URGENT! Little girl Chihuahua doomed by LAAS vets NEEDS SURGERY

This little bundle of love was brought to LAAS as a "stray" with a broken leg. A plea from Anna Herndandez went out far and wide (see below). By 8/4 nobody had stepped up to save her from being killed unnecessarily. So we did. We need help to get her fixed up by a real orthopedic surgeon. YOU CAN HELP US MAKE THAT HAPPEN.

The story: Little Girl/"Trish" has a double fracture of the radius and ulnar bones, at the wrist, on her front right leg. In small breeds (she's 6.7 lbs.) these fractures don't often heal by just setting the bone and applying a cast or splint. This is because of the less than ideal blood circulation at the paw in little dogs. A larger dog has a better chance of healing without surgery. INCORRECTLY, the vet (unidentified) at LAAS declared that if she was not rescued by Friday 8/6 that keeping her longer without surgery would have been INHUMANE and he/she scheduled her to be killed on 8/6. Our orthopedic surgeon thinks this was WRONG. So did we, so we had her pulled and she is in a safe and loving foster home. LAAS doomed this dog without giving her a chance. You can give her the best chance by contributing $5 or $500 or the whole sugical, boarding and medicine fees.



BoardWatch and Underdogs L.A. have taken on the responsibility for getting LG back to optimum health, but we need help. The surgery will cost nearly $3000 and she needs it within 2 weeks to have best chance.

Little Girl is alert, otherwise healthy, eating very well and just wants to play and cuddle. She is  safely confined to her cushy crate most of the time but she gets out to get a little excerise to promote circulation which aids in healing. When she is ready, she will be placed in the perfect home forever.

Prognosis: This fracture is not likely to heal this way and we have consulted with a orthopedic specialist who has reviewed the LAAS x-ray films. The doc says that she needs a tiny metal plate/pins/screws to help the bones heal. With this surgery, she will be near 100% if not 100% healed and be able to have a normal unhindered gait.


The worst case scenario: If Little Girl does not have this surgery and the bones do not heal, she will have problems putting weight on that leg. Amputation would be necessary. We don't want that for her. We want her to have the best chance at a normal life in a new forever home.

TRISH - ID#A1136849

My name is Trish and I am an unaltered female,

tan Chihuahua - Smooth Coated.
The shelter thinks I am about 1 year and 1 month old.
I have been at the shelter since Jul 28, 2010.

Radiographs: Right front limb seems to have a distal radial and ulnar fracture at the physis with lateral deviation of distal limb at carpus.  For further medical please contact Medical staff

NEEDS IMMEDIATE ATTENTION has only until FRIDAY 8/6  NO FURTHER EXTENSIONS dog is being treated but needs further eval immediately.

-- 

Anna HernandezNEW HOPE COORDINATORLos Angeles Animal Services
North Central Division3201 Lacy St.
Los Angeles Ca. 90031
Shelter (213)485-5767 (preferred)
Fax (213)847-0555
Cell (213)305-4096
Business Hours Tues-Sat. 8-5
Email: Ani.newhopenc@lacity.org
www.laanimalservices.com
You can now follow NOCs' MPA's
on http://twitter.com/AnnaLAASNOC

♥_♥___♥_♥_
♥___♥_♥___♥
_♥___♥___♥_
__♥_____♥__
___♥___♥___
____♥_♥____

         ♥

The High Cost of Doing Nothing Part III: Linda Barth.

Who knew, without being a real insider, why the shelter workers were calling for Linda Barth's head along with Boks's at last Fall's City Council Meeting and Special Meeting of Dennis Zine's Personnel Committee? Okay. We get it. Recent manipulative shenanigans by Barth Vader have shown us the light.

Let's first remember that Barth is paid $154,491.12 annually by you , the taxpayers. That was in April 08 though we believe she's gotten a raise since then.

I don't think we're straying too far from our mission by doing a little exploration of Linda Barth, Assistant General Manager for the Department of Animal Services. It is Barth who is often very outspoken at the Board of Commissioners meetings which are the subject of this blog, anyhoo.

While glittering generalities are fine, sometimes specific evidence of a person's character and job performance are necessary in order to understand whom--or what--- we are dealing with.+/- Read more...

Case in point:

The December 22 email from me to the Board and Board Secretary.

from Jeff de la Rosa
to Ross Pool
cc Kathleen Riordan
Tariq Khero
Archie Quincey
Dennis Zine
Tony.Cardenas
Mitch O'Farrell (Eric Garcetti's staff)

date Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 8:09 PM
[brown.act-2.pdf]

Dear Mr. Pool and Commissioners:

I don't have an email address for Ms. Ponce so I request that you provide one.

Perhaps you are aware of the new blog at http://laanimalservicesboardwatch.blogspot.com/

Due to the postings there and elsewhere, it seems that there are difficulties with the Board holding meetings.
I'm writing to ask what they are. If you like, you can consider this a formal Request under the California Public Records Act, in which case, I would expect a response within 10 calendar days or by January 1, 2009. you have my mailing address or any of you are encouraged to respond by email.


A few questions concerning the Board meetings:.

1) Mr. Pool always places the following paragraph on meeting agenda documents:

Public Comments: The Brown Act prohibits the Board and staff from responding to the speakers' comments.
Some of the matters raised in public comment may appear on a future agenda.

I have scoured the Brown Act (attached for your convenience) but can find no mention of this prohibition.
In fact, City Council permits Councilpersons to respond to public comments in 50 words or less.

Please cite the code section or provide a copy of the Board Resolution or Motion which prohibits Commissioners from responding to public comments, or in the alternative, immediately remove this paragraph from your agendas and place in its stead wording that would let the public know what manner of address a Board Member may use in response
to public comment. Even better, place this question on your next agenda for discussion

2) The following meetings are listed on your website as follows:

a. 12/22/08 "CANCELLATION NOTICE" dated 12/17/2008 -5 days before the scheduled meeting.:
Meeting canceled. Explanation: NONE.

b. 12/8/2008 "COMMISSION NOTICE" : dated: 12/1/2008 One week prior to the scheduled meeting.
Meeting canceled. Explanation: "NO MEETING HAS BEEN SCHEDULED BY THE BOARD OF ANIMAL SERVICES COMMISSION FOR DECEMBER 8, 2008. THE NEXT MEETING IS TENTATIVELY SCHEDULED FOR DECEMBER 22, 2008. PLEASE CHECK THE DEPARTMENTS' WEBSITE FOR THE NEXT COMMISSION MEETING TIME AND PLACE."

* What is the difference between a "Cancellation Notice" and a "Commission Notice?"


Really, the Board did not schedule a meeting? There is one for this day on the 2008 schedule which , I assume was approved by "the Board."

c. 11/24/2008 "CANCELLATION NOTICE" :
Meeting canceled. Explanation: NONE. Announcement Dated: NONE

d. 11/17/2008 "NO MINUTES"-

* Did this meeting take place?
* If so, when will the minutes be posted?
* Did the Board approve the 2009 meeting schedule which is in violation of Los Angeles Administrative Code Sec. 503?
* If so, why?
* On this agenda are approval of the minutes from August meetings.
* Does it really take 3 months to prepare meeting minutes?
* Why?

e. 10/27/2008 "Cancellation Notice": Dated 10/27/2008
Meeting canceled.
Explanation: NONE

* Did you really not know that the meeting was canceled until the morning of the meeting?

f. 10/14/2008 "Cancellation Notice." Dated: 10/8/2008- one week prior to the scheduled meeting THE BOARD OF ANIMAL SERVICES COMMISSION MEETING SCHEDULED FOR 10:00 A.M. ON TUESDAY, OCTOBER 14, 2008 HAS BEEN CANCELLED [sic]. THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING WILL BE HELD ON MONDAY, OCTOBER 27, 2008 AT 10:00 A.M,
ROOM 1060, LOS ANGELES CITY HALL, 200 NORTH SPRING STREET, LOS ANGELES CALIFORNIA 90012

* * Interestingly, and coincidentally , this meeting was cancelled on the day following the Special Meeting on Oct. 7 held by the City's Personnel Committee.
* Who cancelled this meeting and why?

3) I understand the Mr. Brown has resigned from the Commission. What is the "official" reason for this?

* When will the Board fill that vacancy as they are permitted to do under L.A.A.C. Sec. 503(a)?
* Is Commissioner Riordan to be considered "acting" President?

4) We are seeking up to date bios for the Commissioners.
Please provide them at your earliest convenience.

* The people really want to know who the Commissioners are and what their agendas are, if any?


These are my questions concerning the 4th quarter 2008. I will address other quarters in my next email.

Several writers , including myself, will be contributing to BoardWatch and we are certainly looking
forward to answers to the above questions and explanations where none are given.

We believe that there is a lot of work to be done in the Department of Animal Services and would like to know
what is keeping the Board from doing that work--for the animals and for the people. I am sure that the Board
will gladly and timely answer the questions I've posed as they must all be very concerned about the animals in the shelters who are waiting for someone to help them. We have given up on Mr. Boks and the Mayor and now turn to you.

Thank you in advance for your cooperation and your dedicated service to the animals and the people of Los Angeles.

Happy Holidays.

Jeff de la Rosa


BoardWatch general email box: laboardwatch@gmail.com

Here's Barth's December 24 2008 letter regarding my request. Click the letter to enlarge.





You can read the California Public Records Act for yourselves here, including the real Section 6255, which Barth seems to have re-written all by her lonesome.

Interesting points:
1. Pool forwards emails addressed to the Board to Boks and Barth. That's a no no. No?
2. They really don't like these questions. If they answer these "unduly burdensome" questions, it might reveal what is really going on with the Board and Boks's apparent control over them.

You may recall from previously posted parts of this series that I--the bane of the Department's existence--have been trying for 3 years to get proper care for my Stu. Most recently, it seems that my Stu's teeth are rotting and falling out of his head, yet Boks refuses to allow him to be seen by a veterinary dentist without a contract that I will pay for the damage which Boks has caused. Through recent correspondence to Boks, etc., I requested certain Public Records. None of those requests have been honored.

My reply to Barth--

Jeffrey de la Rosa

December 31, 2008 via EMAIL and FAX

Linda Barth, Asst. General Manager

Ed Boks, General Manager

City of Los Angeles

Department of Animal Services

221 N. Figueroa Street, 5th Floor

Los Angeles, CA 90012

Dear Ms. Barth,

Included in the computer records which you have sent covering Stu's medical history at your department are the following entries:

• 11/8/2005 “Will send to AFE for total body function test + fungal culture from interdifital spaces per #581.”

• 11/10/2005 “From AFE TBF +fungal culture = awaiting results from Green Dog and Cat.”

• 2/16/2006 ”The dog was growling during the exam and this with the background noises of other dogs in the medical treatment room(is this the killing room?-Ed.), distorts auscultation findings. Therefore, Dr. Rainey gave orders for the canine to be transported to (AFE'd) to private veterinary hospital (VCA/West Los Angeles), for more [complete] diagnostic comprehensive exam with radiographs of lungs and bloodwork. The dog had to be sedated at private veterinary hospital for comprehensive[sic] exam and diagnostics due to its aggressive behavior. KR/573.”

As you know, this sedation of my dog was done without my knowledge or consent. During Stu’s 3 years under lock and key with your department, he has become a geriatric dog and therefore certain particular cautions must be observed when considering “sedation.” Any future exams which sedation is deemed necessary must be done only with my prior knowledge and written consent and in no case shall sedation be administered by any LAAS employee or at any LAAS facility.

As you recall, my original request under the CPRA was for complete records. I trust that you have had adequate time to locate the exact copies of the results from the two above examinations and tests by outside veterinarians as well as exact copies of all records from Stu's treatment and blood tests from North Figueroa Animal Hospital and are sending them immediately. Your claim that producing the medical records for one dog is “unduly burdensome” is insufficient explanation for your violation of the CPRA. I am well aware that it is your intent to “obstruct and delay” which is in violation of C.G.C. §6253(4)(d) which provides:

(d) Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to permit an agency to delay or obstruct the inspection or copying of public records. The notification of denial of any request for records required by Section 6255 shall set forth the names and titles or positions of each person responsible for the denial.

In your December 24, 2008 letter which apparently denies my request for records you stated: “it would be unduly burdensome, as that term is defined under Section 6255 of the California Public Records Act (Act) for the Department to search for and produce any and all such information into one document...” Unfortunately, C.G.C.§6255 makes no references to your assertions of undue burden, nor does it define the term as you claim. In fact your term “unduly burdensome” appears nowhere in the chapter. For your information, C.G.C.§6255 states, in its entirety:

6255. (a) The agency shall justify withholding any record by

demonstrating that the record in question is exempt under express provisions of this chapter or that on the facts of the particular case the public interest served by not disclosing the record clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure of the record.

(b) A response to a written request for inspection or copies of public records that includes a determination that the request is denied, in whole or in part, shall be in writing.

While it is common knowledge that your department often seems to operate under different laws than the rest of us, perhaps you would be so kind as to provide a copy of the laws which you’re operating under in regard to my request for records.

If you are not the public servant who is making the decision to deny my lawful requests, then you must “set forth the names... of each person responsible...” You have redacted the technician ID numbers and other notes from these computerized records. This information is not privileged under the CPRA and therefore you must send non-redacted exact copies in order to fulfill my request. If you find any of the above requests "unduly burdensome," you may of course fax to me an authorization to release records with the following parties named: Jeremy Prupas, VCA Animal Hospital, Green Dog and Cat Hospital, North Figueroa Animal Hospital. I will then gather the records myself which will take less of your valuable time.

I trust that you will not further delay or obstruct my efforts to obtain this information which I have the right to obtain under the laws of this state. Mr. Leung may advise you that any costs incurred by my having to obtain and serve subpoenas for these records will be taxed to the City when I prevail on my writ petition. When judges are presented with clear violations of the law, they normally don’t hesitate to rule for the plaintiff. I’m sure that you will agree that this would be an unnecessary expense for the taxpayers to bear as would the hundreds of dollars in other court costs to say nothing of many hours spent by a City Attorney defending an action because you have failed to follow the law.

Finally, you have also failed to respond regarding your Department’s intention, or lack thereof, to keep Stu’s appointment with Dr. Tsugawa on January 6. Please have the courtesy to reply as other people have schedules with time constraints, just like you do.

Warm regards,

Jeff de la Rosa

CC: Todd Leung, Deputy City Attorney

Yeah, I can be an ass to these people, but you reap what you sow. What the hell is she talking about?
Is she making up her own laws? Having battled these ...people...in court for three years, I've learned that you don't go citing the law unless you are damn sure the law says what you are saying it does.

_______________________

Before that, I asked for the medical records for Stu, which they still have not provided and which are necessary both for Stu's further care and so that you, the public, can see what is going on behind those closed doors. So far, the records which I do have show:

1. They were aware of and even diagnosed periodontal disease in Stu and did nothing.
2. They have sedated Stu several time without my knowledge or consent, which is required.
3. Dr. Rainey was a good vet.
4. Boks is a pathological liar, but we knew that.
5. Barth is re-writing the law.


Also, although my email was addressed NOT to Linda Barth or Ed Boks, but to the Board and Board Secretary , Ross Pool--Linda Barth and Boks have decided to usurp the Board and the Board Secretary, speak for them, and declare that it is "unduly burdensome" for the Department to answer the questions, "Why did the Board cancel so many meetings?" and "Why does the agenda say that the Brown Act prohibits the Board from responding to public comments , when City Council (who also must adhere to the Brown Act) seems to have no problem with this?"



Yeah...the place is rotten to the core, which we knew. But hopefully BW is shedding light where it has not been shed before.

What do you think?



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

Ed Boks, Jeremy Prupas and LAAS sued. Again.

On December 23, "Stu's dad", Jeff de la Rosa, filed suit in Los Angeles Superior Court (Case no. BS118411) alleging violations of the Hayden Law and +/- Read more

the Los Angeles Administrative Code. Named as individuals in the suit (as well as in their official capacity) are Ed Boks and new Chief Veterinarian, Jeremy Prupas who ordered Stu into non-emergency surgery under general anesthesia without Jeff's knowledge or consent. Malpractice insurance policy providers require that doctors of any kind who are named in a law suit must notify their malpractice insurance carrier.

In October, 2008 Jeff prevailed in a similar action to invalidate the Department's revocation of his dog license for another dog, "Maeve". Judge James C. Chalfant ruled that the City botched their hearing procedures by violating due process (14th Amendment), the Los Angeles Municipal Code and LAAS's own regulations. Jeff was awarded costs of the suit and depositions(which he prosecuted without an attorney)which will be paid by the taxpayers. To date, the City has not paid the judgment.

Since that court decision, Boks has stepped up his 3 year personal vendetta against Stu's outspoken dad and this time, again, he is taking out on Stu. Damages, if awarded in this most recent suit, will be in the five figure range.

While the Hayden Law violations refer to Jeff's dog, Stu, which has been impounded for 3 years and has been refused necessary veterinary care (See previous post The High Cost of Doing Nothing), the Administrative Code violations refer to the Board of Commissioners failing to meet as as required by Section 503 of the code. In 2008, the Board met (as far as is indicated on the LAAS web site, only 11 of the 24 times required by law. Because the Board failed to meet, Jeff could not bring his issues of Stu's medical care before them and was forced to take legal action to get Stu the care he needs and has needed for more than 2 years. Updated information can be found at the Court's web site by entering the case number BS118411.

BoardWatch has been informed that more lawsuits against Ed Boks and LAAS are in the preparation stages by various parties. Will the Mayor, sooner or later, see that Boks is not only a miserable failure at Animal Services, he is also a ticking time bomb and a legal liability? Read the lawsuit here.
We welcome your comments. Just make up a name if you don't want us or anyone to know who you are.

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.