ChipIn started for Stu's medical care

From Brenda Barnette, re: Stu's medical care:

Jeff,
As you know, Stu has gotten far more medical care and attention that we can afford to give our shelter animals. Either someone with authority over the City's purse than me or private fund raising would probably be required if you want to provide extraordinary treatment. What you are asking is more than is provided by the average citizen or by the wealthiest of nonprofit shelters for companion animals. 

Donate here:


Read about it here http://freestunow.chipin.com/stus-medical-costs

Thank you so much for your kind support.

And so it continues...round 10 in the fight for Stu.

A new article has been published about my dog, Stu's plight and the uncertain future of "no kill" in Los Angeles. Check it out.


Liana Aghajanian | 13 Oct 2010
Saving Stu and an Uncertain Future for Los Angeles Animal Services
There has been no animal that defines the face of Los Angeles Animal Services (LAAS) in the last five years better than Stu, a Lab/Staffie mix that has been essentially…

Time to review

Yesterday, Ross Pool and Animals Services stated that "there are no records" for medical for Stu for 2009. Strange because there are records going back to 2005 and also 2010. Wonder what happened to them...

First posted WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 24, 2008

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 athttp://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 caseBS104874) 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.

Dear Commissioners (and Brenda Barnette):

Dear Commissioners-

I think you know that the animal community in Los Angeles is less than enthusiastic over the lingering doubts about Brenda Barnette's methods of attaining lower kill rate numbers. I have been contacted by numerous people in the community and also many supporters of my dog, Stu who remains in your impound system after 5 years of lies, broken promises and back room dealing.

While I am certainly willing to give Ms. Barnette a fair chance to show us what she intends to do-- and how-- and I don't care "what kind of clothes" she wears or "which church" she attends, I do care about the creepy tone of the various councilmembers' comments on the "pit bull problem." As you know, the problem is not within these wonderful creatures, it is in the back yards of those who breed them for profit and the cruelty of fighting.


Below is an email from the "open door" shelter from which Brenda Barnette has come which you have no doubt seen. This email was sent from Seattle Humane on the day of Ms. Barnette's appointment to GM of LAAS.

Please be advised that any similar policy, or plan to export pit and pit mixes to other cities to be killed there or the institution of in-shelter temperament testing will not be tolerated in Los Angeles. As a so-called "student" of Winograd's No Kill philosophy it is abhorrent that Barnette would have ever practiced what you read below. We are watching and listening. For many, many years the Board upon which you sit has forbidden temperament testing in our shelters and you must continue to do so. For the moment, we are at peace with the department and although Pamelyn Ferdin has decided to turn in her conscience, the rest of us have not done so.

Finally, while recorded versions of your meeting are useful for anyone who has the time to wade through hours of audio, written minutes which are promptly posted upon approval by the Board are essential for the public, especially now. You have allowed your Board secretary and Ms. Barth to keep the minutes of your meetings from the public for at least 4 months. Please have all approved minutes posted to the city's website without delay.

Thank you.

Jeff de la Rosa

P.S. For Winograd's opinion of this sort of testing, please see http://www.nokilladvocacycenter.org/pdf/Temperament%20Testing.pdf

From: admissions@seattlehumane.org
To:
Sent: 6/18/2010 1:15:01 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time
Subj: RE: Relinquish a dog


Hello,

With any Pit Bull or Pit Bull mix we place for adoption embassadors to the breed. This means that the dog cannot have any previous history of aggression of any kind. If the dog does not have a history of aggression than the dog will recieve a behavior assessment after it has been surrendered to our shelter. During that assessment our behavior program manager and behavior team assess the dog's temperament. If the dog passes the behavior assessment then we place the dog out for adoption. If the dog does not pass the assessment we will not place the dog up for adoption. There are no rescue organizations that work with us and pit bulls . If the dog is not an adoption candidate with us the only option is euthenasia.

We do have a callback option. With a mandatory donation of 200$ at time of surrender we give you the oppportunity to claim your pet if he/she is not an adoption candidate with us. That $200 is not refundable.

We would like to speak with you about your dog's temperament and our policies before scheduling an appointment. You may leave us with a phone number where you can be best contacted.

Thank you,
Admissions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I had to share this with you...

An email message from Teresa to the Board of Animal Services Commissioners:

All dogs are Sacred, they come from afar to teach mankind, how to open up his heart and to luv unconditionally,Dogs are our protectors and keepers of our spirits, they guide our spirit home when we cross or go thru changing of worlds, Dogs are beyond human intelligence, they speak the language of the Birds as all animals do!They are psychic, they are used to assist mankind in police force,and in medical programs. Finding cancer and tumors in humans before they even know they are ill.When mankind learns to awaken his heart and to listen from his Soul, then he will evolve and become whole.For mankind has forgotten his promise to be the keepers and protectors of all animal kingdom, For we are One thru Divine Source, Lifes breath running thru all living, breathing creatures!Please respect and honor the lives that have come to you, to assist you and your families in need.You are now in a position to be of assistance to this sacred Dog Stu, the love that you will give to him, is the love you give to yourself,the suffering you cause him, will be the suffering you cause for yourself, for this is Universal Law and Karma on Planet Earth,Hashi Inkba/Sun Father Mother Moon,I beg you to open your hearts to assist in changing laws to protect all animals now,blessings yakoke

Native American Church Of The Ghostdancers
Indigenous Peoples Council
Native American Masonry
Past Master
http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/save-the-indian-ponies-wild-mustangs.html
Refugee Advocate/Wild Mustangs/Bison
Federally recognized Native American Church Body
Conservancies for Indigenous Life
Please sign our petition at http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/indigenoous-American-Refugees-United-Nations-Status

Marie Atake speaks for Stu:A Letter to the City Attorney

To: David Michaelson, Branch Chief (the boss of Dov and Todd Leung)

I am a former Commissioner on the Board of LA Animal Services of the city of Los Angeles, and am currently sitting on the city’s Spay/Neuter Ordinance Advisory Committee, as a District-11 appointee.

Animal Services Dept. wants to kill an owned dog in an obvious miscarriage of justice that is playing out before our eyes. The owner’s due process rights at the administrative hearing and at the administrative Appeal were stymied in multiple ways. 1) Expert evidence supporting the dog was kept out at the hearing level, 2) a city Commissioner hearing the Appeal engaged in ex parte communications with the appellant, formed a personal bias, and pushed the others toward her personal bias formed in that ex parte communication. Evidence that in the four intervening years the dog has had no problems has also been kept out.

The Commissioner engaging in the ex parte communications is gone. A majority of the current Commissioners, having heard the due process accusations, and one of the Commissioners being personally aware of the due process accusations, want to drop the case. However, their efforts have been obstructed. A State Court decision that will let LAAS kill the dog, “Stu” is imminent. But after two separate Commissioners formally requested that an agenda item for a vote to drop the case, the item was kept off the agenda. Their last scheduled meeting for June 8, 2009 would have been their last chance to vote before the State Court decision that will likely kill Stu. That meeting was abruptly canceled for no reason. The public has consistently spoken to save Stu and they have been summarily ignored. The owner has done this mostly without a lawyer, having spent all his money trying to keep his beloved dog alive.

This case goes far beyond the one dog. This case demonstrates the abuse of process which has taken place and the due process violations now being tolerated by the city. As a result of the city not taking responsibility for the past violations, city’s time and monetary resources are being spent to continue its prosecution even after the city’s due process violations came to light.

Even murderers are allowed to go free when their due process rights are violated. In this case, there are so many due process violations I lose count. More detail is in an article at this link:
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-1779-LA-Pet-Rescue-Examiner~y2009m6d17-Playing-political-games-with-a-dogs-life

I’ve been fighting for this dog’s life and fighting for the city’s integrity since I was on the Commission. Stu has been kept behind bars for 4 years already. He’s old now, and probably has only another year or two to live his natural life unless cut short by this travesty.

In my letter of resignation from the Commission on the Board of Animal Services Dept. to Mayor Villaraigosa almost two years 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)

It is significant that, in the lower State Court case regarding the owner’s other dog, the Judge ruled in favor of the owner on the same issues of due process.

Meanwhile, this case has been an ongoing battle for four years! For four years, it has been draining city human and financial resources, to pursue a case with due process violations by the city. I’m really astonished with the wasteful and negative behavior of Mr. Todd Leung, the city attorney, along with others who perpetuate this inhumane condition for Stu. I wholeheartedly understand his owner’s frustration, and the growing public anger as the city tolerates this failure of justice.

Since Stu’s owner is not a lawyer, he may not have done a good job framing the due process violations for the Court, but the Commission is aware of them, and so am I. Attached please find my Declaration in the case.

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 better directed than wasted on so many years of litigation over a now 10-year old dog when the initial hearing was tainted with due process violations!?

This is 1) sheer animal cruelty 2) a total waste of our tax-dollars. The city attorney’s office should not be accepting due process violations against any constituent.

I urge you to take immediate measures to correct the procedural and due process violations by withdrawing the city’s opposition to the case. Anything less is supporting constitutional violations. The State Court decision is imminent and this needs to be cleared up right away. I hope you can and will help.

Graciously,
Marie Atake

STU DIES July 23, 2009! Mark your calendar.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here's what's happened so far:

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

Here's what the Board has done: NOTHING.

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

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

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

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

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

213-482-9506, 9501, 9505,9504

An Open Letter to the Los Angeles City Council to Save My Dog, Stu.

When an issue is presented to Council for action, Council President refers the issue to the appropriate Committee for review and recommendation. The Public Safety Committee oversees the Department of Animals Services. I started there.

Click here for City Council Website Directory
Click here for Council Officers/Committee Assignments
Click here for the Council Calendar

June 23, 2009

City Council
Public Safety Committee
City of Los Angeles
c/o City Clerk, Room 395
City Hall, 200 North Spring Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012-4801

Dear Councilmembers Weiss, Zine, Parks, Smith and Reyes,

Below is a link to Kate Woodviolet's Examiner.com follow-up story on my dog, Stu, his 4-year-old case and the evidence of malfeasance and obstruction on the part of certain employees within the Department of Animal Services. Please be aware, that only 10 days prior to the oral arguments in the Court of Appeals, the City Attorney's office sent me the attached draft settlement offer (and opposed my request for a continuance in the Court so that I might discuss the offer further) with full knowledge that no consummation of this proposed settlement could be expected in time for the City Council to approve it, before the Court ruled.

These are not coincidences and let me assure you, there have been no coincidences in this case. Ever. This case is one of the last vestiges of the inept and embarrassing tenure of Ed Boks. The only thing left to clean-up (that I know of ) of the mess Mr. Boks made of this Department will be the lawsuit I must file against him and others for these despicable acts. We are about to welcome back to our City legal system what is promised to be a new era of integrity, so says Mr. Trutanich. I hereby give you an opportunity to usher that era in with my dog, Stu in tow.

I beseech you to consider compassionately what I hope will be a forthcoming recommendation from the Board of Animal Services Commissioners to your Public Safety Committee or to the full Council, which will , as I understand the intent of the Board, attempt to preserve the integrity of the Administrative Hearing process, the Department, the Board and the City of Los Angeles by setting aside the previous ill-founded decision to declare Stu to be dangerous and order his destruction. The Board, which you have entrusted to make these decisions is unified on this issue as are thousands of people from our City and around the world: the consensus is to send Stu, a non-dangerous animal home to live out his remaining last couple of years. He was 6 years old when he was first impounded. He is now at least 10 (or 70 in human years).

The Court of Appeals could not remedy this injustice as there was a defective record before them and only myself, a non-lawyer, presenting it to them. However, although the Court has failed to right this horrible injustice , because it was confined to the incomplete record of the case, your Committee and your Council are not so constrained. Please find the time and the attention which this most deserving matter requires.

http://www.examiner.com/x-1779-LA-Pet-Rescue-Examiner~y2009m6d23-Appeals-Court-rules-against-Stu--could-allow-Animal-Services-to-kill-senior-dog

Thank you,

Jeff de la Rosa
Council District 13

Board of Animal Services Slips it's Collar

Somebody forgot to tighten the choke collar which has plagued the Los Angeles Board of Animals Services Commissioners since...forever? At their meeting on June 22, 2009, the Board seemed to go rogue and would not take "no" for an answer. Nor would they take "no answer" for an answer.

For a full week, since Kate Woodviolet's piece on Stu's story appeared at Examiner.com, the Board,City Attorney's office and Linda Barth have been barraged with emails, calls and messages from countless Stu supporters demanding and pleading for mercy and justice.

Item 4A on the agenda, the case of Stu, the evidence dog, which has been impounded for 4 years while his owner/guardian has battled to save him from Death Row and certain execution, was the impetus for the Board shaking off their restraints, but this very admirable show of blazing courage from a Board which has, for years, been accused of being a rubber stamp for the General Manager(s) and the Mayor quickly spread to all business within the Board's control. The last time the Board took bold action in the case of Stu, on August 27, 2007, when they voted unanimously to release Stu from the pound after 2 years and move him to the luxury digs at K9s Only in Tarzana, the Mayor's office clamped down hard. Former Commissioner Marie Atake resigned in protest and disgust and Commissioner Riordan is rumored to have been threatened with removal from the Board after 9 dedicated years of service.

From the 6/22/09 Agenda:

4. DISCUSSION ITEMS
A. Oral Report from the City Attorney on status of Case: Jeffrey Peter De La Rosa v. Animal
Control Board of the City of Los Angeles, et al.; Los Angeles Superior Court Case #
BS104836; Court of Appeal, Case # B202071.

CLOSED SESSION: The Board of Animal Services Commissioners may meet in closed
session with the City Attorney as its legal counsel pursuant to Government Code section
54956.9(a).

First, the was no oral report from the City Attorney. Dov Lesel claimed that Todd Leung, the "litigation attorney" was "not available" to come to the meeting (his office is next door in City Hall East), but sources tell BoardWatch that Mr. Leung was not otherwise engaged in court appearances but was, instead, sitting in his office when the agenda item was called.

+/- Read more...

On the Board's first pitch to the City Attorney at hand, Dov Lesel, Board members asked what actions were in their ability to take to stop the madness of the 4 year persecution of this innocent animal. Mr. Lesel's first response: The Board can do nothing. It's in the hands of the Court of Appeals, he claimed, as the case was submitted (final argument was heard) to the Court on June 18.

Commissioner Quincey was boiling. He stated the he had asked for his motion regarding Stu (the motion was for the Board to direct the City Attorney to withdraw opposition to Stu's owner's appeal in the Courts) to be placed on the agenda more than a month prior (actually , it was more than two months ago, on April 14, 2009) but it had never appeared on the agenda and now his motion was moot. He had intended, apparently, to save the Court the burden of rendering a decision over the life or death of the dog, Stu by instructing the City Attorney's Office to throw in the towel on a case it should not have opposed in the first place, in Quincey's opinion. Quincey wanted an explanation. Commissioner Riordan asked for an explanation. Commissioner Ponce demanded an explanation. Dov Lesel said, "I don't set the Board's agenda. Assistant General Manager Linda Barth disappeared into her chair back and remained silent. There would be no explanation.

At considerable length, Quincey went on to report to the Board and to the public, that he had reviewed the "whole" case file. The 30-year veteran Animal Control Officer reported that he had determined that the case should have been dismissed from the get go. Quincey reported that the bite was reported over a month after the incident and that it was a civil matter--that "there was no violation of the Municipal Code" by Mr. de la Rosa and therefore, there should have been no involvement by the Department of Animal Services. Following Quincey's statements, Commissioner Irene Ponce said, "you could hear a pin drop in here." The Board was stymied and the supporters of Stu, seated in the gallery, just smiled.

It was then that President Tariq Khero told Quincey that if he ever wanted an item placed on the agenda, that he need only send Khero an email. Riordan cautiously erupted.Vice President Kathy Riordan told the room that she had not had much (or any) success in having items placed on the agenda. She implied that not only was it difficult for her to have items placed on the agenda for consideration by the Board, that it was near impossible to achieve this over the obstruction by management.

In the end, through dogged persistence, the Board was able to force City Attorney Dov Lesel, to lay out exactly what the Board could do to settle Stu's case, save his life and return him to his home. Lesel came forth with all kinds of ideas for the Board. They could:

1. Recommend whatever they wanted to City Council as a Board or as individuals. Lesel corrected himself (from his earlier statments that action was out of the City's hands) by saying that settlement of this case was actually in the hands of City Council.
2. Make recommendations to the Council's Public Safety committee which oversees the Department of Animal Services.
3. Direct the City Attorney to file a supplemental paper to the Court of Appeals which stated the Board's position that the Department had botched the case and denied Due Process of law (this is our favorite- Ed.)
4. Schedule an "emergency meeting" of the Board to take whatever action it deemed appropriate.

All of these things are a far cry from Linda Barth's assertions to concerned callers that the Board can "do nothing." Throughout the heated discussion of this item, President Khero appeared to feign that Department management was innocent of any obstruction of the Board 's intentions. It is worth saying that along with the usual copies of the agenda and accompanying documents laid out at the back of the room, were several sets of full-color pictures of Tatiana Edwards's (the dog bite "victim") injuries to her right arm. Nobody seemed interested in them and they did not even bear any identifying information which might have informed the public as to what these pictures were and what they were doing spread out among the meeing literature.

Khero persuaded the Commissioners that no emergency meeting was necessary. Lesel and the Board forced Linda Barth to pledge that , in the event of an unfavorable decision for Stu by the Court, prior to the next regularly scheduled meeting, that the Department would take no action to kill Stu. She added that it was the General Manager who had made the gallant committment that Stu would not be "euthnanized" (read: KILLED) while any actions in the the Court of Appeals or the California Supreme Court were still possible.

So, we wait. We wait to see what, if any, action the Board will take to move City Council to end this fiasco. Will they appear as individuals during the Public Comment period at the next Council Meeting? Will they draft and approve a resolution decrying Stu's innocence and the Department's denial of Due Process of Law in this case? Only time will tell. Meanwhile, we await the opinion of the Court of Appeals. President Khero said , as though he knew, that the Court would surely not release their decision before the next regularly scheduled Board Meeting currently on the books for July 13.

By the way, where was the fifth Commissioner, Ruthanne Secunda? She was conspicuously absent. If the Board had tried to take action, Secunda's vote may have been crucial, since she has previously been sympathetic to the cause of Stu and has let it be known that she would like to see this nightmare end favorably for Stu.

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

An Open Letter to the Animal Services Board of Commisioners

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

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

Dear Commissioners,

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

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




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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you,
Jeff de la Rosa

Board Meeting Report-May 26, 2009, Part II

OKAY TO FORWARD AND CROSS POST

This part deals with my dog, Stu. His case was not on the agenda, but several wonderful souls turned up to speak on his behalf during Public Comment (Item 5).

Well, it's hard to say what happened. The following people spoke and the letters from Marie Atake, Carole Davis and Jane Garcia:

Zizi Zarkadas, rescuer and all around bad girl, arrived on time (I did not) and patiently sat through the whole appeal hearing and the tedious meeting for more than 2 hours and but had to go back to work before the Board got around to public comments at nearly 9:00 p.m. Thanks, Z.

Me-the usual. I asked what had happened to Quincey's motion! I asked for a real negotiation, because that's how settlements are achieved-you sit down and talk about it. And I asked for a new hearing. What are they afraid of ? Let's have a hearing, with witnesses, this time. I told them I would never let them forget Stu dead or behind bars and that I would haunt them to the end of time.

Elle Wittelsbach , Strangest Angels Rescue, activist and photographer: read Marie's letter (wonderful) and Carole's email(excellent) and expressed how wrong she felt this is. That she works with fractious animals all the time and that this incident with Stu was not Stu trying to hurt the "victim." (those messages from Atake, Davis and Garcia will appear here shortly-stay tuned).

Pam Holt, RVT, activist and rescuer: Heartfelt and penetrating, as she can be, Pam is a long time Stu supporter and single- handedly responsible for the success of Stu's MySpace page. She told of how she was just bitten by a dog at the Mojave (Cindy Bemis) rescue and that it comes with the territory. They are dogs and will act like dogs to protect themselves or out of fear. She said that the rest of Stu's life behind bars is wrong at that he should come home for his last few years...

Laura Beth Heisen, attorney, Spay/Neuter advisory committee Chair, G.M. candidate: read Jane Garcia's letter (which was very, very good. Thank you , Jane). Then LB stated that she has never spoken on this case but felt compelled to now. She said she does not speak for me or Stu but for Justice...that she does know me or Stu (other than seeing me at meetings) know the law and her knowledge of the law tells her, and should tell the Board, that the procedures (and former A.G.M, Commissioner and current Deputy District Attorney Debbie Knaan) were way out of whack and that Due Process was obviously violated. She found it disturbing that the City would not take the word that Stu is not dangerous from Bobby Dorafshar --whose input they have previously sought and trusted on other issues; and in whose care has Stu has been entrusted.

Phyllis Daugherty, mainstay and dedicated animal activist (yes, she is)- I believe she suggested our new City Attorney might have a different take on this case, if given the opportunity to review it.

Almost all mentioned City Attorney Elect Trutanich and that he should be consulted on this.

Following the comments, Irene Ponce called for Quincey's motion (See May 25, 2009 post on this blog) to be on the very next agenda. The NEXT agenda. Kathy Riordan said she would support that and she asked why Danielle Vigil's (harassment by an LAAS Captain,who revoked her rescue privileges tied to 501(c)3 Diamonds in the Ruff ; and Mary O'Connor's (her tea cup Yorkie, an emotional support animal, was stolen by an LAAS employee at the North Central shelter) were not on the agenda. Barth sidestepped, as usual , and said there was information in the commissioners' "packets" about "those issues. ??"

With what seemed to be a very positive feeling (toward Stu coming home ) among the 3 commissioners present (Riordan, Quincey and Ponce) I am confused as to how the City Attorney came up with what he said the Board had asked him to propose:

Mr. Delarosa[sic],

The Board of Animal Services Commissioners has requested that the Office of the City Attorney propose the following settlement offer (subject to approval by City Council) to you: in an effort to avoid the euthanasia of Stu, the City will permit Stu to be maintained in a secure facility (i.e., private sanctuary, kennel, and/or approved/licensed trainer) that is approved by the Board. The City will require a release from the facility. In addition, as part of the settlement, the City will require a general release from you in addition to dismissing the subject appeal. If the parties are able to agree on the terms of the settlement, it will be presented to the necessary Board, Committee, and City Council for approval. Time is of the essence. Once an agreement is reached, the necessary Board, Committee, and Council approval is required before the Court of Appeal renders its decision.

Thank you.
(From Todd Leung, Deputy City Attorney)

There is video available which I am getting and will post clips of at BoardWatch when I have the video and time to cut it up. I also button-holed Bernard Parks who made an appearance, explained myself and he assured me someone in his office would look into it. (?) I spoke to Aimee Gilbreath (Gary Michaelson director) and she was flabbergasted at the whole Stu deal. Wondered who I had pissed-off (hmm...who did I miss?).

Thank you all again. I wish I could say that it was the last time I will ask for your support for Stu, but I don't believe it will be the last.

NEXT: Part III , the rest of the meeting.

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

BREAKING NEWS: Animal Services Board Takes Aim on Death Star

OUR FIRST BREAKING NEWS!: Ed Boks and Linda Barth Guilty of Misappropriating Funds?


The meeting that wasn't supposed to happen turned the L.A. North Central Animal Care and Control center upside down, this afternoon, as the Board of Commissioners took out their blasters and put the Evil Empire, helmed by Barth Vader, square in it's sights.

When we last left the Board at their March 23 City Hall meeting, the next scheduled meeting was to take place on April 27. But, due to some heavy whining on our end, the Board quietly announced on Friday last that they would indeed meet twice in April and that their first meeting would today at 1PM at the NC "shelter." The room was small and initially stuffy as we trudged though the agenda. Ed Boks was absent again as he has been from every meeting, his own or City Council's, since Council skewered him in late March which was quickly followed by Councilmember Alarcon's "NO CONFIDENCE" motion.

Laura Beth Heisen, Bobby Dorafshar and Rachel Papp presented the Spay Neuter Advisory Committee's preliminary report which called for lots of things to happen which will further our goal to be a "No Kill" city. For 2 hours, the report was bandied about until finally, the Board voted to implement whatever measures could be quickly implemented as the report makes it way through the bureaucratic maze. Essentially, this dedicated and hardworking volunteer Committee has done the Department's job (for which we pay Boks and Barth dearly) for them and has proposed real procedures and protocols to alleviate the stall of the opening of the system's own spay/neuter clinics as well as other measures our highly paid management team should have been working on for the last 3 years.

Next, came the seemingly innocuous item 4: Discussion of a "Verbal update on Spay / Neuter Program Expenditures," This discussion began as simple presentation of "where does the money go," but soon, ever diligent Vice President Kathy Riordan wanted answers about why the Department (you, the taxpayer) has paid out--or been billed for-- $179,000 to the Sam Simon Foundation for Mobile Spay/Neuter surgeries, when Sam Simon has NO CONTRACT WITH THE CITY TO PROVIDE THESE SERVICES. You see, the Administrative Code provides that any expenditures to a vendor over $20,000, and which take place over more than a year MUST be only to a vendor who has an APPROVED CONTRACT with the City. Simon lost this contract to the Amanda Foundation 2 years ago, so why is he billing--more importantly, WHY ARE WE PAYING HIM ANYTHING?

The Amanda Foundation holds the current "spay/neuter van" contract with the Department and today was awarded a further 3-year contract. It seems that Sam Simon (billionaire (millionaire?) producer on the "The Simpsons" gravy train) has been billing the Department--and been getting paid--$80 per surgery- with no discount coupons being presented. Without a city contract, this puts him in direct competition with approved vets who are being asked to accept less money for their surgeries. In her comments to the Board, Teri Austen (Amanda Foundation) was "incensed!" She even asked the City Attorney's rep whether Boks and Barth making these payments amounted to "misappropriation of funds" which is a big "no-no" in government. City Attorney: "I can't answer that question." I answered it for her in my comment, "Yes, it is misappropriation of funds." I was incensed--the whole room was incensed but for Barth, who tried to wriggle out by saying that she wasn't there when the Simon contract was terminated and the Amanda contract took over. Linda Barth was there to approve payments to Sam Simon even though she knew damn well that Simon held NO CONTRACT and should have been paid exactly $0. Mention was made of Simon's 60 Minutes interview from which everyone assumed that Simon was paying for all of these surgeries out of the goodness of his deep pocketed heart. Not so, apparently. If this is not the death toll for Ed Boks and Linda Barth, then Lord only knows what it will take.
More coverage tomorrow including:

• a heroic "Save Stu" motion by Commissioner Quincey.
• a demand from the Board for an investigative "closed session" regarding the theft of Mary O'Connor's dog, "Hambone." The session will be "closed" because employees are accused of being involved in the theft of this disabled woman's dog.
  
• a demand for a report on why Danielle of Diamonds in the Rough (DIR) rescue is being harassed by the Harbor shelter ACOs, why she's been banned from pulling animals, and why her New Hope card was pulled. Danielle says, that ACOs who admired her work have been transferred out of Harbor. Seems like the current District Supervisor has it in for DIR and the Board wants to know why.

This was a meeting to be remembered. Too bad Ross Pool couldn't put it together to have a tape recorder there. Hope he took good notes.

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