Everyone knows how much Ellen DeGeneres loves to rock out and dance with her DJ Tony Okungbowa in the beginning of all her shows. But recently, Telepictures Productions was slapped with a lawsuit for using unlicensed songs.

Ellen has been dancing to songs during her show intro for years. I wonder why this lawsuit showed up now? Seems like something the record companies would have caught a long time ago. Maybe they are just hurting by the almighty crush of the internet and can use some cash. Remember that song back in 1979, Video Killed The Radio Star by the Buggles? Well the record companies must be singing, “The internet killed the record companies.”

Eonline reported:

Not everything can go Ellen DeGeneres’ way all the time.

It turns out that several major record companies think the dance-happy host rocks out a little too much and are suing Telepictures Productions over the unlicensed use of more than 1,000 songs on The Ellen DeGeneres Show.

You know how Ellen and in-house DJ Tony Okungbowa love their block-rockin’ beats. Per the suit, reps for Ellen said they don’t “roll that way” when the labels asked why they had not licensed the tunes.

But Telepictures doesn’t appear to be sweatin’ the copyright-infringement suit, telling reporters they have already been working with the plaintiffs to resolve their issues on “amicable and reasonable terms.”

The complaint, filed Wednesday in U.S. District Court in Nashville, does not name DeGeneres as a defendant. (Though theoretically this means she’s been dancing to the beat of somebody else’s drum all this time.)

Well I guess Telepictures isn’t worried, and I would imagine they have enough dough to make the record companies who filed the suits very happy.

Besides Ellen has bigger fish to fry these days. It was just announced that Ellen will be replacing Paula Abdul as the fourth judge on American Idol. Apparently, she is elated about being asked to join the panel, and said that she is not going to be mean like Simon Cowell, but rather will let him know when he is being too mean to contestants.

Sorry, I just have to say this. I don’t understand why Ellen was picked for judging American Idol besides her obvious love for music. It seems like everyone on the panel has had something to do with the music industry in their past and seems a little bit more savvy when it comes to judging?

Don’t get me wrong, I like Ellen. She has never bothered me, and I have always admired her courage — just wish she would talk to her Scientology buddies about leaving the cult) 

And as far as Idol goes…Randy what’s up dog? Jackson has always rubbed me the wrong way and I can’t stand Simon Cowell or the entire American Idol mania.

And remind me why Ryan Seacrest is famous again?

However, I have to give Paula Abdul kudos for her hits in her early 80’s singing career, (Opposites Attract, and Straight Up Now Tell Me) but sadly, he has become kind of ditzy over the years. Sorry Paula. 

Maybe Ellen will bring a sense of freshness and honesty to the show that they so desperately need. It seems that the panel has become bored out of their minds and less and less tolerant of contestants and it has become no secret that this show is steep with ”ringers” that are not the average joes off the street trying to make the rags to riches story become a reality. Even though Randy Jackson and Simon have been quoted as saying:

“Let’s sign them.” We’re out to find the best undiscovered [talent] and really herald that.”

Undiscovered talent?  HA!

There are handfuls of ringer contestants placed on this show which 
are actual struggling artists. Music executives are the ones deciding who should be the next star by marketing them on Idol. It doesn’t mean that these struggling artists don’t deserve a chance at stardom, but it makes the whole Idol contest process snarky and very deceptive.

Take David Archuleta for instance. At age 12 he won Star Search. During Idol’s first season, he met with finalists and sang for Kelly Clarkson and then within days it was arranged for him to be on the show.

Archuleta is only one example. There are MANY more ringers that have appeared on Idol who had previous talent, agents, careers, and gigs etc… Click here and feel silly for believing all the hype that surrounds Idol and their ability of actually finding undiscovered talent.

The truth is, that the days of Idol finding a total nobody off the street and having them make it big doesn’t exist any more. Which is why I wished this show was over long ago. It’s just not what it pretends to be. I think Paula Abdul got out just in time. I am waiting for her to write a tell-all book about Idol which would finally send Simon packing. *that would be totally dee-lish!*

American Idol will be starting up fresh this January with a brand new face on their panel. I doubt if Ellen is privy to all the ringers on the show. Why would they tell her? And if they did, would she agree with it? I would like to think she wouldn’t.

Again it’s not that these struggling artists don’t deserve a chance at making it big, or should I say bigger…. it  just seems wrong to promote the show as finding undiscovered talent. It is also sad for the other contestants, as it gives them even less of  a chance of making it in to the finals.

As quoted by Vote for the Worst  back in January of 2008:

So were the auditions just a formality this year? Because we’re fairly sure that if you have a Grammy winning duet with Alicia Keys, a band that opened for Britney Spears, or a prior relationship in show business, you probably weren’t waiting in line like the rest of the people who mistakenly assumed American Idol was a competition to find “the best undiscovered talent in America”. Then again, we all know what happens when you assume.

Count me out as far as tuning in to this “struggling artist ringer showcase”. Sorry Ellen, but at the very least, I hope you have a lot of fun on Idol cheering on the next pre-picked ringer!

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.

So here’s the deal…many in Hollyweird are upset because Ellen chose to cross the picket line and continue to do her show.  Names like “scab” are being thrown around.  There’s even been a former writer telling the world what a horrible boss she was while shooting her sitcom.  And maybe she was…after all, she is an actor, and they are paid to project a good image in public.  But is what Ellen did really so bad?

Normally, I’d say yes.  No crossing the picket line.  But, this is more than just writers striking for their fair share of residuals.  This is affecting people who aren’t striking, but who are being put out of work because of the strike.  You’ve got makeup artists, hairdressers, gaffers, cameramen, set designers, and all the so-called “little people” who work behind the scenes to consider as well.  And it is those people whom Ellen has said she is going back to work for…which is exactly what the studio bigwigs want her to do.

Of course, it is worth mentioning that Ellen is legally bound by the no-strike clause mentioned above.  Basically, she couldn’t strike even if she wanted to.  She could be in big legal trouble if she did, and she already has to make up one day because of the day she took off for the strike.  Could she afford to break her contract?  Perhaps.  Could the below-the-line people afford to lose the show?  Probably not.

So why are the writers striking, anyway, if most of them make more money than most of us ever will?  This post over at MetaFilter by a poster named “headspace” puts it pretty succinctly (all emphasis theirs):

As a working screenwriter, we need the strike, and aspiring scabs might want to really look at why this strike is getting ready to happen before they offer their services.

If you write an episode of Metafilter Towers, you get paid according to scale for the script; you get paid according to scale for residuals when the show goes into reruns. You always wrote the script, the show is still making money, consequently, you’re entitled to some of that. That’s the current contract.

But TV isn’t just first run and reruns anymore. People can also watch episodes online- free to watch, courtesy of ad revenue. The actors get a sliver of the ad revenue for online display; the producers get a sliver of the ad revenue for online display. The writers currently don’t get any of that ad revenue.

Because television is going for the value-added model, Metafilter Towers also has a website that features along with the usual forum, gallery, and fantoys, mini-episodes which complement the aired episodes. The actors get paid scale for appearing in these mini-sodes; the writers may or may not get paid for writing these mini-sodes because there’s no established scale for them.

And fans are collectors, so they like to buy the episodes from iTunes. The actors get a percentage of that purchase, the producers get a percentage of that purchase and the writers probably get nothing, because there’s no established scale for that.

At the end of the season, Metafilter Towers will be on an exclusive 7 DVD set with outtakes and behind the scenes documentaries, whee! The actors get a percentage of all sales, the producers get a percentage of all sales. The writers get a one time license fee.

Since Metafilter Towers is a hit, it’s going to sell four million copies this year- the actors get X% of four million copies’ worth; the producers get X% of four million copies’ worth. And next year, it sells another couple of million, so the actors continue to get paid for their work, the producers continue to get paid for their work, but the writers got a one time licensing fee.

This isn’t a strike over champagne in the writers’ room and caviar for lunch every day. It’s a strike for basic rights- the producers alone aren’t entitled to ALL the profits from online distribution and DVD sales, and they’re not entitled to additional writing for free.

A writer’s contract is specific- she will get scale or X amount for Y number of episodes, including all rewrites and polishes on that number of scripts. If you write one episode of Metafilter Towers, you should get paid for writing one. If you write fifteen mini-sodes for the website, you should get paid for writing fifteen mini-sodes for the website.

Nobody likes a strike, but we need this one to establish basic guidelines for digital media, and to amend the home video clause now that television shows are available on home media. Producers claim they have no idea how much money they’re making on online display (which is untrue, they publish their stats to brag about them,) and they claim that DVD sales only recoup the expenses of making the show in the first place which again, is generally untrue.

Shows profited long before DVDs, on first run ad revenue, and worldwide and syndication rights, which they still earn now. (And it’s even easier to make that money now because you no longer need 100 episodes to syndicate; cable partnerships and short syndication deals are the norm now. Profit starts almost immediately now.)

So, yes, aspiring scabs, it would be a great time to get started in screenwriting if you don’t mind working for free, and watching other people profit from your work long after your one-time licensing fee is gone. But don’t forget- everybody else (even the producers we’re negotiating with right now) are unionized, too. They may love your scabby scripts today, but when the strike is over, you may find your career in the industry over completely.

Let’s dissect this…if you worked for a factory, would you want to work your regular salary for your regular hours making your regular parts, but then a new state-of-the-art computerized vehicle comes out, and your boss wants you to make state-of-the-art parts for it…for free?  Or say you are a checkout person at the local grocery store.  Would you want to get paid for working your normal hours doing your specified job, but if a product comes through that is “new and improved”, you wouldn’t get paid for the time you spent handling it?  Or imaging you’re a house painter…you get paid for painting white houses, but not paid for painting green houses?  Or if you’re a landscaper, you get paid for planting flowers, but not evergreen trees?

But, think about this…every strike that is put on in this country hurts more than just the strikers.  When members of an auto company strike, it hurts more than just the company they are striking against.  It hurts those in other shops, perhaps non-union ones, who make parts for the striking workers.  It hurts those who sell cars.  It hurts those who want to buy cars.  People are put out of work who have nothing to do with the original strike.  How is this strike different than any other that goes on in this country, other than it is put on by those in the entertainment industry, and the picket lines are manned by people who make more than I’m liable to see in a five-year period?

And let’s talk bout that for a minute.  There is the idea out there that writers in Hollyweird are paid extravagant amounts of money, and some are.  But figures I’ve seen range from anywhere from $5000 to $200,000 a year for writers.  And I’d guess that’s about right, considering when you’re new you’re starting at the low end of the scale, just like any other job.  Then you have production people, who make anywhere from $10,000 to $75,000 a year.  In the Midwest, $75K is nothing to sneeze at, but out in California it’s propbably hard to make a decent living on that much, let alone save money for the future or for such a time as when you might be unemployed.  So for those on the low end of the totem pole, Internet and DVD residuals are probably the difference between making the mortgage payment and losing their house.

And who says that just because someone makes a large amount of money for their job, that they shouldn’t be paid fairly for the amount of work they do?  After all, if they are paid fairly, with a good contract in place, the people just starting out at a lower salary will be fairly paid according to that contract as well.

Basically, to get back to the original point…while Ellen might not want to go back to work, she has to honor her contract just like anyone else.  There’s a no-strike clause.  Pretty self-explanatory.  It may suck, but it is in the contract.  To lose her show may not hurt her financially, but it certainly would hurt those who don’t have multi-million dollar accounts to fall back on.  And Ellen isn’t the only one crossing the picket line…other workers held by the same contract are having to do the same.  For Ellen to continue to sit out in defiance of her no-strike contract could cost her the show, and then there will be no job for the writers to return to.  The head honchos have them by the proverbial balls.

But, like I pointed out in a previous post, this is probably what the head honchos want…this is exactly what they are counting on.  They know that people who work together care about each other, and nobody wants to be the reason that someone else is fired, strike or no strike.  The pressure is on from the major studios for writers to come back early, with little to no changes to their contracts, as a guilt offering to preserve other people’s jobs.  Mark my words, more people than just Ellen will be forced back to work out of loyalty to their coworkers…what they are striking for is right, but right don’t pay the mortgage or feed their children.  It’s the proverbial rock and hard place.

While the networks might be trying to find replacement hosts for their late-night gabfests, I doubt they will find any takers…people just will not do it.  Plus, let’s face it, who will want to appear on a show with a replacement host during a strike?  Dave, Jay, Jimmy, Conan, and others may soon find themselves faced with the same decision, Ellen just did it first.  Unpopular, perhaps, but in the long run it just might keep all the below-the-line people in work until such time as a decision can be reached.

And let’s remember this…no less a titan than the late great Johnny Carson (my personal most favorite talk show host of all time) had to return to work early during the last big writer’s strike, in 1988, to save the jobs of the crew of The Tonight Show…the behind-the-scenes people without whom he would have had no show.

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!

Rattle Dem Bones Skeleton.

LED Fog Lights.

Pimp Daddy Mooch-A-Lot.

1957 Edsel.  “The Thrill Starts With The Grill“

Ethel Merman.

Zombie Raccoon: Mascara’s Revenge

Britney, The “Oops, I Did It Again And Forgot My Pants” Era.

STD Treatment Barbie and Estilo Detroit Ken.

Benjamin Franklin.

The Statue Of Slutity.

Sorry, I couldn’t find one of Paris in costume, so you’ll have to settle for her regular clothes.

Trick or treat
Smell my feet
Gimme something good to eat!

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.)

Marina is very upset and says she is “deeply disturbed” by their actions.  She says Cheryl (the hairdresser) must fill out an adoption application and go through the procedures involved.  She says Cheryl can fill out the application online if she wants to; however, until it was accepted, Iggy must be returned.  She says that if Iggy is returned the next day (October 14), it “will not prejudice her application.”  Portia replies and says, “Your email is truly heartbreaking to many people,” and asks for the store’s address and phone number.

At this point, Cheryl emails Marina and gives her some information and says, “I met Iggy at Ellen [sic] house a few times when she realize that Wolf [Ellen's other dog] was Not bonding to Iggy…”  She also says she would be happy to answer any questions or fill out any applications and gives Marina her phone number.

(If you recall, it is at this point that Marina called Ellen and started screaming at her on the phone, and threatening to call the media if her instructions were not followed.)

Marina emails Cheryl and says that she has spoken to Ellen and Portia, and Iggy is to be returned to her that day (October 14).  She invites Cheryl to fill out an application and says if she does, they can proceed with the adoption “if all is well”.  (Remember, Marina had said if Iggy was returned October 14 that it would not prejudice her application.)  She also wants Cheryl to bring everyone to her store (on the videos, Ruby indicated they were a bit reluctant to do so, since the store was quite a long drive away, they would have to pack up everyone including both dogs, and it was then that the decision was made to have an in-home consultation).  Marina also states that “[Portia] violated the contract she signed and broke our trust.  We are more than willing to consider you as a home for Iggy but not without meeting you and not without our process being followed.”

You know the rest.  To make a long story short, the family filled out the application and set up a time for Marina to come see them later that day for an home inspection.  When Marina showed up, she not only didn’t look at either the application or the home, but instead went straight to the backyard, scooped up Iggy, and refused to put him down for two hours until the police checked the microchip and found it still registered to MaM (this a month after the adoption took place).  The police later said they might have made a mistake letting Marina take Iggy at this point, but they let her go, and she ran up the street with Iggy in her arms.

So Portia made a mistake in signing the contract without reading it closely.  Ellen and Portia made a mistake in that they didn’t exactly follow the agency’s procedures.  Marina made a mistake in trying to adhere too obsessively to her strict rules and regulations and in threatening to go to the media first.  Perhaps Cheryl’s family made a mistake in not going to the store and instead arranging an in-home consultation.  Marina made a mistake in swooping in and “rescuing” Iggy from what was surely a fate worse than death with a loving family ready to give a homeless dog a good home.  And the LAPD made a mistake in not investigating further while they were at the house.

Mistakes were made all around.  Should Ellen and Portia worked more with Iggy in trying to get him to adapt to his new home and to Wolf (her other dog…apparently the trouble was with him, not the cats as previously reported)?  Perhaps…but sometimes that just is not possible, for whatever reason.  They found what they believed was a win-win for everyone, and that was to give Iggy to a family who were willing to give him a good home.  It wasn’t until Marina got all uptight about her rules and regulations and procedures and polices that things got funky.  Remember, at this time MaM were also operating under a suspended license, which could make the contract void.

Should these agencies screen applicants?  Of course, it’s the responsible thing to do.  But this brings up the question…did she screen Ellen and Portia?  Could Marina have foreseen the problems they would have in adapting this dog to their home?  Why did she sometimes bend her “no kids under fourteen” rule?  Why didn’t she do a home check for Ellen and Portia?  Perhaps some of these problems could have been nipped in the bud had she done so.  Her behavior borders on obsession, in that she believes she is the only one capable of deciding who is perfect for an animal and only if her exacting rules are followed.

Throughout these emails, one theme is very clear…Marina is ticked that her policies were not followed, her rules were not adhered to, her trust was violated, her contract was not followed, her processes must be followed.  At no point does she ask if Iggy is happy, if he is safe, if he is getting along with his new people.  Marina took the focus from Iggy and made it personal…when it really had nothing to do with her.  She flat refused to even consider adopting him to Cheryl because of personal issues with Ellen.

She lied to the family…she got the family to fill out an application and they set up a time for an in-home consultation, only to rush in and grab Iggy like he was in mortal danger.  She refused to put him down for two hours, with no food, water, or potty break.  She told the family that Iggy would be returned to them once the application was reviewed, but when the person with her tried to explain this to them, she was stopped in mid-sentence (it is on the video).

I still hope someone investigates MaM.  The woman keeps dogs in cages, which is no better than the shelter from which she gets them or any mall pet store.  In the video from Access Hollywood, she comes out from her home, and you can hear many dogs barking, which makes me wonder how many animals one can legally have at one’s home.  And I am also wondering about the animals kept alive through medication and their quality of life.  I’d love to see some sort of reports on these things, to prove or disprove one way or another.

This could have all been avoided had Marina said, “I am not happy with what you did, but since it is done, let me meet with the new family and review their application, so we can work this out for the best interests of Iggy.”  Because it was never supposed to be about Marina, it was supposed to be about the dog.

Wayne Pacelle, President and CEO of the Humane Society of the United States, said it best:

They may have been right on the letter of the law, but not in the spirit of the mission of Mutts & Moms. [...]

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.

And that’s the bottom line.

You can read my reports on this here.

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.

Like I’ve said before, I understand why agencies like this have rules about giving the pet away.  I know that entirely too often pets end up abused and abandoned, and end up back at the shelter or homeless.  I, as an animal lover, never want to see that happen.  I understand why they have to have rules about children in the home.  But, also as I have said before, the easiest way to have remedied this without any hard feelings was to let the new family fill out an application and be approved.  Simple, easy, and a happy ending for all concerned.  But instead, Marina Baktis chose to take things in an entirely different route.  You can see video of the event here.

In the first video, Ruby tells that Marina said they were just going to do a house inspection, and asked her family to fill out an online application, which Ruby described as “longer than my school’s application…it went into specific detail.”  Ellen says that previous to giving Iggy to the family, she gave a $600 donation to Mutts and Moms, paid for obedience class, and paid for neutering for Iggy.  After Marina arrived and swept through the house without so much as a glance at it, she was holding the dog and would not let it down as the argument escalated in the back yard.  Ellen tells TMZ that “[Marina] keeps dogs in cages…so she’s going to go put it back in a cage…she is angry with me, how dare I not follow her rules?”

In the second video, the mom says that she filled out the online application and Marina said she was coming over to do a home inspection.  If there was a hard and fast rule about “no children under fourteen”, why did Marina ask for the family to fill out an application?  Also in the second video, Ellen said that Marina both emailed her and called her, threatening her, screaming at her, saying she would call the press, on Saturday afternoon.  This was BEFORE Ellen’s publicist spoke with Marina.  Far from being the poor, picked on pet rescuer, Marina fired the first volley.

In the last video, you hear someone (presumably Vanessa, the other owner) say that she (Marina) is “telling you she’s going to return the dog as soon as the ap-” when someone steps up and stops her.  Marina continually walks away and is holding the dog like someone is going to hurt it, like she’s the only one in the world who can protect this dog from the evil girl approaching.  And don’t forget…she has held the dog for two hours now with no food, no water, and no potty break.  You can clearly see on the video that the dog wants DOWN.

My personal opinion, and I do have one, is this:  Marina appears to have a form of animal hoarding behavior, which is in itself a form of obsessive/compulsive behavior, disguised as animal rescuing.  In both the video taken by Access Hollywood and in the videos taken by TMZ, she exhibits classic signs.  In them, she repeatedly tells of how all she wants to do is save dogs, how she is the only one who can understand just who is competent to have a dog, she is the only one who truly loves these dogs, she is the only one who can take care of these dogs.  She has the hugely long application to fill out to make sure that you are the perfect person to take care of this dog, she has all these rules and regulations to follow, and if you get something “wrong” (in her eyes) then forget it…how dare you!  That is classic behavior.  Here is a quote from the AH video:

“I [Marina] have a bunch of dogs that need to be fed and cared for, and we have some dogs that are injured, and we have no money, and today because of all this, because I got threats that the animals were going to be hurt, and I knew I’m gonna be running in and out and not have the time, I had to take dogs to my vet, so that my vet could care for them.  Well, that costs money, when I could be caring for them here, but to keep them safe, and to keep them well-medicated so I don’t forget because some of the dogs need medication or they will die, you know, well they had to go to my vet today.  Who’s gonna help me pay for that?  No one.  Do you see what I mean?  So that’s why, now, it’s gone too far, I can’t, I can’t go back, I can’t, you know, and the rest of it I can’t comment on.”

In the background you can hear dogs barking.  This is on a residential street.  Honest questions:  Are there city ordinances which dictate how many pets one can have at one’s home in a residential area?  She said she has “a bunch of dogs”.  How much is a bunch?  Two, three, five, ten?  Is she actively attempting to find them homes?  Are they living in crates at her home?  And just what sort of medication are we talking about here?  Some animals do become diabetic, some do need insulin and/or other medications daily…but just what sort of meds and illness are we truly dealing with?  Is she keeping animals alive who probably should be humanely put down?  There does come a point when keeping an animal alive is just cruel and selfish, if it is too sick to have a good quality of life.  Is this the case?  And just what sort of qualifications are needed to be an “animal rescuer” anyway?  Are these professionally trained people?  I know there are reputable rescue organizations out there, so how do you know which is which?

To repeatedly reiterate just how maligned she is, to repeatedly point out just how she is all alone in this fight, to make a point of saying  just how much she alone cares even though she doesn’t have the money, all the while holding Winky the one-eyed dog that she had to rush inside to get for her media-op….well, that’s manipulating people’s tender feelings towards pets.  And yes…it is classic animal hoarding behavior.  She truly believes that if it were not for her, Iggy would have suffered some fate worse than death, and she alone swooped down and saved him.  For people like this, it is all about them, it is never about the animals.

The family attempted to follow the rules Marina herself laid down.  They filled out an online application and opened their home for an inspection, as Marina herself asked them to do.  Marina is the one who had a beef with Ellen and chose to manipulate this family into thinking they could keep Iggy, when she knew all along she was going to take the dog away, back to its cage.  She knows that she could have handled things differently, but she didn’t, and now this is the result.

I think Marina knew all along that she was never going to return this dog to this family, but people who threatened violence against her did not help Ellen’s cause any at all.  You didn’t change Marina’s mind, and all you did was make yourself look like a fool.

You know, I think Ellen would be the last person in the world who would endorse violence in her name.  Stop and think for a moment….Ellen is a TELEVISION PERSONALITY.  She is a real person, but she lives in your TV.  She does good things for people, but 99.9% of her viewing audience will never meet her or know her on a personal basis.  I personally think these actions say a lot about you, Overzealous Fan.  Maybe you need to turn off the TV every once in a while.

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.