Home > BOYCOTT, Communism/Marxism/Socalism/Racism/FASCISM, Hunting - Fishing - Competitive Shooting > Before You Donate Your Money, Effort and Time to The “Humane Society Of The United States” (aka HSUS)… Please Consider This…

Before You Donate Your Money, Effort and Time to The “Humane Society Of The United States” (aka HSUS)… Please Consider This…

TWG Note:  I’ve been screaming about the Humane Society of the United States for a while now, and today I feel the urge to continue my rant.  Yesterday’s post about California SB 1221  reignited my fury over those sleazebags at HSUS.   As an animal lover, I’m deeply offended by their continued deception, preying on the sympathies of my fellow animal lovers to line their pockets and to aid and abet their own devious agendas….  They’re a greedy, snarling pack of sleazy lawyers.

Here’s a bit of the post from yesterday…..

SB 1221… 

SB 1221 is supported by the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) – a group that supports banning all hunting with or without dogs.  Its President, Wayne Pacelle, has been quoted as saying: “We are going to use the ballot box and the democratic process to stop all hunting in the United States … We will take it species by species until all hunting is stopped in California. Then we will take it state by state.”

In 2003, HSUS unsuccessfully championed California Assembly Bill 342 that would have banned all hunting with hounds.  They now seem to be taking a deceptive and incremental approach to accomplish the same goal via SB 1221.  Don’t let anti-hunting extremists remove another traditional form of hunting.

Below are some posts from the website HUMANEWATCH.ORG that should get the point across……. They’re keeping an eye on those deceitful crooks at HSUS…  If this is something that interests you, please sign up for their email distribution list.


There’s a lot of information about the Humane Society of the United States that people don’t know. It can be overwhelming, especially as we blog on a regular basis to add to the knowledge pool. To get up to speed about America’s most deceptive animal rights group, we recommend you check out the following:

Despite its name, the Humane Society of the United States is not affiliated with your local humane society. HSUS doesn’t run a single pet shelter and gives only 1 percent of its budget to local shelters.

This is news to most Americans. According to public polling, about 70 percent of Americans mistakenly believe that HSUS is a pet shelter “umbrella group” and that HSUS gives most of its money to pet shelters.

Why the massive perception-reality gap? We can certainly thank HSUS’s multimillion-dollar ad campaign. You know the formula: Slow music, B-list celebrity spokeswoman, and pictures of sad-looking dogs and cats. And that fine-print disclaimer that HSUS is independent of local humane societies? It’s on less than 1 percent of the ads. See how the scam works?

Here’s what an honest HSUS TV appeal might look like. There’s no confusion, and no need for a disclaimer. But we’re going to go out on a limb and guess it wouldn’t be quite as lucrative for HSUS.


Will HSUS Be Bullhooked for Millions in Legal Fees?

http://www.facebook.com/plugins/like.php?channel_url=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.ak.facebook.com%2Fconnect%2Fxd_arbiter.php%3Fversion%3D5%23cb%3Df323f9389bc9138%26origin%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fhumanewatch.org%252Ff1d16ba088f5383%26domain%3Dhumanewatch.org%26relation%3Dparent.parent&extended_social_context=false&font=lucida%20grande&href=http%3A%2F%2Fhumanewatch.org%2Findex.php%2Fsite%2Fpost%2Fwill_hsus_be_bullhooked_for_millions_in_legal_fees%2F&layout=box_count&locale=en_US&node_type=link&sdk=joey&show_faces=false&width=60<!– doesn’t seem to work, though it does give the id number of the post:Trying other permalink options for (Will HSUS Be Bullhooked for Millions in Legal Fees?)? –>The ongoing legal drama between a set of animal rights groups and Feld Entertainment, which owns the Ringling Bros. circus, has taken a saucy new turn. And it looks like the animal rights activists and their lawyers could soon be neck-deep in elephant dung.

First, a quick review. Animal rights activists brought a lawsuit against Feld in 2000 alleging elephant abuse in violation of the Endangered Species Act, with former Feld trainer Tom Rider as a key witness and plaintiff. After years of legal wrangling, D.C. federal judge Emmet Sullivan threw out the lawsuit in late 2009, finding that the plaintiffs lacked standing and—more importantly—that Rider was “essentially a paid plaintiff and fact witness who is not credible” after receiving at least $190,000 from the animal rights cabal, his sole source of income as the case made its way through the courts. A US Court of Appeals recently upheld the dismissal. (Read the full opinion here.)

Feld returned fire, filing a racketeering lawsuit that hinges on the court’s findings. How the alleged scheme worked, according to Sullivan’s 2009 ruling, was essentially that counsel for plaintiffs’ law firm Meyer, Glitzenstein, and Crystal ran a nonprofit called the “Wildlife Advocacy Project” (WAP) and other groups funneled money through it to Rider. (Rider also allegedly received payments directly from animal rights group plaintiffs and through MGC.)

HSUS fits in because the Fund for Animals was a plaintiff in the suit against Feld, and merged with HSUS in 2004/2005. Fund chief—now an HSUS executive—Michael Markarian also apparently fits into the equation, according to Sullivan’s ruling:

Beginning in December 2001 and continuing until at least the beginning of 2008, the organizational plaintiffs made payments to WAP for the purpose of funding Mr. Rider. While FFA/HSUS (Mr. Markarian) testified that it was not certain whether WAP used its “donations” for other purposes as well, this testimony is undermined by the documents underlying FFA/HSUS’s “donations,” which indicate that the money was specifically for use in connection with this litigation. FFA/HSUS’s testimony also is questionable given that in 2003, plaintiffs’ counsel, Ms. Meyer, specifically sent an email to the representatives of the organizational plaintiffs, including Mr. Markarian, requesting funds to support Mr. Rider’s advocacy efforts regarding the elephants and the lawsuit, and expressly suggesting that the funds for Mr. Rider could be contributed to WAP so that they would be tax deductible.

Also named in the racketeering lawsuit are HSUS attorney Kimberly Ockene and HSUS Senior Vice President Jonathan Lovvorn, both of whom used to work at Meyer, Glitzenstein, and Crystal and were plaintiff attorneys during the Endangered Species Act complaint. In fact, Feld’s attorneys allege that money was taken out of an HSUS bank account and earmarked for Rider.

So what’s new?

Last week Feld’s attorneys filed a motion in the original case—not the racketeering case—demanding that the plaintiffs pay for legal fees that Feld accrued, totaling an estimated $20 million. Defending a lawsuit for a decade tends to be an expensive endeavor, after all.

This could be a double-whammy for HSUS. It could be on the hook for a good chunk of the $20 million in legal fees. Additionally, Feld is seeking treble damages under RICO against HSUS and the other defendants in the separate racketeering lawsuit—so add another $60 million to the potential pot.

And that’s not all.

Feld’s attorneys are also asking the court to officially sanction the attorneys for their conduct. They allege that “Not only did counsel bring fraudulent (Rider) and frivolous (API) claims, they doggedly pursued them for more than eleven years.” Feld alleges that the plaintiffs knew that their key witness was unreliable and “each and every step of the way counsel had an opportunity to drop either Rider or API or both (and put an end to FEI’s mounting legal expenses). Yet they did not. Instead, they embraced Rider’s lies and API’s meritless and hollow allegations…”

And since the court is apparently allowed to hold the attorneys jointly and severally liable for the estimated $20 million in legal fees (if the court rules the plaintiffs should pay it), that means HSUS, Lovvorn, and Ockene, among others, could have quite the bill, along with a bench-slap to go with it.

We encourage you to read the whole motion for all the intricacies and details. When there’s a ruling, we’ll be sure you’re among the first to know.


  1. No comments yet.
  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: