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

Rep Linda Lawson at Breezy Valley Dairy Farm, 305 miles from District 1 & constituents

In light of recent documentation obtained regarding the seizing and sale of dogs in Southern Indiana, the question must be raised, “What is Indiana State Rep. Linda Lawson’s involvement in this situation?” Reported in a previous article by AR-HR.com, Rep. Linda Lawson was seen participating in the June 2, 2009 seizure of dogs from the Garwood farm (Breezy Valley Dairy Farm). The raid was conducted in Mauckport while Rep. Linda Lawson represents Indiana District 1, located 305 miles away. 

This raises a number of ethical questions regarding Rep. Linda Lawson’s involvement:

• If this was volunteer activity, was Rep. Lawson using state time and resources to coordinate with the Humane Society of the United States regarding participation in the raid? 
• How did she manage to clear time during the work week to participate in this raid during the greatest economic crisis since the 1920’s and in the midst of a special legislative session nearly 4 weeks prior to the passage of the Indiana state budget?
• If this was volunteer activity, why was Rep. Lawson standing with Indiana Attorney Greg Zoeller during the subsequent television press conference announcing the raid?  If this was not volunteer activity, why was Rep. Lawson acting in District 70  instead of  Rep. Paul Robertson? Rep. Robertson, a fellow Democrat to Linda Lawson, has been notably quiet through this matter.

Certainly any political representative is free to volunteer in their spare time as they see fit.  However the raid occurred on a Tuesday morning while the Indiana legislature remained in special session, a point when District 1 constituents would reasonably expect their state representative to be dedicating herself to their representation during a budget crisis.  Instead, Rep. Lawson was carrying puppies out of a barn a 4 hour drive away from her district and almost 2 hours drive from the state capitol. 

Rep. Lawson’s ties to the Humane Society of the United States are well known, as is demonstrated by latest news link on her homepage,”"STRONGER ANIMAL CRUELTY LAWS, PUPPY MILL REGULATIONS SET TO TAKE EFFECT“, includes the following, “Information that will be of use to municipalities that wish to impose stronger animal cruelty/puppy mill regulations will be distributed by Lawson’s office, the Humane Society of the United States and the Indiana Alliance of Animal Control and Welfare Operators in the upcoming weeks.”  She is also prominently displayed in the HSUS video made to proclaim the raid’s occurance.  (please note the CLEAN dogs, especially the ones with white fur)

This raid, which has raised serious questions regarding the conduct of the Attorney General’s office, would have required coordination between the Indiana Attorney General’s office, HSUS and its volunteers. Given Rep Linda Lawson’s previous history as a law enforcement officer:

• Did Rep. Lawson have knowledge of the terms of the search warrant?
• If Rep. Lawson had knowledge of the seize and hold clause, why did she not speak out regarding the sale of the seized dogs prior to court
• Considering Rep. Lawson’s efforts to involve the Board of Animal Health in dog related activities, why did she not question their absence from the action?  This is especially relevant considering Rep. Lawson’s comments to the media (WAVE 3 TV) on June 2, 2009. “Some of these dogs were covered in feces. So matted and so awful that they could barely walk,” said State Rep. Linda Lawson (D-Hammond), who helped with the rescue of the dogs.  If the conditions were so unsanitary, surely this would have been of concern on a dairy farm involved in the food supply?  These conditions were certainly not demonstrated in the HSUS video of the event with the exception of a dog that appeared to have mud needing removal from its coat.

 As a former police captain, surely Rep. Lawson should have known to avoid even the appearance of conducting personal business on the job and known better than to have supported this activity in light of the issues that have emerged.

Copyright 2009 by Erica Saunders
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.

Upon obtaining a copy of the search warrant indicating the terms of the property seizure, the questions of the terms of the sale or gifting of the dogs seized by the Indiana AG’s office to any organization becomes especially troubling.  According to the terms of the search warrant, issued to the “Officers of the Indiana State Police, the Indiana Attorney General and his Agents, and any Law Enforcement Officer of the State of Indiana”, the items that authorities were allowed to seize related to the jeopardy tax assessment included:

h)  Any and all cash, canines, or other inventory or business proceeds found.

The troubling part is the section directly after this portion of the warrant, which reads as follows word for word:  YOU ARE FURTHER ORDERED to seize such property, or any part thereof, found during such search and hold said property pending further order of this Court. 

The warrant gave the authorities the authority to SEIZE the dogs but not to DISPERSE the dogs.  The court order set down immediately after the raid barred the Garwoods’ from giving permission to disperse the dogs.

So if the authorities had no legal authority to disperse the dogs and the Garwoods’ were legally barred from consenting to the dispersal of the dogs, why was Indiana Attorney issuing press releases (see here and here) related to the dispersal of the dogs to rescues around the state of Indiana (and beyond Indiana borders) for adoption?

Copyright 2009 by Erica Saunders
All rights reserved