It has come to light how the Humane Society of the United States gained possession of the dogs from the Indiana jeopardy tax assessment raid. On June 3, 2009, the HSUS purchased all 241 of dogs seized from the Garwood’s farm in Indiana for the grand total of $300 as shown in page 1 of the sale agreement, signed by HSUS Indiana State Director Anne Sterling.
There are a number of serious problems with this situation:
- These dogs were seized using a warrant that included an order to seize and hold the dogs pending further instruction from the court. The warrant was executed on June 2, 2009 and the dogs were sold on June 3. The dispersal of the dogs is currently being questioned by Judge H. Lloyd (Tad) Whitis, therefore there was no instruction from the court permitting the release of the dogs. (Search Warrant Pages 1, 2 and 3)
- The premise of the warrant was for jeopardy tax assessment, with the dogs being seize as collateral for a tax debt claimed by the Indiana Attorney General’s office as being in excess of $132,000.
- In the press release by the Indiana AG’s office on June 3, 2009, the seized dogs were stated to be “rescued animals now are being cared for by the Humane Society of the United States“, when in fact they had already been sold to the HSUS under the claim that the Indiana Attorney General’s office had “full power to sell the property” & “the Property’s title is free and clear from liens and encumbrances”.(clause 2) I would have thought that the seize and hold order on the warrant executed approximately 24 hours earlier would be counted as an ‘encumberance’
I am not certain what I find to be more disturbing:
- The ignoring of Due Process by the Indiana Attorney General’s office as noted by Judge H. Lloyd (Tad) Whitis
- The fact that the HSUS is buying dogs for re-distribution to shelters and rescues and resale, at least in this instance. I now question how many of the other dogs that they have ‘rescued’ have actually been purchased. Considering the HSUS claims that the dogs were sick and neglected, wouldn’t this make the HSUS guilty of buying sick dogs for redistribution similar to the those targeted in their ‘puppy mill’ campaigns? Wouldn’t the Indiana AG’soffice similarly be guilty selling sick dogs? Or were the dogs simply neither sick nor neglected, and the Garwoods maligned?
- The sale of the only collateral property possessed by the Indiana Attorney General’s office for $300 on a claimed outstanding debt of over $132,000
The combination of all these factors in a single case is incredible.
Copyright 2009 by Erica Saunders
All rights reserved