If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
ACTION ALERT! Please stop the City of Los Angeles from killing my dog, STU!
My dog, Stu, an American Staff/Lab mix, is scheduled to be killed by
the City of Los Angeles, because he is an American Staffordshire terrier, no other reason. THIS MAY HAPPEN ON TUESDAY. Yes, he bit my friend/employee when he was in severe pain from having his ear nearly torn off by another dog. This happened last August 2005. I had to leave town suddenly to be at my mother's death bed and left my dogs in the care of my assistant. When she called me to tell my of his injury , I gave her specific instructions to let him out of the small room she had locked him in and to let him walk around and cool out. I expressly told her that if she had any misgivings or doubts about taking Stu to the vet, that she should, or I would call Animal Service to take him to the vet. She ignored my instructions, went into the office, closed the door behind her and cornered Stu, attempted to slide a harness over his bleeding ear. He bit her on the arm. I did not hear from her for 10 hours. I flew home from Ohio hours after my mother died in my arms to see my employee and to get care for my dogs. My employee reported the bite a month later and then filed a $6M lawsuit for 4 puncture wounds on one arm. Now her story is that she was dragged to and fro across the room and had to play dead to avoid being killed. Stu has been in a cage at the South Los Angeles ANNEX (death house) for almost a YEAR. But even the Los Angeles Animal Services hearing examiner on November 17, 2005 (Stu in a cage for 2 months at this point) found the victim's wounds were due to either an accident or because Stu was provoked while injured and that Stu was therefore not a dangerous dog. She presented no significant medical bills 3 months after the incident. The hearing examiner found that Stu was NOT DANGEROUS, but he revoked my dog licenses. However the General Manager of Los Angeles Animal Services, Guerdon Stuckey, overturned the Hearing Examiner and declared Stu to be 'Dangerous' on Dec. 9, 2005 and ordered him to be killed. Stuckey was fired that week by the Mayor of Los Angeles. (Stu in a cage for 4 months) I appealed the decision to the Board of Commissioners and was denied. "I am always reluctant to go against the hearing examiner's findings," the Board's VP said on March 28( Stu in a cage for 5 months). The final decsion was signed on May 26, 2006.(Stu in a cage for 7 months). However, I spoke to the hearing examiner this week and he said the Board does so quite often. No...Stu is a "PIT BULL" who has never hurt anyone in the six years I've known him. This is a breed-specific decision. When he did get out of the yard a couple of times, neighbors called and remarked on what a great and friendly dog he is. They returned him and used to come to visit him when they passed the house. On August 25, 2006I appealed via a Petition for a Writ of Mandate to the Los Angeles Superior Court. I asked for a stay until Stu could be evaluated by an animal behavior expert for the $6 MILLION law suit. I was denied.(Stu in a cage for 10 months). He is scheduled to be "euthanized" -MURDERED this coming week. I don't know when. You can read the hearing transcript and other relevant court documents at Stu's website: http://motorswag.googlepages.com/ Look how sad he is! I appeal to all fair-minded animal owners to help save Stu. Telephone the LAAS Administrative Offces at: 213-482-9558. Or Call the Board of Commisssioners at: 213-482-9501. You can also do this by FAXING to Los Angeles Animal Services and referring to "Stu" - case #05329NC. Department of Animal Services Attn: Ed Boks, General Manager 221 North Figueroa Street, 5th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90012 Phone: 213 482-9558 or 213 482-9556 FAX: 213-482-9511 Board of Commissioners Department of Animal Services 221 North Figueroa Street, 5th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90012 Phone: 213 482-9501 FAX: 213-482-9511 Or complain via email at the LAAS Website (refer to "Stu" - case #05329NC) http://www.laanimalservices.com/servicefeedback.htm Email the Board of Commissioners to stop this senseles killing and let Stu come home. If I have to I will post the Commissioners personal emails to get Stu home. My attorneys are doing everything possible to help save Stu from an undeserved fate without even letting me see him once more. A seasoned lawyer was moved to near tears when the Court denied our plea for a "stay." He said he had never been moved like this in another case. A lot of faxes, emails and calls to the LAAS would help a great deal. Please don't wait if you're at all concerned. They are only delaying his execution until Ed Boks returns on Tuesday. Thank you. Jeff de la Rosa and ''Stu'' http://motorswag.googlepages.com |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
ACTION ALERT! Please stop the City of Los Angeles from killing my dog, STU!
"Stu's Dad" wrote in message ups.com... My employee reported the bite a month later and then filed a $6M lawsuit for 4 puncture wounds on one arm. I have skimmed the hearing transcript. She testified that you said you would take care of the expenses of the dog attack and assist her monetarily when she couldn't work. Apparently you agreed - you asked her if she wrote herself some checks during that time (she said she did not). You defaulted on two checks for her, she says. Not very honorable of you. Page 51, Lines 6-16. Now her story is that she was dragged to and fro across the room and had to play dead to avoid being killed. You're lying when you say she just had four puncture wounds, and that she lied in this hearing. Or at least, that's the way it looks to me. The hearing officer said she had "severe injuries," and "multiple bites and attacks" - his words, more than just one bite. Page 29, Lines 4-7. You yourself called the injuries "bad." Page 55, Line 16. Obviously, then, she had more than four puncture wounds on one arm. Stu has been in a cage at the South Los Angeles ANNEX (death house) for almost a YEAR. But even the Los Angeles Animal Services hearing examiner on November 17, 2005 (Stu in a cage for 2 months at this point) found the victim's wounds were due to either an accident or because Stu was provoked while injured and that Stu was therefore not a dangerous dog. One of your other dogs, Maeve, had been declared an aggressive animal, and there were terms and conditions which you were supposed to meet with that dog. It appears that you did not meet those terms and conditions. It was Stu and Maeve that were fighting that day. Maeve was to be kept away from other dogs. Page 45 and 46. You didn't care enough to follow the law, or learn how to safely handle multiple dogs living together, and Stu is paying with his life. And we are supposed to feel sorry for who, here? I do feel sorry for Stu. It was unfortunate that he ended up in this situation. From what I can tell, you're a dumbass, and I wish that Los Angeles would ban you from owning dogs. flick 100785 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
ACTION ALERT! Please stop the City of Los Angeles from killing my dog, STU!
It's easy to be anonymous.
flick wrote: "Stu's Dad" wrote in message ups.com... My employee reported the bite a month later and then filed a $6M lawsuit for 4 puncture wounds on one arm. I have skimmed the hearing transcript. She testified that you said you would take care of the expenses of the dog attack and assist her monetarily when she couldn't work. Apparently you agreed - you asked her if she wrote herself some checks during that time You're lying when you say she just had four puncture wounds, and that she lied in this hearing. Or at least, that's the way it looks to me. I didn't count them. I never saw them. No one ever saw them but her doctor and she refuses to submit medical records to the insurance company. The people that may have seen them, her brother and brother's girlfriend opted not to show for the hearing. The hearing examiner opted not to compel them. A year later, she (and her lawyer) refuse to submit the records. My attorney is filing a motion to compel them to produce them. The hearing officer said she had "severe injuries," and "multiple bites and attacks" - his words, more than just one bite. Page 29, Lines 4-7. You yourself called the injuries "bad." Page 55, Line 16. The hearing examiner is an Animal Control Officer. he is naturally biased. Not his fault..but he is. He said a lot of things. He even chose to 'testify' himself. She is a cute young woman. He treated her like a wounded deer 3 months after the incident. Define "severe"-- everyone has their own definition. LAMC defines 'severe' as requiring multiple sutures (more than 1 ). Any dog bite is bad. It hurts. I've been bitten. No...not by my dogs. Obviously, then, she had more than four puncture wounds on one arm. It would have been obvious if she had submitted the requested medical records. When she first told me about the bite , she said he bit her once. She also told the hospital she did not know the dog that bit her or who owned him. Who's lying? Stu has been in a cage at the South Los Angeles ANNEX (death house) for almost a YEAR. But even the Los Angeles Animal Services hearing examiner on November 17, 2005 (Stu in a cage for 2 months at this point) found the victim's wounds were due to either an accident or because Stu was provoked while injured and that Stu was therefore not a dangerous dog. One of your other dogs, Maeve, had been declared an aggressive animal, and there were terms and conditions which you were supposed to meet with that dog. It appears that you did not meet those terms and conditions. Show me where Maeve was declared an "agressive animal." There is no such classification in the Municipal Code or on any piece of paper I've ever received. Yes, she had terms and conditions. I followed them. Then I was called away suddenly to my mother's death bed. I ****ed up. Maeve should have been boarded. Not because she is aggressive (she isn't ) because those were the terms.... I admitted that. If I had taken the time to board her , my mother would have died before I got there. It was Stu and Maeve that were fighting that day. Maeve was to be kept away from other dogs. Page 45 and 46. Maeve was not to be kept away from other dogs...where do you get that? Maeve lived with my 2 other dogs and the department has always known that. Maeve was not to be "in the custody" of anyone but me, a professional dog walker (define professional) , a kennel or vet. I've always admitted that error on my part. This is not what caused the fight. The "victim" caused the fight and then the "victim" caused the bite.. She was the wrong person to leave the dogs with. This is a no brainer. You didn't care enough to follow the law, or learn how to safely handle multiple dogs living together, and Stu is paying with his life. And we are supposed to feel sorry for who, here? I do feel sorry for Stu. It was unfortunate that he ended up in this situation I know perfectly well how to handle dogs living together. I've been handling it for 10 years. Do you have dogs? Things happen. Dog's will get into it over food, a bone, something. I followed the law save one instance. It was enough to be a problem. You should feel sorry for no one. You should feel sorry only for the dogs that are killed without a fair hearing because most people are too intimidated to defend themselves. Stu is not paying with his life. This campaign and the hundreds of people who read (not skimmed) the docs and wrote, called, emailed--- have forced Boks to cave in. The deplorable condition I found Stu in yesterday was the straw that broke Boks. Stu is now at a rescue temporarily. He will most likely never return to the custody of LAAS. And he will almost positively not be killed. From what I can tell, you're a dumbass, and I wish that Los Angeles would ban you from owning dogs. Cool... anonymous personal attacks on someone you don't know.-honorable. Do you work for Boks? Are you Boks? He's been known to have volunteers that should be caring for animals busy at the computer spreading pro-Boks propaganda. You have your wish, but I"m fighting it. flick 100785 Jeff de la Rosa |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
ACTION ALERT! Please stop the City of Los Angeles from killing my dog, STU!
Somehow the part about the checks got cut out.
Citbank confirmed that the handwriting on the checks was not mine. She left my employ on August 12. One check was written on the 19th...go figure. You can ask Detective Matsuda at LAPD northeast about the forgeries. I think you are implying that she should have been able to write herself checks (stolen checks) because I agreed to pay expenses. I paid her rent on 9/2 . The checks you say I "defaulted" on were for her previous salary. She deposited them along with her forged checks. Her forged checks caused the real once to bounce. She filed a case with the CA labor board for unpaid wages. When asked by the commissioner whether she wrote the forged checks (I brought them with me), she refused to answer. The commissioner said." Looks to me like you've been paid--twice for the same week." The commissioner threw the case out and admonished her for filing it after having forged checks. wrote: It's easy to be anonymous. flick wrote: "Stu's Dad" wrote in message ups.com... My employee reported the bite a month later and then filed a $6M lawsuit for 4 puncture wounds on one arm. I have skimmed the hearing transcript. She testified that you said you would take care of the expenses of the dog attack and assist her monetarily when she couldn't work. Apparently you agreed - you asked her if she wrote herself some checks during that time You're lying when you say she just had four puncture wounds, and that she lied in this hearing. Or at least, that's the way it looks to me. I didn't count them. I never saw them. No one ever saw them but her doctor and she refuses to submit medical records to the insurance company. The people that may have seen them, her brother and brother's girlfriend opted not to show for the hearing. The hearing examiner opted not to compel them. A year later, she (and her lawyer) refuse to submit the records. My attorney is filing a motion to compel them to produce them. The hearing officer said she had "severe injuries," and "multiple bites and attacks" - his words, more than just one bite. Page 29, Lines 4-7. You yourself called the injuries "bad." Page 55, Line 16. The hearing examiner is an Animal Control Officer. he is naturally biased. Not his fault..but he is. He said a lot of things. He even chose to 'testify' himself. She is a cute young woman. He treated her like a wounded deer 3 months after the incident. Define "severe"-- everyone has their own definition. LAMC defines 'severe' as requiring multiple sutures (more than 1 ). Any dog bite is bad. It hurts. I've been bitten. No...not by my dogs. Obviously, then, she had more than four puncture wounds on one arm. It would have been obvious if she had submitted the requested medical records. When she first told me about the bite , she said he bit her once. She also told the hospital she did not know the dog that bit her or who owned him. Who's lying? Stu has been in a cage at the South Los Angeles ANNEX (death house) for almost a YEAR. But even the Los Angeles Animal Services hearing examiner on November 17, 2005 (Stu in a cage for 2 months at this point) found the victim's wounds were due to either an accident or because Stu was provoked while injured and that Stu was therefore not a dangerous dog. One of your other dogs, Maeve, had been declared an aggressive animal, and there were terms and conditions which you were supposed to meet with that dog. It appears that you did not meet those terms and conditions. Show me where Maeve was declared an "agressive animal." There is no such classification in the Municipal Code or on any piece of paper I've ever received. Yes, she had terms and conditions. I followed them. Then I was called away suddenly to my mother's death bed. I ****ed up. Maeve should have been boarded. Not because she is aggressive (she isn't ) because those were the terms.... I admitted that. If I had taken the time to board her , my mother would have died before I got there. It was Stu and Maeve that were fighting that day. Maeve was to be kept away from other dogs. Page 45 and 46. Maeve was not to be kept away from other dogs...where do you get that? Maeve lived with my 2 other dogs and the department has always known that. Maeve was not to be "in the custody" of anyone but me, a professional dog walker (define professional) , a kennel or vet. I've always admitted that error on my part. This is not what caused the fight. The "victim" caused the fight and then the "victim" caused the bite.. She was the wrong person to leave the dogs with. This is a no brainer. You didn't care enough to follow the law, or learn how to safely handle multiple dogs living together, and Stu is paying with his life. And we are supposed to feel sorry for who, here? I do feel sorry for Stu. It was unfortunate that he ended up in this situation I know perfectly well how to handle dogs living together. I've been handling it for 10 years. Do you have dogs? Things happen. Dog's will get into it over food, a bone, something. I followed the law save one instance. It was enough to be a problem. You should feel sorry for no one. You should feel sorry only for the dogs that are killed without a fair hearing because most people are too intimidated to defend themselves. Stu is not paying with his life. This campaign and the hundreds of people who read (not skimmed) the docs and wrote, called, emailed--- have forced Boks to cave in. The deplorable condition I found Stu in yesterday was the straw that broke Boks. Stu is now at a rescue temporarily. He will most likely never return to the custody of LAAS. And he will almost positively not be killed. From what I can tell, you're a dumbass, and I wish that Los Angeles would ban you from owning dogs. Cool... anonymous personal attacks on someone you don't know.-honorable. Do you work for Boks? Are you Boks? He's been known to have volunteers that should be caring for animals busy at the computer spreading pro-Boks propaganda. You have your wish, but I"m fighting it. flick 100785 Jeff de la Rosa |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
action alert... Colorado about to outlaw breed specific legislation!!! | EmilyS | Dog behavior | 12 | April 22nd 04 04:53 PM |
Stop killing Innocent Puppies! (Petition) | Dick Estep | Dogs - general | 0 | October 12th 03 10:12 PM |
Stop killing Innocent Puppies! (Petition) | Dick Estep | Dog rescue | 6 | October 12th 03 02:35 PM |
Stop killing Innocent Puppies! (Petition) | Dick Estep | Dog rescue | 0 | October 10th 03 01:45 AM |
Stop killing Innocent Puppies! (Petition) | Dick Estep | Dog rescue | 0 | October 10th 03 01:45 AM |