Mary Cummins' Lawsuit Against Boks

.
As you are now aware, the other pro-Boks blogger is Mary Cummins. Both she and I defended Boks against all critics and were given insider information by Boks and others regarding any number of issues involving Ed and the department. I have over 700 emails from Ed et al regarding responding to attacks on Ed or the department.

Both Mary and I came under attack by a number of people, were threatened with lawsuits, slandered, vilified, etc., she more than I.

Mary underwent far more travail than did I. Because I was public, I had to temper what I said. Mary did not hold back nearly as much as I did. After a few months, most people in the animal community and the Mayor's Office knew she was the Friends blogger.

Because of that, she became too "controversial" and lost her website job with LAAS as well as her position with Michelson's Found Animal Friends, the latter because Ed never filled out the paperwork to renew her grant with Friends.

It is alleged that after Mary was fired, Boks approached her and said that they now could go out because they had no official relationship with each other. (I am always careful of how I say things. Alleged is one of my favorite words now, and, I actually was not there.)

Ed quickly distanced himself from both Mary and I after we became the focus of more anti-Boks persons' enmity than Boks himself. In other words, we were welcome when we defended him against any and all attacks,but if we were under attack, he suddenly did not know us. I felt this to be a form of cowardice.

Boks just disappeared. He had Mary's house inspected as some persons were peppering the Mayor's Office with claims that she was hoarding animals and Boks was protecting her--his alleged ex-lover. So, he threw her under a truck and--allegedly--got his own troops after her to make himself look above reproach. This certainly is abuse of his power. He said it was an "annual inspection," and that Mary was lucky she had not been "inspected" before. If you read her complaint, they did not even look at the cage area, but did an alleged warrantless search.

This is when I first felt contempt for him and became aware of how little Ed was concerned about anyone but himself. When I was threatened with lawsuits because of what I was writing supporting him and the department, he disappeared on me too. No support, no communication. Just "Bye, bye, don't need you anymore--actually, I am just scared to be associated with you if you get sued and it goes public." (Fake quotes supplied by me.)

It was during this same first quarter of 2007 that the year-end total statistics came out and we were shocked to find that Ed had been spinning No-Kill progress that had not happened. In fact,euthanasia had not decreased even 1% during his first year on the job. I think for a month or two, Mary and I were in such shock that we didn't know what to do.

I don't think it was until February or March that the shock of his failure to turn the euthanasia numbers around, and his personal lack of courage and loyalty in the face of adversity, led me to change my attitude towards him totally. I began to look closely at what he was spinning to see if the Wizard was nothing more than a hollow old man behind the curtain. That's what he was--except he is in his 50's.

All along I was appraised of the happenings outlined in Mary's complaint, real time, as we were in constant communication and therefore have a first hand knowledge of many of the events outlined in the precis below of the lawsuit. I was at ground zero while all of this was going down.

A precis of Mary Cummins' complaint:

Mary K. Cummins-Cobb vs City of Los Angeles, Edward Boks and Does 1-25Case No. BC3745961.

1. Breach of implied contract
2. Wrongful termination
3. Wrongful retaliation
4. Wrongful Harassment
5. Tortious interference with economic relations
6. Tortious interference with existing and prospective business relations
7. Intentional violation of the equal protection clause

11. While working for the Defendants, Plaintiff was subjected to unwarranted sexual harassment, among other things.

Beginning immediately after Plaintiff started working for Defendant Boks, he began engaging in inappropriate and unprofessional conduct, including by the way of explanation and not by way of limitation: (a)inappropriately touching, grabbing, feeling, hugging, holding and kissing Plaintiff(b) predicating Plaintiff's job as web master and computer trouble shooter on the condition that she work in his office so that she could be "right next to him all the time;" (c) making inappropriate and lewd comments about Plaintiff's looks and sexuality; (d) emailing and phoning Plaintiff, sometimes 20 times a day, asking her to go out on a date with him; (e) injecting a vulgar and prurient meaning into whatever topic was being discussed with Plaintiff regarding work: and (f) showing up at Plaintiff's home unannounced,uninvited, and drunk, after being told by Plaintiff not to come, in order to ask her out on dates, among other things.

12. Shortly after Plaintiff starting working with Defendant Boks, he began being attacked on the Internet by animal activists, who were not happy with the job he was dong at the Department of Animal Services. As a way of alleviating this problem, Defendant Boks asked Plaintiff to set up an anonymous blog site in order to rebut and refute the charges being made against him.

Plaintiff complied because she was afraid of losing her job and be in unable to help rescue her beloved animals.

13. Because Plaintiff is so well known in the animal rescue community, her anonymous blog was almost immediately recognized as being her work. Thereafter, on or about April 6, 2007 the animal activists began an attack on Plaintiff in addition to their attacks on Defendant Boks,sending emails, letters, and faxes to the mayor, city council members,commissioners, employees, and other animal rescuers wherein they libeled Plaintiff by accusing her of many untruths, including by way of explanation and not by way of limitation: (a) that she was a "911 terrorist," "a prostitute," and "a practitioner of squirrel pornography," (b) that she was "blowing the deputy mayor," (c) that there is a "bench warrant out for her arrest," (d) that she "keeps drugs and needles at her home to supply addicts," (e) that she is "biologically a male," (f) that she "posts pornography in children's chat rooms," (g) and that she is a "cyber stalker," among other things.

14. The animal activists also contacted all of Plaintiff's private clients, and everyone listed on her resume, as well as the Found Animal Foundation, and slandered Plaintiff by orally repeating all the false accusations listed herein above. These same activists threatened to kill Plaintiff and her clients, and smashed her car's windshield.They disrupted city council meetings demanding that Plaintiff be fired and threatened to sue Defendant if she were not fired.

15. As a result of these attacks, Plaintiff was forced to stay in her house, and was unable to go out because when she did the activists followed and stalked her where ever she went. On two occasions Plaintiff sent cease and desist letters to the animal activists, but the attacks continued unabated.

16. In or about June 2006, the Found Animals Foundation, which was one of Plaintiff's employers, as well as being responsible for the grant that enabled Animal Services to employ Plaintiff as a web master and computer trouble shooter, terminated Plalintiff from the position of Assistant to the director. Plaintiff is informed, believes and thereon alleges that her termination was precipitated by her failure to return the sexual advances of Defendant Boks, who then withdrew his support from the grant renewing process.

17. In or about June 2006 , Plaintiff went to the mayor's office seeking protection from the animal activists, but received none. She also complained about the sexual harassment, sex discrimination, the disparate treatment that caused an interference with her equal protection rights under the US and California Constitutions, and her employer, Defendant failure to properly protect her from said acts of harassment and discrimination, as more fully described hereinafter. Plaintiff is informed, believes, and thereon alleges that as an employee of Defendant, was duty bound to protect her from the attacks of the animal activists, and to provide her equal protection under the laws.

Despite her complaints, nothing was ever done to stop the acts complained of, and plaintiff is informed, believes and thereon alleges that no one was even reprimanded for these wrongful acts.

18. On or about July 21, 2006, shortly after visiting the mayor's office, defendant Boks terminated plaintiff as both a volunteer rescue partner and a paid web designer/computer trouble shooter for the Department of Animal Services, stating that he was forced to do so by the mayor's office, because the Mayor did not want to be associated with such a huge controversy as that embroiling plaintiff. Plaintiff is informed, believes, and thereon alleges that her termination was in retaliation for her complaints to the mayors office regarding the attacks from the activists, the sexual harassment, and the denial of equal protection of the laws, among other things.

19. Even after terminating plaintiff, defendant Boks continued to harass her for sexual favors, emailing and calling her, sometimes as much as 10 times an hour. Plaintiff is informed, believes, and thereon alleges that when she still refused to go out with him or provide him with sexual favors, defendant Boks retaliated against her by delaying her wildlife permit, without which she was unable to work as a wildlife rehabilitator, and by interfering with her relationship with the Found Animals Foundation. Plaintiff is further informed, believes and thereon alleges that Defendant Boks continued his acts of harassment and retaliation against Plaintiff as last as February 27, 2007 by sending two animal control officers to her home, where she keeps a number of wild animals she has rescued, in order to conduct an "animal inspection."

For all her years working as a volunteer for the Department of Animal Services, Plaintiff had never heard of an "animal inspection." Moreover, the "inspectors" did not examine the cages where the animals were kept, but instead conducted a warrantless search of Plaintiff's entire house and garage.
.

------------------------------------

Now that the case is public, I think we'll will hear from many other women with similar experiences with Ed.

Part of my posting all this is that no one seemed to have taken notice or cared about Ed's poor showing with regard to implementing No-Kill. His stats stank. Now things may be changing in the right direction, but it is a day late and a dollar short. Also, the euthanasia numbers appear to be down mostly because he is turning animals away and holding them longer. Adoptions and fosters are up modestly, but explain nothing.

But maybe this lawsuit will give Villaraigosa a reason to review Boks' performance. Ed has been characterized as a walking liability for the City. Then again, who is AV to judge?
.