On April 27, 2010 the HSUS filed a ‘color of Law’ suit against Ohio Secretary of State, Jennifer Brunner, in conjunction with Michigan lawyer Beatrice M Friedlander.  The basis for the  alleging Ms. Friedlander’s rights are being violated because the Ohio state Constitution requires that signatures on ballot initiatives must be collected by Ohio residents.

Suddenly the HSUS is concerned with preservation of an individual’s Constitutional Rights? Did I miss a memo, or a press release?

What about the property rights of individuals who are having animals seized and dispersed by HSUS teams led by Scotlund Haisley, who has openly declared, “I want the scum to think we are law enforcement”. (Endorsed by HSUS CEO Wayne Pacelle, “I like his (Scotlund’s) cowboy ways”)

• What about the rights of Norman Pang in Hawaii? (currently suing the HSUS for action “under color of law” citing violations of Mr Pang’s rights under the First, Fourth, Fifth & Fourteenth amendments)
• What about the rights of Dan Christiansen in South Dakota? (172 dogs seized by the HSUS “in conjunction with Second Chance Rescue and the Turner County Sheriff’s Department” on September 2, 2009 and ordered returned by the judge on May 4, 2010 because the dog’s were deemed taken illegally)
• What about the rights of Virginia Garwood in Indiana? (241 dogs seized with HSUS assistance on the premise of tax issues with a warrant ordering ‘seize such property, or any part thereof, found during such search and hold said property pending further order of this Court”  Yet the dogs were sold to the HSUS within 24 hours and subsequently dispersed.  This case is still before the courts)
• What about the rights of Louisville, Kentucky residents who were subjected to seizure of animals and loss of them if they couldn’t post the mandated seizure ‘bond’? (Struck down as illegal) The Louisville ordinances were used as a springboard for similar legislation that has been passed or is pending across the US.  This has lead to significant speculation that the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) was heavily involved in the drafting of this legislation; especially since the HSUS regularly announces its involvement in the drafting in legislation across the US and dedicates significant resources to legislation and legal action.

All of these examples are cases involving (alleged) violations of FEDERAL constitutional rights with significant HSUS involvement.

So … is the HSUS only concerned about constitutional rights at the state level?  Or do they only look to overturn constitutional law when their goals are affected? Are they going to change their actions to ensure that they respect the constitutional rights of individuals in their own actions? Are they going to assist the individuals above in defending their constitutional rights?

Anyone care to volunteer their thoughts on these questions and propose their own?

• The badge and identification provided to Ronnie Graves by the Humane Society of the United States, reportedly ordered by Scotlund Haisley & identified by a law enforcement official as ‘too similar to that of law enforcement’
• The statement by Scotlund Haisley to Ronnie Graves, “I want the scum to think we’re law enforcement,” when confronted with the potential illegality of the identification
• The response of Wayne Pacelle, “I like the Cowboy Ways that Scotlund brings to the team,” when the Scotlund Haisley’s comment was reported to him by Ronnie Graves, in person.

These items appear to tie together three potential issues: Impersonation of a Police Officer, action “under color of law” , and issues related to Section 1983 of the US Constitutional Torts Code (cited below).    These three elements appear to all be tied together by the Carroll Cox show interview, as well as additional recent court cases. 

Would you know this badge meant nothing if HSUS showed up at your door?

Impersonation of a Police Officer

Since Police Impersonation laws seem to be relatively similar across the US, I am referring to Criminal Jury Instructions as published by the Judicial Branch of the State of Connecticut:

• Element 1 – Impersonation: The first element is that the defendant <insert as appropriate:>
  • by (his/her) words or conduct, pretended to be a sworn member of an organized local police department or the division of state police within the department of public safety.
  • wore or displayed without authority a uniform, badge or shield by which a police officer is lawfully distinguished.
• Element 2 – Intent: The second element is that by such action, (he/she) intended to induce another to submit to such pretended official authority or otherwise to act in reliance upon such pretended authority. A person acts “intentionally” with respect to a result when (his/her) conscious objective is to cause such result. <See Intent: Specific, Instruction 2.3-1.>

Scotlund Haisley's Facebook photo, kicking in doors.

I am not a lawyer, and do not pretend to be, but to my layman’s eyes the elements cited in the CT Criminal Jury Instructions appear disturbingly close to being fulfilled.  Especially when considering that the badge authenticity as a law enforcement badge is irrelevant to this sort of issue:

• Commentary:  The fact that the uniform, badge or shield was not authentic is irrelevant. “The goal of the statute is to prohibit criminal impersonation. Among other things, the statute prohibits an individual from using a badge with the intent of inducing another to submit to authority that he or she does not possess. Because the state proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant used a badge that appeared to lawfully distinguish him and that he used the badge in the manner proscribed by the statute, we are unable to see how the issue of the badge’s lineage or authenticity bears on the goals that the legislature sought to achieve.” State v. Guadalupe, 66 Conn. App. 819, 828 (2001), cert. denied, 259 Conn. 902 (2002).

Note the common elements between the HSUS badge and true law enforcement badges; especially the use of eagle at the top, the placement of lettering, the use of gold tone metal, the logo in the center and the use of the US flag.

Action “under color of law”

There are two scenarios where private persons (or organizations) are considered to be acting “under color of law”:

1. a private person who conspires with a state actor is a state actor for the purpose of the alleged conspiracy.
2. a private person who acts as an agent of the state acts under color of law.

 Humane Society of the United States announces its working collaboratively with government agencies on a regular basis, does this not fulfil the definition of “under color of law”?  A few of numerous examples below:

• “Yesterday, our team worked with the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture and its Bureau of Dog Law Enforcement” (Source: Wayne Pacelle, “A Humane Nation”)
• “The HSUS’s Emergency Services team had four deployments—puppy mill raids in North Carolina, Tennessee, Mississippi and South Dakota—where we partnered with local organizations and law enforcement to rescue dogs in distress, the victims of greed and neglect.” (Source: Wayne Pacelle, “A Humane Nation”)
• “…we rescued more than 500 dogs and about 15 cats in cooperation with the Kaufman County Sheriff’s Office…” (Source: Wayne Pacelle, “A Humane Nation”)

Section 1983 of the US Constitutional Torts Code

Here is where the potential implications for the Humane Society of the United States as an organization, its volunteers personally and any government agency or official become disturbing.  According to Section 1983 of the US Constitutional Torts Code:  “Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any state or territory, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.”

I know, its a lot of legal-ese.  The layman’s thumbnail sketch:  An individual (and/or organization) in an entwined relationship with government that is involved with depriving any citizen of any of their Constitutional rights “under color of law” is subject to being sued by the injured party in their individual capacity.   

So, let’s say you are a volunteer helping a private organization seize animals (property) in association with a government agency.  (entwined relationship) Under Section 1983, if there are Constitutional violations associated with the actions of the private organization, not only might the organization be in an actionable position but also the individuals associated.  That includes volunteers. 

Why should you care?

The recently filed lawsuit in Hawaii is a Section 1983 lawsuit citing violations of Mr Pang’s rights under the First, Fourth, Fifth & Fourteenth amendments. It appears that volunteers are among the included parties, even if not yet individually identified.   (Page 8 also references the use of ‘law enforcement looking badges’)

The portions of the Louisville Metro Government Animal Control law struck down in Kentucky as in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment were brought to court through a Section 1983 suit, leaving Louisville Metro Government  and associated officials potentially subject to damages and court.  Louisville Metro Animal Services Director Giles Meloche has recently resigned, officially leaving as of December 31.  The Kentucky court specifically cited that permanent deprivation of an animal owner of his property absent a finding of guilt is unconstitutional.  Another federal lawsuit on similar grounds is reportedly being filed against Louisville Metro Government on friday October30.

The information conveyed by Ronnie Graves appears to indicate an intent to deceive people as to the true level of authority of members of the HSUS Emergency Rescue Team and an acceptance of that attitude up to the highest levels of the HSUS leadership.  As per statements by Ronnie Graves, these issues were raised in January 2008, yet the use of the possibly illegal badges and identification continue to be used  as demonstrated in HSUS photos and videos on a regular basis.  (example below from a recent HSUS video)

Afterthoughts…

There have been numerous raids of animals across the US in which animals have been seized and dispersed or even euthanized prior to court decision.  This includes the Garwood case in Indiana, another case in North Kentucky just working its way through the courts, innumerable raids involving pitbulls and many more.  The number of potential cases could be staggering.

It raises questions.  Why are government agents allowing the use of this style of identification, badge and uniform by HSUS personnel under their watch?  Do they understand that they are potentially placing their agencies and themselves in an actionable position?  Do volunteers understand that they could end up personally liable for unconstitutional actions if they occur “under color of law”?

On September 11, 2009, Norman Pang of Hawaii filed suit against the following individuals:

• Pamela Burns, President & CEO of the Hawaiian Humane Society
• Kenoi Vaughn, Manager of Field Services of the Hawaiian Humane Society
• Rigo Niera, Director of Animal Protection of the Hawaiian Humane Society
• Rebecca Rhodes, Executive Director of Kauai Humane Society
• Inga Gibson, Hawaii State Director (Lobbyist) of the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS)
• Scotlund Haisley, Senior Director, Emergency Services of the HSUS
• Rowdy Shaw, Raid Team Member, HSUS
• Jackie (last name unknown), HSUS

This lawsuit is directly in response to the actions taken surrounding the July 19, 2009 raid publicized by the HSUS video below, actions that are outrageous if the details of this case are proven out.

Norman Pang is the widower of Bonnie Pang.  His wife, Bonnie, operated the Hawaii 501(c)3 non-profit Animal Haven which according to its charter was to provide “permanent sanctuary for all species of animals and birds where they would be completely safe and well cared for”.  Bonnie founded Animal Haven as a no-kill and hospice environment in opposition to the euthanasia policies of the Hawaii Humane Society (HHS), with whom she had a history of conflict.  This history included allegations in 1995 by HHS of neglect and animal abuse from which Bonnie was acquitted and after which the Pang’s filed suit against HHS and the City/County for their actions. 

Since 1995, people have continued to bring animals to Animal Haven, described in the court filings as “malnourished, ill, crippled, and/or terminally ill”, in the knowledge the animals would not be turned away.   Prior to her death,  Bonnie asked her husband not to turn the animals over to HHS if anything happened to her in order to prevent their mass euthanasia.   On July 13, 2009,  Bonnie passed away in her sleep.

Enter the Humane Society of the United States

Knowing that he could not manage the needs of the animals, the grieving Norman Pang immediately set about seeking help to find a new home for the animals in compliance with his wife’s last wishes.  He received an offer of assistance from Oahu Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (OSPCA) who contacted the HSUS.

Two days after Bonnie’s death, on July 15^th, HSUS personnel accompanied by OSPCA personnel informed Norman that they would care for the animals from that point forward & had Norman sign transfer of ownership of all animals and birds into to the HSUS and OSPCA as of that day.

According to the papers filed, no one from HSUS or OSPCA would appear to care for the animals they now owned for FOUR days.  Norman Pang was left to do so, alone, providing food and water to animals that no longer belonged to him.  On July 17^th,  HSUS personnel including Scotlund Haisley visited the property with Mr Haisley stating that “he was satisfied there was no basis for any criminal complaint”

On July 19^th, HSUS personnel began removing the animals with Scotlund Haisley repeating his statement that “he was satisfied there was no basis for any criminal complaint”.  This was the same day that HSUS personnel showed up with the video cameras, to tape the conditions of the animals owned by HSUS and OSPCA for 4 days but cared for by neither.

Animals left to be cared for by a man, alone, who had just lost his wife.  A man who acted immediately to fulfill his wife’s last wishes and in the interest of the animals, knowing he was in over his head. 

This is the Humane Society of the United States at work. 

This is how your donations are being used.

Copyright 2009 by Erica Saunders
All rights reserved