|
Originally Posted by Snowmaker
No, they do what they think is best for the animal.
I too would have rather seen that dog go to a loving family with kids rather than back in a cage until another home was found. It is just a dog after all. Its not like they're placing a child into foster care. Oh christ, run for your life, Snow! Go now, before the Pet Nazis catch your scent! :helpme: -Doc |
Originally Posted by Doc MacGyver
Oh christ, run for your life, Snow! Go now, before the Pet Nazis catch your scent! :helpme:
-Doc I'm just saying, they treat these animals as if they're better than people. |
I have said that forever, and yet I am villified. :)
|
Well it's like my fifty-something neighbor who refers to her dogs as her "children." I puke a little in my mouth everytime she says that. I love dogs. My roommates and I have a dog that we love, and would never do anything to harm or allow to be harmed. That being said, just because your uterus dried up before you could get anyone to throw one into you that sticks doesn't mean your pets should be treated as your kids. They're pets. They're friends, they have rights and anyone who mistreats them should be thrown into a small room with Michael Vick, but they are not people.
-Doc |
Originally Posted by Snowmaker
No, they do what they think is best for the animal.
I too would have rather seen that dog go to a loving family with kids rather than back in a cage until another home was found. It is just a dog after all. Its not like they're placing a child into foster care. It's just like any rule or law, like say a speed limit. The state puts it out there, I may or may not obey it. If I speed, I may be doing so in a safe manner, maybe moreso than someone who's not speeding but saying talking on their cell phone. But I'm still subject to getting a ticket if I violate the law, no matter if I'm really being a problem or not. |
Originally Posted by Snowmaker
:lol:
I'm just saying, they treat these animals as if they're better than people. Even if they do, they have the right to do that. I may not agree with them, but what my beliefs are don't matter. You follow their rules or don't use their agency. |
Originally Posted by Snowmaker
:lol:
I'm just saying, they treat these animals as if they're better than people. That is because its a rarity, take a look at your local places that sell kittens, mostly retail mind you. Most are in conditions and size/space ratios that would drive a man insane. |
Originally Posted by Doc MacGyver
Well it's like my fifty-something neighbor who refers to her dogs as her "children." I puke a little in my mouth everytime she says that. I love dogs. My roommates and I have a dog that we love, and would never do anything to harm or allow to be harmed. That being said, just because your uterus dried up before you could get anyone to throw one into you that sticks doesn't mean your pets should be treated as your kids. They're pets. They're friends, they have rights and anyone who mistreats them should be thrown into a small room with Michael Vick, but they are not people.
-Doc Also, shouldn't this be in Other? |
Originally Posted by madara
That is because its a rarity, take a look at your local places that sell kittens, mostly retail mind you. Most are in conditions and size/space ratios that would drive a man insane.
6 years later and clawless, she's doing just fine: http://img135.imageshack.us/img135/1704/pdrm0052jz7.jpg |
Originally Posted by chanster
First, if the contract says if the agency can take the dog back if transferred, then specific performance would be granted, especially in cases where the property is a living breathing animal.
The Self-Help issue seems to be a little less clear..but from what I can gather is that the family sent in an adoption form and the lady was invited over to the house, ostenibly for purposes of a household inspection...so whether that is breach of the peace, I don't know. At most she would probably be considered a baillee (the not for compensation kind) of the dog for Portia. The fact that they are not married is an issue here. I don't think Ellen is the type of person that sells dogs, so the UCC would not consider her a merchant. |
Originally Posted by abrg923
Also, shouldn't this be in Other?
|
Originally Posted by abrg923
Puke in your mouth all you want, I really don't care. I have a dog, and to me and my wife, he is our son. Period.
:yack: :rimshot: |
Originally Posted by Snowmaker
:lol:
I'm just saying, they treat these animals as if they're better than people. |
Interesting development: The agency had its license suspended back in 2006. The contract Portia De Rossi signed is therefor void and the agency did not have the legal rights to take the dog away.
Rescue group in Iggy dispute suspended in ‘06 Mutts & Moms’ suspension is still in effect, so Ellen’s contract may be void Access Hollywood Updated: 6:11 p.m. ET Oct 18, 2007 LOS ANGELES - As the controversy over Ellen’s dog adoption gone awry continues, Access Hollywood has learned that Mutts & Moms may have other business issues to contend with that could affect their position in the Iggy dispute. 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. Access has also learned that Ellen cancelled her show tapings scheduled for Thursday. One audience hopeful told Access that Ellen’s staff explained to people that she is too exhausted and taking time off. |
BTW, people who assume that all cats have a deep, burning desire to go outdoors are idiots. Domestic cats are perfectly content indoors. |
Originally Posted by Howiefan
Interesting development: The agency had its license suspended back in 2006. The contract Portia De Rossi signed is therefor void and the agency did not have the legal rights to take the dog away.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21367733 |
Originally Posted by Doc MacGyver
:yack: :rimshot:
|
I find this whole fiasco dismaying because Ellen DeGeneres did not handle this out of the spotlight. She forgot that by being a well-known celebrity, anything she does gets reported not only by magazines that pounce on celebrities but also by mainstream newspapers, TV stations and news websites. It's a classic case of a celebrity "melting down" and we're all watching it with morbid fascination like everyone attracted to the scene of an accident. -rolleyes-
|
Originally Posted by Howiefan
Interesting development: The agency had its license suspended back in 2006. The contract Portia De Rossi signed is therefor void and the agency did not have the legal rights to take the dog away.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21367733 |
Originally Posted by kvrdave
Sweet, just wait for a court ourder and we can take the dog from the next family that it has bonded with. :lol:
|
Originally Posted by RayChuang
I find this whole fiasco dismaying because Ellen DeGeneres did not handle this out of the spotlight. She forgot that by being a well-known celebrity, anything she does gets reported not only by magazines that pounce on celebrities but also by mainstream newspapers, TV stations and news websites. It's a classic case of a celebrity "melting down" and we're all watching it with morbid fascination like everyone attracted to the scene of an accident. -rolleyes-
|
Originally Posted by Howiefan
Interesting development: The agency had its license suspended back in 2006. The contract Portia De Rossi signed is therefor void and the agency did not have the legal rights to take the dog away.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21367733 I'm think of the general principle of a "de facto" corporation could apply if followed in NY. Plus, there's still an entity doing business. Even if its not a formal corporation, it's still something, and something with real rights. |
Originally Posted by LiquidSky
I think the dog needs to end up at your house! :)
|
Originally Posted by Jericho
I'm not sure how much this really matters. It'll be goverened by state law, and I'm not familiar with NY Law. But logically, if one action is invalid (repossession) due to the legal status, then the initial adoption would be too.
I'm think of the general principle of a "de facto" corporation could apply if followed in NY. Plus, there's still an entity doing business. Even if its not a formal corporation, it's still something, and something with real rights. I'm not familiar with California law, but from what I know of similar sorts of provisions in my state, I think the idea is that when a corporation does not take the appropriate steps to make sure they are accountable, state law has determined there should be a policy that disallows those same corporations the privilege of resorting to legal action. It's not that the corporation is invalid -- it's that the corporation has theoretically frustrated the ability of persons to pursue the officers of the corporation due to the lack of the filing, so the corporation should be punished. |
Originally Posted by Snowmaker
:lol:
I'm just saying, they treat these animals as if they're better than people. |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:21 AM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.