Ellen DeGeneres is a well-liked figure in Hollywood and by her viewing public, but her recent actions have brought her more flak than Iggy ever did.  Her decision to continue with her show in the wake of the writer’s strike has brought the wrath of the WGA down on her head:

That move sparked an inter-union brawl between AFTRA and the WGA after DeGeneres — who belongs to both unions — opted to continue working on her daytime talker during the past week.

The fight came into the open Friday, when the WGA East issued a press release blasting DeGeneres for continuing to perform comedy in violation of strike rules: “Ellen said she loves and supports her writers, but her actions prove otherwise.”

AFTRA topper Kim Roberts Hedgpeth declared in a letter to WGA East chief Mona Mangan that DeGeneres is required to work.

“As you know, AFTRA members such as Ms. DeGeneres who are working under the AFTRA Network TV Code (which covers ‘The Ellen DeGeneres Show’) are legally required by the no-strike clause of that contract to report to work and perform their AFTRA-covered responsibilities,” she wrote. “Ms. DeGeneres, along with thousands of entertainment-industry workers represented by AFTRA and other unions who are bound by similar no-strike clauses, are also reporting to work as legally required.”

But Mangan said DeGeneres is wrong: “Beyond any issue of membership, there is the obvious ethical issue, which is clearly present in Ms. DeGeneres’ decision to write and produce a show without writers in the face of an industrywide walkout by 12,000 writers.”

Ellen had sat out one show in support of striking writers, but came back the next day with this explanation:

I’ve got to say this is a strange show for me to do. This is weird. Weird. It’s a weird show. Channeling Johnny Carson all of a sudden. [Imitates Carson] “Very Weird. Weird. Weird.” Here’s what the deal is. It’s ’sweeps’, which is a very important time in television. That’s when you do your best shows, your funniest material, you pull out all the stops and you’re doing everything you can because you want everybody watching. Now at this moment, we’re in the middle of this strike. There’s a writer’s strike going on, and here in Los Angeles it’s a huge story. I don’t know where you live, but it’s a huge story in Los Angeles. I want to say I love my writers. I love them. In honor of them today, I’m not going to do a monologue. I support them and hope that they get everything they’re asking for. And I hope it works out soon. In the meantime, people have traveled across the country. They’ve made plans. They’re here. I want to do everything I can to make your trip enjoyable and give you a show. Otherwise you’d just be wandering around and circling Bob Hope Drive.

But wait, there’s more…

Ever wonder what your favorite celebrity wears for Halloween?  Wonder no more, we here at GlossLip have scoured the world searching for your favorite star trick-or-treater!  See who gets the good candy after the jump!

But wait, there’s more…

The Smoking Gun today released the contents of several emails concerning Iggy the dog, who now has a new home.

They start with Portia emailing Marina on September 11 and updating her on Iggy’s progress, saying that he is “incredible” and that it was “hard to let him go” (to the trainer for training).  Iggy spent some time with a trainer and was neutered.

Next, Marina writes back and ask about Iggy on October 12.  Portia emailed back the next day and said that they tried very hard to work with Iggy but that it just wasn’t working out, due to there being too many workmen in and out, different employees every day, and all the things associated with moving.  She said that since the hairdresser expressed such a desire for Iggy, that they went ahead and gave the dog to her about two weeks earlier.  She said she wanted to ask Marina about changing his information, and that they had reached this decision after a lot of thought.

(If the trainer had Iggy for about nine days, as has been reported, and Portia and Ellen gave Iggy to Cheryl about two weeks before October 12, that would mean that Iggy had lived at Ellen’s home for about ten days, give or take…time to discover if the dog would fit in with her other pets.)

But wait, there’s more…

Iggy, the adorable little dog at the center of the Ellen Degeneres/Mutts and Moms debate, has found a new home:

The talk show host’s former pet, Iggy, was placed with a new family earlier this week, a spokesman for the agency’s owners confirmed.

He adds, “We’re not revealing the family’s identity to protect their privacy. The dog is fine.”

You can read all the articles I’ve done about Ellen and Iggy here.  My feelings still stand, I still believe everything I’ve wrote, and I hope that this agency is investigated.

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:  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.

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.”

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.

Ellen is saying that she is no longer going to speak out about Iggy on television, because the whole thing has gotten out of hand:

“Let me just say this, it’s gotten out of hand,” DeGeneres, 49, says on her NBC talk show in a segment set to air Thursday, according to the Associated Press. “I want nothing, nothing more than that dog returned to that family. But you don’t resort to violence. So anybody out there, please stop that. Please don’t threaten or do whatever.”

I’m not going to rehash the whole story, because I’m getting carpal tunnel typing all that stuff out.  If you’re interested in reading my thoughts on the matter, you can click here for all the articles.  In a nutshell, I believe that Marina Baktis appears to have a form of animal hoarding disguised as animal rescuing, she is too obsessive/compulsive in her adoption procedures, and she took Iggy under false pretenses in asking the family to fill out an application and then coming to the home only to swoop up Iggy and hold him for two hours without food, water, or potty break.  Okay, I gotta stop or I’ll get all upset again.

First, let me say this:  Ellen, love ya.  But what did you expect?  You have fans out there who are, to say the least, crazazy.  It’s the same with any big star.  And anyone who would call, email, whatever, and threaten violence against the owner and/or her store and/or her animals, their kibble done gone stale.  But famous people attract this sort of obsessive devotion and that is sad.  In this day and age, where Chris Crocker’s “LEAVE BRITNEY ALONE!” video made him an instant celebutard, I’m sure that there were people who sought to make a name for themselves through this tragedy.

And secondly, let me say this:  Any of you out there who did threaten violence, made death threats, whatever….what did you really expect to accomplish?  Do you not realize that is illegal?  If you were just trying to scare Marina into giving the dog back, congratulations…you just made the case for this woman to say how put-upon and persecuted she is.  If you actually intended to go through with it….well, there’s nothing I can say to help you.  You need professional help.  What did you expect…to be the savior of Iggy?  “Look at me, I saved Ellen’s dog, what a wonderful person I am!”  You’re as bad as Marina.

There’s been enough heartache in this to go around.  There’s absolutely no reason to resort to violence.  There’s better ways of handling this than that.  I thoroughly believe her rescue agency needs to be investigated by professionals, and the sooner the better so she doesn’t have time to move things around, like the dog crates she keeps the dogs in.  She gives reputable animal agencies a bad name.

I will say this…anyone who has adopted a dog from this organization, you’d better make sure the microchip in your dog is registered to you.  Otherwise, we might be hearing more stories like this.

Well, it’s come to this.  Iggy the dog has a new home, and it is not with Ellen’s hairdresser.  People is reporting:

Seacrest got DeGeneres on the phone during his KIIS-FM radio program in L.A., and said to her, “I heard this morning that this dog, Iggy, is now with another family.”

DeGeneres replied: “Yeah, that’s what I just heard, too. The statement was, ‘Finally, it’s in a safe home.’ Which is an unbelievable statement. I mean, the whole situation is surreal. I can’t even begin to tell you the disbelief.”

Citing the attorney for rescue agency Mutts & Moms, The Insider reported Wednesday that the dog has indeed been placed in a new home.

However, contrary to stated terms, Entertainment Tonight is reporting that rules were not always followed by Mutts and Moms:

Sources tell ET that while the agency claims Ellen broke her contract by giving him away to a trusted co-worker, the Mutts & Moms owners themselves have not followed all the rules set by their company. They allegedly did not require Ellen or her partner Portia DeRossi to fill out an application, nor did they change the registered owner information as they said they would.

Additionally, it is said the contract in question does not contain an age clause, another reason given by Mutts & Moms for taking back the dog.

Our sources also tell us the family Ellen gave the dog to — her hairdresser, her husband and their two pre-teen daughters — did fill out an application online when the dog took up residence with them. It was at that time the agency said they would come out to inspect their property as part of the adoption process. Instead, they reclaimed the dog and calling the police. As Mutts & Moms were officially registered as the owners by the chip, authorities turned over custody to them.

But wait, there’s more…

In the continuing saga of Iggy the puppy (I won’t go into the backstory here, you can read it on the site), Ellen has told radio host Ryan Seacrest that Mutts and Moms are, at best, inconsistent with their agency policies:

In an exclusive phone conversation with E!’s Ryan Seacrest Wednesday, DeGeneres reiterated her dismay over the dog being taken away, and denied that she had been deliberately trying to disregard the agency’s policies, saying, “The whole situation is surreal.”

“I will say this: we never filled out an application. We never had a home evaluation,” she told Seacrest, indicating the agency was somewhat unpredictable about adhering to its own rules.

Aha.  So all this crap about home inspections and applications is just that…crap.  Yes, Portia signed an agreement that had Ellen’s name on it…but an agreement is a far cry from an application.  MaM is making it sound like there are an entire series of hoops that have to be jumped through to adopt a dog, when in reality it seems like all you have to do is show up, pick out a dog, and sign an agreement.

I mean, get real…if this woman was so good at picking out the perfect home, couldn’t she have seen in advance that the dog and Ellen’s cats wouldn’t mix well?  Or that the dog would be a bit too hyper for Ellen’s household?  No?  Right…because you can’t predict these things until the dog is actually in the home for a while.  Which, wait a minute, he was with this other family for two weeks, and had blended in perfectly.

Even the local Pasadena Humane Society said they would not have removed the dog from the home.  And apparently Marina Baktis has filed a police report because of the harassment (please, people, stop it…there are better ways…you’re endangering the whole process as well as breaking the law).

On the video located at Access Hollywood, you can hear dogs in the background barking.  Not just one dog, but lots of dogs, many dogs.  It also seems, from the video, that this woman shelters many dogs who have medical issues that require medication or they will die (her words, not mine).  She’s had to have them taken to the vet and had a two thousand dollar bill for medical services for these dogs because she has not been able to properly medicate these dogs due to the stress of this case.

Now, these are just my thoughts, take them for what they’re worth.  There is a very real problem among some people called “animal hoarding”.  They truly believe they are doing a good deed, but in reality they are prolonging the misery of the animal.  It ranges from one end of the spectrum, which is collecting many animals and trying to find them homes, but being hypervigilant about it, to the other end of the spectrum, which is collecting and keeping more animals than they can care for and ignoring their physical needs to the point that the animals are in real danger.

I am NOT saying this woman is putting any animals in danger.  I am NOT saying she is ignoring their physical and medical needs.  I am NOT saying that I know for certain that she has animal hoarding tendencies.  What I AM saying is that she seems to be entirely too hypervigilant about where these animals go…attempting to pick out the perfect home, with no children under fourteen, and only she can be the one to make that decision.  Nobody else can make that decision.  She alone knows what is best for these animals.  It is a form of obsessive/compulsive behavior.

Let’s face it.  As much as we do not like to think about it, every animal reaches the point where keeping it alive is just cruel, due to physical ailments.  And YES, some animals can live full and happy lives while taking medication every day, but for some it is just prolonging the suffering, and who is best to make that decision?  Is this woman a licensed vet?  Does she have some sort of animal degree?  If you are prolonging an animal’s life who needs this amount of care every day, just who are you thinking of….the animal, or yourself?  If you’re to the point of you have to give the animal medication or it will die (her words, not mine), are you doing it for their good, or to make yourself look good?  “Look at me, without me these poor animals would not have a good home, without me these animals would die, aren’t I a good animal rescuer?”

I think Mutts and Moms needs to be investigated far beyond just the Ellen DeGeneres puppy.  Is there a limit on how many animals one can keep in a residential area?  I am interested in how many animals were behind that fence.

I am an animal lover, I have been involved with animals for years now, I even rescued my own cats as kittens, and all of this pains and angers me.  This woman is acting in an obsessive, power trippy, uncaring, selfish way.  Ellen screwed up.  She apologized profusely.  What more do you want?  I know…she wants to make her point.  Okay, you’ve made yourself sick, you’ve upset a family, you’ve upset Ellen, is that enough to get your point across?  You made your point, lady, now be a decent person and just GIVE THE DOG BACK.

(for the entire series of articles on Ellen, Iggy, and this whole situation, click here.) 

One woman at the center of the Ellen DeGeneres dog controversy is finally speaking out.  A bit of backstory…Marina Baktis and Vanessa Chekroun own Mutts and Moms, a dog rescue agency, where Ellen adopted little Iggy.  After discovering that, even after training, Iggy just didn’t get along with her cats and was a bit too high-energy for her household, Ellen tried to give Iggy a good home by giving the dog to her hairdresser’s family.  It hit the fan then, because she wasn’t supposed to do that as per the contract that was signed when she adopted the dog, and MaM eventually had the police come and take the dog away.

Apparently the owners are none too happy at all the attention this has received, even though they were the ones who initially threatened Ellen with going to the media:

“People are being so cruel to us. People are sending things that say ‘Nazi’ and words that I can’t repeat. You know so we can’t even review [adoption] applications because at this point we think [the threat givers] are just gonna come and try to hurt our animals.”

[Marina] Baktis told Access that she’s worried for her safety and that her own dogs are being threatened.

“I haven’t eaten, I’m sick, and I’ve had heart palpitations,” she said.

She also claims that she’s losing business at her store, Paws Boutique, and that she’s had to remove Mutts and Moms Web site from the Internet.

“Now we can’t go to work because there is all this media… And so we’re losing business… Our reputation, they ruined our reputation,” Baktis continued.

I’d have to say you ruined your own reputation with your callousness and high-handedness, but I won’t say that.

Furthermore, they say that at this point there is absolutely no way that the family is going to get Iggy back:

Baktis has now said that she would never give back Iggy to the family that DeGeneres handed him off to.

“No, that is not a consideration at this point, no,” Baktis told Access. “Not after the way we’ve been treated, no. We have been terrorized, it has been horrible.”

Attorney Keith A. Fink, who doesn’t legally represent Baktis and Chekroun (but is authorized to speak on their behalf), confirmed to The Associated Press that the women will not give back Iggy.

“She doesn’t think this is the type of family that should have the dog,” Fink told the AP. “She is adamant that she is not going to be bullied around by the Ellen DeGenereses of the world … They are using their power, position and wealth to try to get what it is they want.”

Baktis claims that DeGeneres’ celebrity is the sole reason why she’s getting all of this attention.

“Celebrities you know, they, they get preferential treatment. They have lots of money. They go into a restaurant they get a table. And so you know, this contract was breached. It was breached. So people need to understand when you enter a binding legal agreement that you can’t just go, ‘And here you go, I don’t want you.‘”

Marina adds though, that she has no plans to sue Ellen.

That’s nice to know.  At least she isn’t going to sue.  That should make Ellen and this poor family sleep better tonight.  Marina even says in the interview here that if the adoption doesn’t work out and an adopter has a friend who is interested in their dog, the friend can then go through their process to adopt the dog.  Um, HELLO?

You know, I was hoping that these women would turn out to be people who realized that they made a mistake, jumped the gun, acted hastily, and would allow this family to go through the steps and return poor little Iggy to them.  It would appear now that they are too obsessively concerned with their own feelings in the matter to even consider that they made a huge mistake.  Zero tolerance has no place in things like this.  And if you’re so worried about your own precious feelings and the way you were treated, instead of being concerned with the happiness of a homeless dog, maybe you shouldn’t be in a business that rescues pets in the first place.

What about Iggy?  What about the feelings of this poor little dog?  Iggy bonds to this family, loves them, and then is torn away from them.  Already a stray, an unwanted dog, now Iggy has been neglected yet again by the very people who are supposed to have a dog’s best interests at heart.  Who will do business with these people now?  I’d constantly be afraid they would call the Secret Police and come get my family member (and let’s face it…as pet owners, you know they become part of your family).  Plus, this business about no family with children under fourteen can adopt.  WHAT???  Two, three years old, that I can understand.  But if you already have an application to fill out, you can weed out the crazies that way.  FOURTEEN?  Whatever…I was practically raising myself at fourteen years old AND I’d had a dog for two years at that point.

She makes a huge point in the interview of saying she feels like Ellen’s celebrity is being thrown around, that celebrities get preferential treatment and they throw their weight and money around and that she is just this little maligned pet store owner.  Hmm…it sounds like someone has made a reservation at Bitter, table for one.  And if she’s so worried about making ends meet, why did she do this in the first place?  Ellen could have been the best publicity her little pet rescue had ever received.  Had she worked with this family, Ellen could have used her influence and celebrity in a way that would have BENEFITED this rescue.  I am not saying Ellen has purposefully tried to harm this woman’s business, certain rabid fans took that upon themselves.  But this could have been handled completely differently with a happy outcome for everyone.

You know what, Marina and Vanessa?  This was NEVER about you.  YOU made it about you, but it was never supposed to be about YOU.  This is about a dog and its family, and because of your obsessive behavior and questionable tactics, you created the very situation you are lamenting now.  If you didn’t want publicity, then why did you threaten to go to the media in the first place?  All of this could have been avoided had you just allowed this family to go through the adoption steps like anyone else LIKE YOU ADMITTED IN THE INTERVIEW PEOPLE COULD DO.

Ellen didn’t follow the rules exactly.  This is true, and she should have.  But now everyone has to suffer?  And now you’re complaining that you can’t do business because of this?  Sorry, you brought this on yourself.  No, I don’t agree with people making death threats and arson threats, that’s just low and wrong.  I am in no way advocating violence against anyone.  But perhaps you should have stopped and thought before you acted like this was a matter of national emergency in swooping in and taking this dog away.  This has nothing to do with Ellen being a celebrity and everything to do with you were pissed because your precious little rules weren’t followed to the letter.  Now you’re getting all high and mighty and saying you’ll never return the dog.  Well, I am sure that will make you feel so much better.  Made your point now?

As a pet mom myself, I am completely outraged.

In the clip of the interview done by Access Hollywood, notice how she had to first go inside her yard and get a dog before she’d come out and do the interview.  It makes for a better media op, you know, to be holding a dog.  And not just any dog, but a dog with one eye.  Instant credibility!

UPDATE:  According to Page Six, Ellen’s lawyer, Kelly Bush, contacted Mutts and Moms and left this message:

“This is Kelly Bush. We are filing a legal case against you. We are going to be contacting the media. This is not going to be good for your store or your organization. You did not do the right thing. You need to call back. There is no reason for you to take this dog. Please call back before this gets further out of hand.”

Hey, MaM threatened to go to the media first, so I don’t see why they’re all upset now.  Lawer for MaM, Keith Fink, had this to say:

“Ellen’s lying,” said Fink. “She is using her power and her access to the media to destroy this agency in the media. This is a woman who has signed many seven-figure contracts. She knows what she signed.” [get your facts straight, lawyer, it was Portia who signed the contract, although Ellen’s name was on it] […]

Bush denied making threats. “I have not left any threatening messages at all,” she said. “The agency threatened to go to the media and I said that wouldn’t be a good idea. I told them there’s just no need to escalate this . . . They started this by wanting to take it public. I was the one who said, ‘Let’s talk about this.’ “

That’s not a threat, it’s the truth.  It hasn’t been good for her store or her agency.