Open Letter to Ed Boks Re the Arrest of Ron Mason

Dear Mr. Boks,

On October 11, you posted a press release on your website regarding a raid by the department, the police and the Animal Cruelty Task Force on the home of Ron Mason in Northridge. That press release has disappeared from your website. The URL was
10-11-07 ACTF Arrests Suspect for Animal Neglect. Why was that press release taken down just days after it went up?

Consider this a request for that public record. You have ten days to respond. I will pay any reasonable fee up to $25 for this single document. The preferred method of delivery is electronic.

One of the photos in the Dana Bartholomew’s Daily News article showed a large orange cat being hoisted in the air by its neck at the end of a catch pole. Dana said the noose was aggressively tightened by the AC. I understand that this is against Department policy. I also understand the person who did this was A. Ramirez, an AC officer. Will she be reprimanded and counseled? Also, an unknown AC sent in a comment to my blog that it is common practice for animal control officers to capture cats in this way. Is this true to your knowledge?

The cat’s name is Muffin. Where is Muffin if he is still alive?

Dana Bartholomew was told that 2 cats tested positive for feline distemper, also known as panleukemia and that was the reason for the warrant to search Mason’s property leading to his arrest. Now I understand that that is not true, no cat tested for panleukemia. That is, the warrant for his property search and arrest was based on facts not true.

Were any of the 12 kittens handed over to LAAC 2 days before the raid tested for panleukemia and tested positive? What was the disposition of these kittens?

I also understand all of Mason’s veterinary records were taken from him and not returned as well as medications for his cats. Is this true and will they be returned?

Why was Mr. Mason arrested and charged when three previous raids of alleged hoarders were not? That is, what is special about Mr. Mason’s case other than you want to make the department look good at the expense of a poor person who cannot afford legal counsel and will plead rather than lose his house to pay the cats’ impound bills?

For background, please see Dana Bartholomew’s article at:

Edward Muzika

No comments: