Let me see if I got this right. Seven or eight years ago, Elisabeth Binstock finds out some “friends” of hers “dognapped” a Malamute puppy. These people proceed to abuse this dog and Elizabeth notices this once a year when she visits Los Angeles. Finally, she convinces them to give her the dog, who will never be normal because of years of abuse. And Elisabeth thinks any of this information will comfort the original owners? Give me a break!

When you see that an animal is being abused you call Animal Control to come rescue it. Or you “steal” the dog yourself and get it to safety. Or you do something other than go back to Northern California and try again a year later. That letter made me feel sick to my stomach. I too hope the original owners saw that letter and contact The Malibu Times to contact Elisabeth Binstock, to get the names of the abusers and see them punished. And, Elisabeth, as far as I’m concerned, you are as guilty as the abusers for allowing it to continue unreported.

Kim Ledoux

An open letter to Christi Hogin.

This is to let your know that many people in Malibu are gratified by your efforts as city attorney to do the ethical, honorable and right thing in handling the investigation of alleged City Council campaign violations.

Despite considerable pressure to drop the matter or gloss it over you’ve acted with courage and conviction. I watched a City Council meeting on cable last week and was amazed by your patience, calmness under fire and intelligence. I was also amazed by the hubris of those who attacked you.

Malibu is lucky to have a City Attorney of your caliber.

Jean Craig

This has been a tense week around City Hall. Everybody knew that the deadline for filing all campaign documents related to the last City Council election was last Friday at 5 p.m. With everybody looking over everybody else’s shoulder, I was curious how this was going to affect the council. Once all the filings were in, the campaign violation investigation moved up a notch and I expected to see some attacks to try and discredit City Attorney Christi Hogin and her investigation. Frankly, I thought there might be some fireworks and didn’t want to miss it.

So I slipped out of the house Saturday morning and down to City Hall to watch a scheduled special City Council meeting. The agenda indicated they intended to review the city’s fourth quarter reports on program priorities, but anything could happen. Normally, I avoid council meetings like the plague because they’re long and tedious. More often than not, it’s the same suspects saying the same things over and over. At least on cable you can change the channel when you feel it all gorge up in your throat. But I do try to go to one occasionally, if only as penance for past sins and also to do a little research. I like to think of it as taking the temperature of the room. There are some things you just can’t get from watching it on cable.

I was particularly interested because I knew there had been a rather testy exchange of memos earlier in the week between Councilman Walt Keller and Christi in which Walt demanded that she attend Saturday’s meeting (the meeting had originally been set for Tuesday and then at the last moment switched to Saturday) and Christi explained that she had a prior commitment on Saturday to pick up her 10-year-old daughter, who was coming back from sleep-away camp, and that she would be happy to accommodate and meet with them any other day, including Sunday.

That did not appear to pacify Walt in the least. He came to the council meeting Saturday insisting that Christi was an essential part of this meeting, so much so that he made a motion to add a review of her office to the meeting agenda. Councilman Harry Barovsky then rose to the defense of working motherhood and insisted that a promise to a child is something that has to be kept, thereby probably earning for himself the Grateful Single Working Mom Award in perpetuity and for Walt the equally permanent Grumpy Grandpa Award.

The public comments at the meeting of course consisted of the usual pro forma comments from the usual suspects. Art London traveled in from outside Malibu to tell us all how we should behave and to dramatically point out that he was disappointed that Christi wouldn’t be there in person to hear his endless chain of well-chosen words, indicating he didn’t like to speak to an empty chair (to which I heard one of the spectators mumble that he didn’t like to have to listen to an empty mouth).

Gene Wood, another regular, rose during public comment to protest his rough handling at a prior meeting by our intimidating Mayor Joan House, who had wanted him to refrain from personal attacks and maintain a certain level of civility. Wood apparently was previously incensed at her overbearing presence and came well prepared this time. Looking directly at our mayor and speaking in his best off-camera-game-show-announcer-about-to-tell-us-what-was-behind-curtain-No. 3-voice, he began reading from several state high court cases in which it was clearly indicated that a citizen had a right to speak at a public meeting:

• No matter how rude or inconsiderate he might be,

• With no requirement that he show any civility or kindness,

• And that she, the mayor, had no right to impose rules of decorum only, and

• That the speech must only be of public concern.

Then, apparently satisfying both the mayor and the audience that he obviously met all those criteria, he told a tale of standing overlooking a military graveyard in the Philippines and vowing that he would do everything in his power to make sure those people had not died in vain, which apparently included refusing to stop talking when his allotted time ran out.

About that time, I had had it and left the room. I understand later the council, as was typical, got through about half its agenda. Christi’s presence was, of course, unnecessary, as Walt I’m sure well knew it would be. Once again, I felt the bile rising from my gut and decided it was time to take flight, get some lunch and a drink and try to wash out that bad taste you get after most City Council meetings.

This letter begins with a legal item, one of many like precedents regarding Free Speech. Pasadena, California. Federal Court ruling, 1995: “The City Council cannot pass rules of decorum. You cannot edit or restrict people’s speech. It only must be a matter of public concern.”

At the City Council meeting of a week ago Monday, Joan House interrupted a statement I was making and said I could not use a phrase. I was outraged. I contested her, and she said she would decide what words were good or bad, and she would also be the judge of, the arbiter of conduct.

I protested vigorously, and she gavelled me down. I never got to finish my statement. It was not profane and the subject was of public concern.

I cannot allow this to happen to our city.

There is an attempt here by Joan House to squelch public input if she disagrees with the speaker’s choice of words or actions. Squelching public input is also a good device to squelch public opposition. That is why it is prohibited.

This letter actually begins in 1946, in the Philippines. I am about to go home, after being in the South Pacific for some time. I weigh 120 pounds, have recurring bouts of malaria, but I was going home! Two days before I was to leave, I went to the Armed Forces Cemetery outside of Manila. I wasn’t really quite sure why I had come there, to stare at thousands of graves, crosses, star of Davids, some graves only with a name, year of birth, year of death. One for every man who died for his country — our country — for you, for the ideals upon which this nation was founded.

And then, it suddenly dawned on me. I had come to pay tribute. I had come also because I felt guilty. I was going home and they would stay there forever. I then decided I would pay my tribute to these men by an oath that I would defend their ideals for them, whenever, wherever it was necessary.

It is now necessary.

Joan House, do not attempt to stifle speech by citizens of this community. I will fight this every legal way that I can.

Joan House is not entitled to dictate what words can be spoken, or in what manner they are presented. Joan House resorts to repression, because she fails to execute her position as mayor effectively. She knows that, and the knowledge turns her into a control addict. That is my sincere belief.

People are guarantied freedom of speech, and those people must be held responsible for what they say — judged by the community, not Joan House.

Until you renounce your statements made at the meeting, Ms. House, I will oppose you.

I believe it is important for everyone in our community to see the tape of that meeting. It speaks for itself. If you agree with me, please call City Hall to express your feelings about freedom of speech.

Joan House must not be allowed to become Malibu’s speech dictator.

Gene Wood

I want to thank the incredibly honest person who turned in my silver bracelet to the lost and found after the Malibu Art Festival. Mary Lou at the chamber office told me the man left the bracelet with her and said, “I’ll bet this person is really going to miss this.” Well, he was right. I was given this wonderful gift while I was going through a very rough time in my life. After a year which consisted of a divorce, the loss of a beloved pet and losing a parent to a long-term illness, I moved to Malibu to start a new life and the bracelet was a symbol of a new start. It’s good to know integrity and honesty are alive. When I asked for a description of the mystery man I forgot to ask, “Did he by any chance have wings?”

John Barletta