I’ve noticed a pattern over time with the HSUS press releases and CEO Wayne Pacelle’s blog, “Humane Nation”.  The pattern?  With noticeable frequency, issues used to attack their opponents are issues which are reflected within the HSUS itself.  Some examples?

• In “Humane Nation”, HSUS CEO Wayne Pacelle attacks CCF founder Richard Berman for funneling funds from CCF to other pet organizations, yet the HSUS has a history of sending funds to ‘other organizations’ such as ‘Californians for Humane Farms’ which just happen to reside at the same address as the HSUS Sacramento office ($1,360,000 according to HSUS 2007 tax filings)
• In the HSUS webpage “Things you didn’t know about the (CCF) and Richard Berman“, one of the charges levelled against the CCF was “conducting prohibited electioneering and lobbying activities”  yet there is momentum gaining on the regarding the campaign to have the HSUS investigated by the IRS for the SAME THING.  (Both organizations are 501(c)3 organizations and subject to the same restrictions regarding political activity)

Lest you think I am just re-hashing old history, there is the latest matter of CEO Wayne Pacelle hiring new Vice President of Philanthropy, Deborah Peeples, who is the subject of a $87,164.60 federal tax lien.  Perhaps Wayne Pacelle will present an award to the IRS if they seize her property, as he did to Attorney General Greg Zoeller for seizing the property (dogs) of Virginia Garwood for tax reclamation purposes?

My thanks to the mysterious individual who forwarded these documents to me, who ever you are.  I am always interested in rock-solid documentation

Reminder: reference to the Center for Consumer Freedom is made for comparison purposes only.  Nothing written should be interpreted as either an endorsement or a condemnation of the organization.

The first phase of the campaign reportedly resulted in thousands of letters with this request being sent to the IRS Fraud Division, over 1100 by registered mail.  In the current phase, the request for additional letters requesting IRS investigation continues.  This is supplemented by the request to pose similar requests to government representatives.

But WHY would there be a need for such a campaign, you ask?

Because, as referenced in the AR-HR article, “Did the Humane Society (HSUS) Fail to Account for Political/Lobbying Activity of Personnel on IRS Tax Filings?” & according to the IRS website, “Whether an organization’s attempts to influence legislation, i.e., lobbying, constitute a substantial part of its overall activities is determined on the basis of all the pertinent facts and circumstances in each case. The IRS considers a variety of factors, including the time devoted (by both compensated and volunteer workers) and the expenditures devoted by the organization to the activity, when determining whether the lobbying activity is substantial.”

Because as laid out in numerous AR-HR articles and by SAOVA in their summary on this issue, it appears that these rules are being violated.

Because HSUS tax returns from 2005, 2006 & 2007 do not even acknowledge the political activity by HSUS personnel and volunteers despite significant documentation to the contrary, 2008 is the first year to acknowledge such activity yet the numbers do not make a great deal of sense considering the expanded scope of HSUS political activity.

Because HSUS efforts to influence the political processes continue behind the scenes as recently as last week when the following email was sent out be Anne Sterling, the HSUS State (Lobbyist) Director for Indiana.

From: Anne K. Sterling

Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 3:58 PM

To: Anne K. Sterling

Subject: Calls needed – HB 1258: Pet Stores & Animal Fighting

Hello! Our primary animal bill this legislative session, HB 1258, is getting a hearing tomorrow, Wednesday, January 20^th at 3:30 in the House Courts & Criminal Code Committee, Room 156C.

The bill would address pet stores & animal fighting. (Full document available at the link)

If the HSUS wants to maintain its tax-exempt status, then they need to stop playing politics.  If the HSUS wants to play politics, then they need to give up their tax-exempt status.

You have to pay your taxes, why shouldn’t the HSUS have to pay theirs?

Copyright 2010 by Erica Saunders http://AR-HR.com

All rights reserved

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

In a brief update, it appears AR-HR.com is not the only organization asking about due process in regards to the Garwood raid.  The Garwood tax-related case, which resulted in the seizure of 241 dogs, went before Judge H. Lloyd Whitis in Harrison County, Indiana on Wednesday July 22, 2009.

The Attorney General’s office is arguing that the Garwood’s should

1. Pay the tax bill, then
2. Go to tax court, then
3. Be refunded the difference should one exist

Therefore, that Judge Whitis has no right or jurisdiction to hear the case.   However, in this case, the judge has disagreed and raised questions related to the evidence presented by the AG’s office:

• What happened to Due Process? (Definition: Due process (more fully due process of law) is the principle that the government must respect all of the legal rights that are owed to a person according to the law of the land)  This is an incredibly serious question for a judge to be asking
• Where are the bills associated with determination of costs by the AG’s office?

More will be forthcoming on this issue over the next few days as documentation is accumulated. Stay Tuned

Copyright 2009 by Erica Saunders
All rights reserved

The HSUS appears to be becoming much more comfortable with the label Animal Rights very recently.  It was only Easter Sunday this year when the HSUS Internet Marketing Manager, Carie Lewis, rejected the ‘Animal Rights’ label outright in conversation with me on Twitter.  Yet in the HSUS blog re-print  on Opposing Views titled “Humane Society Responds to Attacks on Animal Rights Record” the term seems to raise no alarm. The increase in acknowledgement of an Animal Rights position becomes more apparent with Schedule of Events at the upcoming HSUS run TAFA conference such as the lecture “Animal Rights as a Mainstream Phenomenon” and a sponsorship list composed of Animal Rights Industry members such as:

•  Farm Sanctuary
  • Animal Rights Anti-Animal Agriculture group
  • contributing a minimum $10,000 sponsorship to the event and 3 speakers participating on the agenda
• Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF)
  • Animal rights law organization based in California. Programs include civil litigation, working to enact state felony anti-cruelty statutes, and the Great Ape Legal Program, dedicated to winning legal rights for great apes
  • contributing a minimum $2500 sponsorship and 1 speaker to the event
• American Anti-Vivisection Society (AAVS)
  • Animal Rights group dedicated to ending experimentation on animals in research, testing, and education
  • contributing a minimum $1500 sponsorship to the event & contributing 1 speaker from  AAVS and 1 speaker from New England Anti-Vivisection Society
  • HSUS donated $500 to this organization according to their most recently available  tax forms

The focus on legislation, lobbying, influencing public opinion and manufacture of message is even higher, which can be easily seen be examining the schedule of events.  Due to the massive number of items to examine on the agenda, I will be breaking these items down into a series of articles looking at the conference’s focuses on combating Animal Agriculture, combating Animal Research, Legal/Legislative involvement & manipulation of the media.  These will be presented leading up to the actual TAFA conference start and through the HSUS guiding attendees in participation in the Lobby Day on July 27th on Capitol Hill.  Wait a minute, isn’t this exactly the kind of action that is in violation of the terms of the HSUS 501(c) 3 status?  I thought that HSUS didn’t have any employees or volunteers participating in attempting to influence national, state or local legislation, including any attempt to influence public opinion on a legislative matter or referendum?

Copyright 2009 by Erica Saunders   http://AR-HR.com
All rights reserved

• Why has property seized by the state of Indiana been handed over to an organization predominantly involved in political lobbying such as the HSUS ?
• Does the state of Indiana or the Indiana Attorney General’s office have a formal arrangement with the HSUS allowing its people to act as law enforcement officers in the State of Indiana?  If so, why is an organization predominantly involved in political lobbying being permitted to act in law enforcement capacity?  If not, why was the HSUS involved in this proceeding with the tacit approval of Indiana Attorney General Zoeller, who has not disavowed the HSUS involvement? 
• Why has property seized by the state of Indiana been been given away, preventing the state selling the seized property to offset the outstanding tax debt and prior to the laying of criminal charges or any legal conviction?
• Why was member of the Indiana House of Representatives Linda Lawson permitted to participate in the seizure of property on behalf of the HSUS in a law enforcement operation? Rep. Lawson can be seen in the images below in HSUS t-shirt participating in the raid.

Inquiries to the Office of the Indiana Attorney General (Constituent@atg.in.gov ) have been met with the following response:

From: Constituent@atg.in.gov

To: ***********

Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 7:20 AM

Subject: RE: Mauckport, IN dog breeder raid

Thank you for your inquiry but our office cannot comment on an ongoing  investigation.

The problem with this response is two-fold (1) the Attorney General’s office has already commented on this investigation at length in the media and (2) the inquiries sent to the Attorney General’s office do not address the details of the investigation but address the conduct of the Attorney General’s office.   Why are these questions being ignored?

Rep Linda Lawson, in HSUS garb participating in tax-related dog seizure 305 miles from her home district

Copyright 2009 by Erica Saunders   http://AR-HR.com
All rights reserved