Mutts And Moms Operating On A Suspended License?
Â
According to Access Hollywood, they are:
According to the California Secretary of State’s Web site, the Mutts & Moms corporation has been suspended since December 2006 when they failed to file a “statement of information.â€
Access Hollywood has verified the corporation is still suspended as of today.
The “statement of information†is a document that lists who their officers are. However, as soon as the form is submitted, the agency can revive their corporation. [...]
As a result of the suspension, enforcing the contract with Ellen and Portia may be impossible for the agency, as both the original adoption of Iggy and the date the agency reclaimed possession of the pet happened after the suspension began.
Access Hollywood has placed a call to Mutts & Moms, as well as their attorney, for comment. No response was received at the time of publication.
Woah! Big news on the Iggy front!
I certainly hope that someone in a position of power is looking into this. Iggy needs to go home, and these so-called “animal rescuers” can get called on their histrionic, egotistal, and obsessive behavior. This so-called “agency” needs to be investigated, and soon, before Marina Batkis can move her animals around…or, I should say, move their cages around. Five dollars and a Starbucks says that Iggy is in a cage somewhere. Please, someone in Animal Control out there, investigate these people!
UPDATE: The Insider captured this image yesterday of a woman coming out of the home of the woman who owns Mutts and Moms. She’s running with what appears to be a dog under her sweatshirt, could this be Iggy?
If it is, this is really sick, and goes a long way to confirm my suspicions of animal hoarding and obsessive behavior.
Pink Stripe WordPress Theme Designed by Joni Mueller &
You are an idiot! Please refrain from speaking on something you know nothing about. Stick to LinLo’s drinking or Britt’s snatch–that which is your bottom-feeding fodder. Before you further vilify Marina Batkis why don’t you do some homework about animal rescue. Before you call the woman a hoarder why don’t you go to the LA county shelter and ask them how many dogs will needlessly die today because they have no place to go? In the US, we kill some 3 million a year because people like you make stupid decisions about pets. Rescue groups have rules for a reason, and that reason is because they have seen first-hand what happens when folks make less than a 100% commitment to an animal. This is what Ellen did. What happens when Iggy does not work out at his new home? Or at the next? No matter what anyone thinks, or despite the tears of a teen, it was not Ellen’s right to pass Iggy off to anyone else. If she did not want to follow this groups rules, she could have gone to the shelter herself and rescued a dog. And believe me, ALL rescue groups have similar rules. And if you dare do a bit of homework about the number of dogs killed in shelters and why, ask animal control officers how many times they have had to euthanize dogs surrendered to shelters because once the bloom is off the rose with a new puppy, teens in particular will loose interest in caring for the animal. I see it all the time.
Comment by Dale Nixon — October 19, 2007 @ 1:07 pm
It would seem to me that most of your rant does not apply to situation at hand. Ellen did something that the rescue was unable to do: she placed the dog with someone that she knew personally. This is actually the best solution, since no matter how thorough the screening process, rescues ultimately have to rely on the information given by applicants, which obviously can be false. In fact, Ellen acted as a defacto fosterer who cared for Iggy until finding and placing him in a suitable home. It’s true that people frequently adopt puppies/dogs without fully understanding the level of commitment required, but you almost sound as though you wish no one would ever be trusted with a dog at all, since every human owner is just waiting to fail that dog. In fact, you suggest as much about the family where Iggy stayed happily until being confiscated–how would you possibly know whether he was in a suitable home, that now will go to no dog? The net effect is that one less dog can now be placed in a loving home. However, would you care to address the negative effects on dogs caused by the overcrowding, stress and poor socialization which is the norm in many rescues? I have been on all angles of this issue over the years and have seen this firsthand. The cause of homeless animals is not helped by this attitude and the punitive and prohibitive screening process you endorse. If adopting from a rescue is as expensive as going to a breeder, with being treated like a criminal to boot, who will choose to subject themselves to that kind of hassle? I suggest that you might want to take a step back from your involvement with animals, as it is warping your perspective.
Comment by Adrianne — October 19, 2007 @ 1:41 pm
#1: Thank you! You just made my day. You have proven my point better than I ever could, seeing as how I have this tiny little thing called perspective. Because I have perspective, I could never write as you do. My hat is off to you.
Again, thanks, and have a nice day!
Comment by k — October 19, 2007 @ 2:03 pm
Dale - there is nothing in the slightest bit idiotic about the author’s assertions. In fact, they have covered this story as thoroughly and with as much balance as any person could.
I get the sense you are a fanatic and a person on the edge without the slightest grip on reality. Really, for your sake, please seek some help. There is no shame in admitting you have a problem. Helplines are standing by waiting for your call.
Comment by D — October 19, 2007 @ 3:17 pm
btw, #1….this statement right here, by you:
That statement right there is how I can spot people like you. You have no clue about me or my animals. I am an animal lover, like you would not believe.
But I am also a rational person and I know that as much as I’d like to, you CAN’T SAVE EVERY ANIMAL. If people would spay and neuter their pets instead of letting them breed, the population at shelters and rescue agencies would go WAY down. And if breeders and puppy mills would stop pumping out dogs like water, the animal population would go way down. You can’t control every single animal placement, and the family who you might think is wrong might just be the best ones for an animal. What gives people like you the right to play God?
I did the best I could to be as thorough and balanced in my reporting as possible. I can’t help it if this woman continues to make bad decisions.
I stand here firmly and say that Marina is an animal hoarder with obsessive/compulsive tendencies. I get the distinct feeling that you are as well.
This story ain’t over yet.
Comment by k — October 19, 2007 @ 4:21 pm
I COMPLETELY agree with k. Marina lied about doing a “house check” on the family’s home and instead just wanted to grab the dog… why? So she could re-sell it. How do I know? Because their recently taken-down website is still available in the website archives, and it says on their FAQs page (AND I QUOTE):
“Although the ability to make a $250 donation is not the only consideration when evaluating an application, it is clearly a very important part of our decision. The inability to make a substantial donation raises a warning flag: can the new adoptee truly afford to care for a pet?
“If you can’t afford a $250 donation, perhaps you should re-examine your decision to adopt.”
You can see their archived site here.
It is obvious to me that Marina is a dog hoarder, and just wants to take a dog that has already had the $250 donation (PLUS an additional $450 donated out of the goodness of Ellen’s heart) and re-sell it. Not only that, but they now have a dog that has been neutered (which is against the law in CA to sell or donate a dog that has not been fixed; Marina’s fault) AND has had $3,000 worth of training put into it. After all of this drama, I bet Iggy will command a pretty “donation” penny from whomever Marina feels is worthy enough to “afford” him.
I feel so poorly for this dog as well as any other dogs that Marina has caged at her facility. It is a DAMN SHAME!
Comment by Heather — October 19, 2007 @ 5:00 pm
[...] k added an interesting post today on Mutts And Moms Operating On A Suspended License?Here’s a small readingAccording to Access Hollywood, they are:. According to the California Secretary of State’s Web site, the Mutts & Moms corporation has been suspended since December 2006 when they failed to file a “statement of information.†… [...]
Pingback by www.latesthollywoodgossip.info » Mutts And Moms Operating On A Suspended License? — October 19, 2007 @ 10:58 pm
I find all this has gone too far. It is all about placing animals in homes. Here they go taking animals out of homes. As it has been said before thousands of animals will be put down by States across the country for the simple reason there is no home for it. I think we all agree that Ellen was wrong but does two wrongs make it right? If Ellen wasn’t who she is, this may have never happend. I feel and believe this Mutts & Moms should have left the dog alone and did follow-ups if they were so concerned. Give the family a term agreement. To pull this dog out of a home that is fighting to keep is crazy when there are thousands of animal fighting to find a home. The age of the children is also crazy, I was raised in a home with 3 pom pom dogs and one large rescue dog we all played and there was never a problem. We’ll see what happens in the end, I pray it won’t end with anymore heartache and tears.
Comment by Shelly — October 20, 2007 @ 10:18 am
Yes, and apparently now the police are saying maybe they made a mistake, maybe they should have left the little doggie where he was…oops.
Comment by Mitsu — October 20, 2007 @ 1:38 pm
The dog is apparently someplace else. It’s been a week now. According to Ellen, she adopted the dog Sept. 20. Today is Oct. 20th, so, it looks like it was with her for about 11, the family for about two weeks and now somewhere else for a week. Let sleeping dogs lie. Stop moving the poor puppy around and just let him be where he is. Hopefully, he’s somewhere good. Badly handled situation all the way around–both M&M and Ellen. Horribly sad for the family but there are many more dogs out there looking for good homes and they need to move on.
Ellen needs to do her show. Batkis needs to make her license current and get back to finding good homes for homeless dogs (hopefully with requirements a little less stringent and more flexibility.) The family needs to go to the pound and pick up a new puppy. And I need to stop worrying about all these people and dogs!
Comment by limmo — October 20, 2007 @ 3:25 pm
The problem with people like Marina is that they don’t ever lighten up on their policies…they see themselves as the only saviors of these animals, and only they know what is best for them. Asking someone like this to lighten up on their policies is like asking them to cut off their arm, and they’d likely turn themselves into martyrs doing so.
Comment by k — October 20, 2007 @ 3:43 pm
The sad part is that she has several dogs in a situation no better than a shelter. These dogs are not in loving foster homes where they are getting socialization, love, and the treatment they deserve. They are left in cages and in kennels to spend their days until they decide who is a good home and who is not. And yes.. rescues can be hoarders because they get the animals in their shelters and no one is good enough for them to be adopted to. They pick and choose which dogs they want to release. It would be interesting to see her records to how many dogs she has taken in verses how many dogs she has adopted out.
Comment by Peg — October 21, 2007 @ 1:09 am
I just spent time reading through her web page.. and these people are NUTS
Comment by Peg — October 21, 2007 @ 1:51 am
If it is true that Mutts and Moms found a new home for Iggy, that makes the story even sadder. What person would want to adopt Iggy from them, knowing that they had take Iggy away from two young girls who obviously loved the dog. Maybe the smartest move would have been a public boycott or re-adopting the dog and then Mutts and Moms would have been more inclined to apply commons sense and check out the hairdresser fitness as a “dog mother”, so Iggy could be returned to the family. Right now, if the new adoptee decided to return the dog to the girls, I doubt if the police would be as likely to support raiding the home and grabbing Iggy a second time.
Comment by shan — October 22, 2007 @ 6:55 am
Mutts & Moms had apparently no right to enforce any contract due a suspended license!
To quote the website GlossLip.com:
http://glosslip.com/2007/10/19/mutts-and-moms-operating-on-a-suspended-license/
“According to the California Secretary of State’s Web site, the Mutts & Moms corporation has been suspended since December 2006 when they failed to file a “statement of information.â€
Access Hollywood has verified the corporation is still suspended as of today.
The “statement of information†is a document that lists who their officers are. However, as soon as the form is submitted, the agency can revive their corporation. […]
As a result of the suspension, enforcing the contract with Ellen and Portia may be impossible for the agency, as both the original adoption of Iggy and the date the agency reclaimed possession of the pet happened after the suspension began.
Access Hollywood has placed a call to Mutts & Moms, as well as their attorney, for comment. No response was received at the time of publication.”
Comment by Dana — October 22, 2007 @ 9:40 pm
#15: While I appreciate the thought, you’re not quoting me, you’re quoting me quoting Access Hollywood. I don’t want it to look like I said the above. I don’t want to take credit that is not mine.
Comment by k — October 22, 2007 @ 10:20 pm
This is unbelievable! What a waste! There is even a site for people to complain http://www.getiggyback.com.
GET over it!
Comment by Izzy — October 23, 2007 @ 10:31 am
http://technorati.com/blogs/coach-coachhandbags.blogspot.com
Comment by coach — December 5, 2007 @ 8:39 pm