On August 4th, the following article was released on the HSUS website, “Indiana Legislator Gives Second Chance to Puppy Mill Dog”.  In this article, Andy MacAlpine of the HSUS  details:

• Linda Lawson’s involvement in the raid
  • “Rep. Linda Lawson helped move dogs from their cages onto trucks that would take them to a a nearby emergency shelter.”
• Linda Lawson’s request that a specific dog (Pomeranian) be diverted to her local shelter,
  • “Lawson held the dog a second time later that day while her picture was taken, and she kept track of her the rest of the time she was there. Before she left, she told Sterling that she would like to see the Pomeranian go to her local shelter, the Humane Society Calumet Area in Munster”
• Linda Lawson’s taking her granddaughter to the Humane Society Calumet Area in Munster to adopt ‘a dog’,  ’stumbling across’ the Pomeranian and the subsequent adoption of the dog by her granddaughter.
  • “Later that month, Lawson took her 7-year-old granddaughter, Genavive, to the shelter to adopt a dog. It wasn’t long before Genavive spotted the Pomeranian. The two met in a nearby room, and the dog immediately started licking the little girl’s face. Soon memories of the Pomeranian imprisoned at the puppy mill came rushing back to Lawson. “Genavive said, ‘Grandma, I think this is the one!’” she says. “And I’m like, ‘Thank you, Lord. It is the one!’”

Puff piece that this article appears, it does no favors to Rep. Linda Lawson.  The picture of the Pomeranian in the picture with HSUS Indiana State Director (Lobbyist) Anne Sterling and the picture of the Pomeranian with Linda Lawson’s granddaughter certainly look like the same dog.  The statements and framing of the information in the HSUS article, at minimum, put forward the perception that Rep. Lawson exerted her influence in order to obtain her pick of dog from the raid.

This information is damning enough that both this HSUS article and the HSUS video of the raid of the Garwood farm have both been entered into evidence by the Garwood, to the outrage of Judge Whitis.  Given the questions already raised by Judge Whitis regarding due process, and therefore a perception by the judge that the constitutional rights of the Garwoods may have been violated, this information gives the appearance of abuse of power as well. 

The HSUS knows about the previous article examining Linda Lawson’s conduct with respect to the raid of the Garwood Farm (Breezy Valley Dairy).  I observed their activity on the article and their monitoring of the subsequent commentary by readers.

The HSUS knows about the articles examining the conduct of the Attorney General’s office with respect to the raid of the Garwood Farm (Breezy Valley Dairy).  I have observed their activity on the article and their monitoring of the subsequent commentary by readers.

This is an organization of very savvy people, highly skilled at media and message.  Yet they have volunteered additional damaging information regarding one of their political allies? In the midst of a rising furor over the questions posed by the August 2nd AR-HR.com article? (HSUS was also monitoring the proliferation of links to this article to other blogs and websites)  I find it very difficult to believe that this was accidental or not considered.  So, I have to ask if this is payback for what the HSUS perceived as failure regarding HB1468 with the removal of the overwhelming majority of the HSUS-backed additions from the bill?

With friends like this, do Linda Lawson and other legislators need enemies?

Copyright 2009 by Erica Saunders
All rights reserved

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