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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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