10/17/2007
Threats Alleged in Ellen DeGeneres' Dogfight
Keith Fink, an attorney for Mutts & Moms, the dog adoption agency which reportedly reclaimed their pooch Iggy after Ellen Degeneres and Portia de Rossi gave it away to Ellen's hairdresser, has taken their battle to Page Six.
They claim that while Ellen was crying over the incident on her talk show, her publicist Kelly Bush was leaving them threatening voice mails, like this one which Page Six says was played to them:
"This is Kelly Bush. We are filing a legal case against you. We are going to be contacting the media. This is not going to be good for your store or your organization. You did not do the right thing. You need to call back. There is no reason for you to take this dog. Please call back before this gets further out of hand."
Said Fink: "Ellen's lying. She is using her power and her access to the media to destroy this agency in the media. This is a woman who has signed many seven-figure contracts. She knows what she signed."
Ellen's publicist denies threatening the agency: "I have not left any threatening messages at all. The agency threatened to go to the media and I said that wouldn't be a good idea. I told them there's just no need to escalate this . . . They started this by wanting to take it public. I was the one who said, 'Let's talk about this.'"
A "Free Iggy" petition has sprung up online, calling on Mutts & Moms to return the dog to the hairdresser and her little girls.
AGENCY BARKS BACK AT ELLEN [page six]
Yesterday....
Tearful Ellen DeGeneres Begs Agency to Return Dog to Kids [tr]
Posted 9:10 AM EST by Andy Towle in Ellen DeGeneres, News, Pets, Television | Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Why is this getting out of hand? Obviously the dog will be well cared for as Ellen is the one who passed it on. I mean the dog comes with a story!!
Media hype? But on whos part? This could ruin the agency, imo.
Frankly its all a little melo-dramatic for my tastes. Either there is a bigger story or these people just have nothing to do.
Posted by: bob | Oct 17, 2007 9:20:53 AM
It's ridiculous how stringent the safeguards are for adopting animals that would otherwise be destroyed, considering people could just as easily buy one from a puppy mill or get a bunch free from a pregnant pet. It's the same sitch for adopting babies, yet that makes more sense because no matter what anyone says, I'm Team People over Team Animals anyday. However, I've lost some respect for Ellen over this—she could have handled this privately, it's ridiculous that she'd become SO UNGLUED over this and while there is something to be said for being apolitical, displaying such passion over such a non-issue strikes me as a little warped. Still like Ellen a lot, just think how she's handling this is a dog-gone shame.
Posted by: Matthew Rettenmund | Oct 17, 2007 9:48:49 AM
It makes absolutely no sense that the Mutts and Moms agency would threaten to go to the media. They already had the dog back at this point and nothing to gain by making this a media circus, unless they were responding to threats that they've received about going to the media from Ellen's camp. Ellen and her people are behaving outrageously here. Her hairdresser and the children should move on and Ellen should buy them another dog, for Christ's sake.
Posted by: Patrick | Oct 17, 2007 9:51:04 AM
How about crying over the fact that many states will not allow stable gay couples to adopt needy children.
The only people who are going to come out ahead in this are the lawyers.
Posted by: jimmyboyo | Oct 17, 2007 10:01:59 AM
Couldn't the other family just reapply for the dog at the agency?
Posted by: Wes | Oct 17, 2007 10:05:52 AM
I read somewhere (because this crap is apparently the biggest story on the internet for the past 2 days) that the agency has a policy against placing dogs in homes with children younger than 13 for the safety of the dog and the safety of the children. The hairdresser has kids younger than 13.
Also, Ellen is a whiney b*tch and her hairdresser is Cruella DeVille. They knew what they were doing, those evil trolls.
Posted by: David | Oct 17, 2007 10:13:09 AM
Moms & Mutts wanted the publicity. Duh! And how do we know that was even Ellen's publicist on the message?
Like I said before, I can see both sides - the clause is in the contract for a reason. Still, common sense has to play a role - the "no one under 13" crap is stupid and the shelter doesn't seem to have the dog's best interests in mind. Isn't that the ultimate goal - a good home for the puppy?
Posted by: shane | Oct 17, 2007 10:19:56 AM
Shane, Shane, Shane, how naive, you sweet sweet boy.
The ultimate goal here was never a good home for the puppy. The ultimate goal here was increased publicity for all of these horrid attention-seeking whores.
If Ellen really cared at all about the well being of the puppy, she would have NEVER gone on TV crying as if her parents had died. She would have ne-go-ti-ated (had to sound that one out, spelling is ruff!). Ellen got played, she went bat-sh*t crazy, and retaliated. The agency got played by Ellen, and said "No way! We don't succumb to famous b*tches that think they can do whatever they want!" And THEY retaliated.
The puppy never factored into anyone's equation here.
But I love you for your optimism Shane. If you need a good home, I will find you one... then swoop you away at the slightest indiscretion.
Posted by: David | Oct 17, 2007 10:29:42 AM
I think this is turning into Ellen's "jumping the shark" moment.
Posted by: Emmy | Oct 17, 2007 10:37:29 AM
Where are all the Ellen defenders from the last post?
(cricket...cricket...cricket)
Posted by: soulbrotha | Oct 17, 2007 11:14:25 AM
Ellen knew exactly what she was doing. She knows how much power she has, and retaliated plain and simple. She certainly knows about contracts, since she's signed enough of them, unless she's just lazy or stupid or careless. The welfare of the poor puppy was never in her mind. She either had ulterior motives all the time, or just screwed up and tried her best to get back in the way she knew she could.
And to think with all the money that's gonna be spent on this, what good it could have actually done to help homeless animals or ones already in shelters.
Yet another example of pampered, ego-driven celebrities who can't stand being told "no". We all know what a hissy fit Oprah threw at Hermes for no reason. These people are pathetic.
All this shows is never trust a lesbian.
Ellen can suck it.
Posted by: Jordan | Oct 17, 2007 12:12:15 PM
Upon reflection, this Ellen defender now feels that she's, in a word, nuts. This is ridiculous. Clearly she has emotional problems that have been brought out by this minor incident.
PS Apparently she has adopted many dogs in the past and each time they fail to get along with her cats they were shown the door.
PSS What a fucking nut.
Posted by: Harry | Oct 17, 2007 12:32:52 PM
A silly waste of time and airspace. Really, they couldn't have settled this without an emotional on-air plea?
Ellen, get over yourself.
Posted by: Marco | Oct 17, 2007 12:38:41 PM
Clearly, because Ellen is famous, she is a tricky mastermind that plots everything, even her mistakes, to gain her publicity, more media time and extra helpings of fame!
Wait, what? This is some of the most ridiculous crap I've ever heard. Perhaps Ellen is being genuine and wants the dog to go to the family, the Mutts & Moms agency followed their contract, and the public plea from Ellen resulted in both camps trying to defend themselves from possible unfriendly attention.
I mean, imagine, people being human, even if they're in the news.
Posted by: Jon | Oct 17, 2007 1:24:09 PM
Never get between lesbians and their dogs!
Posted by: anon (gmail.com) | Oct 17, 2007 2:04:16 PM
UPDATE:
The doggie was placed in another home! Ha! This is just too much.
In other news, they neutered the Michael Vick dogs and are looking for homes for them... back-up plan, anyone?
Posted by: David | Oct 17, 2007 2:26:21 PM
David, you seem to have a lot of information--or at least opinions on this. Do you know Ellen and her hairdresser? Since you've called Ellen a Bitch and compared her hairdresser to a cartoon character who wanted to skin puppies and use their pelts for coats I think you should tell us what your credentials are.
Posted by: Daniel | Oct 17, 2007 2:34:50 PM
Daniel,
I'm a loser mostly. I also have compulsive behaviors and tend to get really obsessed with things. Add in a slow week in the office, and you get someone with access to the internet and a total hard-on for this circus.
Also, I thoroughly enjoy getting people riled up. It's all in good fun.
Posted by: David | Oct 17, 2007 2:39:14 PM
i think the ellen supporters said all that was necessary in the related post. it's the irrational detractors that will continue to rage. one would think that ellen left a newborn on a stanger's doorstep. jebus!
Posted by: nic | Oct 17, 2007 3:06:00 PM
It's a DOG people! (And that includes you too, Ellen...)
Posted by: chimpd | Oct 17, 2007 3:32:21 PM
David,
I see. You're a kook.
Posted by: Daniel | Oct 17, 2007 4:37:36 PM
Uh, I don't remember my mother deciding to adopt my youngest brother out when he could clearly not get along with the rest of us. Honestly, who hasn't had pets that didn't get along. You just live with it. It's called "commitment". But, Ellen is a little fluid on that concept, apparently. Guilty, guilty, McGuilterson.
Posted by: Bradley A. Esparza | Oct 17, 2007 9:03:39 PM
Bradley A. Esparza,
you aren't equating a dog to your brother are you?
Posted by: nic | Oct 17, 2007 10:25:38 PM
Ugh...Ellen is such a twat! Give it up already, ya dumb whore! Stop using your show as an outlet to bash people for just doing their job!
Read before you sign you stupid, Cunt!
Posted by: Labia Minora-Majora | Oct 17, 2007 10:37:07 PM
I like Ellen, but this issue is not a huge priority for me..... My "issues" are civil rights and the environment... Obviously Ellen sees this as symptomatic of something, but to me it's nebulous. Clean drinking water, exploitation of natural resources, homophobia, anti-semitism, Gender issues..............
Posted by: john | Oct 18, 2007 5:40:51 AM