Brad Jensen Notice

Brad has been supplying me with statistics for at least 3 years. He provides the stats and charts on He left this note:

Findings on sheltertrak were removed because sex of an impounded animal
can be changed after impound. For example, staff may enter an impounded
dog as unaltered but if that dog is adopted the sex can then be changed to
altered after s/n surgery. We really have no way of knowing for sure what
the sex of an animal was at the time of impound (except for maybe those
that were euthanized or maybe those returned to owners).

FYI - sheltertrak and I are temporarily unable to donate ANY time to animal
welfare issues. My wife, dogs and I have moved and hope to sell our home
of 20 years within the next month.

HOME: Joan-St_Cypress_CA_90630_1121400705


A Long tailed macaque monkey adopts a kitten in the forests of Bali, Indonesia

A long tailed macaque monkey adopts a kitten in the forests of Bali, Indonesia

A long tailed macaque monkey has been spotted in a forest in the Ubud region of Bali, Indonesia, protectively nuzzling and grooming a ginger kitten
Throughout the session the kitten enjoyed the attention being lavished on it by its protective carer and made no effort to leave
Picture: Anne Young/Solent News

Penguin likes people better than killer whales

Penguin Escapes Orcas - Watch more Funny  Videos

Dog Rescuer Arrested because of Animal Services; Lu Parker Reporting

Animal rights advocate Hans Peterson is under arrest after trying to help a dog locked inside of a foreclosed Los Angeles home. Neighbors say when the owners left the home they took everything but the dogs. Taz was in the garage. A puppy was in the house. Next door neighbor Elisa Woods says she worried they were getting hungrier so she called for help.

L.A. Animal Services came with food and water, but they didn’t enter the home. “Possibility the people could come back and then they could turn this around and sue the city,” explained Animal Services Officer Hoang Dinh.

The city is required to give a written warning to the owners before entering the home or removing the dogs. That wasn’t good enough for animal rescuer Hans Petersen.

He entered the home, then came out with a six-month-old puppy. The LAPD arrived moments later and Hans was arrested for interfering with Animal Services as they conducted their duties.

The puppy was taken to to the South LA Animal Shelter, but Taz, the dog in the garage, was left behind.

Animal rights advocate Hans Peterson is under arrest after trying to help a dog locked inside of a foreclosed Los Angeles home. Neighbors say when the owners left the home they took everything but the dogs. Taz was in the garage. A puppy was in the house. Next door neighbor Elisa Woods says she worried they were getting hungrier so she called for help.

L.A. Animal Services came with food and water, but they didn’t enter the home. “Possibility the people could come back and then they could turn this around and sue the city,” explained Animal Services Officer Hoang Dinh.

The city is required to give a written warning to the owners before entering the home or removing the dogs. That wasn’t good enough for animal rescuer Hans Petersen.

He entered the home, then came out with a six-month-old puppy. The LAPD arrived moments later and Hans was arrested for interfering with Animal Services as they conducted their duties.

The puppy was taken to to the South LA Animal Shelter, but Taz, the dog in the garage, was left behind.

Council File for pet increase is filling up.

Take a look at the City Clerk C.File on the proposed increase:

Phyllis has the only two protest letters, all the others are for the increase.

And old friend of mine, Ronald Constat has formed a Facebook group to support the increase.

We have the ball moving now.

May I suggest that you send letters and emails or faxes to support lifting the limit on indoor cats altogether, as does San Diego and Santa Monica?

Send your email to either address below and ask that it be included in Council File 10-0982.

Why California’s S.B. 250 is bad for cats, From Alley Cat Allies

I have read the bill closely too, and posted the two areas that would affect feral feeders. I posted this a couple of weeks ago:

Actually reading the latest version of SB 250 leads me to the conclusion that SB 250 can be used punitively against feral caretakers and feeders due to its definition of  "custodian," as below. A custodian is defined as someone who "means any person who undertakes the personal care and control of a cat, or any person who intentionally provides care, security, or sustenance for a cat on the person’s property for any period exceeding 30 days.
"Care of a cat" clearly covers care of ferals by feeders and colony managers. The second half of the sentence applies to "non-owners," meaning, I guess, people who declare cats living on their property are not theirs, who take care of the cat for 30 days.
The penalty for not S/N such a cat and providing the licensing agency with proof of sterility is $100/day.
Based on this interpretation, I would have to conclude the legislation can be, and likely will be used against feral colony caretakers.

S.B. 250 is a proposed bill that is really just more of the same in California—a bill that would hurt cats by penalizing the volunteer caregivers and low-income pet owners who care for them. S.B. 250 would push government requirements on citizens without providing them with ways to meet those requirements. Because the bill would cite anyone helping cats who has not yet spayed or neutered the cat, regardless of their ability to pay for surgeries or trap a cat, S.B. 250 would discourage care for cats. If S.B. 250 were passed, it’s the cats who would suffer.
What California—and the rest of America—needs is a game changing bill that will support volunteer caregivers who donate their own time and money to help cats. As the sole national organization dedicated to protecting and improving the lives of cats, Alley Cat Allies knows that the only laws that are supportive of cats, their owners, and caregivers will actually increase care and neutering of cats. Where neighbors are supported by community programs that provide affordable, available spay/neuter and Trap-Neuter-Return, including education and outreach, they are able to take action to improve the lives of cats. Punitive laws like S.B. 250 only serve to discourage those activities.
Good laws help good people do more good. S.B. 250 is just the opposite—it would penalize low-income cat owners and the very volunteer caregivers who are doing the most to help cats.
  1. S.B. 250 applies to feral cat caregivers.

    The bill clearly applies to feral cat caregivers, and anyone who cares for cats on their property. The bill creates the new legal category “custodian” to apply to caregivers, defined to mean any person who undertakes the “personal care and control of a cat, or any person who intentionally provides care, security, or sustenance for a cat on the person’s property for any period exceeding 30 days.”

    This definition plainly includes any person caring for a cat on their property, but it is worded imprecisely enough that any caregiver could fall under its definition if they are determined to undertake “the personal care and control of a cat.” The definition is so vague that anyone who gives any care to cats, 
    even a bowl of water, could be cited.
  2. Creating the legal category “custodian” for feral cat caregivers sets a dangerous precedent.

    By classifying caregivers as “custodians,” S.B. 250 would expose these volunteers to citations and other penalties for their community service on behalf of feral cats.

    The classification of “custodian” does not currently exist under California law. This bill creates a new legal category, which could then be subject to future legal requirements. Passing S.B. 250 would establish a precedent for feral cat caregivers to be subject to legal requirements just because they care for cats—opening up a legal pathway for caregivers to be cited
     just for being a caregiver.

    Feral cat caregivers are not owners: they are volunteers who donate their time and money to care for cats, stepping in to improve the well-being of the stray and feral cats in their neighborhood. Feral cats are not socialized to people; they are not adoption candidates and do not belong in pounds and shelters. 
    Beacause they provide a service to the cats and their neighbors, it is wrong to impose on them fines, fees, and citations.
  3. Under S.B. 250, feral cat caregivers could be cited.

    Under S.B. 250, if a person who feeds cats is unable to neuter all of the cats, that person could be cited. No matter the challenge faced in trapping and neutering cats—including covering the cost of neuter surgeries. If even one cat is left
    unneutered, the feral cat caregiver would be in violation of the law. Feral cat caregivers have enough challenges; they should not be cited for their inability to neuter a cat. These volunteers need support, not a citation.
  4. Pet cats of low-income families would be hurt by S.B. 250.

    S.B. 250 harms pet cats in low-income families because many of those families cannot afford the cost of a full-priced spay/neuter surgery. A recent peer-reviewed study by researchers at Alley Cat Allies found that among low-income owners of intact pet cats, cost is the number one reason people give for not neutering their pets. S.B. 250 does nothing to lower the cost or expand the availability of affordable spay/neuter services, and may even encourage these owners to surrender their pets.
     What low-income owners and many volunteer caregivers need are spay/neuter resources and support. The reality is that without adequate access to low-cost or subsidized spay/neuter services, some caregivers and families will not be able to neuter the animals they care for. It is wrong for the government to mandate a service when that service is unavailable to many citizens.
  5. Alley Cat Allies supports increased resources for cats and caregivers

    Alley Cat Allies believes that any law applied to feral cat caregivers should support their efforts, not be a barrier to their success. When caregivers are given the proper resources to get cats neutered, including access to affordable neuter services, more cats are neutered.

    Alley Cat Allies has long promoted Trap-Neuter-Return as the gold standard for caring for feral cats and provided support and advice to countless groups, organizations and individuals practicing Trap-Neuter-Return across the country. Caregivers are to be encouraged and rewarded, not penalized simply because they do not have access to affordable spay/neuter services.
  6. S.B. 250 harms cats because it discourages cat care. 
    Bills like S.B. 250 harm cats because they discourage
    caregiving. Instead of providing resources for improved cat care, this bill would cite caregivers and owners who are unable to neuter every cat they care for. Our experience is that laws which cite caregivers and owners send people underground, where they are less able to receive support for their efforts and worse, discourage people from caring for cats at all. This bill reinforces and expands the current system of penalizing owners and caregivers who care for animals. S.B. 250 would further burden volunteer feral cat caregivers and it would target low-income pet-owning families. Because it discourages cat care, S.B. 250 makes it more likely that cats will be sent to pounds and shelters, where 70% of all cats entering are killed, including virtually all incoming feral cats.

From Santa Monica's city Attorney, Marsha Moutrie; She States Phyllis Daugherty Never talked to her about Santa Monica Pet Limits

Phyllis Daugherty wrote:

SANTA MONICA -  Although they have no limit in their MC, their CityAttorney advises them they can implement the LA County limits automatically:Three (3) dogs/three (3) cats.  (Santa Monica requires a kennel permit andcity business license for anyone having above the 'average' number ofpets.)

This is totally Bull. In a recent email from Santa Monica City Attorney Marsha Moutrie, she states:


I haven’t advised anyone that we could implement County limits.  

Marsha Moutrie

Response to Critics from Leo Grillo

I would have posted this as a comment, but it is too long for Blogger to accept as a post.

From Leo:

Okay - - I have to go but I read some of the blog.

Wow they are heated and I don't even know them.

Some errors, don't know how they get this stuff ....

"You'll see something very different. He takes animals from people who give him a donation. Then he warehouses them. That's why he doesn't let people visit normally."

We NEVER take animals from the public -- even donors!!! Where do they get this stuff?! We have members-only tours for insurance purposes. Otherwise we'd have to put in an infrastructure of many hundreds of thousands of dollars -- and impossible to get county tours.  

"It sounds like he exceeded zoning over the years and has large building sq. footage, and has run into problems there. But it is a done deal and he is trying to fix it. The judge agreed he was making progress and acting in good faith."

Absolutely not so!!! WE have 94-acres. We can put tens of thousands of animals there legally. In fact, Antonovich's deputy sent us a letter a few years ago asking us to voluntarily limit ourselves to 3000 dogs! It's not a size limit -- it's a trap play having removed our need for a license, and then demanding a new one the day after we took on the rendering industry -- of which LACAC is a part.

"Even though he says he has 1,500 animals he is still collecting more. He just picked up 200 more!"

She might be referring to our satellite desert rescue. This is not "collecting" -- this is rescuing animals with mange, tick fever, transmissible cancer, distemper and starvation to boot. We are the only ones there to help these abandoned animals in the desert. Her logic is beyond me.  If this is wrong -- then what about all those "rescuers" who flock to adopt animals form the pound when a bad-rescue shelter gets raided? Isn't that collecting? 

"If Leo Grillo has problems with county, it's because he caused the problems. Why didn't he maintain his permit? He didn't "think" he didn't have to. What a lame excuse." 

Not so -- I was told by the director at the time that I didn't need to any more, and they didn't ask for a renewal in all those years! 

"He knows he has too many. He could easily ask a few rescue groups to say they house their kennels on his property." 

This is so illogical. It has nothing to do with our numbers! We can have ten times, fifty times, as many animals as long as we have infrastructure to care for them. County has 4x10 foot runs and a filthy inside area for multiple dogs who have to fight for food. Our yards are MINIMUM 24-32 for two dogs only. Mostly larger and some extremely larger. We even have exercise yards -- if needed -- over 1/2 acre each. so this rumor of TO MANY is just wrong.

"Leo has a bad reputation making and keeping promises. Didn't he offer to help you once? Leo is flakey and a liar."

"This guy has a sordid history. Beware. Lori is right."

Again -- so wrong. After 31 years of rescue -- and not kissing ass and going to parties with the rest -- there are lot of rumors and stories floating around. I don't listen though -- I only care about the animals and not people or their opinions of me. Nobody likes anybody anyway -- haven't you noticed?? Flakey and  liar?? Hardly. Hardly. LOL. They wish!

My wish has always been that there would be no more need for us -- that there would be no more abandoned animals -- so I could go on with my life and career and stop bleeding myself dry over all this -- but that has not come true. I didn't WANT to become an animal rescuer -- it just happened, 31 years ago. 

If you saw a three-year-old child in the woods, crying under a tree, dirty, cold, wet, shivering and sobbing ---what would YOU do? That's what I see when I find an abandoned animal. So my deepest, most sincere wish, from the bottom of my heart, has always been this: just everyone leave me alone so I can help these animals ... the county, the detractors, the "competition" that is out to discredit me to make more money for themselves. 

Thanks Ed

If it walks like malice and talks like malice, is the County Being malicious?

This is a portion of a letter sent by D.E.L.T.A. Attorney William Hess to Marcia Mayeda on July 23, 2010. Knowing the utter depravity local governments can stoop to in an attempt to get revenge, it may well be that DELTA is the object of an official squash. I thoroughly distrust County Animal Services in everything they say, mostly arising out of that 20007 County Annual report in which Mayeda claimed she was saving 89% of adoptable cats and 91% of adoptable dogs, even when her actual kill rate approached 60%.

From Hess to Mayeda:

Dear Ms. Mayeda,
I am forwarding this letter to you in response to your Department's publication on your website of a so called "Fact Sheet Re: D.E.L.T.A. Licensing and Litigation Prepared by the County of Los Angeles". This publication, apparently, was made in response to D.E.L.T.A. Rescue's July, 2010 "Dear Leo" newsletter and in response to the many calls from outraged supporters of D.E.L.T.A. Rescue to the county supervisors. For the reasons stated below the contents of the "Fact Sheet" are pernicious and blatantly misstate the facts. For the same reasons, your representation that "Inaccurate statements continue to be made by Mr. Grillo" are false, reckless and, therefore, appear to have been made maliciously and in a manner unbefitting a public official. ................

Your written representations to the public that "D.E.L.T.A. has had ample time to comply with the requirements of the current ordinance", and that "Grillo represented to the court in May 2009 that he could obtain the license in 30 days, but has he has still not complied with requirements on all animal facilities" are false, and fly in the face of the facts on the ground, which you and the County should be aware of. They constitute propoganda of the worst kind. They have been made with reckless disregard for the truth and have maliciously misstated the actual state of affairs.
I was in chambers with the Judge while the settlement with the County was being negotiated. The District Attorney, Mark Lee, represented to Judge Jared Moses that D.E.L.T.A. Rescue could get a license in 30 days, and that any issues with regional planning or building and safety could be taken care of the separately. I objected, as I told Judge Moses that this was not the way things work when a facility applies for a license, and that Animal Control, contrary to what Mr. Lee stated, would not issue a license absent the approval of Regional Planning and Building and Safety. Judge Moses acknowledged this reality, and the Judge has continued to do so at several status conferences which have been held since May, 2009 and which you have not attended.
Immediately after the plea was entered, D.E.L.T.A. Rescue forwarded a renewal application based on the indication that Animal Control was going to issue a permit within 30 days. That application was rejected by Animal Control's "Major Case Unit Supervisor" Sherry Koenig who sent back an "Initial License Application for animal related businesses" along with a note that stated "Please be advised that Regional Planning and Building and Safety must sign the application before we can approve it". Mr. Grillo completed and submitted the application for D.E.L.T.A. Rescue on May 7, 2009. You also wrote me on May 19, 2009 to confirm that "The pre-approval by Building and Safety and by the Department of Regional Planning is standard procedure".
Shortly thereafter I personally went to Building and Safety and Regional Planning to obtain their approvals for the kennel license application. I was informed at that time that Building and Safety would be performing an inspection sometime in June, 2009. I was also informed by Regional Planning that D.E.L.T.A. Rescue needed to submit and obtain approval of a "Site Plan Review Application". Thus began a journey that is ongoing and has resulted, so far, in the expenditure of tens of thousands of dollars with no end in sight.
Building and Safety sent an inspector to the Supersanctuary in June, 2009. However, we never heard back from anyone. Upon inquiry, I was told that "building and safety cannot complete its work and give its approval until Regional Planning has given its approval!

D.E.L.T.A. Rescue obtained an engineer to perform all the work necessary to complete and obtain approval of the Site Plan Review Application. This was an expensive project, undertaken in reliance on Regional Planning's statement that this was what they needed to give their approval on the license application. After an investment of $20 plus thousand dollars, the Site Plan Review Application was submitted in December, 2009, and summarily rejected as being the wrong Application!!!
The engineer was informed, for the first time, that a small part of the Sanctuary lied in a "Sensitive Ecological Area" since the Santa Clarita River began its course at the foot of the Supersanctuary and because of the possible presence in the river of a protected species. Specifically, we now had to deal with the potential ecological impact of the Supersanctuary operations on the "stickleback fish". As a result, a whole new set of requirements came into play, at a cost of many tens of thousands of dollars and with a time frame for Regional Planning of not less than two years. These requirements include obtaining our own biological impact study, Regional Planning then performing its own biological impact study, all part of a process of, hopefully, obtaining a conditional use permit after a public hearing before the Planning Commission.
I was further informed by Regional Planning, for the first time that D.E.L.T.A. Rescue also needed to submit and process a Certificate of Compliance Application because prior owners had failed to have the subdivisions comprising the Supersanctuary real property properly recorded. I have been informed that this process could also take many months to complete.
At a March 10, 2010 status hearing I explained these chain of events to Judge Moses. Incredibly, District Attorney Mark Lee tried to persuade the Judge that D.E.L.T.A. Rescue was not acting in good faith in trying to get a license. As evidence, Mr. Lee stated that D.E.L.T.A. Rescue's engineer had been instructed to delete the parcel with the SEA issues from the Site Map! He then criticized D.E.L.T.A. Rescue for not following the county's alleged advise to lie! Judge Moses expressly found D.E.L.T.A. Rescue to be acting in good faith. Here is the direct quote from the court reporter's transcript:
"Well, let me just tell you my view. I don't want to be dragged into a property dispute here...My order is that..the facility get sounds like they are making efforts and it sounds like rather significant efforts in terms of expenditure of time and money and energy and jumping through all of the bureaucractic and administrative hoops necessary. I don't see any foot- dragging here. It seems like they're on it and they're doing what they need to do, but that there are a lot of hoops that they have to jump through....I would say that it's certainly not Mr. Grillo's fault, that these repeated administrative administrative and procedural barriers keep popping up that they then have to overcome. But it seems like they're making a good faith effort....That's my view".
Still not satisfied, Sherry Koenig took it upon herself to contact Building and Safety to get them to inspect the Supersanctuary. A man named Francis showed up at the Supersanctuary but no one knew why he was there. When I contacted Fancis' supervisor, he stated that Ms. Koenig had not told him that Regional Planning was still engaging in its review process, and that there was no

way Building and Safety would or could do anything until the Regional Planning process was finished!
Then the clincher. To add insult to injury, and awakening our worst fears, we first learned after the March 10, 2010 hearing that you and Deputy County Counsel Diane Regan were amending the Title 10 Animal Control ordinances in a manner that could legislate D.E.L.T.A. Rescue out of existence. This process of amending the Title 10 ordinances, had commenced shortly before the criminal trial against Leo Grillo began.
I also learned that an ordinance was being proposed that would limit any animal facilities, newly defined to include "animal sanctuaries", in the unincorporated areas of Los Angeles County to 50 dogs 50 cats. Any animal facility could apply for an exception, but only if "it had been licensed during the previous 12 month period". Well, needless to say, that would not include D.E.L.T.A. • Rescue as it had not yet obtained its license and could not do so for another several years, minimum, due to all the "bureaucratic hoops" it was being forced to jump through. Coincidentally or not the 50 dog 50 cat ordinance was drafted at or around the same time as Regional Planning rejected the Site Plan Application. Indeed, I was informed that someone in the county counsel's office had "flagged" the application. The scenario is all the more ominous
given that our canvassing of the animal facilities licensed by Animal Control in the unincorporated areas of Los Angeles has revealed that only a small percentage have more than 50 dogs and/or cats and that an even smaller percentage have as many as 125. Less than a handful have as many as 150 dogs and cats. In contrast, D.E.L.T.A. Rescue provides care for life to approximately 1,500 dogs and cats at its no-kill Supersanctuary.
I immediately contacted Diane Regan who claimed ignorance, stating she could not say that the ordinance would not apply to D.E.L.T.A. Rescue. I subsequently learned that the 50 cat 50 dog ordinance had been sent back for redrafting. But that is not very reassuring, especially in light of a June 25, 2010 email I read that you sent to Merritt Clifton of Animal People magazine, which is remarkable if for no other reason than your appearance of being ignorant of D.E.L.T.A. Rescue's license status. In that email you confirmed that "if they're already licensed then they will be granted the over 50 license." You surely knew at the time you wrote the email that D.E.L.T.A. Rescue had not obtained its license as of that date. One can only conclude that you will try and exercise your discretion, if allowed, to draft, obtain approval of and then enforce an ordinance that could legislate D.E.L.T.A. Rescue out of existence. All this begs the question: Did you communicate with anyone at Regional Planning with knowledge relating to D.E.L.T.A. Rescue's ongoing efforts at compliance before you caused the "Fact Sheet" to be published? I know you did not contact me.
In conclusion, it is apparent that Animal Control and the County have yet to finally decide as to their final determination as to whether or not they will issue a kennel license to D.E.L.T.A. Rescue if and when it is able to jump through all the hoops and obtain the approval of Regional Planning and Building and Safety as you will first then perform your inspection of the Supersanctuary. However, for the present, and on behalf of my clients D.E.L.T.A. Rescue I hereby demand that you immediately remove the above referenced "Fact Sheet" from the Animal Control website. The contents are libelous and malicious, and constitute official action in interference with the constitutional and property rights of my clients. The publication has caused

and will continue to cause my clients to suffer economic loss, emotional injury and loss of reputation, and prospective economic loss, all to their great damage and suffering. This must stop now! In the event the Fact Sheet is not removed from the website, we will seek advise from appropriate counsel as to our available future legal course. Of course, this should not be deemed in any manner to prejudice my clients' rights and remedies when and if this matter is ever finally resolved and/or if the 50 dog 50 cat ordinance is enacted and used against D.E.L.T.A. Rescue in
a way that interferes with its right to continue its business.

Marcia Mayeda Publically Attacks Leo Grillo; Screws Outdoor Cats

This is from the home page of County Animal Services.

Several items on that page attack Leo Grillo and give the County's victorious side of the lawsuits.

Then they post the old, original, now joint, release on the horrible/terrible dangers of free roaming cats.

County is still Middle Ages when it comes to animal welfare. Marcia seems pretty sensitive and vindictive when it comes to DELTA.

Home Page Info:

Information Regarding D.E.L.T.A

Recent Department Correspondence with D.E.L.T.A

County Policies Relating to Free – Roaming Cats

Recommendations for Addressing Flea Infestations and Fecal Accumulation Related to Free-Roaming Cats

Iolo Software Scam?

Iolo System Mechanic Professional Useless Against Trojans despite Claims.

A few months ago I bought the above Iolo software that performs the dual function of protecting against viruses, Trojans and other malware, as well as provides tune-ups for computers. The software box stated:

“Blocks viruses, Trojans, rootkits, worms and more. Disinfects dangerous email attachments Removes backdoor programs, key loggers and more.”

However, two weeks after installing both this software and the associated firewall, my laptop became infected with a Trojan called windows32 Trojan fake spy pro. Many programs would not boot, and a balloon came up saying it was infected, and urged me to activate my virus software. I was unable to get onto the Internet at all except for the website of this malware program, Antivir Solution, Inc.

I ran a complete computer scan of my computer for viruses and malware using my Irolo program. I ran it twice. It could not locate an infection. However, I could no longer contact the Irolo website for updates.

I called Irolo technical support to help me remove the supposed Trojan, and was connected to an Indian technician. He told me amazing things and led up to what appears might be a scam.

He told me that Irolo software does not protect against some Trojans and that millions of computers all over the world have been so infected, and no software can protect against it. I advised him that their ads say their System Guard and System Shield state they protect against Trojans and other malware. He just repeated that no commercial software protects against these Trojans.

He also asked me what sites I frequently used, and I mentioned I was a blogger and also used facebook. He immediately jumped and said I was infected from using the facebook site. He said they are a focal point for infection, and if I did a google search, I would find that to be true. How he knew this sight unseen,  shows a remarkable clairvoyance.  

He then stated my only recourse was to take my computer to a Microsoft Certified Technician for repair, because my computer has been take over by a very aggressive malware that is slowly taking over every aspect of its operation, slowing it down and destroying its functioning. It was urgent to get it to such a technician immediately, otherwise eventually I will need to get a hard disk replacement that will cost $380.

I have no idea where that dollar amount came from, but I doubt that a hard disk replacement would cost that much, especially as my laptop was still under warranty.

He stated I could take the laptop to Best Buy, where their Geek Squad could fix the machine for $299. Or, I could take it to Radio Shack, where they would fix it for $249.
But then he had an idea. Or, I can put you in contact with a Certified technician that works “with us,” who will fix it for $199.00. He said that in addition, if this ever happens again, their own technicians will fix it again for free. He stated, however, that if I went to Best Buy or Radio Shack, and the machine became infected again, I would have to pay their full price to get it repaired again.

I turned his offer down smelling a scam by Iolo, who couldn’t protect my computer from a ubiquitous Trojan that just sailed through their firewall and virus protection software, and decided to make an extra $199.00 by essentially selling a second, higher tier of protection.

Stay away from Iolo software.

Santa Monica Councilmember States Phyllis Daugherty's Statement About Santa Monica's Pet Limits is Not True

From Kevin McKeown, Santa Monica Councilmember:

To Whom It May Concern:

In my capacity as a Santa Monica City Councilmember, I was shown a document
from the "Animal Issues Movement" claiming that the City of Santa Monica
limits possession of domestic animals.  The document said, specifically,

"SANTA MONICA -  Although they have no limit in their MC, their City
Attorney advises them they can implement the LA County limits automatically:
Three (3) dogs/three (3) cats.  (Santa Monica requires a kennel permit and
city business license for anyone having above the 'average' number of

I wish to correct the record, as I believe this "Animal Issues Movement"
document may have been submitted pursuant to an issue before your Council,
purporting to represent facts in the matter.  Insofar as the document
describes Santa Monica law and/or policy, it certainly does not appear to be

Our City Attorney's office is unaware of any limitation on the number of
dogs and cats allowed for a household in Santa Monica.  There has been no
discussion of this issue at the City Council level.  While we do have
business licenses for kennels, of course, there is no stipulation that
requires such a license for "anyone having above the 'average' number of
pets," nor do we or would we ever write laws or make policies based on such

Thank you for allowing this clarification.

Kevin McKeown
Santa Monica City Councilmember

     Kevin McKeown            |  Santa Monica, CA  (USA)
     email:  310 393-3639 /-3609 FAX   | "Choose to be conscious"