When It's On
Read Topic
Watch Now
See Now
Ellen gives Stryker an update on Iggy the doggie.
 |
 |
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
More Videos |
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
 |
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
 |
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
 |
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
 |
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
|
The Ellen DeGeneres Show on Facebook
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
Share
Share Your Comments:
Posted by Karen aka newest Ellen fan | November 12, 2007 8:21 PM
The above post was not mine, just for those who think it possibly could be. Nice try though although a little too violent for my taste.
Im wondering if anyone else watched the Insiders story on Iggy. I did and wondered just how come Mr. Fink the attorney knew soo much about Iggy and his now habits. Like what he likes to eat and what toys he chooses to play with. I think he knows a little too much about Iggy would love to hear from those of you who saw that segment. And Im still totally disgusted that ET would run an exclusive on him. Its just not right. And whoever has Iggy got a pretty penny for that segment and is probably getting a bit more with Mary Hart in the mix. As that was not a public service announcement.
That wasn't Iggy. I believe that when Marina took Iggy, she had him killed in the most brutal kind of way. First, she had him dismembered while still alive and then crushed his skull and peeled his brain bit by bit from his shattered cranium. Marina did this all by her own hand the day after she ripped Iggy away from those angelic children. She is an evil woman and should be placed in scalding water until her skin and muscle separate from her bones. I know this sounds harsh, but I can't hold back my feelings any longer. I am sorry, Ellen, but I am tired of suppressing these thoughts. I know on some level, you feel the same way about this evil, disgusting woman. Forgive me
there have been lots of reports of blocking intermittently, and I have experienced it also. I can't figure it out, but it is for sure no form of censorship. It is a shame, I have wasted good posts, some of which i actually proof read which I rarely do.....
I guess we live with it, and the shorter ones do seem to get through better, but it is not just length that is the problem. any whiz kids here that can shine a light on this?
And...
That trust was broken the momment Ellen forgo-ed the pup. All rights she once had were given out the window with that one vilified action. Therefore all agreements made upon this act, in direct relation to, are void.
Case cosed. Juries out. Plaintiff wins. All hale the mighty forces of litigation.
I had a brilliant post debunking the car anology and it never went through, perhaps these Ellen gatekeeps don't like Ellen being exposed...
Forget the car anology. It has no bearing. FYI...a hunk of metal and a life..let's get real here folks. Adoption is not ownership, it is entrusted care providing.
That was just a test. I wrote an excellent post and it never saw the light of day...so now I am wondering why?
Doug,
What if you had a classic car that you sold to someone but you wrote in the contract that if he/she ever decided to sell it, that they would have to contact you first and give you first chance at repurchasing the car because you wanted to be sure it was kept in mint condition. You later found out that it was given to someone else? Perhaps the person it was given to knew nothing about classic cars and would drive it into the ground. Wouldn't you want to get the car, you worked hard on restoring, back and then put into the hands of someone that knew about such cars?
Hmmmmmm?
OMG I just saw a tv commercial for the insider. TONIGHT the dog Ellen gave up Iggy is found, 7:30 pm my time
Bad argument, Doug Arbo. The car wash thing is just not a good comparison. Besides, if the contract was so ludicrous, why did Portia sign it? And please spare me the argument that she didn't read the fine print. You seem to easily dismiss contracts and microchips. Iggy wasn't Ellen's or Portia's to give away. Whatever you mean by "roosted" the family never filled out a contract or even attempted to.
You are misusing that "possession is 9/19" rule. Marina and the police could very well be wrong the way they handled taking the dog back, but nobody is pursuing it. Why? I could give you my viewpoint, but you wouldn't agree. If you are so hot about this, put your money where your mouth is. Hire a lawyer and sue on behalf of Iggy.
It seems really simple to me. Y'all keep bringing up this "contract" when we are dealing with property. If someone sold you their car and had a contract that had you wash the car every week or they would come reclaim it, you'd think they were crazy. If there was legitimate harm being done to the animal then the humane society would intervene, can we agree on that?
This is how my simple brain sees it:
Ellen adopted (bought) the dog, it is now her property, legally, no matter what the micro chip says. It's in her possession.
Ellen gave the dog to someone, transfered ownership, legally.
Ellen broke the contract and is responsible for some kind of damages, returning the dog is not possible as the dog is no longer her property to give back.
The family that received the dog from Ellen was roosted into filling out an adoption form, which they did not have to do because the dog was given to them by Ellen, not Mutt Moms.
Marina Baktis went to thier house and took the dog, the dog was not stolen property and not subject to seizure.
At the point Marina Baktis took the dog, this is theft, as the family had possession of the dog and the rule still is, possession is 9/10ths of the law. (Get caught with some drugs in your car and see if the police don't get you for possession).
The police are completely wrong to give this woman the dog, they could have cleared this up by talking w/ the family and Ellen. It is not the police's job to decifer or interpret a contract and the contract doesn't even apply to these people.
The police should definitely be catching crap for this, too, and nothing's being said about they're involvement.
So, in conclusion, the dog's status, as of the moment Marina Baktis took it, is stolen property and is subject to seizure (don't know if there is a statute of limitation on this one, though). Marina Baktis should be charge w/ theft or grand larceny. Also, if Marina Baktis' associates refused to give the location of the property, should be charged as accessories to the crime.
Mind boggling isn't it.
Posted by Doug Arbo | November 11, 2007 10:22 PM
That's one phantom of a story and entirely fiction, you should be writing fiction instead of expose. Marina, from what I read of those illusive emails, did react calmly with her first action. Which was to enlighten Ellen that she needed to have her hairdresser fill out a formal adoption form and in the mean time the dog had to return to her care. It was Ellen who reacted irrationally by immediately taking that action as a threat and going on air pleading to the Nation to help save Iggy. Ellen single handedly blew this thing way out of proportion and if it weren't for her post actions, the shop probably would have returned that stupid dog to the family. On a side note...let's say Marina was running an adoption agency for children and found out that the child she had given over to Ellen was now living with a new family. No one would be sitting here arguing over the semantics of adoption if it were a child and Ellen would have never dared address the nation with that request. Just as we expect that people in the position of finding homes for orphaned children remain knowledgeable of who they hand these children over to, a similar standard should be applicable to dog adoptions. On a second side bar, who could trust that Ellen would have returned or honored the favor had marina allowed Iggy to remain where he was all the while violating her own ethics just to be indebted by a powerful TV personality? At the end of the day that is all she is. A personality on Television. Her power does not come from her it comes from us. We give it to her. And if we allow her to abuse it and bend the rules for her own gain, than who better are we than hypocrites.
Dion,
I really would like to put up the longer post I have for you, but the blog seems to allow only shorter ones at this time.....Two other people tried with the same post with no success. Let me know if you still care.....I think it may take a couple of days.
I would very much like to debate this with you, and I have a good post I think......but in the meantime, here is a tiny part of my argument......
Please:
Do not defend Marina's mistake. Defend Marina's right to make a mistake.
Dion....
Again, peace to you and kudos for your good work.
Thanks Karen
I am still unable to get my longer post for Dion onto this board, but I will keep trying. This has happened to me and others here, and is temporary.
Juls,
I wonder where Iggy is right now myself. Marina placed him somewhere way too fast as far as Im concerned. Gave no explaination other than he went to another home. Even Ellen stated that Iggy and all the animals in Marinas care were kept in crates and cages in her shop. Ellen was in a way trying to keep Iggy from having to go back to that. Admittedly she did that wrong. And I am with you I believe that Ellen probably did appologize to the kids and explain what happened. Some of these people do not understand that some rescues do keep the animals in kennels , cages and or crates. Shelters normally keep animals in kennels. I thank you for your comment though its refreshing to see someone who sees it for what it is. Both made mistakes,and only one has taken responsibility for her mistakes. I would really like to see how any of you would have reacted had you had to admit to a mistake after driving more than four hours on the highway with no sleep. Then had to work the next day. Most of you would have either called in sick , or would have done exactly what Ellen did. And if you say you wouldnt your a liar. So she probably shouldnt have gone on the air with it. She did so get over it. I give her credit for doing her job even in the event of all the wrong that she admitted to doing. Anyways Juls again thank you for your comment. It tells me there are still a lot of people out there with common sense, common courtesy and common decency.
Have a great day
Julia, A rescue is most often a home like yours or mine where a dog lives as a member of that family until it is adopted. Iggy did not come from a humane society or shelter, he was saved FROM that.
Hi everyone
I agree with both sides on this statment. Yes, Ellen should apologize (and I bet she already has) to the girls and explained to them what happpened, but at the same time, do the people an M&M have NO feelings? I would NEVER be able to do that... going and taking a dog from a family that takes care of him and loves him to bits and pieces. So, yes both sides are at fault, and I think the RIGHT thing to do is to try and get Iggy back into the loving home he was taken from! Where did he go after he was taken? To a wire kennel on a concrete slab that smells like disinfect? geez....
Juls
Home | Be a Part of the Show | Show Info | Giveaways | Games | Addictionary | Photos | Videos | Shop | Newsletter | Ellen's Life | Tickets
Email Ellen | FAQs | RSS | Site Map | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Advertise with Us
© 2009 WAD Productions, Inc. | In partnership with 
Iggy down under. Iggy is now a famous little pup. Let's all let him have his celebrity momment and stop faulting those owners who clearly want Iggy to have the same life as his once owner has.
Iggy I want your paw print, please send me a pawed picture.
Posted by scoobydoo | November 12, 2007 8:47 PM