Showing posts with label Maeve. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Maeve. Show all posts

Monday, March 23, 2009

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

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

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

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

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

~Editor

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

END RECAP

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

Fate of 2 Dogs in the Hands of Animals Services Board of Commissioners


The Story of Queen Maeve and Her Oppressors



By Jeff de la Rosa
March 23, 2009
revised 3.24.09

In 1996 I took a job as a Rigging Gaffer on a bad Valerie Bertinelli TV Movie in Park City, Utah. One weekend I drove home to L.A. to be in a friend's wedding party in Malibu. At lunch with my girlfriend on that Sunday a young kid was trying to sell a puppy from a backyard litter as a" Rottweiler", I gave him $20 and took the tiny pup. I named her Maeve after the legendary Celtic Queen Maeve whose beauty was said to be so great that she enchanted and seduced every man who laid eyes on her and under her command, they drove her armies to conquer all oppressors and invaders.

Maeve was also the color of Guinness Stout and I , at the time, had an Irish friend visiting me who was vacation from Dublin. I put Maeve in a small bed on the front seat in the care and drove back to Utah where she spent the first 3 weeks of her life peeing on the carpet in my company provided ski condo and sleeping in a little wash basin lined with a fluffy towel. I raised Maeve to be a good dog and my Cocker, Annie mothered her like Maeve was her own puppy.

Before long, Maeve grew to be 4 times the height of Annie and 3 times the weight. I've never seen a more beautiful mutt.



Annie. Alpha mom.



She has great "eyeliner" markings around her eyes and a very regal stance and gait. We returned to L.A. and I immediately began work as the Chief Rigging Electrician on the Coen Brothers'
The Big
Lebowski..

My crew and I completely gutted the existing 1050s lighting at the Hollywood Star Lanes and retrofitted the bowling alley with state of the art, color correct high output fluorescent which made the scene pictured above possible . Maeve slept on the truck in teh parking lot. She was the rigging crew mascot and she came to work with me every day and enchanted everyone she encountered. Maeve and I went on to work on Buffy the Vampire Slayer and many other projects. She is my dear and loyal friend.

In June 2005, Marjorie Kaye, a fellow alumnus of mine of NYU Tisch School of the Arts, Class of 1989, and who is now my disgruntled and crabby neighbor, reported to Animal Services that my dog , Maeve allegedly attacked her Jack Russell terrier on May 27, 2005 and that Kaye incurred $800 in vet bills. Five years prior, back in 2000 when Maeve and I were new to the neighborhood, Maeve got away from me as I was letting her out of my car on the block where Kaye and I live. Kaye was walking her dog, Blanche, who is epileptic, past the front of my property. Alarmed at a strange dog suddenly appearing from around a high brick wall, Maeve ran to the dog and bit Blanche on the rear. The injury was not serious and I paid Kaye's $150 vet bill without her asking me to do so.

On the day of the alleged May 27, 2005 attack I had taken Maeve, a then 80 lbs., 5-year-old Shepherd/Hound mix ;Stu, a then 2 year-old Lab/Staffie mix: and Annie, a then 6-year old adorable and leader of the pack 30 lbs.American Cocker Spaniel to the beach at County Line in Ventura County. County Line is not a sunbather's beach as there are no lifeguards and other than surfers who frequent the break there and fishermen, not many people go to that beach; therefore it is the perfect and legal beach to play with your dogs.

All of my dogs were licensed and spayed or neutered and up to date on all vaccinations. Because I am congiscent of the 'dog laws' in my city and county, I knew that dogs had been banned from all L.A. County Beaches so I never took them to those beaches. It was the Friday of the 2005 Memorial Day weekend and I wanted to beat the crowds and traffic of Saturday, Sunday and Monday. It didn't work. I left around 2PM and due to traffic heading north and west, I didn't make it to County Line

County Line Beach, Ventura County


until nearly 4PM. I remember that Maeve threw up in the car because she sometimes gets carsick on twisty roads. I had gathered all the usual supplies including a full tank of gas, water, snacks, treats, toys, a blanket , paper towels for car-sick dogs; and cotton towels and a brush to get the sand off of them after their romp. The dogs and I played at the beach and in the waves until after 6PM at which time I drove home exhausted. I think I took some pictures but have not been able to find them. It took me another 2 hours, at least, to get home and it was dark outside when I arrived. There was nobody on the street in my neighborhood and most of the usual cars were not around.

On June 6, 2005 I received a letter from Kaye stating, "As you know, on May 27 your dog attacked my dog, Blanche." The Department of Animal Services was copied on the letter. More letters were exchanged and I explained to the Department and to Kaye that we were not at home. Kaye came to my home once and demanded $800. I was angry-- because she had falsely reported that Maeve bit her dog-- and ordered her off my property (later at the November hearing, she said I "shook" my "fist" at her. This is not true. I pointed to the street. I was angry becuase she had made a false report which detailed circumstances IDENTICAL to the 2000 incident to the last detail. Same corner, same me and same car--same time of day. Kaye walks her dog past my home every weekday at about 6:30PM. We avoid her. She did add for this version, however, that " he picked his dog up and carried it to his car." Maeve weighs normally 85 lbs. I have 1 herniated disc and two bulging discs in my cervical and lumbar spine areas from too many years as a Hollywood lighting technician. I do not pick up anything that weighs more than 40 pounds without someone's assistance. This is documented in my medical records and with the California Worker Compensation Appeals Board and has been so documented since 1994. My neiggborhood is full of stray dogs-with homes and without. I am adjacent to Elysian Park which a favorite dumping ground for unwanted pets--cats and dogs. Kaye is mistaken. It was not my dog. She got so deep in the lie that she could not change her story and all for $800 which she never got. She sued me in small claims court but didn't show up for trial. Case dismissed. If you needed that money and were convinced the other party was resp0nsible, you'd show up for court--Wouldn't you?

I had no receipts or other "alibis" showing that my dogs and I were not at home at the time of the alleged 6:30 PM "attack" on Kaye's dog. I don't normally think that I need to document my recreation. When the investigating officer, Perea, came to my home in late June 2006 (they're in no rush to investigate these things) to "inspect" my dogs for culprits, he said to me and wrote in his report, "None of the dogs matches the description of the attacking dog." However, the Department (Stepp and Moreno) "filed charges" and requested a dangerous dog hearing anyway. In her statement to North Central Animal cops , Kaye had described the dog who attacked her dog as "Red/White, " in subsequent papers and testimony the dog's color changed to black and brown, then beige and brown and finally orange and tan. Maybe it was orange and black. Whatever color Officer Clarke told her Maeve was, that was the color of the attacking dog.

On her Potentially Dangerous Animal Complaint form she did not ID me as the dog's owner (even though she knew me, knew where I lived and my address), list my address or name my dog, Maeve. In fact, she listed the house across the street from me as the home of the offending animal.

I knew Officer Perea and others at the North Central Shelter because when I first rescued Stu, he was an escape artist. He would climb fences and trees in my yard and leap 6 or 8 feet to the ground to stroll around the neighborhood. He never harmed anyone or anything. As soon as I discovered him gone I would retreive him. A couple of times, I got calls from a neigbor near Elysian Park who said Stu had come again to play with her female dog and it was time for her dog's feeding, so I should come and pick-up Stu. I rebuilt my fence and cut down the tree he used to scale like monkey. Animal Services had been to my home and declared my fencing quite suitable. Officer Llerenas even said I should come and build her a fence. Stu never escaped again until a drugged out neighbor living in the only apartment building near my home, started coming into my yard to steal fruit from my trees. Jerk-boy used to leave the gate open or purposedly release the dogs into because I had, several times before, told him to stay off my property. After releasing the dogs, he wold call animal control and say they were attacking people. This went on for several months, until one night he crept into my yard and entered my back door, with me sitting there at my desk--wearing only a shirt. He was taken off the property by LAPD.

Prior to the first hearing on Maeve in November 2005, and according to the Department's hearing guide I wrote a letter to Captain Stepp and the hearing examiner requesting that several ACOs and ACTs be summoned to appear as witnesses at the adminitrative hearing. The hearing examiner, Geroge Mossman, denied my requesst (but not until the morning of the hearing when I showed up and found NO witnesses ) and stated ,on the record, that he was "not required to summons [sic] witnesses that the District does not request me to summons." It was a kanagaroo court. Kaye could not or would not ID the offending dog from 5 photos of dogs which included one of Maeve. She refused to answer my questiong about how often she sees stray dogs in the neighborhood which may have attacked her dog. She had no witnesses. She only had a vet bill and blurry Xerox pictures of injuries on an animal whose species one could not make out from the photos. Then , the pretend D.A., Officer Clarke showed Kaye the impound picture of Maeve which had "MAEVE" written on it and asked Kaye if this was the attacking dog. She said, "I think that's the dog."

Maeve's fate was sealed because I had no beach alibi. No gas receipts or anything else which would prove I wasn't at home. Kaye had no witnesses to the "attack" but because I admitted that a previous and curiously identical incident (except for the part where Kaye says Maeve was "shaking my dog around in the air") The hearing examiner referred to my dog as the "attacking animal" and to Kaye's dog as "your little doggie."

The first week in December 2005 was when my "file" landed on Guerdon Stuckey's desk. He had just been asked to resign by the Mayor. Stuckey refused to resign. Stuckey signed a revoca tion order for Maeve and declared Stu to be dangerous on December 8th and 9th --rejecting the hearing examiners findings that he Stu WAS NOT DANGEROUS.


Four days later, Villagraigosa fired him.


I appealed to the Board of Commissioners and paid a lawyer $2500 to defend both dogs. Prior to my appeal I received a call from Debbie Knaan, a former Commissioner and Deputy D.A. She interrogated me on the phone abou the events surrounding the two dogs. She warned me, "Now you have to tell the truth"--as if she was expecting me to lie? She then told Marie Atake and Kathy Riordan that I was "a liar and a creep." She then sat in a quasi-judicial capacity on my appeal board and dominated the hearing acting like a D.A. in a murder case (transcript available on request). She constantly interupted my attorney and , several times, he had to admonish her for stating facts not in evidence and for appearing to be biased. The Board denied my appeal and upheld the Stuckey decisions to ban Maeve from the City and kill Stu. On my way out of the meeting, crying in front of a hundred people waiting for the real meeting at the Van Nuys Library on March 28, 2006, Debbie called after me, "We'll help you find a new home for Maeve." Did I ever hear from her again? No. I did call her once, when she was AGM, but told her I would not speak about the cases with her.

My homeowner insurance company assigned a law firm to appeal the ruling for Stu in Superior Court. I represented myself in a parallel appeal for Maeve. The lawyer lost Stu's case on the same grounds which I won before a different judge. My judge ruled that the hearing examiner was "flatly wrong." to refuse to summon my requested witneses and that that the City had denied me a fair hearing, violated Due Process, their own rules and the L.A. Municipal Code. The other judge denied my petition to overturn the decision on Due Process violations, due to a bad record prepared and submitted by the Department.

Now, in defeat after 4 years, Mr. Boks, City Attorney Lesel and Debbie Knaan --long gone from the Department but still pulling strings--- are demanding a new hearing for Maeve on 4-year old charges. Stuckey is gone. Captain Stepp is gone, Commisioner Brown is gone. Knaan is gone. All have moved on with their lives, but I'm stuck in 2005 with a 14 year old sweetie dog who may be banned from her home again.

Knaan: "Soft on Animals." Right.

Even though I have already been well punished for a "crime" which neither Maeve nor I committed; and have been deprived of the right to own any dogs for 3 years to say nothing of Maeve and I having been torn apart for 3 1/2 years, they (the "Bs" : Boks, Barth and Brakemeir; and Ross Pool (what is his job again?) , Dov Lesel (and pal, Debbie Knaan) still want to have a "new" hearing on 4 year old charges. They want to slap another 3 years onto my "inability" to own dogs if I am found to be "guility."

Why?

Because I don't back down and I have verbally and in my writings exposed Ed Boks, Linda Barth, Ross Pool and Debbie Knaan for what they are: Inept, corrupt, mean and vindictive. I have berated City attorney Todd Leung for lying in Court and in court documents both in Maeve's case and in Stu's case. Last week he stood before Judge James Chalfant and lied through his teeth (more about that in the next installment of Maeve's story). I have boarded Maeve in private kennels since March 2006 at the cost of nearly $15,000. She's been evaluated by two respected trainers and they can't seem to find an ounce of aggression in her. The Board has seen these reports and heard the statements of the trainers. This is not about Maeve and its not about Stu. It is not about dogs or the law.


It's about me; and it's about Ed Boks's shattered ego and insecurity; and it's about Debbie Knaan's ambition to do whatever the hell she wants to do, run for Mayor or City Attorney? Maybe D.A.?

.

This has nothing to do with animals or protecting the public. The public needs no protection from me or my dogs. We all know what the public and the animals need protections from and they're debating that down the hall at the Public Safety Committee meeting ( Great tape, see next post).

The dogs are merely pawns in a sick vendetta and sadistic power play. I will not let Maeve spend the rest of her short life anywhere but home. Ever.

Guerdon Stuckey left our City with $150, 000 in hush money.

Guerdon Stuckey left our City with $150, 000 in hush money. He is now prospering in North Carolina as a bureaucrat shilling for developers on a Community Redevelopment panel. Debbie Knaan stepped on heads to be the AGM and quit for a better offer and less work back with the D.A. Karen Stepp, as I have written, is gone and "Steppin' on Animals" for the County. Moreno, who doctored the record is lounging around with the "Anti-Cruelty Task Force" which nobody seems to know the existence of or whether it's been disbanded or is a working unit. Hearing Examiner George Mossman is now the ONLY hearing examiner (God help us, there used to be 3 and you went to your nearest shelter for a hearing on a barking dog case, etc.) and has been ordered to hold all hearings downtown under Boks' s and Barth's nosey noses. Yep, you are now paying for parking for all hearing participants, their families, witnesses , etc. How many spay/neuter coupons is that?!

This whole thing is a vile charade and must end today. The Board of Commissioners has the power and the duty to dismiss all charges against Maeve and to inform the Courts that my written witness request from 2005 , although material evidence in the cases for both dogs- and proof that Due Process was violated IN BOTH HEARINGS, was left out of Stu's administrative record. That is why the Board is not , today, also setting aside the decision to kill Stu. The faulty record has stalled Stu's case in the Courts and I have had to take the case to the Court of Appeals who may rule sometime this summer. Stu has a 50/50 chance of ending up in the crematory (no I would not let them "render" him). I have no lawyer to argue in front of a panel of 4 judges sitting high up in the air. I

have no money left for such things.

December 2006- Fat Stu at 75 lbs. Stuck at Villalobos Rescue

withoutmy knowledge or consent. Tia later dumped him back into the pound after

4 months of letting him become obese in an outdoor cage, in the winter of the high desert.


Stu's solitary cell at North Centra--just dumped by Tia Marie Torres of Villalobos. Tia, "Stu's going to be the poster child for my Pitbull Academy!" Promises...promises.

The Board must remedy this error and in the interest of justice and compassion save Stu's life by admitting to the Court that Due Process was also violated in Stu's case; and that they produced a inaccurate record for the Superior Court. The Board must admit that a derelict General Manager abused his discretion (didn't do his job) by allowing a subordinate, Captain Helen Brakemeir (what is her job again?) to condemn Stu---REJECTING the hearing examiner's finding that Stu IS NOT DANGEROUS-- instead of doing his job of reviewing the cases personally which the Municipal Code mandates in Section 53.18.5. Will they do this? See next post for the results of the March 23, 2009 agenda item on the Court Order for Maeve. Stu's fate is in the hands of the Animal Services Board of Commisioners: Kathy Riordan, Tariq Khero, Archie Quincey, Irene Ponce and Ruthanne Secunda. Will they save him? Only time will tell. Maybe Ed Boks's head will roll in the next few weeks. I can dream, can't I?

Stu with Marie Atake (huge supporter)

at K9's Only- a more luxurious Death Row.


Jeff de la Rosa

Stu.911 @ gmail.com

http://myspace.com/Save_Stu

Sunday, March 22, 2009

Yes, YOU CAN ATTEND BOTH MEETINGS AT CITY HALL 3/23





The Animal Services Board will convene at 10AM with 2 appeal hearing to start. This should take minimum 45 minutes. The issue of Jeff de la Rosa's dog, Maeve is up first at the start of the regular meeting (10:30-10:45).

The Public Safety Meeting convenes at 10:30 with the voucher/coupon issue LAST on the agenda. The Committee will hear a "report" from Animal Services (Barth or Boks) so they can't be at two places at one time. I would think that the Commissioners would be interested enough to take a break to go down the hall and listen to this "report."
Your attendance at both meetings is possible on both issues we hope you're concerned about. LIves are at stake at BOTH MEETING AND YOUR ATTENDANCE AND OPINION IS IMPORTANT TO BOTH the Animal Services Commissioners and the Public Safety Committee.

1. The Department's grudge match to "ban" a 14 year old dog from the City--"Maeve" after their 2005 decision was tossed by Superior Court Judge James Chalfant.

2. The "mystery" of the "canceled" spay neuter coupons, which Boks is now blaming on a 'rogue' email.
You'll have two chances to watch Ed try to wriggle out of being decent and fair and logical. Don't miss either, please.

Friday, March 13, 2009

Stu's Dad Seeks Contempt Order for Boks, Barth &Pool












More despicable acts that start with the letter "C."


Jeff de la Rosa, owner/guardian of the "evidencedDogs" Stu and Maeve will appear in Court on Monday, March 16, 2009 to seek an ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: CONTEMPT due to the willful and malicious disobedience of lawful Court Orders regarding his 14-year-old dog Maeve. C'mon down! Sorry, no popcorn allowed in Court. Read the Notice to the offenders' attorney here. What's an Order to Show Cause? See here.


UPDATE: Mar. 16, 2009:
See Post: "Pinocchio Goes to Court"

Wednesday, February 25, 2009

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


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

RECAP: On February 9, 2009 I appeared before the Animal Services Board of Commissioners at an "off-campus" and essentially "off-the-record" (see footnote #1) evening meeting of Board at the East Valley Animal Care and Control Center. Exactly 5 members of the public attended:
  1. Laura Beth Heisen (chair of Spay Neuter Committee, so she really doesn't count),
  2. A Golden Retriever rescuer
  3. Kim Carnochan(at my request) and
  4. myself.
  5. Phyllis Daugherty (love her or hate her , she is always there, to her credit).
It would seem that either the public and the animal community has given up on the Board of Commissioners having any chance or desire of effecting any meaningful positive changes in the Department of Animal Services or the whole town was just too busy.

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

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

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

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

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

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


hide details Feb 19 (5 days ago)


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

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

February 20, 2009 VIA EMAIL

Commissioner Kathleen Riordan

Linda Barth

City of Los Angeles

Dept. of Animal Services

221 N. Figueroa St 5th fl.

Los Angeles CA 90012

Re: 2/23/09 Agenda and Closed Session

Dear Vice President Riordan and Ms. Barth,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Jeffrey de la Rosa

Cc: Ross Pool

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


Their reply: None.


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


Today's letter:


February 24, 2009 VIA EMAIL

Commissioner Kathleen Riordan, Vice President

Linda Barth

City of Los Angeles

Dept. of Animal Services

221 N. Figueroa St 5th fl.

Los Angeles CA 90012

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

Dear Vice President Riordan and Ms. Barth,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Jeffrey de la Rosa

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


Stay tuned, I guess.


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

Share this blog...

Share |