The Ed Boks email

      HOME                                                                  The Notice of Order mentioned herein is  available here

On 9/5/06, Jeff <> wrote:  

Mr. Boks,

Thank you for your mass emailing. However I must point out that it is full of errors and misleading statements. To use your expression, it is completely self-serving.  I call your attention to my responses in Yellow.

[The Notice of Order mentioned herein is  available here]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Ed Boks <>
Date: Sep 5, 2006 12:04 PM
Subject: "STU" - Case #05329NC
To: undisclosed-recipients

Thank you for your interest in Stu's case.  As often happens in the
cyber world half stories are told to excite the legitimate passions of
the animal loving public.  Unfortunately, half-truths only serve the
self-promoting agenda of the source deliberately disseminating

The complete hearing transcript has been available to anyone since day one of this campaign to save Stu. A link to it has been included in every email that I sent. This was done so that the WHOLE truth would be out there for anyone to view.

I'm asking everyone who is truly concerned over Stu's fate, as we at LA
Animal Services are, to remain calm and trust that there is a new
compassionate management team in place supported by an equally
compassionate Commission.

This is the same "compassionate" that was in place throughout the appeal process  and look where we are.

As I explained to the parties sending out the inflammatory emails you
received, this case was heard by the LA Animal Services Commission in
May 2006.

These cases were heard on March 8 in a very brief last minute and unnanounced to the public appeals hearing by only 3 commissioners.  You were there prior the start of the hearing and wished me "good luck." Then you opted not to sit in on the appeal hearing. There was no hearing in May 2006 that I know of. If there was  hearing in May , I would have liked notice of same and an invitation to attend.

You may recall that the appeals were originally scheduled to be held  prior to March 8 and that my attorney and I were present at my expense. However, Commissioner Brown failed to show up and the hearing was postponed.

At that time the Commission upheld the decision of the Department of
Animal Services' previous General Manager, Guerdon Stuckey, regarding
Stu based on the evidence.

At that time, Commissioner Khero expressed his reasoning thusly, "I am always reluctant to go against the findings of the hearing examiner." Which he then proceeded to do, being that the hearing examiner found Stu to be not dangerous. He said nothing else. Commissioners Brown and Knaan only added "I concur, " and " I also concur, "  respectively.

The General Manager at that time had declared Stu "dangerous" due to a
"severe" attack on a young lady.  The email you received does not
accurately depict the actual attack.  During the attack, the victim's
arm was severely mauled and injured.  This brutal attack occurred as a
direct result of the dog owner's inability or unwillingness to comply
with a previous Notice of Order issued April 20, 2005 that imposed
various terms and conditions on the owner that would have prevented this

The attack was not "brutal" and  I object to your characterization. The inuries consisted of 8 puncture wounds..that's 2 bites by a dog with 4 canine teeth and no front teeth top or  bottom. The "young lady" ignored my instructions to call Animal Services to assist her and rejected my offer to call LAAS for her. The "young lady" first described the incident to me as being bitten twice very quickly followed by Stu retreating. The "young lady" has changed her testimony and her story at least 3 times in sworn statements and depositions. The "young lady" is suing for $6 million dollars. The "young lady" has malingered at home for a year claiming total disability although she seems to function normally at 100%.

As previously stated,  the entire hearing transcript has been made available to the public. The April 20 notice of order was not in regards to boarding or caring for Stu. There was no "unwillingness" or "inabiliity " in my part. There was an emergency. The victim, a grown woman of age 26 gladly accepted the responsibity.

If the owner had been cooperative in controlling his dog this matter
would not have escalated to its current state.

See above.

The reason Stu is still alive is because the new management team and
Commission of LA Animal Services has been struggling with the limited
scope of options concerning Stu presented at the May 2006 hearing.  We
are concerned, as you are, that despite the severity of the injuries to
the victim, and they were severe, not minor, there seemed to be
extenuating circumstances which all pointed to the irresponsibility of
Stu's owner.

The reason Stu is still alive is due only to myself and Mr. Fajardo (along with the concerned public) putting pressure on the dept. to act in a reasonable and responsible  manner. The Dept. has refused an evaluation of Stu by a qualified dog behavior specialist, Dr. Polski. Mr. Pool has repeatedly told the public that this dog will be euthanized. Mr. Pool told my attorney on  August 28, 2006 that this dog would be euthanized on August 30, 2006.

On Wednesday August 30, an attorney representing the dog owner appeared
in Superior court and petitioned the court for a stay of the
Department's order to euthanize Stu.  The Superior Court DENIED
that request based on the evidence.

This statement is irresponsibly misleading. The Superior Court ruled that there was insufficient evidence that the Board would come to a diffferent decision should they be ordered to do so. This judge must either be clairvoyant or there has been ex parte communication between the judge and the dept.

However, it is important to understand that I have not signed a
euthanasia order on Stu because I have been and continue to work with
the Commission and City Attorney to thoroughly review this case to see
if there may be a remedy beneficial to Stu's well being.  I will not
sign such an order until all legal avenues have been fully explored.  If
there is a legal way to save Stu's life, we will find it.

The legal avenue was available to the commission on  March 8 and March 28, 2006. They could have adopted, modified or rejected either Stuckey's decision, the hearing examiners ruling, ordered a new hearing, or ALL THREE. Another legal avenue was for the board to honor my desperate pleas in November , 2005 to afford me a fair hearing with the witnesses I requested to be subpoenaed. Unsworn statements from the "young lady's" brother and his girlfriend were accepted into evidence without cross examination of those witnesses. Because the Hearing Examiner refused to use his suboena power those witnesses did not appear and are still MIA. They are both wanted for deposition in the civil matter and the "young lady" swears she has no idea where her brother is.

We will keep you informed.  Thank you for your support!  And if you
would like to make a donation to help develop programs to help and/or
care for dog's like Stu please visit our website to find out how:   Or view pictures of the hundreds of lost
and homeless animals in need of loving homes!

At this time, Mr. Boks, I must implore you to adhere to the facts as you communicate with the public. The hearing was a  sham which can be easily seen when reading the transcript. The Board did not follow procedure in the appeal and did not even have the appeal papers prior to the appeal. They were not prepared and allowed new testimony to be given which is prohibited. A new and impartial hearing must be held that is fair and that conforms to the LAMC, the Administrative Code and the Constitution of the United States.

Also at this time, I must plead with you to give Maeve's case the same review as you are giving to Stu's. There is also a Petition to the Superior Court which has NOT been adjudicated. Her hearing was as ludicrous as Stu's and she had been "in jail" (for 6 months) at the Annex with no medical treatment for a severely injured tail and since has been in private boarding at the cost of more than $2000 because she can't come home.

Please do not interpret this response as one of disrespect or as contemptuous; of course, I appreciate that these cases will be reviewed but I cannot allow false and misleading information to be disseminated by ANYONE. I have posted corrections and clarifications to any post and any email I have seen. If human nature is to jump to conclusions, then the same human nature affected your hearing examiner and your Board and previously prevented them from seeing the FACTS.

Thank you,
Ed Boks


Jeff de la Rosa (Stu's  dad)                     email Mr. Boks