Note to the Press: Do Your Due Diligence

Forgive me for being a stater-of-the-obvious, but shame on the animal-rights-coddling media.

This morning, I spent a considerable amount of time on the phone speaking with reporters from different regions of the U.S. to debunk the lies and propaganda that the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) has released (yet again)  about licensed dog breeders nationwide.

With each reporter interview, I found myself having to explain basic facts about HSUS' agenda and their assault on pet breeders, animal agriculture, and animal ownership across the nation.

One begins to wonder if these reporters are deliberately in step with the animal rightists' beliefs to the point that they are unwilling to acknowledge HSUS' insidious strategy to use lies and propaganda to pressure legitimate animal enterprise out of business.  I mean, you would have to be living under a rock to have never heard about any of the attacks that HSUS and other animal rights groups have made against the pet industry, horse industry, hunting, and animal agriculture, right?

In talking with one reporter from St. Louis, Missouri's KMOV Channel 4 this morning, I asked him how long he had been working as a reporter in Missouri.

He replied, "Several years."

I asked, "Were you working as a reporter in Missouri in 2010 during the campaign to defeat Proposition B -- also known as HSUS' Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act?"

The reporter replied, "Well... I was here working as a reporter in St. Louis, but I was covering things like drive by shootings, and fires."

One of the biggest election-year regulatory battles the state of Missouri has ever faced and this guy is telling me that he wasn't aware of it.  

Sorry, I don't buy it.

So, here was my response to Mr. KMOV Channel 4 reporter, and here is my rant to all the other reporters and journalists out there:

HSUS is not a credible source.  What they stated in their recent article about dog breeders is not factual and is not freedom of speech. This is slander. Repeating lies is the same as slander.  And by repeating the lies of HSUS, you are harming families and their businesses by not obtaining the facts.  

KMOV- St. Louis reporter then asked me for proof that HSUS is anti-animal agriculture and promotes veganism. 

In their own words, here are quotes from the leadership at HSUS which I shared with all reporters I spoke with today, courtesy of Humane Watch:

Fact: HSUS’s Food Policy Director Matt Prescott, a former PETA activist, created a national campaigncomparing farms to Nazi concentration camps. (See picture at right.) He has also written, “There’s never an excuse to kill and eat an animal.”

Fact: HSUS’s past farm-animal vice president Miyun Park told an animal rights conference, “We don’t want any of these animals to be raised and killed [for food]….And so because of that, a number of organizations including the Humane Society of the United States, we work on promoting veganism.”

Fact: HSUS’s current farm-animal vice president Paul Shapiro has said, “Eating meat causes animal cruelty” and “The meat industry equals systematic murder.”

Fact: After Wayne Pacelle, a strict vegan, became president of HSUS, he declared a new food policy making all HSUS events vegan—no meat or dairy or eggs, no matter how they are produced.

Fact: Wayne Pacelle has written that eating meat is “speciesist”—meaning animals are discriminated against, similar to racism or sexism.

Fact: HSUS has been secretly investing money in start-ups such as “Beyond Meat” and “Beyond Eggs”—businesses that hope to replace meat and egg products entirely.

Fact: Wayne Pacelle has said that PETA has “visionary and professional leadership. There’s no doubt they’re creative and courageous.” He also said, “PETA has really done so much in a short time to…promote animal rights.”

Fact: John “J.P.” Goodwin, an HSUS director of animal cruelty, has said, “My goal is the abolition of all animal agriculture.” Goodwin is a former spokesperson for the terrorist Animal Liberation Front.

The bottom line: HSUS is run by strict vegans who are only using smaller, organic farmers as a prop. These vegans are smart enough to know that 99% of the public eats animal products. So they provide lip service to small farmers for political and public-relations reasons to cloak their agenda.

My final note to reporters and so-called journalists in America:  HSUS doesn't care about people. And their mission has nothing to do with improving animal welfare. Maybe you should spend your time and efforts following the HSUS money trail. 

HSUS and their cohorts are determined to perpetuate propaganda and lies to smear legitimate animal-related businesses with the intent to bring an end to animal breeding, animal enterprise and, ultimately, animal ownership. 

Unless you check your facts, YOU and your news organizations are willing accomplices to the agenda of HSUS and their intent to harm. 

Rant over. 

Mindy Patterson, president, The Cavalry Group

   

Over-Regulation and HSUS Carlotta Cooper

In these days of government over-regulation it still might surprise you to learn that a government agency could determine the next puppy you get. But if the Obama Administration and Tom Vilsack at USDA have their way, that's exactly what will happen.

The USDA's APHIS (Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service) agency announced a proposed rule in May that would devastate small-scale purebred dog breeders who raise dogs in their homes. This includes most breeders of show dogs, people who breed K9 search and rescue dogs, police dogs, and protection dogs, many hunting dog breeders, and people who breed dogs for the disabled, as well as people who produce good pet dogs.

The rule proposed by APHIS would result in a serious change in direction to the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) which they administer. The Animal Welfare Act was originally passed in the 1960s to protect laboratory animals and it was later altered to allow USDA to oversee the care of breeding animals in large commercial facilities. For the past 15 years the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and other animal rights groups have been seeking to change the Animal Welfare Act so that it covers more than animals raised by wholesalers as it does currently. They have been trying to stretch the act to cover retailers, which would include breeders who raise a litter at home and sell directly to a buyer.

The Doris Day Animal League, which has since been subsumed by HSUS, sued USDA (DDAL vs Ann Veneman (Secretary of Agriculture) in 1997 in order to try to force USDA to apply wholesale breeding regulations to retailers, i.e., to treat home breeders the same way USDA treated large commercial breeders. DDAL initially won in court but the case was reversed on appeal by the Washington DC U.S. District Court of Appeals.  http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-dc-circuit/1362167.html One of the things that's so interesting about this case is that USDA opposed the animal rights position at this time. They claimed that the Animal Welfare Act should not be applied to retail breeders, who are typically small-scale breeders. According to USDA at this time, it would be a waste of the agency's inspectors and other resources to try to oversee these entities.

But things change and with the Obama victory in 2008, regulations were seen as the way to accomplish many things that could not be accomplished legislatively. Today USDA is supporting the animal rights position and trying to force small-scale breeders, as retailers, to live under commercial breeding or wholesaler regulations.

HSUS, which is NOT the same as your local humane society or animal shelter, has been trying each year to pass repressive legislation against pet breeders. So far they have failed, despite the fact that they have lured many first term congressmen to support the PUPS bill (Puppy Uniform Protection and Safety, Senate Bill 707 (S.707) and House Bill 835 (H.R. 835)  which would apply onerous restrictions to small-scale dog and cat breeders. Even some Republicans who should know better are supporting this bill which would do many of the same things that the proposed APHIS rule would do. It would label many small-scale breeders as commercial breeders and they would be forced to become USDA-licensed and inspected.

Just to make sure you get the picture, we are talking about your Aunt Susie who has a few Yorkies and raises some puppies. She would have to get a USDA license and have inspectors come to her home. But, it's not that simple. In order to become USDA-licensed, she would have to make her facilities (her home) USDA-compliant. That means having non-permeable surfaces that can be cleaned at temps of 180 degrees, proper ventilation in the areas where the dogs are kept, drainage for that cleaning water, insurance as a commercial business, possible approval by her homeowner's association, zoning approval, and a host of other requirements under AWA rules. She would go from being a hobbyist to a small business, whether she liked it or not. It's kind of hard to do these things if you're a small breeder living in the suburbs. And that's where many of our best home-raised puppies come from. When you want a good, home-raised puppy, you go to someone like Aunt Susie. But Tom Vilsack and the USDA would like to have small breeders put their dogs in kennels so they can make everyone be USDA/AWA compliant. Or, perhaps it's safer to say that USDA would like all of us small breeders to just disappear.

Are you wondering why the Humane Society of the United States would support the PUPS bill or the proposed APHIS rule when they would send our home-raised dogs out to the kennels? Aren't they the folks who are supposed to care so much for animals? Despite the ubiquitous ads with sad-faced kittens and puppies, HSUS does not support local shelters. The money they raise goes for lobbying on animal rights issues; lawsuits against agricultural interests; and their own salaries and pensions. Less than 1 percent of the money they raise goes to the animals. It would suit HSUS just fine to get rid of small hobby breeders who have been resisting them. The Humane Society of the United States opposes all animal breeding. It is easier for them to control breeders if they have breeders thoroughly regulated under the APHIS proposed rule and/or PUPS. They have won over USDA to a great extent now, at least under Tom Vilsack. HSUS, through it's lobbying arm the Humane Society Legislative Fund, is a contributor to the campaign of Vilsack's wife, Christie Vilsack, running for Congress in Iowa. And HSLF has contributed more than $100,000 to oppose Christie Vilsack's opponent, none other than Rep. Steve King, who has been a vocal opponent of HSUS-sponsored bills in Congress. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2941250/posts Earlier this fall, eight Iowa TV stations refused to air Humane Society Legislative Fund ads against King because of their sensationalism and dishonesty. The ads had to be re-worked before stations would accept them. When's the last time you heard of TV stations refusing ads? Well, PETA comes to mind.

The upshot is, the Humane Society of the United States is no friend to animals, whether they are pets or in agriculture. Over-regulation and animal rights-supported bills are hurting all of us, even the people who raise pets. Don't be fooled when you hear that something is “good for the animals.” If it comes from HSUS or if it smacks of over-regulation, just say no.

Carlotta Cooper writes for The Cavalry Group. She's a contributing editor for the weekly dog show magazine Dog News. She's been breeding and showing English Setters for 25 years.

Battleground North Dakota: No On HSUS' Measure 5

For Ellie Hayes to accuse North Dakota Agriculture Commissioner Doug Goehring of “not being honest” in a recent article in the Grand Forks Herald is something I find not only hypocritical, but most amusing!

The truth is that the author, Ellie Hayes, is the one being dishonest as she speaks to North Dakotans as though she is a long time resident of North Dakota. In actuality, she is a resident of my state of Missouri.  Ellie Hayes (aka, Michelle Hayes)  worked on a ballot initiative campaign, “Your Vote Counts” in 2011 through March of 2012 in my state of Missouri, which was sponsored and funded by the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS).

Since 1990 HSUS has passed ballot initiatives in 18 states attacking animal agriculture and hunting resulting in onerous new regulations destroying law abiding businesses and families.  

Most recently HSUS spent $4.85 million dollars promoting the 2010 Prop B, The Puppy Mill Cruelty Act, in Missouri only to narrowly win by 2%.  Much like Measure 5, The Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act did nothing to prevent cruelty to animals. Instead, the measure has over-regulated licensed, legitimate dog breeders out of business resulting in the near demise of their industry with an economic impact exceeding $500 Million in lost Missouri jobs and revenue in this year alone.

Measure 5 is an example of this with its promise to “Stop Animal Cruelty,” but unfortunately, when you actually read the details of Measure 5, there is nothing in the measure that actually does anything to stop animal cruelty. The proponents of Measure 5, especially its sponsor, the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), is counting on you, the voter, to stay uniformed and “just take their word for it” and blindly support the lies of HSUS.   I mean, who in their right mind wouldn’t vote for a measure claiming to prevent animal cruelty? Interestingly though, under current North Dakota state law, animal cruelty and abuse are already illegal. Do you really believe increasing criminal charges is going to increase enforcement and prevention? So, what is really going on here?

The organization behind Measure 5, the true master of deception, also known as the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS).  HSUS pretends to be the savior of distressed animals, but in actuality spends less than one percent of its $140 Million intake of donations for the hands on care of dogs and cats nationwide. The rest of their massive budget goes toward lobbying, funding ballot measures state by state (over $4.5 million in my state of Missouri), pension plans, on staff attorneys, advertisements, celebrity endorsements,  and public stockholding in restaurants, grocery store chains, and pharmaceutical companies. 

With each ballot measure passed, HSUS further regulates farmers, livestock producers and domesticated animal breeders with their  so-called “anti cruelty” campaigns imposing unnecessary onerous, prohibitive and costly regulations.  Regulations at the expense of fewer farms, fewer farmers, higher food prices, and a growing concern of a domestic food shortage.  HSUS has banked on the American public to remain unaware of what is truly behind their proposed measures.

Measure 5 is not out to reduce animal cruelty but to set a precedent to come back and regulate North Dakotan animal owners and animal related businesses who obey the laws and employ thousands of your friends, relatives, and neighbors. 

Ellie Hayes, I suggest you pack your bags and leave North Dakota.  Let North Dakotans write their own laws.  Like Missourians, I am certain North Dakotans don’t like out of state special interest groups influencing their laws.   

Protect your state of North Dakota and Vote NO on Measure 5.

Mindy Patterson co-founder and president of The Cavalry Group, a company working to assist livestock producers, agricultural interests and animal owners nationwide in the fight against the radical animal rights movement. 

VOTE NO ON MEASURE 5 VIDEO

CLICK HERE!

The Cavalry Group's Comments for Docket No. APHIS-2011-0003

VIA FEDERAL eRULEMAKING PORTAL 

August 14, 2012

Docket No. APHIS-2011-0003

Regulatory Analysis and Development

PPD

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

Station 3A-03.8

4700 River Road

United 118

Riverdale, MD  20737-1238

Re: Docket No. APHIS-2011-000, Animal Welfare; Retail Pet Stores and Licensing 
      Exemptions, Proposed Rule, 77 Fed. Reg. 28,799 (May 16, 2012)

Dear Sir or Madam:

      These comments are submitted on behalf of The Cavalry Group, a private member-based company dedicated to advancing the constitutional rights of law-abiding animal owners, animal-related businesses, and agricultural concerns, with regard to the proposed rule referenced above.

The Cavalry Group has grave concerns that the proposed rule is arbitrary, capricious, and in excess of statutory authority.  Moreover, the Regulatory Impact Analysis & Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis grossly underestimates the number of dog and other breeders who are potentially affected small entities and will become subject to the jurisdiction of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) under the Animal Welfare Act (AWA). The proposal should be withdrawn.

         I. The Removal of the Section 2.1(a)(3)(vii) Creates Uncertainty

Despite the agency’s assertion that this proposal concerns a redefinition of “retail pet stores,” it is, in fact, the unwarranted removal of another exemption from the licensure and other substantive AWA requirements that is the heart of this proposal.  The proposed rule removes the AWA license exemption that numerous breeders of animals have relied upon for more than two decades.  That exemption was for 

       Any person who breeds and raises domestic pet animals for direct retail sales to another person for the        buyer's own use and who buys no animals for resale and who sells no animals to a research facility, an exhibitor, a dealer, or a pet store (e.g., a purebred dog or cat fancier) and is not otherwise required to obtain a license . . . .

II.  9 C.F.R. § 2.1(a)(3)(vii) (subsection to be deleted under the proposed rule).  Without this exemption, any breeder of AWA-covered animals who engages in direct sales (regardless of the form of advertising such direct sales) would now be considered “dealers” under the Act unless they qualify for another exemption, such as the redefined “retail pet store” of section 2.1(a)(3)(i) and the “breeders” exemption of section 2.1(a)(3)(iii).   

One potential problem with the removal of the direct sales exemption of section 2.1(a)(3)(vii) is the lack of clarity of the remaining exemptions.  Under the “breeders” exemption, the total number of breeding females that would be allowed for an exempt entity is unclear. The proposed rule and preamble does not discuss whether any of the recited animals, dogs, cats and/or small exotic or wild mammals, such as hedgehogs, degus, spiny mice, prairie dogs, flying squirrels, and jerboas, are to be counted by species or collectively.  In other words, would two breeding age female dogs, two breeding age female cats, and one hedgehog transform an otherwise exempt breeder into a retail pet store?  If the proposal is not withdrawn, APHIS should clarify that species should be counted separately for purposes of determining exemption under section 2.1(a)(3)(iii).

       III.  The “Retail Pet Store” and “Breeders’” Exemptions Should Be Read Separately

     It is not clear on the face of the proposed rule, nor in any discussion in the preamble to the proposed rule, whether breeders that have four or fewer breeding females but that also engage in animal sales where the purchaser does not physically enter to personally observe the animal would or would not be exempt from AWA licensure, inspection, and recordkeeping.  In other words, the question is whether the “retail pet store” and the “breeders’” exemptions are separate types of exemption, of whether they must be read together.  Does an entity operating under the “breeders’” exemption also have to comply with the “retail pet store” exemption requirement for physical presence of the buyer?  Some interested organizations have already distributed materials indicating that the “retail pet store” exemption and the “breeders’” exemption should be separately read but this is not evident on the face of the proposed regulation.  If the proposal is not withdrawn, APHIS should clarify that the “retail pet store” exemption of section 2.1(a)(3)(i) and the “breeders” exemption of section 2.1(a)(3)(iii), as redefined, constitute separate exemptions and that compliance with both simultaneously is not required to be exempt from AWA licensure, inspection, and recordkeeping.

        IV.  The Removal of the “Small Sales” Restriction to Research Facilities, Exhibitors, Dealers, or 
               Pet Stores Should Be Retained or Clarified

Finally, the proposed rule slightly revises the regulatory definition of “dealer” to remove language that limits section 2.1(a)(3)(ii) exemption to those persons that engage in certain small sales to research facilities, exhibitors, dealers, or pet stores.  Under the revised definition, any entity that sold or negotiated the sale or purchase of any animal except a dog, cat, or wild or exotic animal would be considered exempt from the definition of “dealer” unless they derived $500 or more in gross income annually from such sales.  Under the proposed rule, then, if a seller had $500 or more gross income from sales to any person in any year, then they would have to be licensed, inspected, and retain records as a dealer.  The $500 figure is derived from the original 1966 text of the AWA, despite the fact that $500 in 1966 would be equivalent to more than $3,500 today.

As with the interplay between the “retail pet store” exemption of section 2.1(a)(3)(i) and the “breeders” exemption of section 2.1(a)(3)(iii), neither the proposed rule nor the preamble discusses whether the exemptions can be read separately or must be read together.  If the proposal is not withdrawn, APHIS should clarify that the “retail pet store” exemption of section 2.1(a)(3)(i) and the “small sales” exemption of section 2.1(a)(3)(ii), as redefined, constitute separate exemptions and that compliance with both simultaneously is not required to be exempt from AWA licensure, inspection, and recordkeeping.  APHIS should also seek statutory authorization to adjust the “small sales” exemption.

The public is generally aware that APHIS is working on a regulatory expansion of animals covered under the AWA to include birds.  The combination of the present proposed expansion of persons who fail to become exempt pursuant to section 2.1(a)(3)(ii) with the addition of birds will exponentially increase the number of persons who will be subject to AWA licensure, inspection, and recordkeeping. 

       V. The Regulatory Impact Analysis & Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Are Flawed 
            in Underestimating the Number of Potentially Affected Persons

The Regulatory Impact Analysis & Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (RIA) are flawed insofar as they fail to provide a well-founded basis for estimates of how many “retail breeders” will be subject to AWA license, inspection, and recordkeeping requirements.  Despite the RIA’s assertion that hobby breeders would be exempt from AWA requirements, the structure of the proposed rule is such that maintaining a sufficient number of breeding age animals, regardless of whether the offspring of one or all such animals are bred for sale, plus a direct sale of a single animal, would deprive the hobby breeder of exemption.  The RIA does not examine how many such persons would be affected.

Taken together, the removal of section 2.1(a)(3)(vii), the expansion of section 2.1(a)(3)(ii), and the requirement that purchaser physical presence is necessary to consummate an exempt retail sale render the proposal arbitrary, capricious, and in excess of statutory authority.   If the Department wishes to re-propose the regulation, the interaction of the various exemptions from AWA licensure, inspection, and recordkeeping should be clarified to ensure that those exemptions are read separately.

VI. Conclusion

The Calvary Group appreciates the opportunity to comment on the proposed rule.  It should, however, be withdrawn in its entirety.  This proposed rule is bad policy and unnecessary as there has been no public outcry from the American people demanding these changes, much less any empirical evidence of an actual problem requiring said proposed rule. We also challenge the Department's authority to propose a rule that affects commerce in this manner.   The only evidential reason that this proposed rule exists is that there has been significant pressure applied to APHIS/USDA from special interest groups, specifically by The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS).  

What we find especially troubling is that APHIS/USDA senior staff have been unable to actually describe what the rules are, much less the basis for them when challenged in person or on the stakeholders conference calls, drawing into question whether USDA staff actually generated the rules or whether they were submitted by HSUS, et al.  Perhaps USDA’s Secretary Tom Vilsack feels we need to pass the proposed rule to find out what’s in it.

Again, we respectfully encourage the Department to withdraw the proposed rule in its entirety.  It has become very clear that USDA and APHIS need to remind themselves that they serve at the pleasure of the American People and that they represent the interests of all Americans not just special interest groups such as HSUS.

Respectfully submitted,

Mark Patterson Mindy Patterson

CEO President

The Cavalry Group The Cavalry Group

That Which We Call A "Puppy Mill" By Any Other Name?

"What’s in a name?  That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet” This famous quote from Romeo and Juliet, the play written by William Shakespeare, encapsulates the tragedy that befalls dog breeders across America today which is, all in a name. 

All in a name, the term “puppy mill” was intentionally devised by the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS)  to empower their animal rights agenda and cause deliberate harm, and over time, dismantle the image and reputation of exceptional dog breeders while painting them with the broad brush of shame.

So, what exactly is a so-called, “puppy mill”?  

In 2010 as the campaign manager for The Alliance For Truth, a campaign to defeat HSUS’ “Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act” (Prop. B) in Missouri, I learned first hand that HSUS and their animal rights agenda promotes and capitalizes on the term “puppy mill” as a reference to ALL dog breeders. That’s right.  ALL dog breeders.  It was during the campaign to defeat Prop. B that I recall having to sit in a waiting area at a St. Louis TV station with our opposition's campaign manager, Barb Schmitz, before going on air.  When I asked her how she could possibly justify her claim that Missouri had 3,000 "puppy mills," she responded by telling me that all breeders are "puppy mills" and they must be closed down. 

So there in lies the deception to the American people.  HSUS is against breeding. Period. So any breeding facility, commercial or otherwise, is considered to be a “puppy mill” because of the emphasis on breeding and making a profit.  No matter how well the breeder cares for their dogs, HSUS doesn't want legitimate, lawful dog breeders making a living or any kind of a profit breeding dogs. So they vilify.

So while dog breeders jump through hoops to stay in business, it is impossible for them to keep up with all the onerous business killing regulations aggressively promoted by HSUS through lobbying, ballot initiatives, and infiltration into government agencies.  The fact of the matter is that the end goal is NOT about creating better welfare standards for breeding facilities -- it’s about eliminating the breeders. And that’s the animal rights agenda and goal: the elimination of animal ownership.

Wayne Pacelle, president and CEO of HSUS illustrates this goal in his quote, “One generation and out. We have no problem with the extinction of domestic animals. They are creations of human selective breeding.” Wayne Pacelle, Animal People, May, 1993.

Those two little words “puppy mill” pack a punch, and they continue to destroy exceptional kennels across America by chipping away at the public’s view of dog breeding because, in the eyes of HSUS and other animal rights groups, ALL dog breeders are considered to be a “puppy mill”.  

This serves as an important reminder as HSUS is turning citizens into bounty hunters by offering a cash reward of $5,000 to terrorize and destroy dog breeders by making false accusations against their neighbors.  While they use the term "puppy mill" to describe their targets, what they really mean is any and all dog breeders, hobby and commercial breeders alike. 

Calling every dog breeder a “puppy mill” is like labeling every football coach a pedophile because of what happened at Penn State. Sadly, those of us who are involved in animal agriculture are going to be in a public relations battle to defend animal husbandry for the rest of our lives, so we must start by no longer referring to a substandard breeder as a “puppy mill.”  If we continue to use that term, we are perpetuating the false HSUS propaganda, and helping Pacelle and his minons drive all of us off the not so symbolic cliff.  

Mindy Patterson is president and co-founder of The Cavalry Group, a member based company legally defending & protecting the Constitutional and private property rights of law abiding animal owners & animal-related businesses nation-wide.

A CALL TO ACTION by Frank Losey

For the last 8 years an ever growing "Reign of Terror" of the Humane Society of the U.S. (HSUS) has adversely affected all  who have had anything to do with an animal that has two legs or four legs.  All of the affected individuals, victims, organizations and companies have been tarred by the HSUS Brush and the disparaging propaganda spewed from its "Deception Mills" that symbolize "Cancer Cells" that threaten the Culture and Values of the American Way of Life.  Also of grave concern is the fact that the HSUS has targeted children as young as Five-Years-Old, and encouraged them to Lobby in support of the Legislative Agenda of the HSUS, as evidenced by the contents in its "Humane Action Guide for Youth."    Has HSUS stepped over the line by targeting children as young as Five-Years-Old, and encouraged them to "Lobby?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?"

All Americans must revere the rights of any Individual or Organization to contact Members of Congress or  Members of the Executive Branch, and to "Lobby" them to adopt their parochial views.  In short, the HSUS and its Leadership have an absolute "Right" to "Lobby" those who serve in our Government.  However, with that Right goes the responsibility to comply with the "Laws of this Land."  One of those Laws is the "Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995," which requires any Organization that engages in Lobbying to Register as a "Lobbying Organization" with the Clerk of the House and the Secretary of the Senate.  Prior to August of 2006, the HSUS was in compliance with the Lobbying Disclosure Act, and on its last Report, it specifically listed "Wayne Pacelle" as a "Lobbyist."  However, the HSUS ceased to be in compliance with the Lobbying Disclosure Act when it terminated its Registration in August of 2006, but  continued its aggressive "Lobbying Activities"  with ever increasing fervor and without regard to the fact that it is acting as if it is "ABOVE THE LAW."  Former President Nixon was forced to resign as President, and  his Attorney General of the U.S. went to jail because they had acted "ABOVE THE LAW."   In short, no matter how noble one professes to be, such an assertion does not give anyone or any organization a "Right of Passage" to ignore complying with the "Lobbying Disclosure Act."

The Office of the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia has now received seven separate submissions, with more than 400 pages of incriminating documents, that substantiate that the HSUS has been in continuous violation of the Lobbying Disclosure Act since August of 2006 when it terminated its prior Registration as a "Lobbying Organization."  Now Utah Senator Hatch has stated in a letter to one of his constituents that he believes that "this law has been violated." 

 

TWO ACTIONS TO TAKE

FIRST,  send a short E-Mail to the Office of the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia that is addressed to:  dc.outreach@usdoj.gov  Type or cut and paste the following message:

"Dear Mr. Machen:  

"When will your Office complete its investigation of the documented allegations that you have received from Mr. Losey who forwarded to you over 400 pages of incriminating documents that establish that the Humane Society of the United States has been in continuous violation of the Lobbying Disclosure Act since August of 2006?   Please consider Senator Hatch's June 20, 2012  Letter.

**********************************************************************************

SECOND,  use the exact text, as set out below, and send E-Mails to your two Senators and Representative. (Yes, do it even if you believe they "support" the deceptive propaganda of the HSUS.) 

1. To send an E-Mail to your U.S. Representative, Log onto www.house.gov/writerep/
2. Fill in your state and ZIP Code on the prompt that appears.
3. Add your name, address and E-Mail address on E-Mail Form for your U.S. Representative; and on the Subject Line add: LOBBYING DISCLOSURE ACT OF 1995.  If that Subject Line will not allow you to use that Subject, use "OTHER."  Then  add the message set out below.
4. To send an E-Mail to your Two Senators, Log onto:    www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
5. Click onto the E-Mail Address for each of your two U.S. Senators.
6. Add your name, address and E-Mail address on E-Mail Form for your U.S. Representative; and on the Subject Line add:  LOBBYING DISCLOSURE ACT OF 1995. If that Subject Line will not allow you to use that Subject, use "OTHER."  Then add the message set out below.
7. So that a running count of total E-Mails may be maintained, send a confirmation that the three E-Mails were sent from which State to Frank Losey: <f.losey@insightbb.com> 

********************************************************************

"I have asked Mr. Machen, the U.S. Attorney for the  District of Columbia, when his Office will complete its investigation of the alleged non-compliance of the Lobbying Disclosure Act by the Humane Society of the U.S. (HSUS).  HIs Office has now received from Mr. Losey over 400 pages of incriminating documents that substantiate that the HSUS has been in continuous violation of the Lobbying Disclosure Act (LDA) since August of 2006, at which time it terminated its "Registration" as a "Lobbying Organization." Most significantly, the HSUS and its Senior Leadership have made thousands of direct lobbying contacts with "Covered Executive Branch  Officials" and "Covered Legislative Branch Officials" since August of 2006, and have conducted themselves as if they are "ABOVE THE LAW."

Would you ask Mr. Machen, on my behalf, when his Office will complete their investigation of the substantiated allegations that the HSUS has been in continuous violation of the LDA.  I recognize that the Justice Department may not discuss details of any on-going investigation.  All that I am asking is for confirmation that the Justice Department will conduct and complete a timely and thorough investigation of the 400+ pages of incriminating documents that substantiate a violation of the LDA has occurred.  For your information and consideration, I am including a quote from a Letter dated June 20th that a resident in Utah received from your Congressional Colleague, Senator Orrin Hatch:

"I am aware of allegations that the HSUS has not properly disclosed its lobbying activities as required under the Lobbying Disclosure Act.  In addition, I am aware of other, more general complaints surrounding the HSUS and its activities.  While I do not believe it is appropriate for a U.S. Senator to publicly comment on such allegations without more information, I share your belief that this law has been violated, the Justice Department should respond with appropriate action."

BILL OF INDICTMENT

IS THE HUMANE SOCIETY OF THE UNITED STATES (HSUS) A BENEVOLENT 

"ROBIN HOOD" OR A MANIPULATIVE AND MENACING "ROBBING HOOD?"  

YOU BE THE JUDGE OF THE FOLLOWING  FACTS

by Frank Losey

1. The Parent Company of the Ringling Brothers Circus has a pending Lawsuit in the Federal District Court in the District of Columbia that alleges the following violations of the HSUS:  Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act; Money Laundering; Bribery; Obstruction of Justice; Mail Fraud; Wire Fraud; Illegal Witness Payments; Virginia Conspiracy Act;  Conspiracy to Harm a Business; Abuse of Process; Malicious Prosecution; and a Fundraiser Held in Furtherance of the Schemes.
2. At least eight Members of Congress have contacted the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and requested a review of  the lobbying activities of the HSUS in order to determine whether the HSUS has exceeded the U.S. Tax Code "Too Much Lobbying" Prohibition  for a tax-exempt organization.  If the HSUS has, it may lose its "PUBLIC CHARITY" EXEMPTION.
3. The IRS has received 1,628 Pages of Documents that chronicle the extensive lobbying activities of the HSUS, such as the quotes of the President of the HSUS who has repeatedly claimed to be responsible for the passage of over 1,000 Laws, including more than 25 at the Federal Level.
4. The Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Treasury has assigned a Case File Number (55-1111-0027-C) to a Fraud, Waste and Abuse Complaint that alleges improper IRS employee misconduct in the IRS Whistleblower Office, such as "covering-up" HSUS lobbying activities and "leaking" information to the HSUS so that the HSUS could delete incriminating information from its Website and its future Tax Returns.
5. At least Five Members of  Congress have asked the Justice Department, on behalf of their constituents, to determine if the HSUS and its Senior Leadership are in violation of the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 because none are currently registered as a "Lobbying Organization" or as a "Lobbyist" despite their extensive and direct contacts with "Covered" Members of the Executive and Legislative Branches of Government.   For example, in 2011 the HSUS hosted an Awards Banquet that honored the 146 Members of Congress who best supported the Congressional Legislative Agenda of the HSUS - - 146 "direct contacts." 
6. The two most Senior Officers of the HSUS are the two most Senior Officers of the Humane Society Legislative Fund (HSLF), which is the self-described "Lobbying Arm" Subsidiary of the HSUS.  The HSLF controls three Political Action Committees (PACs), which have contributed Millions of Dollars to Hundreds of Candidates seeking Elected Office to Congress.   The HSLF has submitted in excess of 2,300 pages of lobbying related documents to the Federal Election Committee.  However, neither the HSUS, nor the HSLF, nor their two most Senior Officers are currently registered as "Lobbying Organizations" or "Lobbyists" as is required by the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 when more than one direct lobbying contact is made with "Covered" Members of the Executive and Legislative Branches of Government.  
7. Each year the HSUS conducts Lobby Day Workshops in State Capitals and in Washington DC to "train" many of its more than 11 Million Members and constituents on how best and most effectively they may "lobby" their elected representatives to support the Legislative Agenda of the HSUS.  
8. During the last five years, the HSUS, through the "functionality of its website," has orchestrated Federal and State Legislators receiving potentially more than One Billion E-Mails.  If those E-Mails were stacked  on top of one another, the stack would tower over 30 miles high.
9. The USDA Office of the Inspector General is conducting an on-going investigation as to whether an unlawful "Conflict of Interest" occurred when it hired a former HSUS Litigation Attorney to become the Chief of its Enforcement Branch.  Most significantly, the Enforcement Branch Chief  is responsible for ensuring compliance with the Animal Welfare Act by all who are licensed by USDA.  This former HSUS Litigation Attorney, who has been assessing unprecedentedly high fines against USDA Licensed Breeders, had worked in the very same HSUS Litigation Office that has filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Lawsuit against the USDA.  This Lawsuit seeks such things as "Tax Return Information" supplied to the USDA by every USDA Licensed Breeder in Missouri - - discriminatory "targeting" by the HSUS.
10. The HSUS has never acknowledged that Pet Breeder Organizations in the 10 States where over 80% of all USDA Licensed Breeders are located have "Publicly Condemned Substandard Kennels."
11. The HSUS has never identified a single breeder anywhere in the U.S., by name, as being a responsible breeder.  In a November 16, 2009 E-Mail, the HSUS President suggested  that all responsible breeders are "puppy millers" - - the equivalent of a racial or ethnic slur.    Additionally, he suggested that all family farmers are "factory farmers," and all responsible hunters are "poachers."
12. After Hurricane Katrina devastated the Gulf Coast in 2005, the HSUS asked the public to make extra donations to the HSUS so that it could help the animals on the Gulf Coast.  Of the more than $31 Million that the HSUS collected that was to be used to help animals on the Gulf Coast, the HSUS publicly reported spending only a little more than $1,000,000 to build two new shelters in Louisiana and Mississippi.  "WHERE DID THE REST OF THE $31 MILLION GO?" 
13. In the last 10 years the HSUS has received over ONE BILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000,000,000) of tax -exempt contributions.  While some have reported that the HSUS, which does not operate a single shelter anywhere in the U.S., contributes less than 1% of its revenue to help shelters, the HSUS claims that it spends up to 20% of its revenue helping to care for animals.  Even if you accept the 20% representation of the HSUS at face value, which is a dubious claim, "WHERE DID THE OTHER $800 MILLION GO?"
14. When the HSUS President was repeatedly asked to explicitly and publicly condemn those who violate the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA), he did not do so.  Instead, embraced the concept of "civil disobedience" in a written response dated January 18, 2008, and suggested that this Federal Terrorism Statute was an "unjust law."  "This nation has a strong tradition of civil disobedience where people in a transparent, peaceful, non-violent way take action to draw attention  to unjust laws."    NOTE:  A violation  of the AETA may occur without violence.
15. When the Missouri Governor and the State Legislature refused to be "bullied" by the HSUS, the HSUS President publicly condemned the Governor and State Legislators with such quotes as "Democracy Neutered;" "Subverting Democracy, Abusing the Process;" Some lawmakers are thumbing their noses at a statewide vote of the people;" "There's been some very ugly, unfair, cruel and anti-democratic work;" "Shameful example of politics at its worst, with a narrow majority of lawmakers and now the governor subverting a vote of the people; and the most intimidating and chilling of all quotes:  "We will hold accountable the public officials."

DECEMBER CALL TO ACTION by Frank Losey

ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE LOBBYING DISCLOSURE ACT OF 1995 BY THE HSUS

If you believe that the Senior Leadership of the  Humane Society of the U.S. (HSUS) has made more than one "Lobbying Contact" with Members of Congress or their respective staffs in the last five years, then there is reason to believe that the HSUS and its Senior Leadership have failed to comply with the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 because they have never registered as a lobbying organization or as lobbyists with the appropriate Congressional Offices.

If every Member of Congress were to receive Hundreds, or possibly thousands, of E-Mails from their constituents which asks Six Pointed Questions, those E-Mails may shine a BIG BRIGHT SPOTLIGHT on the fact that the HSUS has been acting "ABOVE THE LAW" and should be held accountable.

You will help to BRIGHTEN THAT SPOTLIGHT if you will take less than 20 Minutes to send an E-Mail to your two U.S. Senators and to your U.S. Representative and ask six pointed questions.  If you wish to do so, follow the instructions set out below and use the suggested Text for your E-Mails.  And yes, send E-Mails to the Members of Congress who are supporting the HSUS Legislative Agenda.  LARGE NUMBERS OF E-MAILS CAN AND DO MAKE A DIFFERENCE WITH MEMBERS OF CONGRESS!!!!!!  That is why the HSUS literally generates Millions of E-Mails going to Members of Congress. 

1.   To send an E-Mail to your U.S. Representative, Log onto www.house.gov/writerep/

2.   Fill in your state and ZIP Code on the prompt that appears.

3.   Add your name, address and E-Mail address on E-Mail Form for your U.S. Representative; and on the Subject Line add: LOBBYING DISCLOSURE ACT OF 1995; and then add then add the message set out below.

4.   To send an E-Mail to your Two Senators, Log onto:    www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

5.   Click onto the E-Mail Address for each of your two U.S. Senators.

6.   Add your name, address and E-Mail address on E-Mail Form for your U.S. Representative; and on the Subject Line add:  LOBBYING DISCLOSURE ACT OF 1995; and then add then add the message set out below.

7.   So that a running count of total E-Mails may be maintained, send a confirmation that the three E-Mails were sent from which State to Frank Losey: <f.losey@insightbb.com>

Suggested Text of E-Mail Message

NOTE:  Resist the temptation to mention your parochial "beef" with the HSUS.  This "High Road" Approach is designed to,  in essence, eliminate the opportunity for a "boilerplate" response to be sent back to you which merely states "Thank You for bringing your issues of concern to my attention."  Instead, the "Suggested Text" raises questions that will increase the likelihood that the Members of Congress will need to address a very, very specific  violation of the Law by the HSUS, which violation is not directly related to any specific Bill in Congress.  The GOAL  is to raise a serious question as to the "credibility" of the HSUS.  If successful, it will affect the ability of the  HSUS to influence Congress.  And if it results  in the HSUS "registering" with Congress, this could affect its IRS "public charity" status!!!

Dear Representative/Senator______________

I would appreciate receiving your responses to the following Six Questions that relate to the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995.  This Act, as currently written, provides that a person or organization that makes more than one contact with a "Covered Executive Branch Official" or a "Covered Legislative Branch Official," such as Members of Congress and their respective Staffs, must register as a Lobbyist or a Lobbying Organization with the Clerk of the House and the Secretary of the Senate.

QUESTION 1:  Do you believe that the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 should be strictly enforced?

QUESTION 2:  If you believe that the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 should be strictly enforced, why has neither the Clerk of the House nor the Secretary of the Senate published specific procedures that would permit concerned citizens to report apparent violations of the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 to an appropriate Congressional Office?

QUESTION 3:      Do you believe that a tax-exempt, public charity and its senior leadership should be required to comply with the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 and register as a lobbying organization and as  lobbyists with the Clerk of the House and the Secretary of the Senate if they have more than one contact with Members of Congress or their respective staffs for the purpose of influencing legislation?

QUESTION 4:  If you believe that a tax-exempt, public charity and its senior leadership should be required  to register as a lobbying organization and as lobbyists if they have had more than one contact with a Member of Congress or his or her staff for the purpose of influencing legislation, why has the Humane Society of the  U. S. (HSUS) and its Senior Leadership been permitted to ignore the registration requirements of the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 when they have literally made thousands of contacts with Members of Congress and their respective staffs during the last five years?  For example, in March of 2011 the Humane Society of the U.S. hosted an Awards Banquet during which they honored the 146 Members of Congress who best supported the Legislative Agenda of the HSUS in 2010.

QUESTION 5:  If the  Office of the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia is the Office in the Justice Department that is responsible for enforcing the Lobbying Disclosure Act of  1995, why has Mr. Keith Morgan, the Assistant U.S. Attorney in that Office not acted on a Complaint that he received during the first week in August of 2011 - - more  than four months ago - -  which documented the thousands of lobbying contacts  made  by the Senior Leadership of Humane Society of the U.S. , and its self-described "Lobbying Arm," the Humane Society Legislative Fund that has oversight over three PACs  that have submitted over 2,300 pages of lobbying-related documents to the Federal Election Commission?

QUESTION 6:  Will you call Mr. Morgan or someone else in the Justice Department and ask why no action has been taken on the documented Complaint received by Mr. Morgan in early August of 2011 so that you and your colleagues in Congress may decide whether or not to repeal the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 or to ensure that it is strictly enforced?

                                                      Respectfully submitted,