Mason Lawsuit
The first step in suing the City is to file a claim. Almost universally the claim is denied and then a lawsuit is filed.

Below is the complaint submitted to the court and City today.

Further actions will be by Attorney John Uribe who has successfully represented the ADL in the past.

I'll keep you informed as the lawsuit progresses.

Claim for Damages
How did damage occur?

1. Raided by the Animal Cruelty Task Force, LAPD and LA Animal Services on my property and seized 57 of my pet cats, and killing 37 of them, and seizing personal property never returned. They falsely alleged I neglected to feed, supply shelter, water and medical treatment, leading to rampant disease and emaciated animals. This raid, as well as items 2 through 5 below, was done in an intentional violation of my privacy and civil rights under the U.S. and California Constitutions.

2. Having a newspaper reporter and photographer accompany the ACTF, LAPD, LAAS as a ride-along to the raid, coming onto my property, photographing me in handcuffs, cats, cats being caught, various parts of my house and yard, and acts of apparent cruelty committed onto one animal being caught.

3. A City TV reporter and crew also accompanied the raid, interviewed me in handcuffs, with similar allegations of criminal activities such as felony neglect of my pets.

4. Ed Boks, in statements in a press release defending ACTF and Animal Services, and a post on the Animal Services website, willfully and fraudulently defamed me by accusing me of felony animal neglect of my pets. This defamatory and fraudulent website post appears solely directed to defend against public criticism of the ACTF, LAPD, and Animal Services actions against me in an intentional violation of my privacy and civil rights under the U.S. and California Constitutions.

5. Public announcement on the LAAS website, City TV, and by Daily News falsely stating that several of my cats suffered from a deadly disease and might infect all cats within blocks (Panleukemia), when lab tests proved they were did not have this disease. They then killed all “sick” cats and ALL 25 kittens.

6. As a result of these outrageous actions and behaviors done in an intentional violation of my privacy and civil rights under the U.S. and California Constitutions, and with malice, fraud and disregard for my rights as well as the lives of my beloved pets, I have suffered great physical, mental and emotional distress requiring ongoing medical care as well as financial loses regarding property. In addition, such exposure has diminished my capacity to function as an employee or in self-employment, causing financial loss and further emotional and mental trauma.

When did damage occur?

October 9, 2007, October 11, 2007, and continuing.

Where did damage occur?
XXXXX Napa St.
Northridge, CA 90024

Act or omission causing damage, with names of City Employees:

Ed Boks, General Manager of Animal Services,
Lt. Troy Boswell, manager West Valley Animal shelter
Lt. Linda Ortega, et al, LAPD
Various Animal Services personnel
City TV


Anonymous said...

Go Ron!!!!

I hope you get all the publicity and all the money in the world, both for what Boks put you through, AND because this is clearly the only way Villaraigosa, and whoever his successor will be, will grasp that things have got to change at LAAS.

Anonymous said...

Shouldn't he include that he was never mirandized?

Ed Muzika said...

Got to leave room in a complaint to add things later. Besides, it was the raid, the killing and what the newspaper, TV and Boks said about him.

The Miranda issue will come up, believe it along with all the other stuff.

Anonymous said...

MR are not an essential part of an arrest and it's only on TV where murderers get off because a cop forgot to read them.
Perhaps you should look up "Miranda Rights" procedures, lest you continue to make a fool of yourself.

Anonymous said...


First off, Ron is not a murderer. Not that your scary agenda is showing, but that's a hell of a word to just pop out "accidentally."

Not too hard to tell who YOU work for, and we are considering the source. But lest you make a (further) fool of YOURself, keep in mind that not reading someone their Miranda rights is one thing, not reading them their rights, then questioning them, on-camera, with TV, news photographers and reporters given access and permission to broadcast the homeowner's full name, etc. is a whole other thing. The person who was questioning Ron was LAPD, not City TV.

Best not to forget also that this is all on YouTube, and has been for months.

And before you get all "reality" on us, remember too that the reason people on television get released if they're not properly Mirandized is that, on television at least, cops (that is, GOOD cops) don't lie.

That's pretty far from the reality here isn't it, what with screwed-up incompentents like "Detective" Linda Ortega on the job...

And "whatever"?? Are you twelve?

Anonymous said...

Boks = Death:
Who do you think I work for?

1. If the Mason case is closed, then the MR issue is moot, because nothing was used against him.

2. If the Mason case is ongoing, what did he say that is being used against him?

As far as I can see (and I might be wrong as I cannot see everything that went on at his arrest) the arrest did not require MR warning.

Anonymous said...

Excuse me but you must be read your rights when you are detained by police. Detained means you are not free to leave. Mason was in handcuffs. He should have been read his rights as they slapped the cuffs on him. They did not and the cameras were rolling.

The ACTF members need to take PC832. They don't know what they're doing.Why didn't the LAPD help them? They know the law, I would think.

Ed Muzika said...

Re: Who do you think I work for?

Work For, did you see the tape? Did you see the News release? Did you see newspaper article in the Daily News? Did you see the City TV35 LAPD show? Did you read what Boks posted about him on the Animal Services website?

Or, are you just talking with no background or knowledge whatsoever?

There are about 50 posts on this blog re this case since October 15. Read up on them before you participate, because I don't think you have any idea of what happened.

Anonymous said...

"Excuse me but you must be read your rights when you are detained by police. Detained means you are not free to leave. Mason was in handcuffs. He should have been read his rights as they slapped the cuffs on him. They did not and the cameras were rolling."

That is simply not correct. The police can detain, ask questions and arrest you without the MR. MR warning is supposed to be given before interrogation or specific questioning about a crime.

Again, police most definitely do not need to read you your rights if they are detaining, asking general questions (i.e. name, destination, etc.) or simply arresting you without interrogation. Usualy the rights are read back at the station before an interrogation.

Anonymous said...

This Miranda discussion is a diversion from the issue of the complaint. Mason is not complaining here about not being Mirandized. The complaint is about having flood of LAPD, ACTF, AS people, reporters, photographers, filming crews and pop psychologists raiding his property, confiscating and killing his cats, AND also saying he is nuts, and a felon.

How would it affect you if 30 people came onto your property, killed your dog/cat, beat up your son/daughter, said you were crazy on TV and in Press releases?

Do you not think you would have suffered emotional trauma as well as the loss of all his traps, cages and items not returned?

This is what the case is about, not Miranda.

Anonymous said...

I only replied to the recurring discussion of Mason not being "mirandized!"

I really don't know as much about the case as Ed M. does, but I do have some opinions that will probably be unpopular in this forum.

Regarding the "bad" arrest and humiliation of Mason, with the loss of his cats, traps and cages, I am sure he will be offered an out-of-court settlement. His counsel might be well advised to accept an appropriate settlement as his case is damaged by his clear willingness to be interviewed by the police spokeswoman. He will have to demonstrate how he was injured by the statements of the ACOs and cop shrink.
sure, he can sue because his feeling were hurt, but to succeed he really needs to prove a physical or financial loss.

As far as the value of the equipment and cats, I don't think he sustained a significant loss, especially as I think he said the cats weren't really his and further, you can only sue for how much money you spent on animals, not what they were worth to you in your opinion. Legally cats do not even have the same status or value as dogs.

The truth is not always a pleasant thing.

Anonymous said...

Re: Poster "Who do you think I work For""

Who are you? You're new here, aren't you?

Interesting input.

Are you an ACO, Lawyer, animal planet and Cops viewer?

Where do you get your rationalization?

Why don't you think your input wouldn't be popular here if "the truth hurts?"

Ron Mason has been suffering emotional losses for months and so did his cats. Doesn't this mean anything to you?

Sure he said many weren't his cats, but that's besides the point. They were his cats if he was fighting for them every single day until the very end, and he's still fighting. The man is GRIEVING.

Ed Muzika said...

Legally all the cats Mason was feeding and providing shelter for were
"his" cats, although some were from neighbors who abondoned them. Those he calls "not his."

We are not just talking loss of cats and cages. There is invasion or privacy and libel as well as any psychological damage done, which is not measured in terms of projected lost income, but of impaired capacity.

If this were not the case, the cops, whomever, could come onto anyone's property, take anything, arrest anyone, etc.

As a matter of fact, this is what one of the cops (Jenney) told Mason twp days before the raid, "WE can come and take anything we want, anytime we want."

He told him to get off his property if that was their attitude. Two days later Jenney, Ortega and dozens of other people came and took everything that was important to him.

If you don't see this as a problem that needs a moral remedy, then this is the wrong blog.

If you see a solution, offer that.

There was no notice of a postseizure hearing, he was never given the location of the animals or ability to place them himself. They were taken and killed.

If that is legal and he can't sue, I will start going out and stealing lawn ornaments from the mayor's yard.

Do you wonder then why ADL and ALF may be the only salavation for animal people? If there is no recourse in the law, people will take justice into their own hands.

Anonymous said...

Truthfully Ed, what you said about ADL and ALF is something I've been mulling for months now. Having said before that I don't think many of ADL's actions in relation to Boks were effective in converting people who aren't already in the choir, I do think they convey the degree of desperation people feel when all legitimate forms of protest, or even input, are ignored.

If you call the Mayor's office (in the case of Boks) or ANY of the Board of Supervisors' offices (in the case of Marcia Mayeda) you will be treated like you are an idiot.

If you try to contact the media you can expect much the same. It's a closed system, where it's much more important for people to keep their meaningless "access" to corrupt and/or do-nothing officials than it is for them to do their jobs.

When the Board of Supervisors ordered an investigation into the highly publicized and photo-documented death of Zephyr at County, the result was a seven page tissue of lies and evasions, into which already discredited lies by Marcia Mayeda were simply copied-and-pasted. What's more, Marcia Mayeda, ostensibly the SUBJECT of the investigation, was actually given a co-authoring credit on the report investigating her. Board of Supervisors didn't bat an eye. Nor did they even notice that she blamed Zephyr's death on "rescuers" even though the dog was in County custody the whole time.

The extent to which I have become an activist, the extent to which I have been radicalized when it comes to animal care issues in Los Angeles, stems not from this or any other blog (as fine as they are, and many thanks to you Ed for your hard and endless work), it stems from the absolute, contemptuous dismissal of my and everyone else's genuine concern about mistreatment of animals in this city and county. And this lack of caring, and lack of interest in the concerns of the public is reflected at every level, from ACOs all the way to the Mayor's office, and every Supervisor's office I've ever called - and I've called a bunch of them.

So, Boks, Bickhart and Villaraigosa, Marcia Mayeda, your crew of soulless flunkies, and every Supervisor, don't think Ed Muzika or Pamelyn Ferdin or anybody else has radicalized me. Don't think any one of us is so weak-minded that all we do is read a blog and become mindless automatons of internet gurus. Don't continue to make the mistake of underestimating us. Your boredom, your jaded attitude, your easily discernible lack of honesty and logic, your abuse of power, and your unbelievably overwhelming lack of respect for the citizens of Los Angeles City and County is what radicalizes us.

As for the guy who questions what Ron really lost - maybe you don't have a dog or a cat. Maybe you don't have a kid. But some people take on another life as a responsibility. Vulnerable living creatures showed up in Ron's yard and instead of looking them in the face and saying, "Tough luck little kitten, or stray cat who got hit by a car, I don't care if you live or die," Ron stepped up. He did what a real man does and he took care of them. He fed them, took them to the vet, gave them shelter and love. I'm guessing that in his mind and in his heart he felt a responsibility for their safety and health.

And when he knew he was overwhelmed, he went to the people this City pays to help in those situations. And because Ed Boks needed a fall guy to get him back in solid with a rescue community that had already seen through his lies, and because Ed Boks thought, "Here's a guy with no support system, not a classic 'cat lady,' but a 59 year old guy who I can suggest had nefarious reasons for having all these cats - who I can make an example of, to rehabilitate my image with rescuers."

And Ron, a nice guy who did more than he could afford, got his life destroyed. And I'm guessing one of the hardest things he has to face is the fact that this happened because he went to LAAS seeking help. Kittens and cats died because he sought help from people whose JOB it was to help him, who instead betrayed, arrested and character-assassinated him. He took on a responsibility for their lives, which is more than most people would do, and their lives were ended, for no other reason than Ed Boks needed a fall guy.

The only good thing to come out of this is that because of Ed Muzika the PR ploy didn't work. Ed Boks came out of this looking worse, more incompetent, and more heartless and corrupt than ever. But I'm guessing all that doesn't help Ron. I'm guessing he's still in pain because those cats and kittens were killed - for nothing. That's called being a good guy.

Anonymous said...

If you are going to question someone, you must read them their rights first. Name, address is fine without MR but they asked him on film about the cats and situation, and he responded. I took PC832. They said you should try to trick the person into offering info before you detain them. Let them hang themselves by giving you info. Mason was detained. He was in cuffs. He was not free to leave. He was under arrest.

Mason suffered. Big deal his cats, crates are not worth much. What about personal suffering? How would you like to see an office hang your cat on a pole then shove them into carriers, take them to the shelter and kill them? How would you like to be ridiculed on public television, being called mentally ill, a hoarder. You wouldn't. The city was wrong

Kelley said...

All the luck to Ron. My heart breaks for him and all the other victims of AC (including the animals).

Anonymous said...

Official said:

"I took PC832. They said you should try to trick the person into offering info before you detain them. Let them hang themselves by giving you info."

Thanks for this input, officer! Great info and beneficial info for us all. Some of us are way too trusting, including ME!

"What about personal suffering? How would you like to see an office hang your cat on a pole then shove them into carriers, take them to the shelter and kill them? How would you like to be ridiculed on public television, being called mentally ill, a hoarder."

Thanks for caring.

That's what the shelters are supposed to be for: to take in animals 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. That's the law.

Mason should have been allowed to bring his animals into the shelter on his own, before he got busted, if that's what he really wanted to do, and should have NEVER been turned away to foster ANY kittens, much less 31 of them!

If they all got killed as a result after relinquishing them because the shelters are always full, so be it. It is illegal to turn away any animals, wild or domestic.

But to be set up as to allow himself to be hanged like a cat on the other end of a catch pole is too much for anyone to take, including the officers who have to go out there and do the ugly-ass job. Too much for the owner, the feeder, the officers, and more so for the poor ass-fucking animals.

At least, I THOUGHT it was illegal to refuse animals if the owner is trying to relinquish them. The AS website even states that they take in animals 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, isn't that right?

Mason should have never ended up w/ all those cats and 31 fucking helpless kittens. He should have never ended up with ANY kittens at all if he had traps and cages.

He was trying to domesticate a bunch of them and adopt them out. He ended up w/ more cats than he knew what to do with, trying to be his own rescuer and when he tried to turn them into a facility who was supposed to take them in, or so I thought. Then he was thrown out.

I hope he doesn't get into the foster program now, cause the same thing is going to start all over again.

He's going to end up with full grown cats who can't be adopted out when the kittens aren't adopted, and he's going to get stuck with them; then back to the slammer he goes, and so do the weaned kittens.

If he doesn't relinquish the kittens after fostering them once they've reached 8 weeks, and they've become fostered city impounds, they belong to the city at that point, and he's going to get an officer knocking on his door ready to take the kittens.

It can happen to anybody, including first time fosters who don't know what the hell they're getting into and can't give up weaned kittens they've spent sleepless nights and all their resources on.

Caring for unweaned kittens is extremely expensive and time consuming, and giving them for just anyone to adopt just doesn't cut it.