Whose Story Do You Like?

A reader has left a comment below that I should not post things about LAAS without verifying that information--apparently because the posted information makes them look bad.

My retort is, how do I verify any information about the internal workings of LAAS?

Boks is not talking to me, nor Bickhart nor Barth. There is never any response to my posts except through Boks' Truth bs Rumor section on the LAAS website.

My information comes from volunteers, tipsters, ADL, people who have gripes against the department, my requests for public documents, etc.

I have posted many comments when insiders want to give opposite information.

If someone in the department wants me to post their point of view and numbers they can contact me by email or leave a comment on this blog. For example, is Boks getting a $20,000 raise or not? Did Linda Barth get a substantial raise?

Remember, I made a post that said ADL was wrong about the salary figures.

Regarding the truthfulness of Boks, remember his vindication response about the ACTF raid on Mason?

Remember that Boks told Bartholomew that many of Mason's cats would be fostered and not one was? Remember he said Muffin was sitting on a dead cat's body when actual photos showed no bodies?

Remember when Ed refused to release information on Mason's cats, even their location for three months stating he could not, when in fact it was his option.

Remember when Boks said LAAS was the largets adoption agency in the US, when later he changed it to "one of the largest" and later to #4 in the country?

So, whose information do I trust?

Also see the GREAT post below!


Anonymous said...

Boks lies all the time. You can't believe what he, the Department says. He lies to the Mayor, employees, lawyers, the public, rescuers, donors... He lied in his response to Chick, in his presentation to City Council, in his resume, in press releases... I really hope all city departments don't lie this much but it makes me think that they do. The Mayor allows Boks to continue lying.

Ed Muzika said...

I knew a City employee when I was in Santa Monica.

He said lying was the way of life in City government; a culture of lying.

He said they lied so much they couldn't tell the truth anymore, and even lied when they didn't have to.

Anonymous said...

I wonder if the person who wants you to verify your information before posting it on a personal blog has been equally zealous in telling LAAS not to publish information in a variety of official formats, as well as dispersing it to mass media outlets (like say, "The Daily News") before verifying THEIR information...?

But somehow I doubt it. The personal PR train runs only one way, doesn't it, Mr. Boks? YOU can say whatever you want about whomever you want, and the truth be damned, e.g. accusing Ron Mason of breeding and killing cats, of being mentally ill, of creating public health hazards, etc. on official, taxpayer-supported City sites, and in press releases and official statements to the media.

But let anybody say one word about you that you don't like, true or not, and old Ed just starts type-type-typin' away his little fingers about what an outrage it is, and how UNFAIR the big old mean world is to poor little con-man Ed Boks.

I nearly laughed myself sick when I saw that ridiculous, candy-assed self-serving tripe you whined out to Lori Golden at the Pet Press because some big old meany said customer service at LAAS sucks.

Which it does.

But then I thought about how many animals die because you care so much more about your long-gone "image" than you do about L.A.'s cats, dogs, rabbits, etc. and I stopped laughing and just stayed sick.

Haven't you stolen enough taxpayer money at this point? Can you just slink off back to whatever vermin hole you came from and leave us to try to fix your sorry, corrupt mess?

Anonymous said...

In my latest issue of The Pet Press, available now, my editorial asks - What's The Deal With Feral Cats in LA?

My main question is the way people like Ron Mason and Marc Madow are treated by Animal Control, etc - especially why they are told to starve the cats and not give them water. (Surely the most basic kind of animal cruelty!)

I immediately got another response from Ed Boks, which will be published in my NEXT issue. Like his last response to me referred to in the above post, Ed Boks wrote this:

"As you know, I have encouraged you many times in the past to contact me directly when you lack the information you need for your readers. You could be the “someone with knowledge” that the community looks to if you would just take advantage of this offer before you print your misinformed editorials."

Boks then goes on to talk about the status of an official TNR policy in LA, but never addresses the main point of my editorial - dealing with official LAAS people telling Marc Madow to stop feeding and giving water to the cats he was taking care of.

Occasionally I might get a letter from someone who is upset about something that I do send to Ed Boks. Those are the ones I rarely get a reply back from him about.

I encourage my readers to send me emails about things they are upset about regarding LAAS or things they praise. They can tell me I'm full of crap or they can praise the work of The Pet Press. I present a FORUM of these ideas - give and take. Most of the people with complaints write to me as a last ditch effort... after getting no reply from contacting other people WITHIN the system.

Ed Boks puts his 'spin' on everything he says and writes. I prefer him to react to things I present in The Pet Press, good or bad. It makes me think that at least he is reading what others are complaining about regarding LAAS.

So stay tuned....

Lori Golden
The Pet Press

Anonymous said...

A. Is Boks still on our time clock when he spend his time whining to Lori Golden about how mean she is to allow people to exercise their First Amendment right to free speech in her also-Contitutionally-protected newspaper?

B. Is Boks really so stupid as to think that Lori will fall for such over-the-top manipulation as "You could be the 'someone with knowledge' that the community looks to if you would just take advantage of this offer before you print your misinformed editorials." Really Ed? Does she also get a Ginsu knife with that?

I understand that con men base their lives on the supposition that all people are vain, stupid suckers, but really Boks, you think you can use that carrot-and-stick approach so flagrantly when you have no carrot anymore? Not only are you a con man, you're not even good at it. Your desperation shows in your barely disguised hostility (as well as your inability to tell the difference between the function of a news story and the function of an editorial).

Lori, he's afraid of you because he can't dismiss you as an isolated nut. He can't paint you as "fringe." Your readership is mainstream, and you are in every rescue and every pet supply -- while he just shows up at the West L.A. Centinela Feed to troll for hottie dog rescuers (yup Ed, we see you there, tongue hanging out, staying as far away from the icky cats as you can...).

Much as I hate to see trees added to the list of living beings that die to indulge Boks' ego, please publish his latest whiny screed in your next edition, Lori. Everybody needs a laugh...

Anonymous said...

Since when is "knowledge" something provided by Boks' LAAS?

Lying, sure. Twisted and manipulated stats, absolutely. And my personal favorite, "anomalies," are a dime a dozen at LAAS.

But actual knowledge? Hmmmm...no.

I also like how he says the rescue community wants one person they can "look to" for this knowledge.

Man, does that idiot think we're idiots. No wonder they canned his sorry ass in Maricopa County and New York City. Maybe someone should find Antonio Villaraigosa (surely he's mid-hump SOMEWHERE) and clue him in. Pet Press IS mainstream. The jig is up on Boks.

Anonymous said...

Thank you to the last two posters.

I fully intend to publish Ed Boks response to my editorial in my next issue of The Pet Press, which will come out around June 25.

I made it very clear to him after he sent his first response to the article I published by the woman upset with the phone system - that I will happily publish any responses he sends me - critical or otherwise - in The Pet Press.

The odd thing is that in my latest editorial about the feral cats, I do not put any blame on LAAS or Ed Boks. I just posed the question - What's the deal with feral cats in LA?

The fact that he took such exception to that editorial speaks volumes, in my opinion.

Lori Golden
The Pet Press

Anonymous said...

Sociopaths and narcissists are pathologically incapable of ignoring what they perceive as personal insults/attacks. It's one of their many weaknesses.

Just an observation.

Anonymous said...

He wants you to be "someone of knowledge?" Like his animal loving blogger? He just wants people to spew his lies for him. They don't become "someone of knowledge," just the mouthpiece of a blowhard liar. You'd be ridiculed if you posted his bull crap. Look at what happened to his blogger. It took a year to realize he was a total fraud. Not even his resume is real. He never made Maricopa "nokill." He couldn't even make a paper bag "nokill."

Anonymous said...

I disagree with the last poster's comment. I think it's important that I do always publish Boks' responses to things in The Pet Press. This way it's out there for all to read - not just those who read blogs on the internet.

I enjoy the fact that my readers can see what Ed Boks thinks about certain issues and that it becomes part of his record if published in the mainstream (meaning me) press.

I also know I am walking a fine line here with LAAS. I know the shelters use The Pet Press as a resource, and I would hate to be kicked out of the shelters, as has happened in the past. But after more than two patient years, I have finally decided it's time to question certain policies and programs 'created by' Ed Boks.

Lori Golden
The Pet Press

Anonymous said...

It is called a double standard, you can post information gathered from "volunteers, employees, etc" yet you reject this same source of info from others who send it to you if it disagrees with your agenda. You have been downright nasty to people submitting the same sources you say you use. Yet the info you rejected has since come true, like Philly or Rancho. At one time you had good info on this blog but now it has become just a sounding board for your agenda, no truth seeking here any more. See ya later.