Register  Login

YOU'VE BEEN DUMPED ON!


In Support of Mutts and Moms

504 weeks ago

Ms. Batkis is clearly an extraordinary, courageous individual who should be applauded for her convictions and loyalty to her pet rescue mission. Celebrities such as Ellen DeGeneres have only pseudo strength in numbers among themselves and their FANatics. Ellen DeGeneres was fully aware what chaos her performance would create with regard to Iggy the dog. That was exactly why she did it. Her tactics are terroristic...just home grown, as they say. Ms. Batkis is to be admired and respected in this unfortunate charade and her attorney, Keith A. Fink is amusingly and pleasingly accurate in his references to Ellen DeGeneres. Ms. DeGeneres has proven herself to be one of those people who are so arrogant, they're stupid.

Back to Dumps  |  add comment  |  Email It  |  Vote (2)
 

  posted by [Anonymous]

504 weeks ago

Ellen totally overreacted, and her crying on her show was pathetic. I don't think she had any intentions on keeping that dog to begin with. She adopted it so that she could could just give it to someone else so it wouldn't be it shelter or whatever.


  posted by murphy22

504 weeks ago
I agree.........
Ellen was PATHETIC! She was guilty of breach of contract to Mutts and Moms. I am a dog lover/owner and supporter of any and all animal rescue groups. What Mutts and Moms did was right and just.
Suck it up Ellen......you primadona.


SAY WHAT!!??
  posted by Rae77

504 weeks ago
Ms. Batkis absolutelyhad no right to that dog once Ellen adopted him. Ellen did what any NORMAL human would do, and that was to give Iggy to a good home where he would be well taken care of. Iggy was not getting along with her cats. Ellen did the right thing! So, for you people to judge her and say that she is arrogant or stupid, is ludicris! Also, to say her tactics are terroristic! What? are you talking about?!
Grow up people! God Bless you Ellen!


Mutts & Moms Were Right
  posted by [Anonymous]

504 weeks ago
Any reputable agency which adopts out dogs requires the pet owner to return the dog to the agency in the event the adoption does not work out. The agency's goal is the protection of their rescues and should be the deciding factor on placement of the dog. Ellen signed an agreement which she did not honor. If she wanted the dog to go to her hairdresser's family, they themselves could have applied to adopt the dog.

Anyone who thinks the agency is in the wrong clearly has no understanding of what their mission is.

Enough of the whining about Ellen. The agreement she signed was for the dog's protection as well as her own. What if something had happened to the dog she had placed with that family? Would she blame the agency for having a bad dog.

I sympathize with the agency. They're being treated most unfairly. They tried to do what's in the best of interest of the dog and what co they get? Death threats from animal lovers.

Makes no sense to m.


Is Ellen the Next Nasty Rosie???
  posted by [Anonymous]

504 weeks ago
I really like Ellen but when I saw all her drama unfold last week it reminded me of Rosie O'Donnell. Rosie always pretended to be super sweet and then got loud and nasty when she didn't like something. Please tell me that is not about to happen with Ellen.

I adopted a cat last year and was checked out. Personally, I thought is was silly because I knew I would be a good adoptee but not everyone is like me and therefore is the reason there are rules. Ellen needs to check her ego and Ruby needs to quit whining and move on.


Mutts vs Ellen
  posted by Suzu1062

504 weeks ago
First let me start by saying the only thing Ellen has in common with Rosie out side of they are entertainers is that she prefers an inny to an outie.
Now on to the matter at hand. I belive that Mutts were wrong and are just trying to bring their 15 mins of fame to the forefront. Do they really think that this type of media hype will be helpful to them. I hope not as Ms. Degeneres does have quite a bit of animal loving clout not only with her viewers but friends and colleagues as well. I would boycott in a heartbeat.
Ok. She may have been remiss in not advising that the dog has gone to a new home but why upon hearing this information did the Mutt people not just fill out the paperwork for the "new" family and all would be well.

Shame on you Mutts.


Are you kidding me???
  posted by [Anonymous]

504 weeks ago
Give my back the 30 seconds it took to read that crap. Ellen went on her show where she knows she has lots or empty headed fans and sobbed like a baby.

She brought this to the forefront not Mutts & Moms.


Oh Please.....
  posted by Suzu1062

504 weeks ago
Sure she brought it to the forefront. As far as the "Mutts" people go.. Try reading and you will find out that they had their license suspended in 2006 and to date have yet to have it returned. Hmmmm. I guess it is because they are such a great agency right? Bla Bla Bla.

Still Shame on Mutts!!!

Might I also add. I work for a living and do not watch Miss Degeneres, Oprah or any of the senseless drivel on daytime television so pleasr don't assume I am empty headed. As for being a fan... yes of her film and standup. So is my husband.


  posted by [Anonymous]

504 weeks ago
There was a technitically in their paperwork. That is why it was suspended.

I am just sick of turning on the TV and hearing of this. Have a good evening.


I agree
  posted by [Anonymous]

504 weeks ago
There is something I also agree with. I am sick of turning on the TV and hearing of this as well as Britney, or who's pregnant, etc. So I agree with you there.

Good evening to you too.


  posted by [Anonymous]

504 weeks ago
You are so right!!! This is a case of a rich, arrogant people who think they can walk over anyone, never mind promises and contracts.


Ms Buttkis
  posted by [Anonymous]

504 weeks ago
Ms Buttkis is an idiot who set back dog rescue a bazillion years. I am not a DeGeneres fan, but I am certainly a fan of our civil rights to own a dog. When Ms DeGEneres paid money for the dog, she bought it, and had she the forethought to put the microchip in her name or in the little girl's name, no court in the world would have given the dog back! Ms Buttkis is certainly full of herself.


Mutts & Moms nonprofit SUSPENDED
  posted by [Anonymous]

504 weeks ago
Mutts & Moms isn't even a legally operating group. Go here http://kepler.sos.ca.gov/corpdata/ShowList
found by googling California Secretary of State and then clicking on a link to search business filings. You'll see that their nonprofit isn't even VALID!!! It is clearly marked SUSPENDED! They haven't been doing their nonprofit filings and should be paying taxes on that money they took from Ellen!


forefront
  posted by [Anonymous]

504 weeks ago
Yes, she brought it to the forefront and I think it is great. People will be a lot more careful about what they sign and be less likely to buy from control-freak "rescue" groups and animal rights activists who think they are the only ones who can decide who should own a dog. This has been a good thing for the American public, even though it is very sad for the poor little girls who got attached to the dog.


Ellen
  posted by davidspates

504 weeks ago
I like Ellen a lot but c'mon, this is crazy. She messed up. I wish that the agency would have given the dog back, but if I would have had to go through what the people at the agency are going through ( death threats, constant calls...) I would have said the hell with everyone too. Anyway to see what I really think go to

http://youtube.com/watch?v=ZiKHXIH0WHw

There's some extra footage and my take on the whole deal. My blogs are kind of… different.



LIVING IN A CAGE
  posted by [Anonymous]

504 weeks ago



LIVING IN A CAGE
  posted by DEBRA7730

504 weeks ago
LIVING IN A CAGE IS BETTER THAN SOMEONE WHO SPENT $ 3000
TO TRY AND GET THE DOG CHECKED OUT MEDICALLY. TRAINED. AND HAVE LOVING CARE. DO ALL DOGS THAT GET PLACE GET THAT MUCH CARE FROM NEW OWNERS? I DON'T TKINK SO. THE SO CALLED RESCUE. IS A EASY WAY TO MAKE MONEY AND PAY NO TAXES.


NONPROFIT
  posted by DEBRA7730

504 weeks ago
IF MUTTS AND MOM ARE NOT A VALID NONPROFIT BUSINESS. THAN ALL CONTRACTS SHOULD BE VOID. THEY SHOULD GO TO JALL FOR FRAUD.TAKING MONEIES AND NOT PAY TAXES


I will give her this
  posted by [Anonymous]

504 weeks ago
Ms. Batkis' website is down, but photos are still up:

http://members.petfinder.org/~CA711/photos/

They do a pretty good job of cleaning up the matted, messy, nasty dogs:

Before:
http://members.petfinder.org/~CA711/photos/alexa-before-2.jpg

After:
http://members.petfinder.org/~CA711/photos/alexa2.jpg



  posted by [Anonymous]

504 weeks ago
As I agree with some things about this, I have to disagree with others. Yes, Ellen should have read everything she signed before she signed it. Thus, being a "celebrity" should not allow her out of a signed contract. But, on the other hand, someone who is willing to snatch a puppy from two little girls, just seems cold-hearted to me. If the director/owner of this shelter was really interested in what was best for this dog, why couldn't they let this family go through the adoption process? Instead they snatched this puppy from kids who loved it, and before the family could even try to get it back, they giave it to someone else. I seems to me that Ellen is not the only one looking for a little publicity.


Mutts & Moms ALSO broke the rules
  posted by [Anonymous]

504 weeks ago
The btich from Mutts & Moms, Marina Butkiss said: “We won’t be bullied into placing a dog with people we don’t know -- we know nothing about -- just because a celeb is involved,”

Well, then how about going and visiting with the family FIRST instead of yanking the dog away from a loving, caring family?

AND BY THE WAY - for all you morons out there yammering about "Ellen didn't obey the rules" - well, NEITHER DID MUTTS & MOMS - they were shut down last December for not filing the proper paperwork with the California secretary of state.

SO EAT THAT!


in defense??
  posted by [Anonymous]

504 weeks ago
i wonder if this is a lesbian organization (muts and moms?? sound fishy?). that would account for the stupidity of this 'rescue group.' was there also a paragraph stating that you have to be sterile, all lesbians have to sign an affidavit that they will not be artificially impregnanted, that you will not have friends or relatives EVER visit your home if they have offspring under 14, if you are divorced, you agree to forego any visitation rights you might have with your children until, and not before, they turn 14, . . . when i explained this stupidity to my daughter (she didn't get it), i said it would be like the adoption coming into our home and taking pup and puddles away from us because her sister is only 12 y/o. also, on a legal note, can i just grab a cop, profess something to be mine (let's say a big diamond ring in the mall) and have him/her escort me there to make them give it to me (i can make up a contract on my computer if that's all it takes). would the cop have -- what? -- shot them, called out the swat team, whatever if they had refused to hand iggy over? what happened to possession is 9/10 of the law? oh, i forgot, bush did away with any constitional rights we had 7+/- years ago . . . i would NOT have handed that dog over. what is court for? why did m&m not have to go to court to get this dog? they saw a way to "get" at a celebrity. problem is, they didn't go after little britty, or parisnicole, they went after a person that everyone loves -- gay and straight alike. i hope she hires the absolute best lawyer in the land to put them out of the animal torture business. please(!!!) someone tell me why she was able to march in with a cop, no search and seizure order (??), nothing? what the hell is going on? this lady needs to say "i'm sorry" land go away. feel free to contact me if you have any anwers or comments, I DON'T CARE! sjlouden1@aol.com!!! please do!!!!

Advertisements




TheAnonymousEmail.com

Dumpi's On YouTube!