Wednesday, July 14, 2010

Stop the UHaul, Brenda Barnette, You Won't Be Here That Long

Well, Barnette blew it before the City Council today. Bill Dyer was the only person there in favor. He made a big issue of her being from an open-door shelter. Guess the ADL-LA lost their balls and didn't show. Another speaker pointed out that Barnette's claim to fame, the Seattle Humane Society, is most definitely NOT an open door shelter. It is stated on their website that you have to have an appointment to have a pet considered for admission. When Barnette later disputed it, she said that they took in 'any animal with an emergency condition" so that made them open entry. Our Council looked shocked, wonder why???

Janice Hahn asked her about her plans for enforcement and Barnette responded that she would be relying on LAPD. You should have seen their faces!!! Alarcon started off on that and told her that LAPD is "busy" and that LAAS IS a law-enforcement agency and she is expected to perform those services. She said she would set priorities. DUH!! And what might those be, Barnette, learning how thing works maybe? You ain't in Kansas, Barnette.

Reyes later asked her what ideas she had about abandoned animals left behind in low income areas when people move. She said the LAAS has a Small Animal Rescue Team and they could go in and get them. His mouth fell open. Then she added that the rescuers could also go get them. Of course LAAS can't give rescuers permission to enter private property and can you imagine the liability? This woman is beyond stupid.

The Council was a little stunned. They weren't pleased but they were polite. I don't think she'll be here long. She is not a nice person. She is not a friendly person. The staff will hate her. She will get frustrated because she will constantly be told she can't do things without Council approval, and I get the feeling she has a short fuse. I think she'll blow up. She has no experience dealing with a city council or governmental budgets, none.

At least I know that the Council did read what was sent to them, they are paying attention. And when the time comes, they have set the stage to blast the Mayor for his bevy of mistakes concerning animal control. Yep, the battle lines were drawn today and now war is declared. The Council has covered their asses and are leaving the Mayor out there to take all the blame for this mistake. Can anyone say high and dry?

70 comments:

Anonymous said...

This is so completely typical.

Brenda Barnette is yet another AKC scammer. She's a greedy, lying, selfish piece of garbage who knows full well her under-the-table breeding income and AKC dog show adventures are paid for with puppy mill blood money and the suffering of dogs.

She knows, they all know it. They lobby FOR the abuse (and just about every other kind of abuse) so they can keep playing dog show and making money for themselves.

They lobby WITH the dog fighters so that can go on, and the research bunchers, and the exotic animal breeder & roadside circus torturers, and every other backwoods, uncivilized nut.

If it's animal torture and there's a buck to be made, the AKC and Barnette love it.

Brenda Barnette is just another Patti Strand, a lying degenerate. An outcast. A loser.

These women are all the same. Unaccomplished zeros who cannot tell the truth, attack sane people, and who are obsessed with furthering and increasing animal abuse.

She's there to ignore animal control laws and help the puppy mill breeders and dog fighters expand exponentially. The shelters will explode, that is except when Barnette is giving shelter animals to hoarders or puppy mills, or the fighters.

The problem is that someone psychotic enough to lobby for the AKC and hang out with the Patti Strands of the world is socially unacceptable.

They have the Winograd disease. Big ego, small mind, big mouth, lots of lies.

Intelligent people don't fall for this, which is why Winograd is an outcast among outcasts, and doesn't get the job done.

The real issue here is why terrorists like the ADL-LA and the Rick Berman crowd got their plant in there by the Mayor.

Did Rick Berman give the Mayor a big contribution? Did money change hands?

Barnette is a dope who even embarasses the dopes.

Anonymous said...

Isn't the budget for animal control getting cut yet again? Did they close some of the shelters?

BoardWatch said...

Only someone who was sitting there could have notice all of this detail. So is this Dan Guss's blog? Why be anonymous?

HonestyHelps said...

How dare you, Board Watch, accuse me of being Daniel Guss. Read my blog a little more carefully. Why is it that with you "No Kill'ers" you always want to know who someone is as if that makes a diffrerence? The truth is the fucking truth no matter who tells it.

Anonymous said...

liThe council meeting was on the internet and chanel 35. You didn't have to sit there to watch it. I watched it from my house on my computer. You should know better, Jeff.

HonestyHelps said...

Know better than what, Jeff? You make no sense with that statement.

Anonymous said...

Are you referring to the Board Watch comment that you had to be there rather than watching on TV, Jeff? And from that, Board Watch immediately thinks that you are someone else. How many times, Honesty, have you been accused of being someone else? The no kill nutters always want to know who a person is as if that makes a difference in telling the truth.

HonestyHelps said...

Yes, Anon, I have been accused of being a dozen different people. I have never asked someone who they are, never accused someone of being someone else, because it makes no difference to me. There's only two things that matter, whether that person is telling the truth or whether that person is telling a lie.

cravendesires said...

anyone with ties to the AKC should not even be put on the list of candidates to consider for a position in a municipal shelter!

this sounds really bad for barnette. how long do you think it will take the city council to officially reject this evil woman?
(i don't get channel 35)

HonestyHelps said...

Not just ties, a legislative rep, meaning she fights for the same things and against the same things the AKC does, like puppy mills regulation. She told the press that her involvement with the AKC is limited to pushing a button on her keyboard. Yeah, right, and I have a nice bridge for sale.

She has already started a list of lies by denying that she is a "breeder". She resigned from her kennel club, duh, a little too late for that.

Let's see, it took the Mayor over three years to fire Boks and Barnette actually comes with more baggage than Boks. I predict that Barnette will opt to leave, she has no clue about working in government, she has no clue about working with the union, she has no clue about doing a budget, she has no clue about the Council making the decisions, but I do believe she is one that knows how to save her ass. I say less than a year, just long enough for her to find another position available. Or rather have the Whino find a position available for her. I should write a book.

Anonymous said...

So who is this Board Watch person, another Whinonette?

BoardWatch said...

Hmmm,

I don't get those reaction shots from Councilmembers on my TV/computer-although I agree they were not too impressed with her answers. Actually , it does matter who's telling the truth or who's telling less than the truth.

I trust this woman about as far as I can throw her boat across Lake Union. This town and this council loves good political players. A real person who would do real work to change things here is not desired by this mayor, this council and most of this town. So what did you expect? You need only witness the fixed/dictated elections on the Board of Commissioners to see that. Tony V and Bickhart have been keeping Riordan out of the presidency for years. Now they have installed Ramsayer and Ponce (don't ask).

Elections are, by charter to take place at the next meeting. Last year they put them off until Ramsayer could be appointed and then "assigned" as president.

Let's be clear, I am not a worshiper of Winograd by any stretch of the imagination.

Oh..what's a "Pit Nutter?"

-Jeff

HonestyHelps said...

So, now I see that you are Jeff de la Rosa. You aren't gonna like my definition of a "pit nutter". If you have the time for this link, it explains it much better than I can www.DogsBite.ORG

A pit nutter is one who defends pit bulls at any and all costs, placing pits above human life, and stays in denial of what a pit was bred to do and does do daily, maul and kill. A pit nutter is one who doesn't give a shit about the damage pits are doing as long as they can feel "special" owning a dangerous animal. I would say that fits you to a tee, Jeff/Stu.

Anonymous said...

Boy, Honesty, this Jeff guy is wading into deep do-do it appears. I'm surprised you haven't read him the riot act already. Stay tuned, I'm sure you will before it is over.

Anonymous said...

This Jeff guy seems to skirt the issue constantly referring to others as the problem. Maybe they are, maybe they aren't, I don't know. But he needs to stick to the issue here and that issue is Barnette.

BoardWatch said...

You folks in here sounds just like the Teabaggers with your pet names for different groups, etc. Not very interesting.

Above human life? At all costs? No, I don't subscribe to that--not that I care about what label you may put on me. I'm not going to get into a pit bull debate with you here in a comment section where your text is unlimited and mine is not. I've known good ones and bad ones and I don't think you'll find anyone worth believing that will say they are bred to attack humans. What will Barnette do with them? She will label them to death and get her numbers up on their dead bodies.

HonestyHelps said...

"I don't think you'll find anyone worth believing that will say they are bred to attack humans."

Oh really now?? Are you aware of how many people are mauled and killed because of trying to save their beloved pet from the jaws of a pit bull? Probably not. And that doesn't explain the countless attacks on humans out of the clear blue, no other animals around. Go to my other blog and see the media reports on pit attacks, look at the common threads of unpredictability of the pit bulls.

No I don't want to "debate" you, right now I have no reason to make you look like a fool. There are plenty of posts on this blog that says it all for me, that is of course, if you have the time to read them.

And if it is not interesting, why are you bothering to come back? Teabaggers or not, the names fit the crime, how nit picking you are.

BoardWatch said...

The issue is not just Barnette but the whole "selection" process and the political hacking that brought her here. LAAS and the Mayor's "staff" have forged a machine that is LAAS and a dysfunctional Board with fixed elections--all with Barth at the wheel and they are trying to fool people into thinking that Barnette will do anything worth mentioning--while warning her not to ask for money (they cut that budget by almost $4M which leaves Garcetti to call local pet supply stores asking for food to feed the shelter animals).

The whole system is corrupt. So they brought in a new supposedly corrupt person to head it up. What else is new? They question is, are you going to swallow it and everything she tries to shove down our throats? I'm not.

The harshest critics have joined the Barnette love train--Muzika and ADL-LA. Those that previously wrote and informed us of inner filth inside the Department have gone over. Intense scrutiny must be focused on everything this woman does and allows Barth to tell her to do.

HonestyHelps said...

BoardWatch, you may ask why I give a damn about the pits in the shelters. I fear that Barnette might do a reversal, now that she will be faced with reality and not hiding behind the non profit screen. I fear that the pits will be given away to anyone along with a pack of lies about them being "nanny" dogs, etc. Pits in the shelter have no history and a "regular" type of dog owner is made to feel they are safe because they have been altered. Pits need to be regulated just like any other dangerous animal. Not just anyone should own one, certainly not a first time dog owner. But shelters feeling the pressure from the "No Kill" movement are pimping pits onto unsuspecting families and thus a high return rate of pits to those shelters. Pits make up 58% of the dogs being euthanized in shelters. Pits have to be kenneled alone, taking up valuable space from other dogs and thus adding to the euthanasia rate. Because Barnette will be more concerned about her "No Kill" promise and her Messiah, she will start pushing pits out the door. Then there will be more victims of pitocides.

Who suffers the most from these lies, the pimping of pits, pits get a "bad rap" shit, the pits themselves. I personally don't want any dog to suffer but neither do I want other pets and people to be mauled and killed. Pits are the most abused breed too. Therefore I do work for and support BSL. Barnette will have to make a choice and I fear she will make the wrong one. Making the wrong choices for pits only makes the situation worse. The wrong choice is to go with the "bad rap" shit. Then when enough people are mauled and killed, the bans will come. Do you want a ban on pits for LA? Then fight to make sure that pits are adopted properly and if pits have to be euthanized for time and space, so be it. Also fight for spay/neuter for pits, not because it makes them "safer" but to reduce the population and make them harder to obtain. That's the ethical thing to do.

BoardWatch said...

I'm here for the Barnette issue. You can make anything else you want to of that. The only question left now, since she's been ushered in without question is what to do about it.

Being anonymous--and that includes commenters-- is fun, but doesn't accomplish anything. So...anonymous people...what are you going to do about it?

Spreading the news of her past screw-ups is one thing. Attacking those (and warning them in advance that if they ruffle your feathers they will be attacked) who come to read your stuff is counterproductive. But you know best...anonymous blogger.

BoardWatch said...

Every dog should be adopted "properly" and the adopters screened for their suitability to the particular dog they're adopting-- whether it be a pit or any other breed or mix of breeds.

LA has not had the DESIRE or funds to do that and they still have neither. The number of "returns" of dogs is staggering and to return a dog to the pound after "rescuing" is cruel. If the volunteers weren't so harassed by the employees there are plenty of smart people who could be part of a program of matching people and training with dogs. Just sending them out the door only brings in cash and the probability that they will be back.

So, I'll be paying attention and making demands. What other people do is their own business and responsibility. Anonymous griping and finger-pointing is stupid. Either stand up for what you believe or be ignored. Later...

HonestyHelps said...

BoardWatch, this blog is a tool, set up strictly for that purpose. Most of the people on this blog can't have their names out there because they are doing work to stop people like the Whino and the pit nutters. That's why blogs have the option of posting anonymously. Most of the comments that come to me are done as "Not for publication" and those are supplying info that I can post after researching it. I don't give a damn who it is as long as they provide information that is useful. It is so typical of those following "No Kill" to always want to put a name on something.

And this is my blog, I do what I want. I see that you took down my comments on your blog and I did put my Honesty name on them. How does that compare? I post every comment that comes in that is not marked "Not for publication". You, it appears to me, pick and chose what you want to have on your blog comments.

I'm not here to be nice to anyone, this is not a nice issue, why should I be nice? I don't pussy foot around with people, I call it the way I see and if they don't have what it takes to handle it, it ain't my problem. The ones I want to touch understand my anger, they are angry too. They are the ones that will be the solders in this fight. The rest can kiss my ass.

HonestyHelps said...

So Board Watch, if you are here to learn about Barnette, that is all fine and well. This is probably the best place you can be for that. Just drop the bullshit and we'll get along. Otherwise be prepared because I don't take anyone's shit. The ball is in your park, it's up to you how you get treated on my blog.

BoardWatch said...

I don't remember posting your "comments"-- I never posted them--if I did post them I took them down because the link was bad. They were both links. I do not post just links without explanation of what they are.

The first link to a Google Document went nowhere.

HonestyHelps said...

Jeff, I did my duty and informed the Council, what did you do?

I know the LA shelters and I have never had a problem with any employees. I have gotten nothing but the utmost respect from employees. Then again, I give them respect. I have seen other "rescues" come in with the holier than thou attitude and give shit to the employees. What do they get in return, just what they give. That's the way life works, you get what you give. I have little use for a lot of the so called "rescuers" in LA. They have their definition of what is adoptable and then they have another for the shelter. Many of the shelter animals are the rejects of those "rescuers", they turned them away under their definition expecting the shelter to work a miracle and adopt the animals out. The very ones shaking their finger at the shelters are the very ones who rejected the ones being euthanized to begin with. Many, if not most, people try to place their pets with the "No Kill" rescues only to be turned away and have no other option but the shelter. This is bullshit. You catch a lot more flies with honey than with vinegar. I do so hate hypocrites.

HonestyHelps said...

I sent links separately that did go somewhere in answering your comment. And what else is it other than censorship whether it is just links or whatever? Own up to it, Jeff, you did it.

BoardWatch said...

This link goes nowhere that I can access:

HonestyHelps has left a new comment on your post "Public Silent--Council Committee Approves Brenda B...":

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=gmail&attid=0.1&thid=12584274732da97e&mt=application/pdf&url=https://mail.google.com/mail/?ui%3D2%26ik%3Da4d07c155e%26view%3Datt%26th%3D12584274732da97e%26attid%3D0.1%26disp%3Dattd%26realattid%3D0.1%26zw&sig=AHIEtbRtbwmPC-5HXVpYmzQYjKtue27p0Q&pli=1

HonestyHelps said...

I had a comment previous to that one with three links on it, the news stories on the lawsuit and the ACO Guild's blog writeups on it. The link you couldn't get to work was separate from the other. And I am waiting for whatever so you can have the entire lawsuit.

http://kcanimalcontrol.blogspot.com/2009/12/acog-files-pdr-complaint-in-snohomish.html


http://kcanimalcontrol.blogspot.com/2009/12/acog-files-pdr-complaint-in-snohomish.html

http://www.king5.com/video/featured-videos/Animal-Control-Officers-Guild-files-lawsuit-against-King-County-79081157.html

http://www.pnwlocalnews.com/south_king/ken/news/79198467.html

BoardWatch said...

The case number in Snohomish Superior Court is 09-2-10349-4.
Judgement was entered (I can't tell for whom, but I'm guessing it was against the ACO Guild) in March. It is now on appeal to the Supreme Court. THe ACO Guild

The WA court site does not offer document images so I have not read the complaint. Neither Barnette nor SHS are/were a party although I do understand that they wanted her emails and say that she left to avoid turning them over.

Chasing down a case in another state is a waste of time unless the people who brought the suit (ACOG) are still talking about it. I don't see that.

Unless you're going to make the case (a real case) that she defrauded the City of Los Angeles by failing to disclose certain facts, then there's no point in continuing to examine her record up there- EXCEPT to alert those here to WATCH her and everything she does. The good thing about LAAS being a government entity is that their records are public..except the ones they hide and lie about.

HonestyHelps said...

Well, you aren't as lazy as I thought you were. Sorry, but to bust your bubble, the judgement was NOT against the ACO. Emails were relinquished about a month ago, over 1000 of them. The ACO Guild and their law firm are reviewing them now, piecing together their case from them. And yes, indeed Barnette is right in the middle of it. The lawsuit itself is against King County but the reason for it is definitely Barnette. King County had to threaten legal action against Barnette and the other hags with her to get those emails after the Attorney General issued a ruling that they were indeed subject to public records requests. It is far from finished.

Jeff, I have been following and fighting Barnette for almost three years, I can't expect you to learn all about it in a few days. But you would do yourself a justice to stop inserting your foot and start reading this blog. Search for her name on this blog and read all the other entries. Then read the ACO Guild blog. You'll see.

And the ACO Guild is definitely talking about it. I put them in touch with the union folks in LA and Sgt. Diel has given them an earfull.

BoardWatch said...

What did I do? I sent what I new was fact and my observations on that to Council and to Public Safety--as did many others. You can see how they jumped into investigation mode on that. For a year, this Council and this Mayor has taken heat for failing to fill that spot with a capable person. All they wanted was a body in the chair to get the heat off of them. You only have to listen to Zine's comments at both meetings to see that. Pam Ferdin went crazy (crazier?) and among other things threatened anyone who didn't rubber stamp her.

In my book, ADL-LA is now a worthless, disreputable and useless entity when it comes to LAAS. From the first love-Brenda blast and through the subsequent and increasingly more insane blasts (Barbi Twins?!!) they have proven that they care not for the welfare of the shelter animals.

HonestyHelps said...

Good for you Jeff. Now you are beginning to talk like you should. The ADL-LA has always been worthless, they are on an ego trip and the shelter animals are just used as their venue.

One has to do their homework in order to see who truly cares about the shelter animals. It won't be who you think it is usually. The groups that push for "No Kill" are the problems, they aren't offering solutions. They follow a Messiah, the Whino, who is in bed with the breeding community. His program only makes sense if you are a breeder and he is their darling now. He degrades HSUS when they are the only ones going after the dog fighers and the puppy mills. Are you familiar with Rick Berman? He sponsors the Whino, pimping his books. Study the Whino's program from the prospective of being a breeder, a dog fighter, a puppy miller, then it makes sense. It is easy to see that the Whino wasn't sent to save the shelter animals, he was sent to destroy laws that protect animals, destroy laws to stop the puppy mills, and the out of control breeding. He has given credibility to the breeders and to the dogmen with his pit bulls get a bad rap shit. As evil as I think the Whino is, I think Barnette is even more so.

Now get pissed and do your homework, learn about the vicious cycle that only keeps the shelters from being able to do the job you want them to do. We all are working for the day when animals aren't killed for time and space. How this is accomplished means the difference between success and just creating more suffering. Publically condemning shelters only drives the public away right into the waiting arms of the "rescues". Who stands to gain from this, not the shelter animals. You always follow the money, it will lead you to those who are in it for the gain. And rescues have a lot to gain with the Whino's program. Just because someone wants to help animals doesn't mean they are good people, look at the hoarders, do you think they are good people?

Now what will it be? Are we going to work together or continue with a pissing match?

BoardWatch said...

I have always spoken my mind in this town---and have paid for it dearly. Your "burst your bubble" comment is inappropriate. I assumed wrong. The little guy won-GOOD. But I still don't know what they were fighting for other than disclosure of public documents. If they won that, bully for them! We should not have to go to court to enforce our rights against deep pocketed governments--but it looks as though I'll be heading there again soon.

There are good rescues and bad rescues. I have my opinions on several of them and 3 of them will be defendants in my own lawsuit next month. Hoarders? No. Hoarders are ill people. Often, it is LAAS who facilitates hoarding. I know a women with 5 pit mixes she keeps in crates for 12 hours a day along with 20 cats and a bunch of other animals. Guess what? All of her dogs have L.A. City licenses in her name.

Some rescue "organizations" act like hoarders. Others don't.

It's your pissing match-- not mine and the last thing I need to feel cozy is the approval of anonymous types. Don't get me wrong, I agree with some of what you say, but before I throw in with anyone I need to know what their goals are. So far, we don't agree on much. I will be working on keeping an eye on Barnette and Barth and this do-nothing Board. That's enough on my plate. If you want to furnish info, I'll take it. If I get info, I will share it. That's the only deal I'll make.

HonestyHelps said...

Jeff, you made that assumption because that is what you wanted it to be. Underlying all you say is that thread of the "No Kill" shit. Like I said before, do your reseach first before you open your mouth. It's either on this blog or the ACO Guild blog. The reason for the emails is to show a conspiracy between Barnette, the Whino and the Council in King County for Barnette's gain.


I never asked you to crawl between the sheets and get "cozy", all I asked of you is to do the research. And whether you admit to it or not, this is a pissing match. I really don't consider you to be an asset in this fight anyway because of your reputation in LA. I don't know why you expect people to listen to you when you have been so condemning. Put yourself in their shoes and see if you would want to work with yourself.

By the way, I am all in favor of temperament testing in shelters. Without it, you set the families who adopt and the dogs up for failure. Every "rescue" out there does temperament testing. Hell, we all do temperament testing to one degree or another, if we don't then we are fools. It only makes sense to know whether a dog is going to take your kid's face off if the kid goes near the food bowl. It's also a matter of liability to adopt out a dog without it and it ends up attacking over a toy. You're talking like a true "No Kill'er" now.

BoardWatch said...

Now you're a mind reader, too. Enjoy.

HonestyHelps said...

Stop with the wise cracks, Jeff, I don't play that fucking game. You can either start getting serious or go play footsy with Ed M.

BoardWatch said...

Temperament testing in the shelter/pound environment done by unqualified individuals is garbage-in/garbage-out "science."

Maybe you can point me to all of the legal claims against L.A. for shelter dogs ripping off the faces of children because they were not "tested." Temperament testing CREATES liability by declaring one dog or another as "safe" when there is no telling what that dog will be exposed to in it's new home. A plastic doll is not a baby. To a dog, it's a toy. Dogs tear apart toys. Petco makes billions because they do.

A plastic arm pulling a food bowl away from a hungry dog is not a test. It's a show. There are thousands of dogs adopted yearly from LAAS that are perfectly gentle creatures who would have been labeled to death by a test such as you seem to ascribe to.

There are no reliable tests done on stressed out dogs who live in concrete cages. Any respectable animal behaviorist will tell you that. Even Captain Dedeux has agreed on that.

If I sound like a "No Killer" so be it. Call me any name you like. I do not take anyone's word lock,stock and barrel--not even Winograd's. That's my take on testing and it always has been. You can take your labels of me and keep them. It doesn't matter to me, one way or the other.

I am not going to be for or against Barnette until I see what she does and doesn't do. I was against the appointment without further investigation. We lost that battle. The war continues.

BoardWatch said...

I see, "wise cracks" are only for you. See ya. If you have more to say to me, email me or post a comment on BW.

HonestyHelps said...

And you said you were not at Whinonette. Oh but yes you are. You think that going into a new home is not stressful? If an animal can't handle the stress of the shelter, what makes you think they can handle the stress of a new home, new people, the neighborhood? A stressed animal, whether in the shelter or not, is a dangerous animal. When was the last time you looked for the claims against the shelter?
So in your world, let's just send this stressed animal out the door with just anyone, or even those who have never owned a dog, and hope for the best? Are you nuts? The last time I went into the shelter, yesterday, I saw more dogs having a good time than sitting in the corner stressing. I had a poodle that loved being kenneled. He loved all the noise and activity. I've been in shelters for decades and I say that you are full of shit on this subject.

HonestyHelps said...

Here's a wise crack for you Jeff, don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out. Live in your make believe world, I live in the real one.

BoardWatch said...

Don't put words in my mouth. They won't fit. I don't even know what a "Whineonette" is and I don't care.

The last time I looked for claims against the City was last fall. Got any to share?

To answer your question about any dogs going out the door to anyone...No. I do not agree with that. But that is what they do...and the dogs come back and are then killed. Usually the animal is not returned for "aggression." They are returned because of the failure of the Dept. to screen/train the adopter who is --more often than not--adopting an animal for the wrong reason and is too lazy or dumb to train their dog(s).

Have a nice weekend.

BoardWatch said...

Creating your own reality and then moving into it does not qualify as "living in the real world." We disagree. That's fine for me. You need to turn it into something else. You can take your anonymous hatred and shove it. :)

Due to your rancorous demeanor, you are taken about as seriously as Pamelyn. As far as the door goes...I never stepped through it.

HonestyHelps said...

See I knew you couldn't stay away.

And there seems to be a lot you don't know. But rest assured that you are definitely a Whinonette. Now take a little bit of your precious time to look it up.

You want to continously blame the employees so that makes you part of the problem. You haven't spent very much time in the shelters, have you? These people do a dirty little job for the public and you condemn them for it. You think they are the problem when you are the problem.

If only you knew how seriously I am taken. I work the entire country and have managed to stop the Whino more than once. All I do all day is answer emails wanting to know how to stop the crazy Whinonettes. I just got an MSN done this week for pit bulls. You wish you were taken as seriously as I am. This blog is to relieve the frustration of dealing with the likes of those like yourself. I don't have to seek out, I am sought after. Barnette is not in LA because she wanted to be, she is in LA because under my tutoring, she was uncovered and I have been busy answering the many thank you emails from Seattle. Doug Rae would still be in Indy if it wasn't for me. Yeah, right, little man, you'll never see the day when people think you have anything to offer as long as you continue on the path you are on.

BoardWatch said...

I get it. You're your own self-proclaimed anonymous guru who puts labels on people as you see fit. So what? Is this resume waving time? Blogger doesn't require them. :)

I don't blame the employees. I blame SOME of the employees. I don't think all of the volunteers are good people. I know some of them and they are horrible. I've had the pleasure to meet and work with some wonderful ACTs and even some very good ACOs over the years. I've also had the misfortune to rub elbows with some that are nothing short of criminals in a uniform. Some of them are now gone and working for the County. Some are just gone. Others are still sucking tax dollars at the McDonalds drive-thru.

There's a serious lack of quality training through the department and that goes for volunteers to. This department has had no direction and --NO FKN MANUAL--for years and years. You can attack me or you can attack the problems. I am not the problem but go ahead. I'm used to it.

HonestyHelps said...

Backpedaling are we now about the employees? First you say the employees, now you say some of the employees. There's always bad apples but your take is to condemn them all or at least make them feel like you are.

And no, I don't like to brag and I didn't want the title of the expert of exposing "No Kill, but I try to live up to what people have put upon me. As I said before, this blog is strictly to provide info for those fighting the fight. It is not for chit chat or the latest casserole dish. It is to inform and you would do well to read it instead of playing one up with me.

BoardWatch said...

Nope. I'm not back-pedaling at all. I'm clarifying after you twisted what I said. You're good at that but not that good. Problems caused by the employees who are problems are legitimate problems. Get off your high-horse.

Fighting the fight. What is the fight for you. You're fighting against "No Kill-ers?" Against rescue groups? All of them?

That's it?

I'm fighting against corrupt bureaucrats and spoiled overpaid politicians. I have fought against SOME corrupt and self-serving, glory-seeking, pandering rescues who have retaliated in the most despicable way. I guess we're not in the same fight. But I knew that a while back.
-Jeff

HonestyHelps said...

What does the blog heading say? God, read the fucking blog. You're a bigger whiner than the Whino.

So if you realized we aren't fighting the same thing, why keep this bullshit going? Do you actually think you will get the last word in on my blog? Geez.

BoardWatch said...

The Blog heading says Barnette shouldn't unpack. Like it or not, she's here for the foreseeable future. Council and the Mayor have appeased the un-appeasable--ADL-LA. How is that blog heading supposed to tell me that we are not of the same mind on at least one thing?

They're rolling in their own veganvomit. If Barnette leaves it will not be because she is forced out by the public.

Last word? No. When you stop addressing me, attacking me and asking me questions, I'll stop responding. It's as simple as that. You hit..I hit back...or I clarify some weird twist/distortion you've assigned to my comments.

You're all up in arms because I am neither a follower or an easy target. Get over it.

HonestyHelps said...

Jeff, the heading of the entire blog, not just this one post. Is this the only post that you are reading? The heading of the BLOG should tell you what my fight is all about. Get off this particular posting and look at the others, going back for the last couple of years. Barnette is nothing new to me like she is to you.

Get this thru that head of yours, this is MY blog, not yours. Fuck with me, I fuck back and I am a damn better at it than you will ever be. Read the fucking blog, not just one or two posts. Maybe you will learn something for a change.

HonestyHelps said...

" Like it or not, she's here for the foreseeable future."

They said that to me about Doug Rae. Took 10 months but he was kicked out along with his Whinonette buddy on the animal commission, both fired. Just means more work for me but she's as good as gone.

BoardWatch said...

Well, I'll stay tuned and see what you come up with. What would your choice be for a competent replacement? Phyllis? Yourself?

If you're going to take the tack that she's a Winograduate, that won't work here. If you're plan is to expose her as a fraud, it would depend on the evidence.

HonestyHelps said...

What's Phyllis Gard have to do with this? She's not even involved in humane efforts and that's the only Phyllis I know. And she's on the East Coast anyway. Throwing out names again to see if anything sticks.

Are you crazy? Who in their right mind would want that job? LA has made sure that they will never get a decent director so I have no suggestions. Jon Cicirelli wanted it. I have shit on him too. He was a strong runner against Barnette until the Mayor learned that Cicirelli liked to drop his pants as much as the Mayor does, he didn't want competition. No, LA is fucked as far as getting anyone decent.

Don't worry, she will do herself in and I will be there saying "I told you so". Things are far from being over.

BoardWatch said...

Don't know who P. Gard is. I was referring to Phyllis Daugherty. If you've read any of the local coverage, she's hard to miss. She's a one-person "movement" but perfect for your "army." You'd get along just fine.

HonestyHelps said...

Daugherty is a person who does do a lot of speaking out but I don't know her personally. I will have to say that I have admired many of her comments before the Commission. I would have to agree that she would be a good one, very admirable woman from what I have seen. And I did read her articles recently, she's got it, she understands. In fact my blog was mentioned in one of those articles. I've been meaning to look her up and thank her for sending traffic my way.

I work alone, I just tutor others on what direction to take to fight their fights. I don't join groups, they are too confining. I've learned the hard way to trust no one.

Jeff de la Rosa said...

Oh. I though you had an army.
I know Phyllis personally and we agree on some things...not many. Still we manage to be civil to each other. She devotes too much time to the process to be ignored or disrespected.

There are many who slam her for her opinions but I never see them up there talking into the mic. She's accountable. I admire that--no matter what her views are.

HonestyHelps said...

I do have an army but I am the only General, get it? The rest are "grunts".

Sometimes a hint of sanity shows in your comments. Just not often enough.

Jeff de la Rosa said...

Well, I'm not here to gain your favor, as you can see, Herr Generale.

HonestyHelps said...

Then what the fuck are you here for?

Jeff de la Rosa said...

Just reading and responding to your attacks. That's pretty much it.

HonestyHelps said...

That shows your mentality, aren't you the least bit ashamed that you are making a complete fool of yourself? You won't get the last word in, I guarantee you that. Waste your time if you chose rather than spending your time doing something constructive like reading this blog to get info to help you with your "battles". Pretty dumb, Jeff, pretty dumb.

Jeff de la Rosa said...

It takes about 2 seconds to deflect your crap. Please stop begging me to read the blog. I donwanna read it.

Until you post something more on Barnette or L.A. I've got nothing to read of interest. It's interesting that you predict her demise and take credit for that of Doug Rae. From what you say, our shelter system is a hopeless cause in all respects. I'm not buying that.

Jeff de la Rosa said...

I don't want the last word. I've unsubscribed to these comments at least 3 times for each thread...yet you still show up in my email box. Hmph.


And in front of whom am I making a fool of myself, your "grunts?' Oh my...yes, I am ashamed...terrrrrrrrrrrible ashamed.

HonestyHelps said...

Asshole, there is a lot more on this blog than these 2-3 posts that you are hung up on. Either you want to learn about Barnette or not and if you want to learn more then READ THE FUCKING BLOG. Put a search in for her name and see all of those that come up. Also search for the ACO Guild and see what comes up. Damn, you are one mutherfucking idiot, Jeff. Now get prepared for the real insults if you keep doing this shit.

Jeff de la Rosa said...

You know what? If you want the last word, then just don't post my replies. I'm not going to read your blog any further that those parts which interest me. You can keep demanding that I do, but then who looks foolish? Not me. So please...stop posting my replies and you can have the last word. Okay? Okay. TWMA.

HonestyHelps said...

Then do it another three times, I ain't sending it to your email that's for sure. I'm sick of your dead ass. The only reason you keep coming back is because of my "grunts" and you do like to show off, don't you Jeff? I would suggest that you learn how to use the delete button on your email.

HonestyHelps said...

I don't fucking censor like you do. THIS IS MY BLOG, JEFF, I DO WANT I WANT, NOT WHAT YOU WANT. If you don't want to learn anything that will help you, then fine by me, otherwise READ THE FUCKING BLOG.

Jeff de la Rosa said...

I never use LOL...but LOFL.

HonestyHelps said...

Thanks because with fools like you I'll need it.

Jeff de la Rosa said...

I don't have what you need, Generalissimo. I'm not even sure it's legal to possess in California, but it'll come to you. Just be patient. Everybody gets what they need.

HonestyHelps said...

What I need is for you to stay the fuck off my blog. Tend to your own fucking business/blog and your ass kissing.