LAPD Admits They May Have Made A Mistake In Ellen’s Dog Case
The police are now saying that they may have made a mistake in letting Marina Batkis leave with Iggy the dog. In the video shown here on TMZ, law enforcement now admits that there should have been a different resolution. It all came down to the microchip. Had Marina changed the microchip when she should have, the police would have been able to enforce the status quo….which basically means that Iggy could have stayed at the home of the hairdresser while the parties concerned figured out a resolution. The policeman tried to negotiate a peaceful resolution to this without removing the dog, as you see on the video. Not knowing everything that Mutts and Moms was involved with doing, I think he was doing the best he could to make a decision based on the information he had available to him.
And the video also shows someone running out of what is assumed to be Marina’s home with a dog under her shirt (I put an arrow pointing to it) and refusing to say what is going on. Iggy?
The contract Marina is trying to hold Ellen to may be void anyway, as Mutts and Moms did not have a license at the time this all happened. Plus, she entered the home of the hairdresser under false pretenses, asking the family to fill out an app and saying she was coming to do a home inspection, only to swoop in, scoop up the dog, and refuse to put him down…just to take him back and put him in a cage.
You can read the entire series of posts I’ve written on this saga here.
This woman appears to be an obsessive control-freak with a form of animal hoarding who is more interested in her rules and regulations and steel-trap applications than she is about taking care of dogs. I wonder just how many dogs she has living at her home in a residential area? And how many do live in cages? I’d love to see photos, before she gets around to changing them all about. There is help available for people like this, but they have to want it…if this is what they are, they have to be willing to change. Until they do, the animals will suffer.
UPDATE:Â You know it’s bad when the President and CEO of the Humane Society of the United States speaks out against you:
Ellen acknowledged she shouldn’t have given Iggy away, but it’s clear she had genuine concerns about providing the pooch with a good home. Ellen has a long and consistent record of being on the side of animals, and that counts for a lot in a case like this. She has the interests of Iggy at heart.
Mutts & Moms was too rigid, even though I am sure they are very fine and dedicated people. They were a slave to form and forgot the real-world circumstances. They lost their chance to have Ellen serve as an advocate for them and for animal adoption, instead turning a potentially positive event into a distressing experience for all involved, including Iggy.
Pink Stripe WordPress Theme Designed by Joni Mueller &
Someone has GOT to investigate these people. I can’t believe all of this, I KNEW that the whole decision to remove the dog was done in haste and needs to be challenged immediately, these people are NOT registered with the IRS, they have a suspended license and yet they are STILL collecting donations??? WE all have to contact the powers that be and get these women stopped before more animals are hurt…
Comment by Terri — October 20, 2007 @ 9:45 pm
Here’s the latest facts on those people you like to call “hoarders.” They actually had a good reputation before Ellen’s on-air histrionics.
Comment by Kate L — October 20, 2007 @ 10:19 pm
I already read that article. I’ve done a lot of research on this subject.
It’s amazing how many of these groups exercise their right to take back their animal for very small things, not even infractions of their “rules”. They can come in even years later and take away your dog. And their tax-free status is also being called into question.
They never believe the animal is yours. In their eyes, it is always “theirs”. She is the ONLY one who can protect this dog. Yes, that is obsessive and behavior of a pet hoarder. Even the President of the National Humane Society said she was wrong to do what she did. Read everything else on here and you’ll get a better idea of the big picture, and why I say what I do. I never said she has not done some good things, but that her priorities are skewed, as is a common symptom.
And MaM obviously has a good lawyer, intent on making this a “celebrity against the little guy” argument. Not every celebrity is bad, and not every “little guy” is good.
Comment by k — October 20, 2007 @ 10:36 pm
According to the article in #2, the dog actually only lived with Ellen/Portia 1-2 days because he spent 9 days of his “Ellen time” with a trainer-which might explain the $3,000 tab that’s been bantied about. Sounds to me as if perhaps Portia (who signed the agreement) may have adopted the dog without running it by Ellen, who didn’t really want the dog. Hey, fine, no problem. I’m making no judgements here. Couple disputes like that happen, but perhaps, if Ellen didn’t want a dog adoption, didn’t know that Portia was getting a dog and didn’t sign the agreement, she wasn’t aware of the return clause and was just trying to make the best out of bad situation between domestic partners by getting rid of the dog as soon as possible to a good home. Everyone screwed up here. Ellen should have called the shelter, but she might not have known she was required to do so. If that’s the case, Portia should have consulted with and informed Ellen, both before the adoption and before the give away. The rescue owners should have been more open, flexible and kind. The family should have followed the shelter’s process and really made a good case with Marina and Vanessa, leaving Ellen out of it, that they wanted the dog and would do what it took to keep the dog, short of sorasing their kids to 14 over night. Ellen should not have brought her fame and power to bear against rescue owners who, according to the link in #2, were well thought of and respected in the area for their rescue efforts. Sad and badly done all the way around.
Comment by limmo — October 21, 2007 @ 3:59 pm
I wrote a lengthy response to Linda Milazzo at - http://blog.netesq.com/2007/10/linda-milazzo-on-ellen-degeneresmutts.html -.
Comment by David F. Prenatt, Jr. — October 21, 2007 @ 5:41 pm
#5: Most excellent. Me likey.
Yeah, just a silly way of saying that I thought what you said was well-thought-out and nicely presented. Well done.
Comment by k — October 21, 2007 @ 9:28 pm
#4: It’s been my experience with pets that you can’t always tell when, or if, a pet will get along with another pet before the fact, even with training. It’s only after you bring them into the home that you learn how they will interact. You don’t need to prolong the experience for all animals and humans involved if it is obvious that the new and established animals just are not going to work out together.
Yes, Ellen and Portia should have checked with MaM first, that’s already been established. All parties involved made mistakes, but I think the MaM mistakes have been particularly cruel and heartless.
I didn’t think about Portia adopting the dog without Ellen’s knowledge, good point.
Comment by k — October 21, 2007 @ 9:35 pm
#2: Yes, they had a decent reputation before this. They also had examples such as when Marina jumped out of a car and grabbed a dog from its owner because she had it out without a leash. This was not a recent adoption, but years after the fact…what is to stop her from going in at any point and taking any dog because she decides she doesn’t like what you’re doing?
If not hoarders, at least obsessive, although hoarding is a form. She considers all the animals her property. They are never yours, they are always hers. She is the sole judge and jury of whether or not you are a fit owner, at any point in the dog’s life. That is obsessive behavior. Yes, many animal agencies are like that…because they are started by people with the same sort of obsessive mindset. It draws people in….this sort of lifestyle is accepted by others with similar obsessions. That’s why other agencies don’t recognize it. OCD isn’t just washing your hands a hundred times a day…it takes many forms. All you have to do is watch the videos, read the evidence, and you’ll realize. Yes, mistakes were made all around, but the ones made by MaM will be felt for years to come.
Just because someone has done some good, doesn’t mean what they do is good. Good can happen even when the source doesn’t have good intentions.
Comment by k — October 21, 2007 @ 9:51 pm
David,
Excellent analysis. You and k seemed to have gleaned superior insight into the essence of this upsetting matter.
Ultimately, had more level heads prevailed, this could have been handled in a way where everyone could have been a winner. I think the fault lay with Mutts and Moms insistence that they were going to stick it to Ellen simply because she was famous.
This was apparent from the beginning when they threatened to take it to the media - which I have to think is why Ellen contacted TMZ to film Iggy’s abduction.
And that’s what it was; an abduction. That crazy lady lied to that family all for the sole purpose of stealing Iggy. That is both creepy and WEIRD.
I say hoarder.
Comment by D — October 22, 2007 @ 7:47 am