Was the videographer there for legal reasons? Hey, this is Hollywood. Does it need to be legal to be filmed? But yes, that did occur to me.

The lawyer does pro bono work, and it’s possible he’s taken on this David vs. Goliath case because he wants to.

And the cop? Someone must know for sure when he showed up. Some say he came with Marina. Some say after she’d been there for a couple of hours. It isn’t uncommon for animal control officers to accompany an agency when an animal is to be reclaimed.

So, where can we see what the videographer saw? I expect the conversation at the Marks home would give us the clues we need. What happened in that 2 hours and what was the discussion about the adoption application?

Ever occur to you that the person videotaping was doing it for legal reasons?

MandM Marina is on a power trip. I wouldn’t believe anything she says and that goes for her “spokesman” too.

i don’t know why ellen or the hairdresser would refuse to do the app. or why they would have to go down there to do it since it’s online. especially if the rescue was doing a home check.

this situation still doesn’t add up . . .

If that story proves to be true, then my entire view of this situation will change. They MUST understand that they HAVE to be willing to go through the same application and screening as everyone else. I’d be all for them getting to keep the dog if they were willing to do so — getting first dibs. But they have no one to blame but themselves if they aren’t willing to do that.

It’s gotten so confused. It’s hard to know WHAT to believe now.

I just think at this point it’s best if all parties let it drop, the dog is rehomed. Heaven forbid he should be moved again.

Stefani

I see on the itchmo front page, a new story, based on a Bill O’Reilly show–that the Mutts and Moms folks did tell the hairdresser they could come in and fill out papers and do a formal adoption. But Ellen and the hairdresser refused to do so.

You can check it out on the front page here.

What struck me as more information came out, was that the rescue group actually was pretty flexible–they gave Ellen a second dog, and then were going to pursue adoption with the hairdresser.

It’s strange how things get distorted. Bottom line for me, is great disappointment in Ellen, and I was a fan. Not any more.

Ellen violated the contract. True. She should have returned the dog. True.

However, she gave him — by all accounts — to a perfectly suitable home, where he bonded with the family. The rescue woman, to PROVE A POINT, it seems, went on FALSE pretenses to this family’s house and TOOK the dog from them without telling them this was her intent.

She then — out of apparent ANGER and STUBBORNESS and to PROVE A POINT about not letting the “Ellen Degeneres’s of the World” get over on her — REFUSED to allow this family to be considered as adopters.

?????????????????

IT’S ABOUT THE DOG, people. She behaved reprehensibly!

I understand that rescues have these policies for the protection of the animals- to make sure they go to suitable homes. Ellen violated it, she should not have. She should have returned the dog and offered up her friends as adopters or encouraged them to apply. But the dog ended up in a good home, so the very reason this policy existed was not a concern in this case. The rescue should have been flexible.

Now, the dog is placed in YET another new home — his third in how many months?

Hopefully, he is bonding well with this new family and has gotten past the trauma caused by this human drama.

And hopefully, Ellen and the hairdresser won’t pursue trying to get the dog back once he’s been in this new home long enough to bond with THAT family. Should they pursue charges against the Mutts and Mom’s maven? Go for it.

Just don’t make that poor dog more traumatized by continuing to fight over him and make him move from place to place like a pawn in an EGO showdown.

Reminds me of the biblical story with two mothers both claiming that the child was theirs. Then, someone said, fine, let’s cut him in half. And one — only one — of the women said, “no, rather than see him cut in two, I will relinquish my claim..”

We knew then who the real mother was.

Stefani

i’m betting the training rate was prob as inflated as the donation fee. things in LA can be like that ;) we always tell people pets can be expensive and you need to have some money put aside upfront, but this was a bit over the top . . .

Straybaby, I got the impression that a good portion of the $3,000 was for training offsite (don’t know the level of Ellen’s involvement). This is from her show’s transcript: “I got it neutered, I got it trained and I paid my vet extra money to take it home to sleep in the bed with him at night instead of a cage. I spent $3000 on this puppy to acclimate it, to train it to be with our cats.” Possibly the boarding was only associated with the neutering. Possibly she spent a good amount of time working with the trainer and the dog herself. Given her schedule and the news about at least one other pass-through pet, I’m not sure.