A dog & canine forum. DogBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » DogBanter forum » Dog forums » Dog rescue
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

ACTION ALERT! Please stop the City of Los Angeles from killing my dog, STU!



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old September 4th 06, 10:29 AM posted to rec.pets.dogs.rescue
Stu's Dad
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default 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  
Old September 5th 06, 03:19 AM posted to rec.pets.dogs.rescue
flick
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 568
Default 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  
Old September 8th 06, 10:17 AM posted to rec.pets.dogs.rescue
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2
Default 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  
Old September 8th 06, 10:27 AM posted to rec.pets.dogs.rescue
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:37 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.2.0 (Unregistered)
Copyright 2004-2019 DogBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.