Friday, January 30, 2009

A Wish for Animals fiasco

Date: Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 9:32 PM
Subject: A Wish for Animals
To: Diane Reagan


Dear Diane Reagan:

This email is in response to Patricia Learned’s January 27, 2009 response to PR019. Regarding A Wish For Animals and Toni Eakes, the letter stated, “We have no records relating to the Acton address; the Laguna Niguel location is not in our jurisdiction; and we have no records regarding this individual.”

In an email dated July 3, 2008, Marcia Mayeda stated, “I made an unannounced visit to A Wish For Animals this morning. . . . The reasons for delays in the permitting for this facility have to do with the processes required by Regional Planning and Building and Safety.” If Marcia visited the AWFA on July 3rd, why was there no report regarding their visit produced responsive to my Public Records Act request? Was this visit as real as the Department’s multi-year department improvement program established in 2001? Furthermore, if Toni Eakes was in the process of obtaining a permit, why were there no records responsive to my request such as a kennel license application?

The Department of Animal Care and Control knowingly allowed Toni Eakes to act in violation of County Code §§ 10.20.030, 10.20.370(A), 10.28.020, 10.28.060(A), and 10.40.100. How are you going to hold the Department accountable for doing so?

The rescue community is blind copied on this email so that they can blast and cross-post the Department’s incompetence in dealing with AWFA in violation of County Code. I have also openly copied everyone copied on Marcia Mayeda’s July 3, 2008 email.

County Code Legend

· § 10.08.120 defines a dog as “any dog of any age, including female as well as male.”
· § 10.08.130 defines a dog kennel as “any lot, building, structure, enclosure or premises whereupon or wherein four or more dogs, over four months of age, are kept or maintained for any purpose, including places where dogs are boarded, kept for sale, or kept for hire.”
· § 10.20.030 requires “every person owning or having custody or control of any dog . . . over the age of four months in the unincorporated territory of the county of Los Angeles . . . [to] obtain a license from the director for each of such dogs . . . and shall pay the fees for such licenses as set forth in Section 10.90.010.”
· § 10.20.370(A) requires that “an owner or custodian who offers any unaltered dog for sale, trade, or adoption must include a valid unaltered dog license number with the offer of sale, trade or adoption, or otherwise state and establish compliance with Section 10.20.350.”
· § 10.28.020 requires “every person desiring a license to operate an animal facility . . . [to] file an application with the department upon a form to be provided by the department, and at such time pay the required fee and any applicable penalty as set forth in Section 10.90.010.VII.” Furthermore, § 10.28.020 states that “[a] person . . . who operated an animal facility without the required license, shall pay the penalty set forth in Section 10.90.010.VII.C.4., in addition to the license fee.”
· § 10.28.060(A) states that “any person, including a new owner of an existing organization or business shall not conduct or operate any animal facility listed in Section 10.90.010.VII. . . . without first obtaining a license from the department.”
· § 10.40.100 requires “[e]ach holder of a kennel or pet shop license within the authority of Los Angeles County . . . to provide the department of animal care and control with a regular listing of all animals sold, including the name and address of the owner, according to the procedure and form as provided by the director.”

Read More...

Tuesday, January 27, 2009

Video footage of Felix Reyes animal abuse

Today I received the video footage of Felix Reyes brutally abusing a Rottweiler with a dislocated hip at the Baldwin Park Animal Shelter. Two of the video files were corrupt and as such I will be requesting non-corrupted copies of the corrupted files. In the meanwhile, I put together the three non-corrupted files.

County didn't want to release this footage under the California Public Records Act and as such put a price tag of $500.00 on it to deter its release by claiming that the video footage needed to be redacted to block out faces of members of the public and employees for privacy and personnel reasons. County had no merit to this claim as I informed them that no expectation of privacy is reasonable and backed it up with legal authority. They continued to insist that they were right. In the end, their plan to charge $500.00 backfired as it was split with a major television station requesting the same video footage. The footage needed to be released regardless of the cost, even if it meant taking County to court to be ordered by a judge to hand over the footage. County's response to this Public Records Act request was in violation of the following provisions of law: Government Code Section 6253 (a), (b), (c), and (d); and California Constitution Article 1, Section 3(b)(1). This is not the first time they've violated the Public Records Act.

In the words of President Obama in a memorandum regarding the Freedom of Information Act, "The Government should not keep information confidential merely because public officials might be embarrassed by disclosure, because errors and failures might be revealed, or because of speculative or abstract fears. Nondisclosure should never be based on an effort to protect the personal interests of Government officials at the expense of those they are supposed to serve." County has a lot to cover up and this is why they make Public Records Act requests seeking such records difficult to obtain.

Please note that the below video footage is extremely graphic. Select a download below or click play in the embedded YouTube video. You can also read and download the internal report regarding this incident here.

There is no substantiated case for this incident in the reports on the LA County Fraud Hotline website. As such, this was never investigated by or referred to the Office of County Investigations or no wrongdoing was found if it was investigated. No criminal animal cruelty charges were filed and Felix Reyes was not fired. It is reported that he's still an employee of the Department of Animal "Care" and Control working at the call center located at the Downey Animal Shelter. Felix Reyes should not be allowed to work in any occupation that deals with animals.

This abuse establishes a pattern as outlined below:

On the show Animal Cops on Animal Planet, people have been arrested and charged for lesser offenses of animal cruelty. Felix Reyes needs be charged with felony animal cruelty and fired. Demand that this happen by calling and emailing the County officials listed below. Also, contact any media contacts you have and refer them to this blog entry.

Steve Cooley
District Attorney
County of Los Angeles
Email: SCooley@da.lacounty.gov

Debbie Knaan
Deputy District Attorney
County of Los Angeles
Email: DKnaan@da.lacounty.gov

District Attorney's Office
County of Los Angeles
210 West Temple Street, Suite 18000
Los Angeles, CA 90012-3210
Phone: (213) 974-3512

Gloria Molina
Supervisor, First District
Board of Supervisors
Email: Molina@bos.lacounty.gov
Phone: (213) 974-4111

Mark Ridley-Thomas
Supervisor, Second District
Board of Supervisors
Email: SecondDistrict@bos.lacounty.gov
Phone: (213) 974-2222

Zev Yaroslavsky
Supervisor, Third District
Board of Supervisors
Email: ZYarosla@lacbos.org
Phone: (213) 974-3333

Don Knabe
Supervisor, Fourth District
Board of Supervisors
Email: DKnabe@lacbos.org
Phone (213) 974-4444

Michael Antonovich
Supervisor, Fifth District
Board of Supervisors
Email: MAntonovich@lacbos.org
Phone: (213) 974-5555

Kathryn Barger Leibrich
Chief Deputy, Fifth District
Board of Supervisors
Email: KBarger@lacbos.org

Tony Bell
Assistant Chief Deputy, Fifth District
Board of Supervisors
Email: TBell@lacbos.org

Dr. Lori Glasgow
Assistant Chief Deputy, Fifth District
Board of Supervisors
Email: LGlasgow@lacbos.org

William Fujioka
Chief Executive Officer
Chief Executive Office
Email: BFujioka@ceo.lacounty.gov
Phone: (213) 974-1101

Lari Sheehan
Deputy Chief Executive Officer, Health & Mental Health Services
Chief Executive Office
Email: LSheehan@ceo.lacounty.gov

Wendy Watanabe
Acting Auditor-Controller
Office of Auditor-Controller
Email: WWatanabe@auditor.lacounty.gov
Office: (213) 974-0729
County Cell: (213) 446-1345

Raymond Fortner
County Counsel
Office of County Counsel
Email: RFortner@counsel.lacounty.gov
Phone: (213) 974-1811

Richard Mason
Assistant County Counsel
Office of County Counsel
Email: RMason@counsel.lacounty.gov

Leela Kapur
Chief Deputy County Counsel
Office of County Counsel
Email: LKapur@counsel.lacounty.gov

Diane Reagan
Principal Deputy County Counsel, Health & Mental Health Services
Office of County Counsel
Email: DReagan@counsel.lacounty.gov
Office: (213) 974-1868

Marcia Mayeda
Director
Department of Animal Care and Control
Email: MMayeda@animalcare.lacounty.gov
Office: (562) 256-2406
County Cell: (562) 716-3278

David Dijkstra
Chief Deputy Director
Department of Animal Care and Control
Email: DDijkstra@animalcare.lacounty.gov
Office: (562) 728-4620

Derek Brown
Deputy Director, Operations
Email: DBrown@animalcare.lacounty.gov
Office: (562) 728-4572
County Cell: (562) 537-7372

Read More...

Monday, January 26, 2009

Spinal Monday

Below is the description of an incident that occurred at the Carson Animal Shelter in March 2005. This incident is referred to internally by the Department of Animal "Care" and Control as Spinal Monday.

There was one rabbit in a cage that was so small it couldn’t move. It had no food or water. The other cages were very old and filthy. There was rotting vegetation (black wilted lettuce) in the cages and flies were swarming all over it. The rabbits were standing on the food and defecating and urinating on it. Several cages were overcrowded. It was very warm in the room and odor of rotten veggies and feces and urine was overwhelming. There was an aborted rabbit fetus on the wire floor and one of the rabbits started to nibble on it. There were cages stacked on top of each other. One rabbit had severe injuries to its eyes and the eyes were ulcerated. This rabbit was being attacked by the other rabbits.

There was a rabbit that had been in the cage with an exposed spinal cord for OVER one week. The rabbit was still alive, bones exposed and all. A volunteer had complained when she saw it on a Saturday. Marcia Mayeda got the message on a Monday; one week after the volunteer saw it. As such, this delayed DACC administrative staff from going out to the Carson Animal Shelter to investigate.

Medical treatment was ordered for 3-4 of the rabbits. They all had to be put to sleep immediately.

Read More...

Thursday, January 22, 2009

DACC hold policy change

Date: Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 8:57 PM
Subject: DACC hold policy change
To: William Fujioka


Dear William Fujioka:

It has been brought to my attention that DACC is changing Department policy effective February 1, 2009 prohibiting rescue groups from being the first interested party. Rescue groups can be interested parties after the first interested party, but will be placed in a lottery system of up to 10-15 people (rescuers and members of the public). If the first interested party falls through, the remaining interested parties have to show up to the shelter and be present for the lottery drawing. How is this helping the animals find homes? More animals will die because of this. It’s very obvious that the Department is not interested in finding homes for as many animals as possible and would rather see them killed.

You’ve stated in the past that you and the Board of Supervisors are attempting to bring change to the Department. Is this what you consider change?

This policy modification was the doing of Derek Brown and he was supposed to inform rescue groups of this change weeks ago. Since he failed to do so, I have done his job for him and copied the rescue community on this email. I have provided contact information below for the members of the rescue community blind copied on this email so they can voice their disgust for this policy change.

"i agree that everyone did an outstanding job on this matter! However, we do not need a paper trail on this. Everyone, please delete these e-mails from your computers and empty the trash files. Thanks!" - Marcia Mayeda

Gloria Molina
Supervisor, First District
Board of Supervisors
Email: Molina@bos.lacounty.gov
Phone: (213) 974-4111

Mark Ridley-Thomas
Supervisor, Second District
Board of Supervisors
Email: SecondDistrict@bos.lacounty.gov
Phone: (213) 974-2222

Zev Yaroslavsky
Supervisor, Third District
Board of Supervisors
Email: ZYarosla@lacbos.org
Phone: (213) 974-3333

Don Knabe
Supervisor, Fourth District
Board of Supervisors
Email: DKnabe@lacbos.org
Phone (213) 974-4444

Michael Antonovich
Supervisor, Fifth District
Board of Supervisors
Email: MAntonovich@lacbos.org
Phone: (213) 974-5555

Kathryn Barger Leibrich
Chief Deputy, Fifth District
Board of Supervisors
Email: KBarger@lacbos.org

Tony Bell
Assistant Chief Deputy, Fifth District
Board of Supervisors
Email: TBell@lacbos.org

Dr. Lori Glasgow
Assistant Chief Deputy, Fifth District
Board of Supervisors
Email: LGlasgow@lacbos.org

William Fujioka
Chief Executive Officer
Chief Executive Office
Email: BFujioka@ceo.lacounty.gov
Phone: (213) 974-1101

Lari Sheehan
Deputy Chief Executive Officer, Health & Mental Health Services
Chief Executive Office
Email: LSheehan@ceo.lacounty.gov

Wendy Watanabe
Acting Auditor-Controller
Office of Auditor-Controller
Email: WWatanabe@auditor.lacounty.gov
Office: (213) 974-0729
County Cell: (213) 446-1345

Raymond Fortner
County Counsel
Office of County Counsel
Email: RFortner@counsel.lacounty.gov
Phone: (213) 974-1811

Richard Mason
Assistant County Counsel
Office of County Counsel
Email: RMason@counsel.lacounty.gov

Leela Kapur
Chief Deputy County Counsel
Office of County Counsel
Email: LKapur@counsel.lacounty.gov

Diane Reagan
Principal Deputy County Counsel, Health & Mental Health Services
Office of County Counsel
Email: DReagan@counsel.lacounty.gov
Office: (213) 974-1868

Marcia Mayeda
Director
Department of Animal Care and Control
Email: MMayeda@animalcare.lacounty.gov
Office: (562) 728-4882
County Cell: (562) 716-3278

David Dijkstra
Chief Deputy Director
Department of Animal Care and Control
Email: DDijkstra@animalcare.lacounty.gov
Office: (562) 728-4620

Derek Brown
Deputy Director, Operations
Email: DBrown@animalcare.lacounty.gov
Office: (562) 728-4572
County Cell: (562) 537-7372

Read More...

Saturday, January 10, 2009

Today at the Downey Animal Shelter

Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2009 9:46 PM
To: Diane Reagan
Subject: (no subject)

Dear Diane Reagan:

I visited the Downey Animal Shelter today and there were numerous cages with feces, dogs laying in or near feces (of which I’ve attached the most disgusting examples), and a cage with a pill on the floor. The cage with the pill on the floor wasn’t occupied by a dog when I took the photo, but since the pill was in dried wet dog food and was disgustingly located by feces, it’s obvious that this pill was intended to be taken by a dog. How is this properly medicating an animal? Furthermore, the amount of feces in cages indicates that the Downey Animal Shelter is either understaffed or staff aren’t properly doing their job pursuant to Department policy. The lack of sanitary conditions and proper cage disinfecting are why rescuers claim that 90% of the animals rescued out of Los Angeles County shelters end up sick with giardia, canine parvovirus, distemper, canine infectious tracheobronchitis, upper respiratory tract infection, etc. It’s obvious not much has changed since you entered into a stipulated order for Cathy Nguyen, et al. v. County of Los Angeles, et al.





Read More...

Wednesday, January 7, 2009

Lancaster Animal Shelter

From: Jane Garcia
Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2009 5:30 PM
To: Paula East (City of Lancaster)
Cc: Norm Hickling (County of Los Angeles)
Fwd: Lancaster Hell Hole..1 pup murdered, 1 more to go!!!

Dear Ms. East:

This email is doing the rounds of the rescue community in the Los Angeles area.

After years of being ignored and fobbed off with excuses by a department which takes no responsibility for the actions of its staff or, it seems, for what goes on within the walls of its shelters, the humane community has had it with the Lancaster shelter, its inefficient staff, its apparent inability or unwillingness to enforce laws, and its rush to euthanize animals without bothering to seek help from rescue groups which may be able to save the lives of these now-dead dogs and cats.

What more will it take for the officials of the city of Lancaster to say "enough"? City officials need to make LACCC management and staff accountable for their actions and lack of enforcement of the law and of its own policies.

Unfortunately, it has taken lawsuits for the humane community to get any meaningful response from LACCC management, and even then they admit no responsibility for what goes on within the walls of their shelters whether it's allowing a dog to die from the cold or violating the Hayden Law which restricts the euthanasia of dogs and cats before a prescribed number of days.

LACCC conducts its own investigations into serious allegations of wrong-doing. Each and every time it has found itself not guilty and absolved its management and staff. This is apparently with the blessing of the LA County Board of Supervisors which accept its findings with an almost audible sigh of relief that here is another problem they don't have to worry about. Marcia will deal with it.

I urge you to dispense with the services of LA County Animal Care and Control and set up your own animal control department. The City of Lancaster has a reputation of being a haven for backyard breeders. Why is it a haven? Because LACCC fails to enforce the laws the department wanted passed.

I'm not sure what the benefit of having such an inefficient, despised group in your area other than as a charnel house for animals unfortunate enough to end up there.

It does no humane education about the benefits of spay/neuter. Perhaps this is because the Lancaster shelter provides no low-cost spay/neuter services--which it is supposed to do--other than a couple of days a year. Instead it hands out vouchers for a minimal amount, and only to people who meet the tough qualification requirements to get one.

The City of Beverly Hills has already terminated its contract with LACCC. Culver City residents are fighting to get their own shelter because of LACCC's inefficiency and lack of improvement, despite years of empty promises.

It took media exposure to reveal that a puppy mill was operating right under the noses of LACCC inspectors.

It took media exposure to reveal that the body of a dead dog had been lying in the yard of its senior owner for days, despite calls to the Lancaster shelter to pick it up.

Staff are rude and lazy. Callers can be on hold for an hour before actually getting to speak to someone.

I visited the Lancaster shelter and saw a kennel worker kick the metal door of a cage filled with dogs to scare them away. She then opened the cage door and literally threw a large metal bowl of kibble into the cage.

Terrified, the dogs scattered. Their food was strewn around the kennel. Some of it landed in piles of feces which had not been cleaned up. The place is a nightmare.

LACCC allowed a unlicensed kennel to operate in your area for more than a year, fully cognizant of the fact that there was no license and that the facility was not up to code.

The unlicensed kennel opened because Lancaster shelter staff knew for almost a year that a hoarder was collecting animals on a nearby property, yet did nothing until the situation became a crisis. When Lancaster staff finally acted, a large number of dogs were moved to the property which had no permits and inadequate facilities to house them.

How many more times does the City of Lancaster have to be embarrassed by LACCC before it acts?

Sincerely:
Jane Garcia

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 4:09 PM
Subject: Lancaster Hell Hole..1 pup murdered, 1 more to go!!!

NETWORK FAR AND WIDE, AND GET THIS REMAINING PUP OUT BEFORE SHE TOO IS MURDERED. LANCASTER, CA "SHELTER" IS A KILLING GROUND!!! I DO NOT TRUST THE WORKERS....

ASHLEY PAIGE WILL TRANSPORT AND TAKE REMAINING PUP IF SOMEONE WILL BAIL OUT!!!HURRY, LATER MAY BE TOO LATE!!!!!!!!!

Lancaster Hell Hole, they call a shelter
661-940-4191

Few days ago a young woman brought in 2 stray puppies, 3 months old.

Ashley Paige would have taken them both today, but today I was told by "Kenya" at the Shelter that:

Female Pup A3921999 3 months old was euthanized because it bit a child.

Female Pup A3921997 3 months old is still available and 2 potential adopters are wanting to get her
I DO NOT BELIEVE THIS!

Ashley Paige called the shelter and was told the one they put down was a MALE and it bit a WORKER.

If they do not know the difference between a male and a female, and a child and a shelter worker, then how could I believe the real reason they MURDERED this poor innocent pup, and how can I believe that there are people waiting to adopt the remaining female?

PLEASE SOMEONE GET THERE AND BAIL THAT ONE OUT IMMEDIATELY and CONTACT ASHLEY PAIGE.... She has transportation and will take her in...!!! HURRY!!!

Joy Ray

Read More...

Tuesday, January 6, 2009

We didn't retaliate... oh, wait... we did


Pictured above is an excerpt from the email I blasted describing the settlement. Diane marked up that email with a comment of "County never retaliated." Click on the image above to enlarge it. They don't consider the following against members of the public, volunteers, staff, and entities retaliation?

  • Banning Cathy Nguyen from adopting as a private citizen and on behalf of Adoption Partners
  • Firing Janet Taylor from volunteering and banning her from adopting as a private citizen and on behalf of Adoption Partners
  • Removing the Irvine Animal Care Center and the Seal Beach Animal Care Center from the Adoption Partners program
  • Issuing orders that the Baldwin Park Animal Shelter can't participate in the IACC's super adoption event after they had planned to do so
  • Going on a fishing expedition via the Office of County Investigations searching the computers of employees that provided information on wrongdoings of DACC to members of the public
  • Placing ex-DACC employees Ron Edwards, Christine Franco, and David Nelson on the Do Not Adopt list for no reason

Below is an email from Diane Reagan, Principal Deputy County Counsel, that is nothing more than a joke. My commentary is below in red.


From: Reagan, Diane
Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2008 10:53 AM
To: Sheldon Eisenberg; Melissa Bonfiglio
Cc: David Casselman
Subject: Complaint under Nguyen Settlement Protocol


Dear Melissa and Sheldon,

We received a complaint under the Nguyen protocol on November 21st. I learned this morning that while the Department has done some investigation, they need more time to follow-up—due to the intervening holidays. We would appreciate a one week extension to January 12th to respond. I apologize for the last minute request. (The documents produced by County place blame on the rescuer. Doesn't that remind you of Zephyr?)

Also, we have been distressed at some of the news stories/blog accounts which have been released regarding the settlement, which contain inaccurate information regarding the settlement. There appears to be a desire to cast the Department in a negative light (sounds like the truth hurts), despite the fact that the County admitted no wrong-doing (they never admit wrongdoing because that would only require accountability), and is required to do nothing by the agreement that it was not already doing or required to do by law (if breaking the law is considered following the law, then yes, they were following the law). While we believe that we would have prevailed in the trial of the case (yes, if Fujioka or the Board of Supervisors was the trial judge [i.e. obstruction of justice email]), we entered into this agreement with the plaintiffs in a good faith effort to conserve court and party resources. We acted in good faith, and continue to act in good faith, and with a great deal of restraint and respect for your position (cough)—in hopes that we can continue to work together for the benefit of the animals (like breaking the law and retaliating as described above?). We would appreciate reciprocal treatment (like the treatment they put the plaintiffs through during the discovery process making discovery very difficult and the witch hunt County went on during the deposition portion of the case?). Perhaps a joint press release would set the record straight (they should also suggest that the plaintiffs and defendants join hands around a camp fire and sing a song or two).

On behalf of myself and on behalf of our County family, we wish you and your families and friends a conciliatory and productive 2009! (cough)

Diane C. Reagan
Principal Deputy County Counsel

Read More...

Update on County

As I mentioned in my last blog entry, I would return and start posting to this blog. I'm back. :)

My current efforts are focused on the Office of the County of Los Angeles County Counsel. I've been working on a number of public record requests, most of which are related to the Department of the Animal Care and Control. Whenever I request record that they don't want to disclose that is not protected from disclosure by provisions of the California Public Records Act or other applicable law, they become evasive and difficult to work with. They continue to violate the California Public Records Act (Govt. Code Section 6250 et seq.), California Constitution Article 1, Section 3(b)(1) and are questionably in violation of Rule 1-120 and 3-110 of the California Rules of Professional Conduct.

Taking on a large county government, especially one that is unethical and breaks the law, is an arduous task that is not won easily. I'm in it for the long run and will not give up, as I'm sure that's what they're hoping for.

Read More...