Video: Bizarre, petty, yet oddly compelling celebrity drama of the day; Update: Iggy placed in a new home?
posted at 2:12 pm on October 17, 2007 by Allahpundit
What’s more unsettling: this speech, the fact that some of her fans are phoning in death threats to the rescue group, or the rescue group refusing to give the dog to the two little girls as a matter of pride?
“It’s never gonna happen,” attorney Keith A. Fink, who is representing the owners of the Mutts and Moms agency, told FOXNews.com. “There is more of a chance that the Yankees are going to win the World Series this year.”…
“They are not going to be bullied by the Ellen DeGeneres camp,” Fink said. “It’s Hollywood culture — she thinks she’s above the contract and the law.”…
Fink told FOXNews.com that Mutts and Moms has a rule that families with children under 14 are not allowed to adopt small dogs — but they might have made an exception had DeGeneres gone through the proper channels.
“If she would have told the agency ‘I have a great friend, she’s seen the dog and loves it, can you consider her?’ I know my clients would have.”
Exit question: How much of a “donation” to Mutts and Moms is she going to have to make before they hand over the puppy?
Update: “Leave Iggy alone!”
Update: Heart-ache: “The attorney for Mutts & Moms tells ‘The Insider’ that ELLEN DeGENERES’ formerly adopted dog has been placed in a new home.” Follow the link, though, and see for yourself the shenanigans Mutts & Moms is allegedly up to with their contract claim.
Update: Ellen gets the news about Iggy: “Yeah, that’s what I just heard, too. The statement was, ‘Finally, it’s in a safe home.’ Which is an unbelievable statement. I mean, the whole situation is surreal. I can’t even begin to tell you the disbelief.”
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
Unless these threats were made afterwards. The attorney seems to be speaking in past tense.
Esthier on October 17, 2007 at 5:26 PM
I couldn’t piece together the timeline.
RushBaby on October 17, 2007 at 5:29 PM
Please note that the issue at hand is the rescue organization having to protect itself from lawsuits – who wants to be responsible for putting a “small dog” in a house with kids under 14?
This is a bit Rube-Goldbergian; however, Ellen’s support of democratic candidates and their trial lawyer ilk (read John Edwards) keeps the government from enacting proper tort reform which in turn forces organizations to hedge against litigation and in turn creates the situation where poor Iggy was torn from his family.
Exit question: Where was Geraldo to cover the story of an innocent baby torn from his mother’s arms by the cruel lackeys of the rescue shelter?
Tokyo Times on October 17, 2007 at 5:33 PM
Oh, good heavens. What a kerfuffle. It’s a DOG.
I agree that Ellen broke a contract she signed and that’s bad. But I also agree with others here that the shelter is doing a severe disservice to animal shelters everywhere by allowing this situation to get so negative and publicly out of hand. I’m sure they’re causing people to be hesitant to deal with shelters for fear that the adopted animals might be ripped from loving arms for any reason the shelter wishes to cite. As I mentioned earlier, there are some freakishly restrictive/controlling/invasive rescue shelters out there, but most seem to be really great and are doing a good service for the animals and the people who want them. I tried a couple of shelters that were too invasive and really turned me off. I ended up happily adopting my kitty from the local SPCA, which was thrilled to place him in a home that wanted him.
Both parties are wrong here. Ellen is legally wrong, and the shelter is morally wrong. They should have been happy that Ellen found a good and loving home for the dog after paying so much for his adoption and care. They could have used this incident for positive publicity if they so chose. I bet if they asked, she would have let them come on the show to talk about shelters, adoption, typical contracts, etc. Then they could have made the magnanimous gesture of making a new contract with the hairdresser after asking Ellen to educate the public about not making the same mistake she did.
aero on October 17, 2007 at 5:42 PM
What an idiot.
Metro on October 17, 2007 at 6:34 PM
Karl,
Apparently, the statement from Ellen’s publicist to the adoption agency about suing them went to them several hours after trying to negotiate with them a way to let the hairdressers family keep the dog. I watched a clip of the agency’s smarmy attorney Fink on with John Gibson just a bit ago. Apparently Ms. Bush wrote that after much talking back and forth with from what it sounds like was an unmoving agency owner, and before Ellen went on air.
In my opinion, Ellen shouldn’t have given the dog to the family. BUT, she did. After realizing the mistake and talking back and forth with the agency, realizing what had happened had to be upsetting. It can’t feel good to know that the dog you gave some little girls is being taken away from them because of you, so I’ve no doubt she was upset.
Frankly, I understand why these agencies have the contracts they do. But it would have taken them very little time to determine if that family was suitable or not, and just leave the dog with them.
As it was stated before, they wouldn’t have been able to use Ellen’s image on their advertising posters, though. Perhaps that was what they were thinking about, and not the dog’s well being.
serpentineshel on October 17, 2007 at 6:34 PM
Oh, and for the record, I bet Ellen was totally sincere in her regret and sorrow about this situation and was not acting or putting on a show to bully the shelter. (That may have been the effect it had, but I doubt it was her intention–she just wanted to make things right for the dog and the little girls). Despite her being so politically liberal, I’m a fan of Ellen’s. She’s incredibly funny and upbeat, and she just makes people happy. This is the first time I’ve seen her NOT being upbeat on her show. I only watch very occasionally, but her chipper attitude is a hallmark of her on-air persona. I think she would only use her show for such a downer moment if she was really sincere about her regret and desire to make it right.
That said (and after commenting on this thread three times), this whole thing is being blown out of proportion. At least I have more sympathy for Ellen than I do for Britney…
aero on October 17, 2007 at 6:44 PM
Tell me about it, what kind of man cries like that on national TV??
NTWR on October 17, 2007 at 7:23 PM
I’m sure that Ellen expects everyone who has a contractual obligation to her to honor their end of the deal. And not to sound heartless, but this could be a good learning experience for those kids long term, if framed properly by their parents… But on second thought, Ellen breaking down over the whole thing on her show might make that a bit more difficult at this point…
But Ellen is more than capable of making it up to them. In fact, the kids are in a good position to negotiate – a new puppy, some X-Boxes, whatever.
Dork B. on October 17, 2007 at 7:52 PM
Okay – I read this on another site and don’t know if true, but it’s too creepy to not pass on. The site said that a 50ish singer (okay Madonna) didn’t want to keep 2 chiuauha dogs that she adopted so she gave them to her housekeeper. The dogs were brutally mistreated by the housekeeper’s children and one died. Whoa- maybe the M&M folks heard that story too!
Ex-tex on October 17, 2007 at 7:58 PM
Get a grip. Anybody who watches this crap needs to see the shrink.
Captain America on October 17, 2007 at 8:02 PM
These agencies have rules for a reason and if they break them for one person (because they are “special” or their situation is special) then they have to do it for EVERYONE. And on top of that they have to start analyzing these cases and traveling back and forth to homes and getting into soap operas like this.
Libs like Ellen will never understand the point of “rules” and think they shouldn’t apply to them. She thinks the whole system has to change for her emotions and mistakes. She read the @#$% contract and these agencies tell you what the deal is repeatedly BEFORE you take the animal. It is crystal clear and I know because I just rescued one myself.
nottakingsides on October 17, 2007 at 8:07 PM
I think you misunderstood. When a dog comes into the shelter and is a candidate for adoption, it goes through a pretty rigorous screening. Part of that screening is determining if it gets along well with other animals and if it would get along/fit in with small kids. Its on that basis that the shelter will “label” the dog as being fit or unfit for families that already have a pet.
Bottom line is, if the shelter finds a dog doesn’t get along well with other animals, they won’t put it in another home with other animals since they know there will be trouble. That’s part of looking out for both the family and the animal(s).
taznar on October 17, 2007 at 10:14 PM
Many years ago, I was the assistant director of a no-kill, non-profit animal sanctuary. I also served as an Adoption Counselor, and our guidelines were very strict. The reason why the contract is so important and crucial is that oh-too-often adoptive families (who have been thoroughly vetted) find the pet doesn’t ‘fit’ into their family, and they either wind up giving it away to a home that is NOT fit, or it found its way back to our sanctuary as a stray. Too many times that happened, and she should have known when she signed the contract.
I feel sorry for the puppy, but I don’t feel sorry for Ellen. As a performer, she should KNOW TO READ THE FINE PRINT OF CONTRACTS! Apparently she didn’t, and who knows…??? the ‘new’ hairdresser family could have had a similar ‘doesn’t fit’ situation and the puppy could have wound up in the pound.
Sorry, but Ellen gets no pity from me on this one.
MsUnderestimated on October 17, 2007 at 10:18 PM
How gay.
spec_ops_mateo on October 17, 2007 at 10:35 PM
The only person responsible for the fiasco is Ellen DeGeneres. She or her roommate wanted the dog and took the dog in after being informed of the rules and after signing a contract, which clearly stated that small dogs cannot be adopted into homes with children under a certain age and that if the dog didn’t work out it was to be returned to Mutts and Moms. Who is Ellen DeGeneres to scoff at those rules?
Neither Ellen DeGeneres nor her roommate were committed enough to assimilate the rambunctious puppy into their family and then decided to ignore the rules and handed the puppy off to others. She created the heartache for the little girls.
Ellen DeGeneres is a middle aged woman who behaved like an obnoxious self-absorbed child during the self-pity party she left in her taped show. Sometimes saying I’m sorry isn’t okay. There are consequences for unaccepatable behavior. People like Ellen DeGeneres and her roomate forced Mutts and Moms agency to created the rules in the first place.
sinsing on October 17, 2007 at 11:06 PM
Amen, Rational Thought…she apparently can’t handle the smallest of responsibilities. The least she could have done was call in Cesar Milan to straighten out her ‘pack.’
MsUnderestimated on October 17, 2007 at 11:41 PM
Cesar Milan. Now there is one righteous individual.
RushBaby on October 17, 2007 at 11:52 PM
I recognize that woman, or more specifically that type of woman. Drunk-with-power, rigid rules, control freak who needs to get a real job. when my kids were little, I would run into these types at parent organizations. They are “in charge” of a bunch of volunteers and they ride roughshod over them as if they were highly paid executives. I used to say they wanted to be “CEO of the PTA”. Now that Ellen challenged *Eric Cartman’s voice* “my authoritaa-ay” they will go to great lengths to “win” even if the poor mutt is the “loser”. No donations
to you bitchesfor your bitches.NightmareOnKStreet on October 18, 2007 at 5:04 AM
It’s a damn dog for Christ’s sake!!!
Look, I love dogs, I have two myself. They are two of the most spoiled animals you will ever find, and I can’t blame that all on my wife.
But I have to say that I am on Ellens side on this one. These adoption agencies take themsleves way too seriously, and some of the rules are ridiculous.
Are you kidding me? These dogs are just to be adopted by old fuddy duddies that can’t or won’t play with them. These hounds are never to enjoy a childs conpanionship and play? Sounds like another self rightous a$$wipe animal organization to me.
Go Ellen.
conservnut on October 18, 2007 at 7:12 AM
They’re both crazy
LtE126 on October 18, 2007 at 7:34 AM
I see. I thought you meant that no dogs could be adopted from people who already have pets.
Esthier on October 18, 2007 at 9:14 AM
Ellen’s words. “Are rules more important than the welfare of this dog?”
Far be if from me to point the finger but Ellen got rid of the dog the moment she decided it had become a bother to her household, as puppies do. She couldn’t even keep her commitment to it.
She certainly isn’t in a position to decide what is best for Iggy.
Ellen had a contract and she doesn’t have a leg to stand on.
sinsing on October 18, 2007 at 10:34 AM
Ellen=Hill’s Chief of Staff
saved on October 18, 2007 at 11:22 AM
The rules are there precisely for the welfare of the dog — so that if an adoptive family can’t care for the dog, it doesn’t end up back on the street or in another shelter (which could be a kill shelter). It sucks in this situation, and it’s sad, but those are the rules — they’re set up to make sure the dog is cared for, not to protect human emotions.
Mark Jaquith on October 18, 2007 at 1:36 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2