Jeff de la Rosa's Request

I have only followed this story from a distance because it appears complex legally, but also all so unfortunate. This letter from Jeff is heartbreaking. If one of my cats' had been in such a situtaion, I would not have been so laid back as Jeff has been.

I really have no idea why Stu has not been released long ago, but this story had a life even while I was engaged in campaigns with Ron Mason and others, and I think I underserved this story.

July 7, 2009

Linda Barth

Commissioner Tariq Khero, President

Commissioner Kathleen Riordan, Vice President CITY OF LOS ANGELES


Re: Stu

Dear Commissioners and Ms. Barth :

Please recall that I made a request to have Stu killed by my personal veterinarian at your last Board meeting on June 22, 2009. I have received no response, nor have I received any communication which states that Stu will not be killed, or that the Board has resolved to make any recommendations regarding Stu to the City Council.

While this matter may be of no importance to you, it is very important to me and I would appreciate the courtesy of a response. I understand that it is the practice of your department to ignore requests and correspondence; and that no answer is most often the answer to requests made to your Board and Department. However, in this instance your IMMEDIATE response is requested. I have reserved time on Thursday, July 23 2009 for the vet to carry out this death sentence. I am not available on any other day.

To repeat, I am requesting that Stu be killed by my own vet and in my presence. Any officer may also be present. I choose Helen Brakemeir as she would certainly be the officer whom would be most satisfied by attending the death of Stu. I would also like to have Stu cremated and have made arrangements for this to be done immediately following the execution of Mr. Stuckey destruction order. Obviously, I understand that your department will want to transfer the remains. I am confident that you will deem this request as reasonable under the circumstances. Please be informed that you will have Stus body rendered over my dead body.

Regarding fees owed for Stus boarding and (lack of ) care for the period prior to his transfer to Bobby Dorafshar, please include with your response a statement of the charges due.


Anonymous said...

I cannot believe that no one has the decency or compassion to reply to this request! Have heart.This is like not allowing a parent to be at his child's bed as he is dying and not allowing the parent to say his good-bye.Even death row inmate's parents are allowed this courtesy.Poor stu! He doesn't deserve this!!I wonder how well the person who decided his fate is going to sleep at night.I know I would feel very guilty if it was me !

Anonymous said...

First, let me say that I think Stu was severely railroaded. I think he was never dangerous.

Also let me say that I do not work for LAAS or the city.

That being said, this is yet another in a long line of examples of bad judgment on the part of Jeff de la Rosa. I believe Jeff knows full well that the city does not want to kill Stu at this point. But over four years he has behaved in a way that makes many people, some overtly and some secretly, believe that he can't be trusted to keep Stu safe. It seems pretty clear that LAAS decided to kill Stu because Jeff was such a jerk from the get-go on this.

Yes, Jeff has fought for Stu over these past four years, but maybe if he had admitted his mistakes and errors of judgment it might never have come to this. Jeff, to my knowledge, has never admitted any mistakes. Everything was someone else's fault. He is hostile and threatening to people who have the power of life and death over his dog. And now he's basically daring the city to kill Stu.

There are a lot of people who worry about Stu's safety if he is returned to an owner who behaves in such an erratic way. If Jeff has never admitted that his mistakes led to the initial bite, how can he be trusted to make sure it doesn't happen again?

Yes, there are a lot of bad people in this story, from Tatiana Edwards, who tried to turn an unfortunate incident of bad judgment on her part into a big payday, to her unscrupulous dog-bite-profiteer attorney, to Captains Karen Stepp and Helen Brakemeier, who pretty blatantly tried to kill a dog just because they didn't like his owner, to Guerdon Stuckey, who condemned a dog to death recklessly and ignorantly.

But today is today, and Jeff de la Rosa has done his utmost over the past four years to convince everybody who could help him that he is in complete denial about his responsibilty in this matter. He has been foolish, arrogant and narcissistic, and the support he has gotten for Stu is because of the dog, and in spite of the owmer.

Who among you, if your dog's life was in danger, would write a letter like this? Who would talk about cremating him? Who would write "I am requesting Stu be killed?" This is a blatant attempt to shame and confront an admittedly morally bankrupt department, but there is no shame on Jeff's part for having put Stu in a position where this could happen. He put his other dog (the one who fought with Stu prior to the attack on Edwards) in a situation LAAS said she couldn't be in. Four years ago he broke an agreement he made with LAAS and now he demands that his neligence be ignored and that he should be trusted with a dog who hasn't lived with him for four years - or he wants to kill him on the 23rd, because, he says, he's "not available on any other day."

What reasonable person would do that? What reasonable person would goad the city into killing his supposedly beloved dog?

I applaud Jeff for his tenacity in fighting for Stu's life. But would Stu's life have been in danger if someone other than Jeff had adopted him? Given the anger, the threats, the erratic judgment, the emotional (and otherwise) bullying on his part over the past four years, can you genuinely believe that he will, if given the chance, keep Stu safe? How can he do that when he's not once admitted the mistakes he made that allowed Stu to be put in this position?

I have tremendous sympathy for Stu. I hope he gets to live out the rest of his life happily and safely. But I seriously wonder if a man who could write such a letter, and who refuses to admit even one tiny error in his care of Stu in the past, can give this dog the safety and care he needs.

Anonymous said...

I'm a little bit confused. Why does this gentleman want his dog to be killed?

Anonymous said...

He doesn't (I think) want his dog to be killed. But the Court of Appeals denied his appeal of the death sentence of his dog.

This means city of L.A. no longer has anything stopping them from killing the dog, except the fact that after four years nobody really wants to kill the dog. The question is: where does the dog go now? He's in a sanctuary, but Jeff de la Rosa wants him back at home.

The problem with that from the city's standpoint is that Jeff has never acknowledged any responsibility for what happened to his dog. He has blamed everybody but himself. Yes, a lot of people did bad things in relation to this dog. Jeff's assistant/girlfriend, the person Stu bit, saw it as an opportunity to cash in on Jeff's homeowner's insurance. So she accused Stu of being far more vicious than he actually was. The city failed in not taking into account the fact that Stu was injured when the bite occurred, which almost every dog bite law takes into account. That is to say, a dog who bites when he's injured is not to be considered as attacking without provocation. Certainly he shouldn't be condemned to death if that's the only time he ever bit someone.

That being said, the bite would likely have not occurred if Stu hadn't been injured in a fight immediately prior to this incident. The dog he fought with was not supposed to be on the premises. Jeff had promised LAAS that that wouldn't happen. Then he allowed the dog to be someplace she wasn't supposed to be and a dog fight ensued. Stu was hurt, and when the assistant/girlfriend foolishly tried to put a harness on him, over his injured ear, she was bitten.

Although there is no doubt that there was misconduct on the part of the assistant, as well as several officers at LAAS, the fact is that it doesn't seem that at any point Jeff has admitted the parts that were his fault.

That puts the city is in a quandary now that Jeff's appeals are exhausted. They don't want to kill the dog, but no matter what other people did, if Jeff can't admit the mistakes he made, how can the city trust that he won't make them again? What if they release the dog to Jeff and he allows Stu to bite someone else? Then the city gets sued, and Stu definitely dies. Jeff is not willing to admit his mistakes. How can he prevent them from happening again if he doesn't admit what they are?

Now he is trying to push the city into a corner: "Either kill my dog or give him back to me." But the fact is there is a third option, which is to let Stu go to a cage-free sanctuary.

Ed Muzika said...

So, what exactly are the mistakes Jeff hasn't admitted to? Just that he kept the other dog on the property when he said he wouldn't? Is that it? Then everything would be o.k.?

Does anyone think that jeff would be anything but ultra careful and protective now?

I have seen some of Ed Boks letters to Jeff in the past, and they constantly blamed Jeff's legal actions for Stu being where he was.

Is it true that LAAS removed Stu from behind lock and key without a warrant?

Anonymous said...

How amazingly tragic for Stu. Thank you for taking the time to explain this.

What if Mr. La Rosa were to say anything that the city wants to hear as far as admitting any wrong doing---would Stu be able to come home again? Animal Sanctuaries are so overcrowded already. What if Mr. La Rosa begs and pleads for the dog and tells them anything the city wants to hear in order to let the dog go. Would something like that work for Stu? What if he were to be a strictly indoor dog so that there is no chance he could ever get injured or injure anyone? Just some ignorant suggestions, but gosh, if he were any of my cats, I would grovel on the ground and say just about anything if it would mean my getting my cats back. Dogs are so much harder when you lose them. Four years of unrelentless stress for that poor dog without his home and his beloved owner and friend. That would just about give me a heart attack. I don't think I would ever cope, you know?

Anonymous said...

I have been following this case closely hearing comments from the community and the city.
I was told Jeff was put on terms and conditions, sort of like parole, because of an agreement he entered with the department. He was allowed to keep his 3 dogs at his home but not get any more dogs, not allow anyone to handle them except him-a licensed vet-or a licensed kennel. He was suppose to keep his dogs only at his home, a vet or a licensed kennel. He was suppose to report to the department if his dogs bit anyone else. There were other terms too. The ones mentioned above are the ones he violated.
I was told his dogs sometimes got out and that Stu was out when impounded. There are suspicious circumstances to the dog getting out. Was it the department, a neighbor or friends (or "investors") of the victim? Or, was it just Jeff's dogs getting out again? What makes this suspicious is that the bite report was filed right after the dog was impounded and one month after the bite happened.
Stu has been under lock and key because the commission told Boks not to kill him and wait until Jeff went through all his court appeals. Had that not happened the department was planning to kill Stu. The commissioners also told Boks to send the dog to sanctuary instead of the shelter jail. He is at Bobbi Dorafshar's place. That isn't prison.
What's sad is that these terms and conditions were because his other dog got out and bit another dog and a person. Jeff violated his parole and Stu was the victim of it. Stu should have gone home with terms and conditions. Or, the dog should have been placed somewhere else (license revoked but no death sentence). The hearing examiner recommended the latter. Brakemeier topped it and Stuckey listened to her instead. According to some employees, that was completely disrespectful towards the hearing examiner.
I don't understand why Jeff trusted some frail looking girl with his dogs, especially keeping Maeve with Stu when Maeve bites other dogs. Why did he take in a fourth dog when it would be easy for someone to report that?
I agree that Stu needs to be pardoned. I think the department wants to do that, but they don't want to pardon Jeff. From the sounds of it, the only answer for Jeff is Stu going home to him. I don't think he realizes that too many forces will make sure that such a reunion will fail. Anyone can call in and report the dog got out or bit again. I'm told some of his neighbors don't like him and I wouldn't put it past them to call in and complain. The department will believe the callers and they will be overjoyed. It will prove them right and Jeff, the humane community and the commission wrong. I hope what happens is what's best for Stu, not Jeff, whatever that may be. There's alot at stake-far more than just Stu going home. If Stu goes home and Jeff blows it or someone lies, the consequences will be far reaching. Can we actually trust that all will go well if Stu goes home, even if Jeff did nothing wrong? My personal feeling is Jeff should find a good home for Stu, somewhere outside the city limits.

Anonymous said...

Jeff has insisted that LAAS took his dog, in fact one of his initial errors, in my opinion, was actually bringing his tampered-with gate into the department.

But there were other people who had more to gain and less to lose by stealing Stu off Jeff's property. Start with the people who were suing him.

And the bottom line is, he put two dogs together who didn't get along, after he had agreed not to do so as a condition of continuing to have custody of one of the dogs (not Stu) and then he left town. It was foreseeable that the dogs would fight. They fought, Stu was injured, and someone who was completely unqualified screwed up dealing with it and got bit.

Those are just the mistakes leading up to the incident. Then add on the non-stop threatening communications that continue to this day with LAAS, the people who help decide if his dog lives or dies. That's more than stupidity, that's playing recklessly with his dog's life. And now he demands that Stu be killed, gambling with his dog's life!

And the bottom line is that no matter what was done by LAAS, Stuckey and Boks, they are no longer part of the equation. The question is: what happens to Stu? And the guy who says he deserves to get Stu back is the guy who is insisting he be killed on July 23rd. Who in their right mind would do such a thing?

One would certainly hope that he would be careful if he got Stu back. But he gives no indication that he even understands how this happened, so how can he possibly avoid it in the future? He still has the dog who fought with Stu.

LAAS screwed up AFTER the bite. But no one can possibly say that they caused Stu to bite someone. That responsibility is solely on Jeff's shoulders, whether he admits it or not.

Anonymous said...

So Jeff will not say he screwed up. The City Attorney and the Dept will not say they screwed up. The Commission has been told they don't have the authority to say the City screwed up. The City won in the Court of appeals so the Court says the City did not screw up. The City doesn't seem to want to kill the dog (bad press) in the face of a code that says they have to. They don't want Jeff to have the dog. They city offered Jeff a settlement with unsavory demands in exchange for Stu to live out his life in a sanctuary. No one wants Stu warehoused.

Something's gotta give.

Anonymous said...

I have met both of them--de la Rosa and Stu. Neither are very social. Is euthanasia better for the dog than continued confinement? Probably more humane. Ed, stop wasting your time and ours with the Stu issue. Hardly anybody cares what happens to either of them.

Ed Muzika said...

It is obvious that this story is not a waste of time for many people. Look at the number of comments.

I just wish I knew the whole story, and I do wish for a long and happy life for the dog.

It seems impossible to put the blame on Jeff alone.

Aunt Martha said...

"I just wish I knew the whole story, and I do wish for a long and happy life for the dog."

Point well-made and well-taken.

I'm crying my ass off over the needless circumstances, whatever they were, that resulted in an innocent animal being passed on from stranger to stranger, but not before being first locked-up. first.

Someone seems to be bothered by our thoughts and concern on behalf of the dog; as I see it, however, circumstances such as these, whatever they were, are not about just one dog alone. As I see it, it's not just about Stu, but about ALL dogs like him; Dogs who we don't even know about who end up paying the price, like Stu, who are terribly confused and have no idea what has happened to them and why.

A previous commentator says nobody cares about the dog or his owner. I don't understand why or how anyone can say or even think such a cold-hearted thing.

It's not over for the dog or others who are worse off than he. Yes, at least Stu isn't locked up somewhere, but the fact is, It's never over for them. That is what is so utterly crushing and so unfair.

When Mr. Muzika asks "are we living in Hell?" You can just guess my answer. This is why we have to create a Heaven for these guys--simply because we ARE living in constant hell as long as animals suffer and grieve for their owners.

Anonymous said...

Seriously, the dog shouldn't pay for what DeLaRosa did. For the dog's safety, Stu needs to be placed in a home other than Jeff's home.

Anonymous #2 said...

I'm the Anonymous who wrote about the mistakes Jeff de la Rosa has made, and is still making, and in no way was I suggesting that any of his mistakes should be taken out on Stu.

Of course I care if Stu lives or dies, otherwise I wouldn't be a regular reader of this blog. I just have serious doubts as to whether the best and safest course of action at this point is to allow him to go home to Jeff. I'm not happy I feel that way, but with this letter Jeff has moved from the simply heedless and narcissistic into the seriously destructive. It's his prerogative to be SELF-destructive, but he has no right to take this dog with him.

And, like other commenters, I'm quite disturbed that someone here thinks being shy or "unsocial" is a valid reason to not care if a dog lives or dies. It's also pretty egotistical to assume that if Stu doesn't frisk and frolic around YOU he needs to die. From what I hear, Stu's perfectly sweet with people he knows and likes.

Dogs are frequently good judges of character and I'm guessing what you witnessed was a good example of that.

Jeff de la Rosa said...

Holy smokes... I haven't been here in awhile and normally don't respond to people hiding behind "anonymous;" BUT there are a lot of "facts" in these comments that are not facts. My letter was a product of perfectly sound judgment and produced exactly the desired results. At that time, there was NO STATEMENT from LAAS which would lead anyone to believe that Stu would not die on the first day after my time to petition the CA Supreme Court expired. NONE. That letter forced the Dept. and the Board to commit to not killing my dog. THAT HAD NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE. In fact, as of two weeks ago, Ross Pool, Board Secretary (who fancies himself an AGM or Commissioner or both), was still telling callers that that Stu is a "very bad dog and should be euthanized." If you don't push hard on this Department you will get nothing.
That is their culture. Deny, ignore and deflect.

"It seems pretty clear that LAAS decided to kill Stu because Jeff was such a jerk from the get-go on this." --Huh? Did you really write that? They decided to kill Stu because I'm a jerk? That's fracked up, dude! You're saying that if they don't like someone, they will kill his/her animal? What ARE you saying?

1. I NEVER claimed to anyone that LAAS took my dog from my property. Never. Please show me that I did claim that and when and where. Commissioner Quincey, a 30 year AC veteran has not been so kind to the Department in that regard. Look it up.

2. If you haven't read the transcripts of the hearings and the appeals and all of the court documents you have no idea what I've admitted to or what I have not admitted to. Go read and then tell me that I never accepted responsibility for my actions and blamed anyone and everyone else. Hey, a lot of people lied in this case to further their agendas. I am not one of them.

3. I'm arrogant and nasty because my dogs have been subjected to negligent treatment, cruelty and injustice. If the Department treated my dogs poorly and unfairly because of my bad attitude about their missteps, harassment and denial of Due Process, then who should be ashamed? Have you ever been to a Commission meeting and seen that they are blocked from doing any real work for the animals? No? Have you ever come home to see your home surrounded by animal control trucks with blazing search lights because Ed Boks is pissed off? Boks (who denied it ever happened and who surely wrote at least one of these "comments"..."Also let me say that I do not work for LAAS or the city." Of course you don't, Ed. Why are you still here? BH is not going to pay you that consulting fee you want so badly and you are FINISHED in the world of Animal Care and Control) is a clinically narcissistic buffoon and is exactly where I predicted he would be two years ago--disgraced and OUT of a job. Okay, so he's not selling used cars in Van Nuys as I suggested to him, but it ain't over yet.

4.Convicted felons get paroled--sometimes. I have never been on "parole." I had terms and conditions for my dog Maeve (which I was told I must agree to or Maeve would be impounded in the tick and disease infested pound for 4 months while I waited for a hearing slot-please don't act like I made a sacred covenant with the devil and then broke it), which included that I not relocate her anywhere without telling the Department. I never did. I rented a commercial building as a sole tenant. I had one full time employee who was hired to do several duties, one of which was to walk my dogs when I could not. My terms and conditions, which have been published on the web for 4 years stated that Maeve could be in the custody of a "professional dog walker." I paid Tatiana to walk my dogs. At the hearings, however, she denied we ever dated and claimed that I forced her to care for the dogs. I left my building and the dogs in Tatiana's care when my sister called me to my mother's death bed, 2500 miles away. What would you have done? Driven them to boarding (which was to be arranged the following day)and let your mother die without you there?

Jeff de la Rosa said...

5. I'm irresponsible and cannot be trusted to keep Stu safe. Well, since I've been able to "handle or own" dogs again (November 08), I've rescued, fostered, trained and placed no fewer than 5 "pit bull type dogs", 2 chihuahuas and a Shiz Tzu-- ALL without incident.

6. "I've been told that many of Jeff's neighbors don't like him." I don't like a few of my neighbors either. The ones who own dogs I like very much and get along with fine. C'mon over, Boks published by home address on the LAAS site for 2 years. I'll introduce you to the neighbors who don't like me. If you're an outspoken and forthright person, they won't like you either. Personally, I don't care if some of my neighbors don't like me. Others do. That's how neighborhoods are. Did you by a house in 1999 in Echo Park and watch the ensuing class war develop? Have you been to a Neighborhood Council meeting here and seen the chaos and near fistfights between the Latinos and the Whites (who used to run the council)No? Shut up.

7. If you haven't read the 4000 + pages of documents in Stu's LAAS case and the related PI case, you don't know what you're talking about.Saying "I was told..." does not equal the facts.

8. I should have been a nice guy to the people who abused my dogs and deprived me of my constitutional right to due process? Why? Because they would have done what differently? My letter , which Ed posted herein, subsequent email campaigns and blog posts and my arrogance, persistence and what-have-you have netted the following results:

a. 500+ more people have joined Stu's "cause."
b. Those people have swamped the City's various offices with pleas which begat:
c. The LA Times story on this whole mess which is forthcoming.
d. Stu was moved to Bobby's because the Board was pressured by Stu's and my supporters to do so.
e. Our new City Attorney has changed the attitude (for the better) of deputies who have been for 4 years, fighting a dog case with the vigorous intent of making sure Stu was killed.
f. The Department (not the Board) is now claiming they do not want to kill Stu. I leave it to you to find their old dialogue.

9. Umm...did anyone get the fact that after listening to 2 hours of testimony, that the LAAS hearing examiner found that Stu was NOT DANGEROUS?

Jeff de la Rosa said...

10. The following people are some of those LAAS people who "railroaded" Stu and I:

*Guerdon Stuckey-fired
*Ed Boks-fired (okay, he agreed to resign--that means "fired")yet still claiming he was the best ever!
*Captain Karen Stepp-resigned due to poor employee morale under her supervision.
*Lt. Moreno-gone(reasons not made public, but he was a jerk and everyone knows that)
*Debbie Knaan-succeeded in her ambitions to become mgmnt. and then threw in the towel under Boks idiocy and is now prosecuting less animal cruelty cases than she should. She denies ever calling me to interrogate me about the cases BEFORE sitting in judgment on them. However, Riordan, Atake and (only last week) Laura Beth Heisen swear she told them all exactly that.

You are all entitled to your opinion if it is fact based. Otherwise...get informed or please stop spreading rumors and outright untruths. If you'll notice, Boks's "Facts vs. Rumors" pages (Rumor #1- Stu did not receive a fair hearing) evaporated with him. I have ALWAYS answered any questions from ANYONE who cared to ask them of me and have made ALL information readily available to anyone.

I fought back and they hated it and me for doing so. Recently the tide has turned in Stu's favor and mine. It is not over and won't be for a very long time. You are welcome to dive in to the same political cesspool in which I have found this City to be drowning. C'mon in. The water's fine.

There was no amount of pleading, confessing, begging or any other submissive behavior that would have caused my dogs to be dealt a different hand. Maeve has been invited to wear a L.A. Dog license and Stu may be exonerated BECAUSE I have been so persistent and adamant about the truth of this crappy mess coming out. Without my efforts...and the way I executed them...they would both be dead. I made some mistakes which got my dogs into this mess. You don't know how or what I feel about that. I (and the dogs) did not deserve, nor does anyone deserve the treatment and abuse we were dealt because I fought back against some morally corrupt individuals. Most of them are no longer in their positions. I have no regrets about anything I've done, said or written in my effort to bring my dogs home. None. You can call it arrogance or anything you want. Until you walk the same road, you will not know, Mr. and Ms. Anonymous.

It's strange. In the thousands of emails I've received over the past years, only ONE (besides the ones from Boks) of them had the tone of some of these Jeff's-a-jerk comments.

Let's see how you act when your life becomes an open book. I hope it never happens to you.

Finally, to the last poster: People with no conscience sleep just fine. I haven't had a good night sleep in a long time. One night soon, I will. I'll come back and let you know when that is.

Jeff de la Rosa said...

Sorry, Ed, but there are so many flatly untrue statements in this barrage of comments. I really have to respond:

"And the bottom line is, he put two dogs together who didn't get along, after he had agreed not to do so as a condition of continuing to have custody of one of the dogs (not Stu) and then he left town. It was foreseeable that the dogs would fight. They fought, Stu was injured, and someone who was completely unqualified screwed up dealing with it and got bit."

What!? These dogs lived in the same house together, my house, for 5 years. I agreed not to put them together? When did I agree to that? That was a condition of retaining the custody of the other dog? NO IT WAS NOT. Where does it say that? Show me.

It was foreseeable that they would fight? How so? She was completely unqualified? She separated the dogs without incident , put Stu in a room by himself and called me. I gave her instructions (a 26 year old educated young woman) on what to do if she felt comfortable doing and and what to do if she did not. She ignored every one of them and then swore under oath that I never gave her ANY instructions.

You really don't know what you are writing about, Anonymous, do you? Is that why you are Anonymous?

Joan Sinden said...

I rest my case on the "Jeff De La Rosa likes to strike back and ruin people's lives" - those comments are all from a "parody blog" that he began focused completely on me and my blog about dogs here in Halifax Nova Scotia - all the way on the other side of the continent from where he actually lives - because he didn't like what I had to say about something - and those comments defaming comments about me are probably written by him - in addition to the content of the blog. My own blog - which I've had for 5 years is at - and his "parody blog" as he likes to call it - is at - and its so full of hate it's absolutely amazing. I can't believe that someone who's never even been to Nova Scotia Canada could even think to create something like that. Can any of you? Luckily people up here can see through that kind of garbage and no one really cares - and the site has gotten virtually no notice whatsoever. No one here in Nova Scotia cares about Jeff De La Rosa - which probably kills him.

I have another website at which is all about working towards a dog friendly Halifax, Nova Scotia - so I am a positive friendly dog advocate - which also probably kills Mr. De La Rosa - because he is the anti-thesis of that. And I also have a blog about Buddhism and dogs - which Mr. De La Rosa can't stand either - at - so I guess that's why Mr. De La Rosa has chosen to focus so closely on me. Too bad he didn't focus so closely on his dog handling skills 5 years ago.

Jeff de la Rosa said...

It does not "kill" me that no one in NS cares about me, which of course is not true and I am grateful for the support. Your comments are juvenile and ridiculous. Intelligent people have rendered their opinion of you and your blog. They will do it again.

The parody blog Joan speaks of is not mine although I have made some contributions. The comments I pasted are from actual readers (of Joan's writing) IN Nova Scotia. You can have the IP addresses if you like. You just popped up out of nowhere to slime in and attack me Joan, you are not allowed to write about the Brindi case anymore and so you're here bashing. Get a life Joan, and stay out of mine.

I can't believe you posted links to all of your blogs, Joan. Why expose yourself to more criticism which you WILL NOT PUBLISH IN YOUR COMMENTS? The people here are intelligent and informed. This is not Halifax.We do have free speech rights here in the US, and you are welcome to them. Just don't make yourself look ridiculous here. It won't help you.

Jeff de la Rosa said...

Blogger Ed Muzika said...

So, what exactly are the mistakes Jeff hasn't admitted to? Just that he kept the other dog on the property when he said he wouldn't? Is that it? Then everything

Ed, I never said I would not keep the other dog on the property and I was never told not to. Granted, when I rented the building where I was going to spend a lot of my time, I should have requested from the Board a modification of the terms and conditions which would my business (not open to the public) as a permitted
property in which to bring my dogs. If you read Boks's "Rumors," he swears the incident occured at my home, which to which he gave the the world. I've found that, for an animal owner/guardian in Los Angeles, the less contact with animal services you have, the better.

Jeff de la Rosa said...

RE: Ed Boks's "rumor" page which Joan Sinden says I am being untruthful about:

This is from Linda Barth, today:

"The Department's systems staff has made many attempts to eliminate all
leftover, cached, and other-site-copies of this document. The link
below from a back-up version has been deleted. We have engaged in a
number of web searches with various engines and did not could not find
any other leftover versions."

So, if it was so truthful and representative of the facts, why are they bending over backwards to eradicate the two documents? Liability. Except that it's too late to undue what has been done, as Joan so un-eloquently has illustrated.I'm still getting thrashed because of Ed Boks's little war. Which is fine, if you know anything about the law.

Jonathan Anderson said...

Interesting story. I had never heard about Stu's story. I was doing a search for low cost spay/neuter to help a friend whose parents have ended up caring for a litter of kittens who decided their yard was a good place to call home. This story caught my attention and I searched and read a few articles about it. I was appalled at the people blaming de la Rosa for the situation. Then I found the link to this blog with posts from the person himself. Now I understand what those people are talking about. He clearly was speaking the truth when he wrote "I'm arrogant and nasty".

Clearly this isn't all about Stu for Mr. de la Rosa. It's all about him. I'm sad for Stu. Sad that Mr. de la Rosa can't put aside his arrogance and work for what is best for Stu - a new home with someone who will truly care for him and not use him as a tool for his own ego.

Anonymous said...

Ladies and gentleman, that was "former councilman" Mark Schoenfeld from Hawthorne who has been sending profane emails all week and has been making death threats. Consider the anonymous source.

Anonymous said...

Wow! you all missed the point. This Jeff guy obviously is not all there. Look at the letter he wrote. The staff at LAAS never wants to see an animal euthanized. I just think this Jeff guy is painting these folks as evil when I think they all have great hearts. Another person wrote about how terrible some specific workers were. In doing my rescue work with LAAS I have never had any trouble with those staff members with the exception of Ed Boks who yes, was a jerk. i think these people need our support rather than scorn. They do a great job. Everyone needs to stop calling it death row and other similar references. After all a human inmate cant be adopted off death row like these animals can. If you dont want it to happen, adopt one. Stu was dangerous because of his owner so to have his owner blame LAAS for his training (or lack of)is just stupid. Dogs are what you put into them afterall. Bottom line If you love animals, be nice to LAAS and support them. Their budget is being cut and staff are being laid off which has severely bad consequences to the animals of the city and criticizing them does not help.