Posted on 10/17/2007 11:39:20 AM PDT by John Jorsett
ELLEN DeGeneres may be crying in public over the dog she gave up, but her flack, Kelly Bush, is doing the TV host's dirty work behind the scenes.
Yesterday on her show, DeGeneres bawled over Iggy, the mutt she adopted a month ago, then passed off to her hairdresser two weeks later, claiming the pup didn't get along with her cats.
[snip]
But Keith Fink, a lawyer for Mutts & Moms, tells Page Six's Marianne Garvey it's all an act. Behind the scenes, DeGeneres' publicist was calling the small agency and threatening it, says Fink, who played a vicious voice-mail message for us:
"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."
"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."
According to Fink, after yesterday's show aired, Ellen's fans bombarded Mutts & Moms' owner, Marina Batkis, with threatening calls to "burn her house down."
[snip]
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.' "
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
Carolyn
In the meantime, while the “adults” squabble - two kids and a puppy are stuck in the middle.
Oh those loving, caring,kind and considerate Liberals. They are just sooooo understanding.
Wow, what is up with this? I saw a tape of her bawling, (on mute), did the dog die?
More fallout from legalized adoptions for lesbiens/homosexuals
I’m not really an Ellen fan but I’ve dealt with some of these ‘adoption agencies’ before. They can take their authority too farat times. At least the ones I dealt with. Very officious and kooky bunch. And so, my dog came from the SPCA. So did my cats.
They need to resolve this and give the unwanted dog back to the children who obviously were thrilled to have it. I think they are trying to squeeze her for some $$$
If ANYBODY ever pulls that crap with me, I'm gonna say, "No, do you have amnesia? Do we need to call an ambulance?"..................
Ellen Degenerate has some real mental problems.
Wait a minute.........Ellen has a HAIRDRESSER???
They should let the two little girls keep the puppy.
They got to know and love that little dog for two weeks, and I remember myself at that age with my dog, it would have killed me to lose him like that.
For the life of me, I cannot figure out why this idiotic rescue group has a problem giving a puppy to a home with kids that love it, unless it’s just the typical Liberal mindset, that they must control everything and everyone.
Ed
I don’t pay any attention to that blatant, man-hating homosexual who wears more pant suits than Hillary. When she started wearing her perversions on her sleeves and rubbed her “husband/wife” in America’s face, I stopped paying any attention to him/her/it.
Totally agree. These ‘rescues’ are some of the most radical, weird groups and people you could ever deal with. They should’ve “interviewed” the people that got the dog and established if it was a suitable home for it to stay there; not just take the dog because they weren’t the originators of the adoption.
Krazies.
As I said on another thread, my husband and I went to a humane society to adopt an older, large dog for our farm. When the morons found out that the dog would be an outside farm dog we were informed that we couldn’t adopt it, he had to be an inside house dog. This was not a no kill shelter and since big older dogs are difficult to place, it’s easy to figure out what happened to the dog.
The worker very proudly told us that she has 8 big dogs, all kept in her house.
I was on the board of a humane society in orlando and on a board of the local animal control.
They are almost ALL nutcases.
For anyone wanting to adopt any pet from a shelter: lie through your teeth. They would rather a dog or cat go completely cage crazy or be euthanized than to veer from their stupid rules. Such as, letting a cat go outside (which I let both of mine in and out) or making a dog stay outside.
Now, with that said, I believe dogs and cats should be able to come in and out, especially if they don’t have securely weather-covered areas with good food and water.
Is anyone else getting a bunch of error pages when posting or clicking on a link?
better dogs and cats than humans.
I live on a large farm, with many barns and doghouses. In the summer the dogs swim in the pool or stock tank to cool off. In the winter if it’s really cold I put them in my barn with a heater. (this is Texas so that’s a rare occurance). My large dogs do not get to come in the house but I can assure you, they are happy and well cared for. My barn cats don’t get to come in the house either but if you tried to make one, you’d end up in the hospital getting stitches.
Yes, and it’s driving me nuts.
I feel sorry for the dog - bounced around back and forth -
Carolyn
Same view here.
“Put the dog in a loving home”. Hmmm, isn’t that the line they use to justify Gay adoption of children?
She adopted a rescue dog... the typical rescue dog contract says that if you give up the dog, you must give it back to the agency, or let thme know who has it so that they can make sure it is a good home (just like the investigation they did on you before they gave you the dog). Ellen gave it away, and didn’t let the agency know. The agency took the dog, in accordance with the contract Ellen signed, and Ellen’s hairdresser is sad. That made Ellen sad, and she cried on camera.
I kid you not, THAT is exactly what it’s about. No opportunity to check those very things, as well as the house, the doghouse, (required) as well as it’s contents, the ability of the family to spay/neuter, all sorts of things. These liberals want the power to say where the dog goes, OR euthanasia.
***For the life of me, I cannot figure out why this idiotic rescue group has a problem giving a puppy to a home with kids that love it, unless it’s just the typical Liberal mindset, that they must control everything and everyone.***
Has anyone considered that the agency might have a clause in the contract that says if Ellen decided NOT to keep the dog she must inform them so that they can make sure it goes to a good home? Their purpose is to protect the pet. Also, how about people who prove they can provide an animal with a good home, and then sell them to labs to experiment on them? Or just hand them off to anyone who’ll take it off their hands?
“...better dogs and cats than humans.”
Yes...imagine...
“***For the life of me, I cannot figure out why this idiotic rescue group has a problem giving a puppy to a home with kids that love it, unless it’s just the typical Liberal mindset, that they must control everything and everyone.***”
I’ll bet that if the parents of these kids went to the agency that they could get the dog legally.
I take dog rescues to seriously to kid about it, my friend.
So what is the problem with them giving the dog back to the little kids? This isn't rocket science.
Yes
The agency has a policy of not giving small dogs to families with children under 14. For the safety and well-being of the animal.
It was not DeGeneres' decision to make.
Since Ellen is the gay one, does that mean she chose a straight hairdresser?
Under the age of 14? Whenever I read about animal abuse, setting dogs and cats on fire, hanging them, throwing them out of cars while on a country road, etc., the perp is never under the age of 14.
Under the age of 14? Whenever I read about animal abuse, setting dogs and cats on fire, hanging them, throwing them out of cars while on a country road, etc., the perp is never under the age of 14.
“I have not left any threatening messages”
“We are filing a legal case against you. We are going to be contacting the media.”
That’s a threat and you’re a liar lady.
Uh, yeah...I'm going to have to disagree with you on that. Their purpose is to make more adoptions and MONEY.
Once the sale of the puppy was finalized, the dog became her property, which made it her decision
There are things like contracts and private property rights to be considered.
First, all private rescues own their animals outright.
When someone, like Ellen, wants to 'adopt' one of their animals, they must sign a contract. The terms of these contracts spell out that you, the adopter, does not own the animal. Instead, you keep it at the pleasure of the rescue. Period.
These types of cases come up in court all the time. Not surprisingly, the courts usually side with the rescues because the only excuse someone like Ellen can offer is that they either didn't read and understand the terms of the 'adoption' contract, or they did and willfully violated the terms.
So, either you believe in contracts and private property rights or you don't.
If you don't want to adhere to the terms of the rescue's contract, you can always go down to the animal pound or to a pet store or to a private breeder to buy an animal outright.
But, if you go to a private rescue and sign the contract, you're bound by the terms of the contract.
If you violate it by giving the animal away, the rescue is within their rights to claim their property back, even if it means going to the new owner's home to get it, as happened here.
As I write, this happens all the time.
I encountered this very same type of behavior a few years back with an organization working out of the local PetSmart...I was willing to adopt a cat, but had to answer a lot of ridiculous questions and then when I thought it was all settled, I got a call telling me that I wasnt' going to be able to adopt the cat because they didn't think it would get along with the one I already had. I was thinking to myself...what a bunch of nut jobs!
The puppy wasn't sold. It was adopted. There's a legal distinction. In so doing, the rescue did not surrender their ownership of the animal. They only agreed to let Ellen take care of the animal as long as Ellen took care of it according to the terms spelled out in the adoption contract.
Well, I believe in private property, buy I don't believe in contracts where a seller (and yes, an animal adoption is a sale of property) decides that they can still manage the property they are selling. It is an outright oxymoron. Something is either sold or it isnt. A item cannot be sold and still belong to the seller. Such clauses should be voided in court unless the contract specifically states the item is a rental. I don't believe an adoption contract says ""rental"on it.
Yup. These private property and contract rights sure are a nutty concept, all right.
In truth, most private rescues operate this way because that's the only legal power they have to guarantee that the cats they adopt aren't going to make dog-fighting bait for BadNewz Kennels.
If they were to give up their private property rights, then find out that you gave your kitty to Vick for dog-bait, they would have no legal recourse to save the kitty from that fate.
But, if they retain ownership rights and find out that you've given away the animal, then they can go and reclaim their animal to make sure it only goes to someone who wants the cat and will take care of it according to what they think is best.
If you don't like it, you don't have to adopt from them. You can go to the local pound, pet store or breeder and buy the animal outright.
E. Degenerate’s latest ploy was the staged crying jag to garner the sympathy vote from TV viewers that watch this trash. I guarantee this ploy was cooked by her handlers so she can escape any negative fallout.
No. If you read the terms of most private adoption/rescues, you're paying for the priviledge of keeping their animal for them.
That's why they call it an 'adoption' and not a 'sale'.
The terms specifically say that they are not transferring ownership to the adopter. They specifically say that the rescue retains ownership and that the adopter agrees to the terms in order to take possession of the animal.
It's akin to loaning someone your car. You aren't renting it, nor are you selling it or giving it away. You're loaning it for an unlimited period of time so long as they adhere to the terms of the contract.
These types of cases come up all the time and the courts routinely side with the rescues because their contracts are legal. The only thing the adopter can say is that they either didn't understand the terms of the contract or they willfully violated them. There is only one conclusion --they lose the case and possession of the animal.
The case I'm most familiar with concerns a parrot adoption with nearly the exact same circumstances as this case. When the rescue took the new family to court, they won and got to keep the bird.
Oh, I’m sure it was a legitimate contract, but it’s insane not to give those little girls their puppy back.
I believe in contracts and the law, but in today’s PC and liberal mindset contracts and the law supercede common sense, as is the case with this little puppy and the two girls.
It’s ridiculous, I believe, to “rent” these animals out, or license them, as apparently software is licensed, so anytime the goofy PC rescue group wants to reclaim their rented puppy they can do so without consideration of the feelings of the little dogs or what’s best for the puppy.
Mindsets like this are what is killing this once-great country of ours.
Ed
You're falling, understandably, for the heartstring-tugging tale Degeneres wants you to fall for.
Look, we don't know if the hairdresser's home is a "good home" for this dog. What if the hairdresser and her two girls (no husband mentioned) live in a tiny apartment?
If they do, that wouldn't be workable for a dog that we already KNOW is is very active and very energetic and needs lots of space --as well as loads of time and attention.
And just having "kids that love it [the dog]" isn't enough. What's going to happen to the dog when the girls are at school, and the mom is at work all day long?
Like as not, with nobody home, the pup would shred every bit of furniture in the hairdresser's apartment. Then the hairdresser would resort to chaining the poor dog to a fence in some tiny backyard --or worse, sell the dog to someone who was even less capable of caring properly for it.
That's probably why the adoption agency took the dog back:
-Degeneres had the space, the money, and the staff to take care of such an active dog.
- The hairdresser probably does not.
Adoptions have conditions. For DeGeneres to have her crying-game meltdown on her show is a misuse of the airwaves to intimidate the pet agency. The tv affiliates have an actionable case against her for threatening their broadcast license. I don’t like pet adoption outfits either but DeGeneres is the manipulator and looney in this story. Gavel down.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.