners about this and lets them know that she is biased against Jeff-- again prior to her hearing his appeal.

September 2007: Stu now in jail 24 months or 14 years in human terms. City enters a contract with Bobby Dorafshar's K9s Only luxury pet hotel and spa (many thanks to Bobby and the Board). Still no care for Stu's rotting teeth. Over the next year, Stu's gums bleed all over the tennis balls he plays with. More pleas for vet care. More ignoring of those pleas.

January 2008: Stu has lost a molar tooth due to advances periodontal disease. Gums still bleeding. More letters from Jeff to Boks and the Board. They do nothing.

August 2008: Bobby emails Jeff and says LAAS wants to take Stu to the Shelter and put him under general anesthesia to clean his teeth. Everyone agrees that Stu would never return alive from LAAS and that an outside doctor should do this. No response from Boks. Jeff's legal costs to date $14,000 +.

October 2008: Jeff wins the case for his other dog, Maeve, without an attorney. City is ordered to set aside their decision because Judge Chalfant says LAAS violated due process (XV Amendment), LA Municipal Code and their own hearing rules. Ed Boks is noticeably pissed that arch nemesis, Jeff de la Rosa, has had a win in Court when Ed has stated on the City's website that Jeff's claim that Stu did not have a fair hearing is a false rumor.

November 2008: Ed Boks is served with the Court Order and Judgment re: Jeff's dog , Maeve. City must pay Jeff $736 for his costs in the winning case. That's your money and the animals' money.


December 5 2008: Out of the Blue, Boks emails Jeff (through "Hoss Fool") and and says Stu , "your little dog" needs a "teeth cleaning." He says Jeff has to pay. Jeff says Boks is responsible and LAAS has to pay.

December 6, 2008: Boks agrees, in writing, that Jeff's written consent is required to treat Stu or put him under general anesthesia. Jeff wants Stu to be seen by a veterinary dentist because his condition is so far advanced and because Stu is losing teeth. Jeff agrees for Stu to be seen by his local vet so that Stu can get some meds and a preliminary exam to see how bad it is-provided that Jeff be present and that Jeff sign consent forms. Jeff's letters here
and here.

December 13, 2005: Jeff finds out that they secretly took Stu to the wrong doctor and put him under general anesthesia with Jeff's permission. No blood test prior to surgery and no x-rays to determine the damage of 2 1/2 years of neglect by Animal Services (Ed Boks). Details in Part III.




In Part III, we'll deal with the legal remedies Jeff is seeking and see how Ed Boks and the Board have created a liability (lawsuit) where your money will be wasted.

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

More Law Breaking and Wasting of Your Tax Dollars:

Los Angeles Animal Services Board Secretary Ross Pool Violates
Califorina Public Records Act - AGAIN .

We know from reading Ed Muzika's LA Animal Watch that requests to Board Secretary, "Hoss Fool", for Public Records under the Califorina Public Records Act often go ignored and mishandled by Ross Pool, whose official title is now "Senior Management Analyst" (last salary as "Management Anylyst II" $71,032.72). Linda Gordon who is a "Senior Management Anayst II" makes $115,466.40.

SHOCKING, I know. No wonder the City's broke. We are paying million$ in HIGH salaries to people who can't or won't or are not permitted to do their jobs.

It seems that Jeff's poor dog Stu's teeth have been rotting in his mouth since he first, in 2006, complained to Ed Boks and the Board in the form of an email blast complete with video postings on Stu's site at http://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 case BS104874) 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.