Call to Action

November 30, 2014

AVMA-AKC LAW STUDENT WRITING CONTEST?!?!?!?

As an attorney who has practiced law for over 50 years; who once was a law student; and who has devoted over 23,000 hours to studying and documenting the “brainwashing” efforts of the HSUS and Mr. Pacelle – – who described his book, the Bond, as part Memoir, Part “MANIFESTO” – – I HAVE GRAVE, GRAVE, GRAVE CONCERNS THAT THE CONTEST WILL ULTIMATELY LEAD TO UNEXPECTED , IRREVERSIBLE AND DEVASTATING CONSEQUENCES BECAUSE MR. PACELLE AND THE HSUS HAVE EXPENDED OVER ONE BILLION DOLLARS IN THEIR UNRELENTING EFFORTS TO “BRAINWASH” ALL SEGMENTS OF OUR AMERICAN SOCIETY, THAT INCLUDES, BUT IS NOT LIMITED TO, THE AMERICAN PUBLIC; NEWS MEDIA; ELECTED OFFICIALS AT ALL LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT; GOVERNMENT AGENCIES, SUCH AS USDA WHICH HIRED SARAH L. CONANT, A FORMER HSUS LITIGATION ATTORNEY, WHO, WHEN A LAW STUDENT AT THE UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA LAW SCHOOL, ORGANIZED A LAW SCHOOL SANCTIONED ANIMAL LAW GROUP; THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, WHICH HIRED ETHAN EDDY, A FORMER HSUS LITIGATION ATTORNEY WHO TUTORED SARAH L. CONANT; LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS AT ALL LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT; OUR CHURCHES; AND OUR PRE-SCHOOLS, ELEMENTARY, MIDDLE AND HIGH SCHOOLS; AND YES, THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION, AND LAW SCHOOLS !!!!

MY TOP 11 REASONS FOR CONCERN:

1. Be careful of what you ask and wish for…………….. especially when the ever present shadow of the HSUS has infiltrated and influenced the “process.”
2. Three years ago, I documented how the HSUS had “hijacked” and was infiltrating the legal profession, which started nearly 10 years ago at law schools. And this effort was not limited to Sarah L. Conant! EACH YEAR MORE AND MORE LAW SCHOOLS ESTABLISH “ANIMAL LAW” CURRICULUMS THAT ARE INFLUENCED BY THE INPUT OF THE HSUS!!!
3. In March of 2009, I attended a Workshop at the Georgetown Law School that was Co-Hosted by the HSUS. Opening remarks of the Dean of the Georgetown Law School predicted that the growth of “Animal Law” would mirror the growth of Environmental Laws and Regulations that followed the passage of the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) in 1969. And the growth of Animal Law Curriculums has continued to grow each year at more and more law schools, which are being “guided” by the clandestine efforts of the HSUS.
4. A Co-Moderator of the Workshop was Jonathan Lovvorn, an Adjunct Law Professor at Georgetown Law School, who also serves as the HSUS VP and Chief of the HSUS Litigation Division, and who also was a named defendant in the Feld Lawsuit for his role in the alleged “money laundering” and RICO Violations.
5. The other Co-Moderator of the Workshop was Nancy Perry, the Wife of Jonathan Lovvorn, and who then served as the HSUS VP for Government Relations (Lobbying) and now serves as the Senior VP for Government Relations (Lobbying) for ASPCA.
6. One of the Panelist on the Workshop was Congressman Whitfield, who is now the subject of a Congressional Ethics Investigation because he purportedly allowed his wife, who serves as the Chief Lobbyist for the HSUS, to use his Office to Lobby other Members of Congress to support the HSUS Legislative Agenda.
7. Yet another panelist on the Workshop was a Senior Official within the AVMA. And when he was asked why the AVMA was not more supportive of the welfare and rights of animals, he prophetically responded that the demographics of the Leadership of the AVMA would change over the next 5 years as the older vets retired and were replaced by younger vets who focused on the care for dogs and cats.
8. Yet another 2009 HSUS Workshop Panelist was a USDA Attorney, who co-authored an HSUS 2009 Workshop Handout, and who currently is the immediate supervisor of Sarah L. Conant!
9. As a result of the HSUS efforts, the American Bar Association has established an “Animal Law Section,” that is operated by young attorneys who have drunk the HSUS “Kool-Aid.”
10. In 2013 Mr. Pacelle was a featured speaker at the Annual Conference for the 50 State Attorney Generals.
11. In the last 11 Years more than 2,000 attorneys have provided tens of thousands of pro bono (free) hours of legal services to the HSUS Legislative and Litigation Agendas of the HSUS. In short, the Billion Dollar Brainwashing Campaign of the HSUS has been supplemented by the equivalent of Tens of Millions of Dollars of free legal services. And many of the young attorneys, who were recently “law school students,” and who are providing these free legal services to the HSUS work for some of the largest Law Firms in the U.S. which freely have designated young attorneys to work full time for the HSUS for up to a year so that the Law Firms may report to the State Bar Associations that they provided thousands of hours of pro bono services. These pro bono services are a major reason why Wayne Pacelle has been able to claim that the HSUS was responsible for the passage of over 1,000 laws at the Federal and State Levels of Government, and that number does not include the State Ballot Initiatives nor the Federal Regulations, such as the Retail Pet Store Rule.

Frank

September 20, 2014

OCTOBER 9, 2014 – – OUR “DAY IN COURT” IS NEAR

On the morning of October 9, 2014, a Federal Judge will hear our Oral Argument in support of why we believe the USDA failed to comply with the existing laws and regulations when it published the Retail Pet Store Rule (“Rule”) in November 2013.  After we present our Oral Argument, the Department of Justice (DOJ) Attorney, who is representing the USDA, and the attorney who is representing the Humane Society of the U.S. (HSUS), will also be afforded the opportunity to present their respective Oral Arguments in support of the “Rule.”

Over nine months ago the “naysayers” in the breeder community made a concerted effort to discourage support of the Lawsuit and said that we would not have “legal standing,” and that even if we were granted “legal standing,” our efforts would fail because the Courts never overturn Federal Regulations.  But last April the Federal Judge, over the objections of the DOJ and the HSUS, ruled that we had “legal standing.”  Then in June the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a Regulation that was issued by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which shows that Courts sometimes overturn Federal Regulations.  There is, of course, no absolute certainty that we will prevail in our Lawsuit.  However, it is encouraging that the Supreme Court’s legal rationale in the EPA case mirrored the arguments that we made in our last submission to the Court.

To those who selflessly supported our Lawsuit with financial contributions, we wish to express our heartfelt appreciation.  Without that support we never would have had the opportunity to have our “Day in Court” on October 9, 2014.

However, as a result of the intervention of the HSUS into our Lawsuit, we experienced increased legal fees – – this is a tactic often employed by the HSUS to frustrate those who challenge them. Consequently, we must ask for renewed donations to support the Lawsuit so that we may complete the “Journey” that we began in December 2013. Your continued financial support will allow us to complete the journey.

Again, we wish to express our heartfelt appreciation for the support that has allowed us to do our best to protect the interests of all responsible and caring breeders throughout the U.S. We sincerely hope that our supporters can see the forest for the trees and contribute one more time, to carry us through to completion of this monumental task.

Thank you, Frank Losey

Co-counsel for ADCNYS and other Plaintiffs

June 6, 2014

CALL TO ACTION

“BLUEPRINT” FOR GENERATING ONE MILLION PHONE CALLS TO THE OFFICE OF THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE AND THE OFFICE OF THE HOUSE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE TO END THE

REIGN OF TERROR OF THE HSUS!

All 535 Members of Congress are aware of the fact that Ms. Lois Lerner has been found in “Contempt of Congress” because she refused to testify as to her role in the IRS “targeting” of political conservative organizations that sought tax-exempt status.  However, until very recently, few, if any, Members of Congress were aware of the fact that while Ms. Lerner was targeting conservative groups, she was ignoring thousands of pages of documents that established that the HSUS – – a “liberal” public charity, whose senior leadership endorsed the then Senator Obama for President in 2008 – – had covered up on its Federal Tax Returns for the last 10 years the fact that it had expended over $500 Million lobbying in support of the 1,000 laws that Mr. Pacelle repeatedly and boastfully claims credit for their enactment.  Why did she give “favored” treatment to the HSUS?  BECAUSE MS. LERNER WAS A MEMBER OF THE HSUS!!!!!

On May 15, 2014 I had a personal, one-on-one conversation with a Member of the House Oversight Committee, which was responsible for Ms. Lerner being found to be in “Contempt of Congress.”  And when I told the Congressman that Ms. Lerner was a Member of the HSUS and was giving favored treatment to the HSUS, a “liberal,” public charity, whose Senior Leadership had endorsed the then Senator Obama for President in 2008, while targeting conservative organizations in 2012, his eyes literally widened and his jaw dropped as he spontaneously said “I did not know that.”  If he, as a Member of the House Oversight Committee, did not know that, it is fair to assume that none of the other 534 Members of Congress were fully aware of the HSUS connection to Ms. Lerner.

As an attorney who worked in Washington DC as a Registered Lobbyist for over 15 years, and who literally had hundreds of one-on-one conversations with Members of Congress and their Key Staffers, two of the things that I learned from these private one-on-one conversations become very relevant with regard to this Call to Action.  First, a Staff Member for each Member of Congress keeps a running count of the Phone Calls, Faxes, and E-Mails received about issues raised by their constituents.  Second, it is very rare for any issue to cause more than 500 Phone Calls, Faxes or E-Mails to be received by any Member of Congress.  The HSUS knows this, and that it is why it has been so successful in generating Congressional Support and State Legislature Support for the 1,000+ Federal and State Statutes were enacted as a result of its $500+ Million Lobbying Efforts.

Now is the perfect time to use a Chapter in the HSUS “Playbook” in order to generate not just a few thousand, ten thousand, or a hundred thousand Phone Calls, BUT TO GENERATE A MILLION PHONE CALLS BEING MADE TO TWO CONGRESSIONAL OFFICES – –  THE OFFICE OF THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE AND THE OFFICE OF THE HOUSE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE.  If that were to occur, it would create an incredible “BUZZ”  on Capitol Hill – – not just in those two offices, but in the Halls of Congress; and during informal conversations between Members of Congress; and during the hundreds of fundraising events that occur nearly each week in Washington DC; and in the DC National Democratic Club; and especially in the National Republican Club that is located at 300 First Street, SE Washington, DC.

And before anyone suggests that generating ONE MILLION PHONE CALLS is an unrealistic possibility, consider the fact that there are well in excess of One Million Law-Abiding Citizens who have either been victimized by the HSUS or who are targets of the vicious deceit and destructive efforts of the HSUS.  They cumulatively include, but are not limited to, Breeders, Farmers, Ranchers, Hunters, and the Hundreds of Thousands of others who have anything to do with animals that are used for food, sport, show, exhibition, entertainment, resale, research or clothing.

And it is so easy to make two Phone Calls – – it will take less than 10 minutes to make calls to those two Offices, and to use the script below for your message – – it takes less than 90 seconds to read the script.  The Calls may and should be made morning, noon and night so that day after day thousands of phone messages will be received by the Offices of the Speaker of the House and the House Oversight Committee.  For those who may be reluctant to do so because they don’t want to give their names, the calls to the Offices of the Speaker of the House and to the House Oversight Committee may be made at night or on the weekends when the calls will be answered with a Voice Recording that will tell you to leave a Voice Mail Message.  Then each morning on Monday through Friday a Secretary would have to spend a few hours listening to each voice mail message, and keep a running count.  AFTER A FEW DAYS, THE NON-STOP BUZZ WOULD RISE TO A FEVER-PITCH ABOUT THE TIES BETWEEN LOIS LERNER, THE HSUS AND THE IRS!!!!!

The Office Number for the Speaker of the House is: (202) 225-0600 (Press 1 if calling after hours or on the weekend), and the voice mail message to be read is as follows:

                “I am calling about an issue that involves a cover-up by Ms. Lois Lerner.  Would you please ask Speaker      Boehner to contact Treasury Secretary Lew and Treasury Inspector General George and ask them when           they will complete their year-long investigation of why the IRS, under the direction of Lois Lerner,              ignored thousands of pages of documents that established that the Humane Society of the U.S., a           liberal, tax-exempt, public charity, had spent over $500 Million in support of its “covered-up” Lobbying      Machine that resulted in 1,000 Federal and State Laws being enacted in the last 10 years.  And on May                 20th the HSUS announced its plan to have “435 DISTRICT LEADERS” – – ONE FOR EVERY    “CONGRESSIONAL”DISTRICT IN THE COUNTRY.”  Of note, Ms. Lerner was a Member of the Humane       Society of the U.S.  Consequently, she who would have known that the Senior Leadership of the HSUS            had endorsed the then Senator Obama for President in 2008.  The Treasury IG Complaint Number is          55-1307-0105-C.”

The Office Number for the House Oversight Committee is (202) 225-5074, and the voice mail message to be read is as follows:

“I am calling about an issue that involves a cover-up by Ms. Lois Lerner.  Would you please ask      Congressmen Issa and Jordan to contact Treasury Secretary Lew and Treasury Inspector General           George and ask them when they will complete their year-long investigation of why the IRS, under the       direction of Lois Lerner, ignored thousands of pages of documents that established that the Humane            Society of the U.S., a liberal, tax-exempt, public charity, had    spent over $500 Million in support of its        “covered-up” Lobbying Machine that resulted in 1,000 Federal and State Laws being enacted in the last     10 years.  And on May 20th the HSUS announced its plan to have  “435 DISTRICT LEADERS” – – ONE FOR           EVERY “CONGRESSIONAL” DISTRICT IN THE COUNTRY.”  Of note, Ms. Lerner was a Member of the            Humane Society of the U.S.  Consequently, she who would have known that the Senior Leadership of the       HSUS had endorsed the then Senator Obama for President in 2008.  The Treasury IG Complaint Number              is 55-1307-0105-C.”

For over 5 years I have been conductingthe “Spay and Neuter the HSUS” Campaign with Calls to Action.  Each of those prior Calls to Action were laying the groundwork for an inevitable window of opportunity to open that would dramatically expose the fraud of the HSUS.   THAT WINDOW OF OPPORTUNITY IS NOW WIDE OPEN!!!!!  And why do I focus on requesting that Congressman Boehner, Congressman Jordon and Congressman Jordon call Treasury Secretary Lew and Treasury Inspector General George?  Because they are Republicans who are upset about Lois Lerner, and now they have a compelling reason to “connect the dots” between the IRS, Lois Lerner and her Membership in the HSUS!  A Million “Echoing” Calls and Voice Mail Messages will ensure that those “dots are connected!”   And since a substantive investigation of the failure of the IRS to hold the HSUS accountable has been on-going for nearly a year, and the Treasury Special Agent who is conducting the investigation has ended five of his E-Mail Messages to me with the words “Semper Fi,” the stage is perfectly set for a wave of a Million Calls that will hasten the “desired results” – – exposing the fraud of the HSUS which will inevitably lead to revocation of its “tax-exempt, public charity” status, as well as the potential assessment by the IRS of over $100 Million for back taxes, penalties and interest!  

 The words of “Semper Fi” were written by a former Marine, who is now the Treasury Special Agent who has been conducting the Treasury’s Investigation, and his repeated use of those two words  clearly suggests that he is being “faithful” to the on-going investigation.  And oh yes, last year he asked me about whether I had documentation that connected Lois Lerner to the HSUS, and I not only told him I did, but I sent him a copy of the Lerner BIO which expressly stated that she was a Member of the HSUS.  And when he received the copy, he sent me an E-Mail acknowledging receipt and that was the second of the five times that he used the phrase “Semper Fi!”

The timing of this Call to Action also coincides with the fact that the Treasury Special Agent now has in his possession a copy of Mr. Pacelle’s May 20th Blog in which he boasts, among other things:

  • “IN THE LAST 10 YEARS, WE’VE HELPED TO PASS ABOUT 1,000 LAWS AT THE STATE LEVEL.”

 

  • “LAWMAKING” IS NOT SIMPLY A PROCESS OF MAKING A LOGICAL ARGUMENT AND HOPING THAT LEGISLATORS ACCEDE TO THE REQUEST . . . .  IT’S ALSO ABOUT POWER AND ORGANIZATION.”
  • BY THIS TIME NEXT YEAR, WE ALSO WANT TO HAVE “435 DISTRICT LEADERS” – – ONE FOR EVERY “CONGRESSIONAL” DISTRICT IN THE COUNTRY.”

 

Those three quotes have widened the “Window of Opportunity” that may be exploited with a Million Calls!

A Million Calls to the Offices of the Speaker of the House and the House Oversight Committee will not only create a “BUZZ” that will surely “sting” the HSUS, but it will result in added pressure on the Treasury Department to expedite its on-going investigation of the failure of the IRS to hold the HSUS accountable for 10 years of Fraudulently submitted Federal Tax Returns.

Please take the time to make those two calls, and then ask your friends and others on various lists to do the same.  YES, THOSE CALLS WILL MAKE A DIFFERENCE AND WILL HASTEN THE “DAY OF RECKONING” FOR THE HSUS!

 

May 19, 2014

COINCIDENCE OR NOT?!?!?!?!!?

The Feld Lawsuits involved allegations involving the Endangered Species Act.  And what Former HSUS Litigation Attorney left the HSUS to go to work for the Justice Department in an Office that was responsible for oversight of the Endangered Species Act?  Why Ethan Eddy, the same Ethan Eddy who, along with Sarah L. Conant, sued Government Agencies on behalf of the HSUS!!!!  And yes, this is the same Sarah L. Conant, former HSUS Litigation Attorney, who now serves as the Enforcement Branch Chief of APHIS, which Office the Inspectors who will be enforcing the Retail Pet Store Rule report to!!!!!!!!

Does anyone, besides me,  see a pattern of HSUS Litigation Attorneys going to work for Government Agencies?!?!?!?!?!?  And is it a coincidence that a Bernadette Juarez, the supervisor of Sarah L. Conant, co-authored in 2009 a Treatise along with several other HSUS Attorney –  – that was before the OIG Audit Report in 2010, and could she possibly have influenced a decision maker to hire Sarah L. Conant?!?!?!?!?!

Frank

 

May 17, 2014

The timing of the Feld Lawsuit Settlement “coincidentally” occurred 10 days after the U.S. Postal Service issued its Vintage Edition of Circus Poster Stamps, one of which highlights the Ringling Brothers Elephants – – the subject animal involved in the Lawsuit!

See:  https://www.usps.com/stamps/circus.htm

Now every time I hear the song “Send in the Clowns,” I will visualize a Pacelle Look-Alike Clown performing with an Elephant that is holding a banner in its trunk that says “$15.75 Million would buy me a lot of Circus Peanuts!!!”

Despite the best efforts of the HSUS to spin why it settled the Lawsuit, the inescapable reason is that it allowed the HSUS to avoid the “Scarlet Letter” stigma – – FOREVERMORE – – of a JUDICIAL “JUDGMENT” THAT THE HSUS WAS FOUND GUILTY OF VIOLATING THE RICO STATUTE (RACKETEER INFLUENCE AND CORRUPT ORGANIZATION ACT)  That was the primary reason why the HSUS settled, and the secondary reason for why the HSUS settled was because if the Lawsuit was not settled, and if the HSUS lost, as it obviously concluded that it wouild lose,it would have potentially cost them over $46 Million rather that the $15.75 Million it paid to escape the stigma and an extra $31.5 Million that could have been awarded as “Punitive Damages” that may be assessed when a RICO violation is established by a Court Finding.

What was the evidence that gave credence to the RICO allegation?  First, the Judge in the original lawsuit found that Tom Rider was not a credible witness because he was being paid to testify against the Feld Corporation.  And who paid him?  Well at first blush it did not appear to be the HSUS because he was being paid by the “Wildlife Advocate Project.  So what is the connection between that organization and the HSUS?  Well…………. look and see who contributed to this organization.  One was the HSUS as evidenced by an HSUS Check for $2,000 that was signed by none other than Wayne Pacelle!!!!

Check the following link to view the check!

See:  http://www.memoryofchaucer.com/HSUS%20CHECK.jpg

 

April 11, 2014

The legal fees incurred by the Feld Corporation cover the litigation that first began about 12 years ago.  Several Years ago, the harassing lawsuit against the Feld Corporation was dismissed, and the Feld Corporation sued HSUS, ASPCA, AWI and several others including Jonathan Lovvorn, the HSUS Vice President who serves as the Chief of the HSUS Litigation Division.  This is the same Lawsuit where the ASPCA decided to settle out of Court and actually paid the Feld Corp $9.3 Million to avoid liability for the full amount of the Legal Fees.  (If they were so “innocent,” why would they pay $9.3 Million?!?!?!?!?!

The reason the Judge dismissed the lawsuit was based upon the fact that evidence showed that the Key witness against Feld had been paid to testify against Feld, and the Judge determined he was not a “credible witness.”  And oh yes, one of the evidentiary documents that the Judge relied upon was a check signed by Wayne Pacelle!!!!!!!  If you wish to see a copy of the check (although a relatively small, amount it represented figuratively damning finger prints.) go to http://www.memoryofchaucer.com/feld.htm, which is found on my website (www.franklosey.com), which also has my most recent Call to Action.

Frank

April 8, 2014

HSUS – – THE FIVE HUNDRED MILLION DOLLAR ($500,000,000) “LOBBY MILL”

I am launching a New Call to Action, and I would appreciate if you would act upon it and share it with your Friends and Colleagues.  In this regard, if 535 Members of Congress cumulatively received tens of thousands of E-Mails that set out how the HSUS has expended over $500 Million to support its Lobbying Campaigns that allowed Mr. Pacelle to boast “We have passed 1,000 Laws in the last decade,” most Members of Congress will be stunned, and enough of them will be so outraged that they will most assuredly urge the Secretary of the Treasury and the IRS to expedite its on-going investigation of the excessive lobbying activities of the HSUS.  An adverse finding against the HSUS could result in the IRS revoking the Tax-Exempt, Public Charity Status of the HSUS!

Why is the timing of this Call to Action so important?

As a result of the “Blind Arrogance” of the HSUS and its reinforced belief that it is permitted to operate as if it is “Above the Law,” the HSUS has UNWITTINGLY submitted a “Declaration” in a Lawsuit that was filed in a California Federal District Court on March 26, 2014.   The “Declaration” was submitted by the HSUS to support its request that it be permitted to intervene as a “Defendant” in the Lawsuit in order to “assist” the State of California in its defense of a California “Egg” Law that is being challenged by Six State Attorneys General from Missouri, Alabama, Iowa, Kentucky, Nebraska and Oklahoma.  It is also noteworthy that the Attorney General for Oklahoma has launched an investigation to determine if “national animal welfare organizations,” such as the HSUS, used false advertising to solicit donations after the 2013 tornado disasters in Oklahoma!

The “Declaration” was prepared by Ms. Jennifer Fearing, the Senior HSUS California State Director, who also serves in a Leadership Position in the HSUS as the Deputy Director for Programs and Policies.  What is so stunning about Ms. Fearing’s “Declaration” is that it constitutes a “judicial admission” in a Federal Court that truly incriminates the HSUS as it sets out how the HSUS expended over $10 Million to lobby in support of the California “Egg” Law.  The most damning quotes of all are as follows:

  • “The HSUS committed substantial financial and human resources to coordinating and gathering more than 700,000 registered voters’ signatures throughout California.”
  • The HSUS and the Yes on Prop 2 campaign, which I directed, reported financial contributions in support of Proposition 2’s passage that exceeded $10,000,000.  That amount includes the cost of activities described above, as well as advertising costs and other expenses.”
  • “I and other staff and members of The HSUS spent hundreds of hours in furtherance of AB 1437’s passage, and made AB 1437 our top legislative priority during the two years it took to move through the legislature and secure Governor Schwarzenegger’s signature.”

Although the HSUS did not expend $10 Million and thousands of unreported hours of HSUS staff time and the time of the unpaid HSUS volunteers for each of the 1,000 laws that the HSUS lobbied for enactment, it is not unreasonable to assume that the HSUS, on average, would spend at least 5% of that amount of money and time to secure passage of each of the 1,000 laws.  And if one multiplies the “5% average” times 1,000 laws, that would extrapolate to mean that in a decade the HSUS expended over $500 Million – – Half of a Billion Dollars! – – and Tens of Thousands, and quite possibly Hundreds of Thousands, of unreported Hours of the HSUS Staff and its Volunteers to the Lobbying Efforts of the HSUS over a period of 10 years!  That is a lot of “Lobbying Money” for a “Public Charity” to spend!!!!!

Now is the “Time for Action” by all who believe that the HSUS has overstepped its bounds, and needs to be reigned in and held accountable for its failure to comply with the Tax Code Lobbying Limitations imposed upon all public charities.   If you agree, please take 20 minutes to do the following:

  1. Log onto www.franklosey.com and      click onto the Call to Action Link.  (As an added “bonus,” when you      click on the Call to Action Link,      you will also hear the voice over recording of Mr. Pacelle, in his own      voice, boasting about passing 1,000 laws!)
  2. That Call to Action Link will take you to the instructions as to      how to find the E-Mail Addresses and Phone Numbers of your Two U.S.      Senators and your U.S. Representative.
  3. Copy and Paste the Suggested      Text and send the E-Mails to your Two U.S. Senators and your U.S.      Representative.
  4. Follow-up with a short phone      call to your Three Members of Congress and use the suggested script      message.
  5. Encourage your friends to do      Steps 1-5!

POSTSCRIPT:  If tens of thousands of E-Mails and Calls are received by Members of Congress, the “Day of Reckoning” for the HSUS will be accelerated!

 

March 28, 2014

THE HSUS “HIJACKING” OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION – – “This is scary!”

In the last decade the Humane Society of the U.S. (HSUS) has flawlessly orchestrated its masterful and sophisticated political lobbying prowess at the federal, state and local levels of government.  However, with little public fanfare, the HSUS has simultaneously, and ever so subtly –like poisonous carbon monoxide–focused its attention on “brainwashing” and hijacking a major segment of the legal profession.  In this regard, during the last 10 years the HSUS has, “with malice aforethought,” infiltrated the legal profession; law schools; American Bar Association (ABA); State Bar Associations; and the National Association of State Attorneys General. 

For example:

v      The HSUS claims that more than 2,000 attorneys throughout the U.S. are providing “pro bono” (free) legal services to the HSUS. The HSUS website lists 74 articles that discuss how attorneys, many from large prestigious law firms, have provided “pro bono” (free) legal services in lawsuits filed or supported by the HSUS, such as the Retail Pet Store Rule Lawsuit.

v      Each year more and more law schools are establishing student animal law groups and presenting animal law courses for their students. For example, Jonathan Lovvorn, Senior Vice President of the HSUS and Chief of the HSUS Litigation Division, is an Adjunct Law Professor at a Georgetown Law School in Washington DC. Additionally, Ethan Eddy, a former HSUS Senior Litigation Attorney, now serves as a trial attorney in the Department of Justice and as a law professor at the George Washington University Law School in Washington DC. Additionally, he is a Past Chair of the Animal Law Committee for the District of Columbia Bar Association.

v      In 2004 – – the same year that Wayne Pacelle became the President and CEO of HSUS – – the ABA created an Animal Law Committee, which each year seeks to persuade the ABA House of Delegates to adopt resolutions that support the HSUS agenda. 

v      Most State Bar Associations have now established Animal Law Committees.

v      In 2013 the National Association of State Attorneys General invited Mr. Pacelle to speak and he spoke to nearly all 50 state Attorneys General on the Topic of “cruelty to domestic animals.” 

v      HSUS in-house and pro bono attorneys are directly and indirectly involved in the drafting of every Legislative Bill or County or City Ordinance, and Regulation, that the HSUS lobbies Government and Elected Officials to support at the Federal, State and Local Levels of Government.

v      The current Chief of the APHIS Investigative and Enforcement Branch is Sarah L. Conant. She founded the Virginia Animal Law Society while a student at the UVA Law School; then became an HSUS Intern; then served as an HSUS Litigation Attorney. She now serves as the APHIS Investigative and Enforcement Branch Chief, and is responsible for the assessment of fines and enforcement of the APHIS rules and regulations against all existing USDA licensed breeders, and “future” USDA licensed hobby breeders.

IS THERE ANY LIGHT AT THE END OF THE TUNNEL? 

–Yes, after a disaster in Oklahoma the fund raising activities of the HSUS are now being investigated by the Oklahoma Attorney General;

— Six State Attorneys General have filed lawsuits that seek to overturn a California statute that was sponsored and financed by the HSUS; and

–A Treasury Special Agent is investigating the documented complaint (Treasury File Number 55-1307-0105-C) submitted by Frank Losey, which alleges that the IRS and Lois Lerner, an active member of the HSUS, failed to hold the HSUS accountable for its failure to comply with the U.S. Tax Code, and the Lobbying Disclosure Act Treasury. An adverse finding against the HSUS could result in it losing its public charity status!

 

March 23, 2014
HSUS – – Was it Noah’s Fault?

Were it not for the Pact between God and Noah, where would the HSUS be today?

Is it possible that the unwritten and underlying mission of today’s HSUS is
that it and its leadership are blaspheming God and Noah with its deceptive and
grotesque “spin” and misrepresentation of the plight of animals
today?

A verse in the Corinthians reads as follows: “Often the Devil masquerades
as an angel of light to deceive us.”

Is it possible that the HSUS is reprising the role of the Devil as it
masquerades as an “angel of light to deceive” the American Public,
Elected Officials, Political Appointees, Law Enforcement Personnel,Judges, and
most despicably, children as young as five-years-old?

Is it time to turn the tables on the HSUS, and to pursue a Public Relations Campaign
that causes the American Public to think of a “puppy mill” in a
positive light, such as is associated with a watermill, or a pepper mill, or a
windmill?!?!?!?!?

Is it time for the HSUS to be placed in the Dock, and to explain why State
Attorney Generals have and are investigating the alleged fraudulent
“charitable” fundraising practices of the HSUS that occur after each
and every natural disaster in the U.S. And for starters, shouldn’t the
investigation begin with an accurate accounting of what the HSUS did with over
$30 Million that it raised after the Hurricane Katrina Disaster that occurred
on the Gulf Coast?

And now that we are in the Easter Season, how divine it would be if God were
the Judge during the inquisition of the HSUS, and the Jury was comprised of the
12 Disciples!

This is my Sunday Prayer. Amen!!!!!
Frank

 

I am pleased – – very pleased! – – to report the following which is now posted on the KODA Website, along with the Actual Reply of the Justice Department which has conceded that the Plaintiffs in the Retail Pet Store Rule Lawsuit have Legal Standing!!!!!!!!!!!!!

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

On March 10, 2014, the Justice Department filed its “Reply” to our Opposition Response to its Motion to Dismiss for lack of “Legal Standing.”

In its short reply, the Justice Department referenced our Amended Complaint that we filed on March 5, 2014, and it has told the Court that its Motion to Dismiss for lack of Legal Standing “is moot and should be denied without prejudice.”   In short, the Justice Department has told the Court to disregard its Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Legal Standing!  A huge, interim victory!!!

When the Justice Department said that its very own Motion was “moot,” that confirmed that we have Legal Standing, notwithstanding what the HSUS asserted, as well as what the “Naysayers” have told tens of thousands of hobby breeders.

The Justice Department also stated in its Reply that it anticipates it will file its Answer to the Amended Complaint by April 4, 2014.

The Plaintiffs are now guaranteed to have their “Day in Court,” and that is why all Hobby Breeders throughout  the United States should continue to support the Lawsuit.

As an aside, the importance of a successful outcome to this Lawsuit is further heightened by the fact that over a month ago, in an unrelated Lawsuit, a Court Decision in a Freedom of Information Act Lawsuit that was filed by the HSUS against the USDA found in favor of the HSUS with respect to its requests for all personal and financial information submitted by the Breeders in Missouri on their new and renewal Applications for a USDA Breeder License.   Consequently, that decision will set a precedent for the ability of the HSUS to obtain personal and financial information submitted by every Hobby Breeder who is required to be USDA Licensed as a result of the USDA Retail Pet Store Rule.  In short, a collateral benefit of our Lawsuit, if successful, which we believe it will be, is that the personal and financial information of tens of thousands of Hobby Breeders will not be provided to the USDA and then onto the HSUS if they are not required to be USDA Licensed.

Frank

 

March 5, 2014

I have just posted the following on the KODA Website:

Something, a bit out of the ordinary has occurred!  Last week the Government informed us that it would withdraw its objection to the Plaintiffs’ “legal standing” to bring our lawsuit challenging the Retail Pet Store Rule if we file an Amended Complaint.  This is an interim but very significant victory because it gets us over the hurdle of proving that the Plaintiffs have a legal right to challenge the Rule, which is the defense the Government raises in every case.

By way of background, on February 7, we filed our opposition brief to the Government’s motion to dismiss, which incorporated six affidavits from individual members of the Plaintiffs explaining the adverse economic effects that the Rule will have on their hobby breeding, which is what the Plaintiffs are required to show in order to establish legal standing.  The Government apparently was persuaded that our opposition brief sufficiently demonstrated that we in fact do have standing.  The Government offered to file a Joint Motion with us to set out a time schedule for Plaintiffs to file an Amended Complaint and for the Government to file its Answer to the Amended Complaint.  We filed the Joint Motion on February 28, and the Court granted the Joint Motion on March 5.

We filed an Amended Complaint with the Court on the same day, March 5, 2014.  Our Amended Complaint incorporates the essence of what we had filed in our opposition to the Government’s Motion to Dismiss our Lawsuit based on a lack of “Legal Standing.”  In short, extracts from the Six Affidavits that were attached to our Response to the Government’s Motion to Dismiss were included in our Amended Complaint.

Based on the fact that the Government has agreed to file an answer to the Amended Complaint rather than file another motion to dismiss, it appears that the assertions of many “naysayers” who stated, with confidence, that we had no “Legal Standing” were unfounded. .  Hopefully, the “naysayers” will now support the Lawsuit that is challenging the Retail Pet Store Rule.

We now anticipate that the Lawsuit will proceed to go forward on the merits of our assertions that the Rulemaking Process for the Retail Pet Store was flawed in that it failed to comply with the Administrative Procedures Act; that APHIS did not adequately consider the issues raised in the Six Affidavits that are referenced in our Amended Complaint; that tens of thousands of hobby breeders are subject to experiencing “concrete” harm as a result of the Rule; and that APHIS and the USDA should withdraw the Rule, and do what often is referred to as a “DO OVER.”   This action, which we have asserted should occur, is totally consistent with the fact that Congress expressly stated in the Conference Report Language, that accompanied the Farm Bill, that APHIS must do a “new rulemaking” to address such issues as what is the definition of “de minimis” and what is the definition of a “breeding female,”  as well as clarify issues relating to “face to-face” sales which the Report Language was referring to when it further stated that APHIS must address what is meant by “oversight of . . . sales . . . transactions in interstate commerce as provided for under the Commerce Clause.”   And we are asserting that the only way to resolve the “confusion in the regulated community” – – not our words, but the words quoted from the Congressional Conference Report Language – – is for the existing Retail Pet Store Rule to be, in essence, rescinded so that the flaws in the prior rulemaking may be addressed during the same “new rulemaking” process that Congress has explicitly directed APHIS to undertake.

And in light of the NOT SO “WARM FUZZY” response we received from APHIS that was dated February 21, 2014, and which indicated that the Farm Bill may not have “ANY” effect on the Retail Pet Store Rule, it is even more imperative than ever before that the Lawsuit move forward, as we now anticipate it will.   The “chilling” extract from the APHIS Response should remove any doubt from anyone’s mind that representations that have been made by the “naysayers,” that the behind the scenes efforts of others have resolved the concerns of tens of thousands of hobby breeders, may not have been resolved after all.  In this regard, the “chilling” extract reads as follows:

“USDA is currently reviewing the statutory changes the Farm Bill makes to the AWA        and evaluating their effect, if any, on the retail pet store rule. . . .”

That quote clearly suggests that the “business model” of APHIS continues to be the equivalent of “damned the torpedoes, full speed ahead!” And that is why I am pleased to report that contrary to the unfounded assertions that the Lawsuit would fail for lack of “Legal Standing,” the Lawsuit is now expected to proceed to the next stage, which will allow the Plaintiffs to ask the Court to direct that APHIS rescind the Retail Pet Store Rule and to conduct a “new rulemaking” as directed by Congress in order to address the “confusion in the regulated community” has been caused by a lack of a clear and simple definition of “de minimis;” and a lack of a clear and simple definition of a “breeding female;” and by the failure of APHIS to  clarify what is meant by “oversight of . . . sales . . . transactions in interstate commerce as provided for under the Commerce Clause,”  as it relates to Rule’s requirement for “face-to-face” sales in order to qualify for an exemption.

BOTTOMLINE:  It appears that Plaintiffs’ Legal Standing is no longer an issue, and the Lawsuit will proceed to address the flaws that we believe will “spay and neuter” the legal efficacy of the Retail Pet Store Rule.

Now that the Legal Standing Issue no longer appears to be an obstacle to the Lawsuit, continued financial support of the 42 Plaintiffs in the Lawsuit will set the stage for a successful challenge of the Retail Pet Store Rule, which success will inure to the benefit of tens of  thousands of responsible and caring hobby breeders who represent the “regulated community” which continues to languish in the “Fog” of “Confusion.”

 

Frank

 

 

 

 

February 28, 2014

Just like in Alice in Wonderland, Hobby Breeders are being told by APHIS that the Rule subjectively “means what I say it means,” which, in essence, “codifies” the intent of APHIS to leave the regulated community in the “Fog” of “Uncertainty” without regard to the fact that APHIS is ignoring the Congressional Finding that there is “confusion among the regulated community.”   In short, APHIS will continue to use its “case-by-case” standard, and nothing – – absolutely nothing – – has yet changed as a result of the Congressional Report Language that accompanied the Farm Bill.  Consequently, all Hobby Breeders are still in the “FOG” of “Uncertainty” as to how the Retail Pet Store Rule will affect them, notwithstanding the assurances by some that the Farm Bill  has provided “IMMEDIATE”  relief from the draconian effects of the Retail Pet Store Rule on tens of thousands of Hobby Breeders.

The only way that the “confusion among the regulated community” will be resolved is for APHIS to impose a moratorium on the implementation and enforcement of the Retail Pet Store Rule until it conducts a “new rulemaking,” as mandated by Congress.   And now that APHIS has suggested that the Amendments to the Animal Welfare Act that are included in the Farm Act may not have “ANY” effect on the Retail Pet Store Rule, the only effective alternative for Hobby Breeders to pursue to obtain immediate relief from the existing “Fog of Uncertainty” that engulfs all Hobby Breeders is for the Retail Pet Store Rule Lawsuit to proceed so that APHIS will be directed by Court Order to do what Congress has expressly mandated that it do – – conduct a “new rulemaking.”  Only in this way will the “confusion among the regulated community” be eliminated with certainty, as opposed to relying upon unfounded assurances that all is well, and that most Hobby Breeders may conduct their activities in a “business as usual” manner.

Now that APHIS has expressly indicated by Letter dated February 21, 2014 that the Amendment to the Animal Welfare Act may not have “any” effect on the Retail Pet Store Rule, it is incumbent upon all who support the best interests of Hobby Breeders to support the Lawsuit, which is being pursued in order to protect the interests of not only the nearly 19,000 Hobby Breeder Members of the 42 Plaintiffs,  but will also protect each and every one of the tens of thousands of Hobby Breeders throughout the entire the U.S.

 

Frank Losey

 

 

February 22, 2014

On February 21, 2014 we filed our Response to the Government’s Motion to Dismiss our Lawsuit.  The Government’s Motion to Dismiss was based on its assertion that none of our 42 Plaintiffs “have standing to sue because they do not identify any specific member of their organizations who has suffered or will suffer an injury in fact caused by the Rule,” and that “[t]heir mere claim that this Rule will ‘potentially affect’ some of their members . . . does not support standing.”   In short, the Government asserted that there is no evidence whatsoever to establish that at least one breeder – – not one – – has experienced concrete, imminent and in-fact injury as a result of the Retail Pet Store Rule.

Our Response not only cited case law, which clearly supports the fact that the 42 Plaintiffs have standing, but it also referenced the Administrative Record that included tens of thousands of comments that had been submitted to APHIS during the Rule-Making Process, which identified the concrete, imminent and in-fact injury that would be experienced by tens of thousands of breeders because of the flawed Cost Analysis that was prepared by APHIS before it published its Final Rule.

While we believe that Case Law and the Administrative Record provide a substantial and compelling basis for our assertion that the Plaintiffs have “legal standing” to file the Lawsuit, our Response also included six Sworn Affidavits which we believe should remove any doubt in the Court’s mind that the 42 Plaintiffs do in fact have the requisite “legal standing,” and that the Government must now convince the Court as to why the Retail Pet Store Rule should not be set aside, and why its failure to do so would be inconsistent with the mandate from Congress for APHIS to engage in a “new rulemaking” that must address the “de minimis” standard, define the term “breeding female,” clarify “oversight of . . . sales . . . transactions in interstate commerce as provided for under the Commerce Clause,” and address the “confusion in the industry” that has been created by the Rule.

The six Sworn Affidavits that are now part of the Court Record were provided by five breeders, and the President of a Dog Registry.   Those six Sworn Affidavits were used to document the illustrative examples of the concrete, imminent and in-fact injury that the nearly 19,000 members of the 42 Plaintiffs have experienced – – not theoretically, but actually – – as a direct result of the Retail Pet Store Rule.

“Concrete, imminent and in-fact injuries” that are documented by the Six Sworn Affidavits included:

1.            Cost of Required Structural Improvements

2.            Increased Property Taxes

3.            Unanticipated Operating Costs

4.            Threatened Loss of Rare Breeds and Genetic Diversity

5.            Loss of Hobby Breeding Investments and Sales

6.            Abandonment of Hobby Breeding

7.            Loss of Registration Fees and Fear of Harassment

Of monumental note, one of the six Sworn Affidavits that are now part of the Court Record was signed and submitted by an individual who is the “sole proprietor,” “owner” and “breeder” of one of the 42 Plaintiffs.  Thus,  he is, in essence,  a “de facto”  Plaintiff, which in and of itself, refutes the Government’s assertion that our Lawsuit did not “identify any specific member of their organizations who has suffered or will suffer an injury in fact caused by the Rule.”

Of further note, the Sworn Affidavit of the President of one of the 42 Plaintiffs included language that allowed us to highlight why individual breeders were so fearful of having their names listed as Plaintiffs on the Lawsuit.   In this regard, his Sworn Affidavit allowed us to state in our Response that his Association was asked by its members  “to act on their behalf as a Plaintiff because of their fear of becoming potential targets of animal rights activists if they were listed as individual plaintiffs. . . .  The customers’ fear is based on website postings of the Humane Society of the United States (“HSUS”), which describes its participation in raids and dog confiscations.  In this regard, it is noteworthy that HSUS has moved to intervene in this lawsuit for the express purpose, inter alia, of gaining access to the USDA’s licensing information.”

A complete copy of our Response that was filed on February 21, 2014 will be posted on the KODA Website.

The Government is required  to file its Response to our Response  no later than Friday, February 28, 2014.

Phil Hecht and I wish to take this opportunity to express our heartfelt appreciation to the six individuals who provided us with their Sworn Affidavits so that we could submit the most compelling Response possible in order to refute the Government’s assertion that the Plaintiffs “do not identify any specific member of their organizations who has suffered or will suffer an injury in fact caused by the Rule.”

Frank Losey

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

PS:  I wish to emphasize the significance of the following sentence that is an extracted quote from our Response in Opposition to the Government’s Motion to Dismiss, and is also quoted in the above Update.

“In this regard, it is noteworthy that HSUS has moved to intervene in this lawsuit for the express purpose, inter alia, of gaining access to the USDA’s licensing information.”

The HSUS has an insatiable appetite for personal and financial information concerning any breeder, and especially any breeder who is licensed by the USDA.  There should be no question in anyone’s mind that one of the major reasons that the HSUS is attempting to intervene in this lawsuit is because it believes that the Rule will require tens of thousands of hobby breeders to “ultimately” be required to be USDA Licensed, notwithstanding representations that “behind the scenes” actions will protect the tens of thousands of hobby breeders.  The bottomline is that despite whatever anyone says to the contrary, the Rule has not been rescinded, and IT IS THE CURRENT RULE THAT APPLIES, NOTWITHSTANDING THE “CONFUSION IN THE REGULATED COMMUNITY;” AND THE UNCERTAINTY AS TO THE DEFINITION OF A “BREEDING FEMALE,” AND THE UNCERTAINTY AS TO THE DEFINITION OF “DE MINIMIS.”  THAT IS WHY IT IS SO IMPORTANT FOR THIS LAWSUIT TO GO FORWARD IN ORDER TO STOP THE HSUS “FREIGHT TRAIN!”

PPS:  If the HSUS were not concerned about the potential success of the Lawsuit that is challenging the Rule, why else do you suppose the HSUS decided to ask the Court to allow it to intervene?!?!?!?!?

PPPS:  Mr. Aaron Green is the Lead Counsel for the HSUS in its Motion to Intervene in this Lawsuit.  This is the same Aaron Green who has made not one, but at least two Freedom of Information Act Requests to the USDA in which he expressly requested copies of all communications between USDA personnel and “Franklin W. Losey” or “Frank Losey.”

 

February 21,2014

Plaintiff’s Memo Against Motion to Dismiss

Four documents attached:

Plaintiff’s Memorandum Opposing USDA’s Motion to Dismiss
Exhibits 1-4 to above
Exhibits 5-8 to above
Proposed Order Denying Motion to Dismiss

I  have not read these yet, wanted to get them to all of you ASAP.

View attachments on the web

4 of 4 File(s)

KODA- Memo Against Motion to Dismiss.pdf

KODA- Agnst Dismiss Exhibits 1-4.pdf

KODA- Agnst Dismiss Exh 5-8.pdf

KODA – Proposed Order Deny Dismissal.pdf

 

January 14, 2014

USDA Retail Pet Store Rule Lawsuit Update

On the afternoon of January 13, 2014, our Response to the HSUS Motion to Intervene as a Defendant in the Lawsuit was filed.  (A copy of our Response will be posted on the KODA Website.)  A summary of  key quotes set out in our Response is as follows:

 

1.            The HSUS “does not have standing to intervene (as a defendant) in this case.”

2.            The “USDA is capable of defending without the intervention of the HSUS.”

3.            The “Plaintiffs’ challenge will not cause the HSUS ‘immediate and concrete harm.'”

4.            “HSUS presents no evidence that either of its examples involved members of any of the 42 Plaintiffs.”

5.            The “HSUS has not identified a single “so-called puppy mill” among the 19,000 small-scale dog and cat hobby breeder who comprised the membership of the forty-two Plaintiffs.”

6.            The “HSUS has not offered a single fact to support intervention to prevent Plaintiffs from setting aside the Rule based on the substantial, detrimental effects it has on their activities as small-scale dog and cat hobby breeders.”

7.            “In other words, the newly promulgated Rule saves the HSUS money, enables the HSUS to be more efficient in gathering information, and gives HSUS additional traction in its lobbying efforts, which is what it does.”

8.            “Overheated rhetoric aside, HSUS’ decision to hound breeders acting within the bounds of the law was entirely voluntary, and the fact that this decision allegedly cost hundreds of thousands of dollars is a telling measure of the substantial resources available to HSUS, and nothing more.”

9.            The “HSUS does not allege injury due to USDA’s inaction, but instead argues that it will be injured by Plaintiff’s challenge to a USDA action that HSUS supports.”

10.          “HSUS suggests that Defendant’s commitment to the Retail Pet Store Rule is suspect, and that they will be less than vigorous in defending the Rule.”

11.          “(N)one of the cases cited by the HSUS supports intervention on the side of a defendant government agency to defend that agency’s rule.”

12.          “(F)or the HSUS to assert that USDA will not now vigorously defend the defend that Rule is speculative at best and cynical at worst.”

13.          “If, as HSUS fears, USDA ‘might agree to settle rather than litigate, and remand the rule for additional review. . . USDA has discretion to do so.”

14.          “Defendant’s Notice . . . stating that they take no position regarding HSUS’ Motion to
intervene plainly suggests that HSUS’s assistance is not needed.”

15.          “The parade of horribles that HSUS describes as the reason for the Rule simply does not apply to Plaintiffs or their members, all of which are small-scale hobby breeders.”

16.          “The exposition  of HSUS’ position would unduly delay the presentation of Plaintiffs’ case, and would prejudice the adjudication of Plaintiff’ claims by making Plaintiffs appear to be something they are not.”

 

The Rules of the Court provide that the HSUS will have seven (7) days to respond to our Response.  We do not anticipate that the Government will submit any response to our Lawsuit until after  the HSUS files its Response to our Response, which we expect will be filed on January 20, 2014.    However, on January 13, 2014 the Justice Department did file its Response to the HSUS Motion to Intervene, and stated, as referenced above, the following:  “Defendants take no position regarding the Motion to Intervene of the Humane Society of the United States.

Frank Losey

 

 

 

November 23, 2013

The following is the suggested text and instructions for sending a FOIA Request to APHIS.  (What blows my mind is that  during Thursday’s Webinar one of my questions that I submitted was on  the topic of complaints, and the response was that they do not keep those records.  Hello!!!!!!!!!)   Yes, this is a topic worth exploring, and if a lot of “Inquiring Minds” were to  ask  for this type of information, and they received the “do not keep those records” responses, why someone like that Scurilous Frank Losey just might find a way to use that information!

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

FLOODING APHIS WITH FOIA REQUESTS RE “COMPLAINTS”

E-Mail Address:  foia.officer@aphis.usda.gov

SUBJECT LINE:  FOIA REQUEST FOR CUMULATIVE NUMBERS OFCOMPLAINTS RECEIVED BY APHIS

BACKGROUND:  On September 18, 2013, APHIS published in the Federal Register its Retail Pet Store Rule, which became effective on November 18, 2013.  The following quoted extract appeared under the Section entitled “Need for Regulatory Action:”

“With the dramatic rise in sight unseen sales have come increasing complaints from the public about the lack of monitoring and oversight of the health and humane treatment of those animals.”

In September of 2013 APHIS published on its website “Questions and Answers: Retail Pet Store Final Rule.”   One of the Questions was:  “How will USDA identify breeders who may need to be regulated?”    The “Answer” to that Question began with the following first two sentences:  “APHIS will use various methods to access publicly available information to identify and inform those individuals who may need an AWA commercial breeding license.  These methods include evaluating customer complaints against breeders and internet retailers. . . . “

I recognize that FOIA and the Privacy Act will not permit the release of any specific information that is the subject of an investigation, such as the name of the Complainant or the name of the subject breeder or breeders named in the Complaint.  THAT “CONFIDENTIAL” INFORMATION IS NOT THE SUBJECT OF MY FOIA REQUEST.

I am not asking for the names of anyone.   My Request simply seeks a numerical number of complaints received by APHIS or the USDA that alleged that breeders were not providing appropriate oversight of the health and humane treatment of dogs and cats or any other regulated animals during the following periods of time:

•             Calendar Year 2010

•             Calendar Year 2011

•             Calendar Year 2012

•             January 1-November 17, 2013

•             November 18-to-November 27, 2013

If a processing fee must be paid to process this Request, please so advise me.

Add Your Name at the end of the FOIA Request that you are submitting to APHIS.

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

Resist temptation to edit the above text –  – there is a “method to the madness” of the text.

Frank

PS:  I would appreciate if those who submit the above FOIA Request to APHIS put my E-Mail Address (franklosey@twc.com) in the BCC Address Line

 

November 18, 2013

STATUS OF FILING FOR AN INJUNCTION

A Washington DC attorney has been retained by ADCNYS to serve as Counsel of Record and to work with Frank Losey in the preparation of court documents that will be filed in the Federal Court in Washington DC that has jurisdiction to issue an Injunction Order. This attorney has experience in challenging rules and regulations that are issued by federal agencies.

The anticipated filing date is the first week of December. While consideration was given to filing before the rule’s effective date of November 18, 2013, a decision was made to take the short extra time to polish the action to be filed to ensure that the best legal arguments are presented in the most compelling way. The short delay in filing for injunctive relief falls within the allowed time-window for challenging a federal regulation, and it will allow us to further document the irreparable harm that breeders affected by the rule could experience. We believe several times as many breeders as APHIS has estimated will need to alter their activities because of the rule. Additionally, and equally important, the short delay will allow time for additional plaintiffs to be added to the growing list of dog and cat clubs that have authorized us to list them as plaintiffs.

At this time, we wish to express our heartfelt appreciation to those clubs that already have agreed to be listed as plaintiffs, and we trust that the short delay in filing the court documents will allow even more clubs to add their names to the growing list of plaintiffs.

While continued donations will be needed to sustain this effort, we also wish to express our heartfelt appreciation to the clubs and individuals who have already generously donated to this effort. Their generous contributions have enabled us to begin the process of challenging the USDA Retail Pet Store Rule. Again, “THANK YOU!”

November 9,2013

The following is my response to those who have expressed the belief that any effort to oppose implementation of the USDA Retail Pet Store Rule is doomed to failure and should be opposed.

1.            The Injunction Action will not assert that the USDA does not have the right to publish a Rule that implements the Animal Welfare Act (AWA).

2.            The Injunction Action will assert that the USDA did not “follow the rules” as set out in Federal Statutes and Executive Order 12866 that establishes the “I’s” that must be dotted, and the “T’s” that must be crossed before a Proposed Rule is legally permitted to become a Final Rule.   And since the USDA did not follow the Federal Rules for Rulemaking, it must start over (a “Do-Over”), and do it the right way.

3.            Executive Order 12866 states that “Each agency shall draft its regulations to be simple and easy to understand, with the goal of minimizing the potential for uncertainty and litigation arising from such uncertainty.”

4.            If the Retail Pet Store Rule is “simple and easy to understand” and does not create “uncertainty,” why have those who are opposed to the Injunction Action stated that they are seeking clarification; stating that they will monitor the situation and seek corrective legislation if that action proves necessary; and are having “behind the scenes” discussions with USDA representatives, but that they are not at liberty to discuss the details of those discussions?????

5.            If the Injunction Action is successful, those who assert that the USDA will publish a new Rule are correct.  But the “Do-Over” will be done correctly, and the Regulatory Impact Statement will be done correctly so that it will reflect, with documented facts, as opposed to pulling figures out of the air, the true cost and effect of the  Rule on potentially every Hobby Breeder in the U.S.  And when the Small Business Administration sees the true cost of the Rule, it may insist that the USDA revise the Rule one more time before the Rule may be published as a Final Rule.  In this regard, the true cumulative cost to Hobby Breeders of dogs and cats could well exceed a Billion Dollars, as opposed to the $12.1 Million Dollars that the USDA has estimated the cost to be.

6.            Those who oppose the Injunction Action have asserted that if successful, it will result in the PUPS Bill being enacted.  The truth of the matter is that the PUPS Bill is the “creation” of the Humane Society of the U.S. (HSUS), which, in reality, is the organization that pressured and orchestrated the USDA to publish the Retail Pet Store Rule; and the HSUS will continue to press for Congress to enact the PUPS Bill regardless of whether a Rule is challenged or not by an Injunction Action.  In this regard, quietly, behind the scenes, the HSUS continues to gather additional sponsors for the PUPS Bill.  Each month the list of co-sponsors grows.

7.            If the truth be known, the HSUS truly wants the Rule not to be challenged, and there is a real risk that the actions of those who elect to sit on the sidelines play into the hands of the HSUS.  In this regard, the Hobby Breeders have been asking hundreds, if not thousands of questions about whether they will fall under any exception or exception so that they will not be required to be USDA Licensed.  The responses to those questions by those opposed to the Injunction Action are to the effect that there is no need to worry because most Hobby Breeders will fall under exceptions and will not be required to be licensed.    However, those responses totally ignore the track record of the HSUS which will assert that Hobby Breeders are improperly trying to take advantage of “loopholes,” which is the term that the HSUS originally used to pressure the USDA to publish the Rule.     And if hundreds or thousands of Hobby Breeders claim that they fall within an exception, the HSUS will most assuredly lobby Congress to enact the PUPS Bill to close the “loopholes” being used by thousands of Hobby Breeders.   In short, the “loophole” exceptions will provide the HSUS with its best opportunity to finally succeed in orchestrating an Amendment to the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) in the form of PUPS.

8.            To put the deceitful HSUS method of operation in perspective, the AKC was apparently persuaded by the HSUS in 2006  to believe that the HSUS was only concerned about those nasty  commercial “puppy mills,” and that it was in the best interest of the AKC to support the then PAWS Bill.  Presumably, that is why the former AKC Chairman sat next to Mr. Pacelle, the President and CEO of the HSUS, at a Hearing before Senator Santorum, and both testified in support of the PAWS Bill. (Here it is  noteworthy that Senator Santorum, the sponsor of the HSUS PAWS Bill,  stopped pushing for passage of the PAWS Bill after he learned that Frank Losey succeeded in persuading the Commercial Breeder Organizations in the 10 States where over 80% of the Federally Licensed, USDA Breeders were located, to publicly “condemn substandard kennels.”)   And the reward that AKC has received from the HSUS for supporting its legislative agenda was that on April 30, 2013, the HSUS announced that the AKC was “joined at the hip with the puppy mills.”  So the question that all should ask is:  “Why does anyone believe that if the Rule is not challenged, the HSUS will quietly go softly into the night, and drop its efforts to persuade Congress to enact PUPS?

9.            As an aside, the HSUS has not succeeded in orchestrating an Amendment to the AWA in the last 10+ years despite the fact that it has directly and indirectly expended Hundreds of Millions of Dollars in its efforts to pass legislation.  Coincidentally, Frank Losey has been working behind the scenes on behalf of “ALL” breeders in his efforts to frustrate the legislative agenda of HSUS for the last 10+ years.

10.          Ask yourself, if the USDA was truly only trying to close the loophole for large scale internet sellers, why did it expand coverage to potentially include every Hobby Breeder?

11.          Yes, to pursue an Injunction Action costs money.  However, those costs are projected to be significantly reduced because Frank Losey is providing his legal services Pro Bono (Free).

12.          Yes, Legal Standing is one of the hurdles that must be overcome in any Injunctive Action.  And it is unfortunate that the AKC has listened to those who have asserted that the AKC has no legal Standing, notwithstanding the fact that it truly has a “dog in the fight” because the ripple effect of the Rule could result in a significant decline in the number of AKC Registrations, with a corresponding loss of Registration Fee Revenue, which totaled in excess of $28 Million Dollars in 2011.  While establishing Legal Standing requires more than a self-serving assertion that it exists, Dog and Cat Clubs, whose Members may be adversely and directly affected by the Rule, have a legal and legitimate basis to assert Legal Standing on behalf of its Members.  Likewise, so does the AKC if it were to assert that the Rule could adversely affect its revenue stream that it derives from the 1,000s of AKC Hobby Breeders who register their dogs and puppies with the AKC.

13.          It is true that there is no absolute guarantee of success for an Injunction Action.  However, when it comes to predicting the outcome of a judicial proceeding, it borders on unsubstantiated “presumptuousness” to state repeatedly, publicly and summarily, with absolute certainty, that an Injunction Action will fail.  Furthermore, if all sit on the sidelines in a “wait and see” mode, life for all Hobby Breeders are GUARANTEED to be different, and the difference will not be good for most of them.

14.          And to those who have been told that after monitoring the situation, if a need for corrective legislation arises, it will be pursued, ponder this question:  “If it is so easy to obtain corrective legislation, why has the HSUS not been successful in its efforts to amend the Animal Welfare Act in over 10 years despite spending hundreds of Millions of Dollars in its lobbying efforts?”

15.          All Hobby Breeders need  to stop and reflect for a moment as to what will occur, with absolute certainty, after November 18, 2013 if nothing is done to challenge the Rule:

•             All Hobby Breeders will be faced with the prospect of being required to prove that they fall within an exception or exemption – – it may not occur on November 18th; it may not occur during the next year, but it will eventually occur, and who can predict which ones will be the subject of anonymous complaints submitted to the USDA that allege the Hobby Breeder is violating the Rule because it did not seek to be USDA Licensed.

•             Even if an after the fact decision is made, by those who now oppose the Injunction Action, to seek corrective legislation, it could take years to accomplish, and the possibility of it never occurring is realistic considering the fact that the HSUS has been unable to persuade Congress to amend the Animal Welfare Act during the last 10+ years.

•             Most  Hobby Breeders will have their lives disrupted in one form or another, as they are faced with the prospect of either giving up their love of breeding dogs and cats; or they must prove that they qualify for an exemption; or they must become USDA licensed and be required to make very, very costly structural changes to their homes to ensure that existing USDA  “minimum space requirements” are met; and they will be faced with the need to creatively figure out how they can meet the “cleaning and sanitation requirements” of the existing USDA Regulation without removing carpet from their homes and installing drainage for the  floors to ensure that urine and feces do not build up on the floors in their homes where their dogs and puppies walk.

Just as time “waits for no one,” time will not wait for Hobby Breeders to see if corrective legislation is necessary.  THE TIME FOR ACTION IS NOW!

Frank

October 30, 2013

Walt’s Disclaimer stating he’s not an attorney

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

I am an attorney who has been involved in over 30 Federal Agency Rulemaking Controversies over the last 23 years.  While Attorneys may disagree over certain issues, I have not read anything that Walt has written with respect to the APHIS Rule that causes me to be concerned that Walt is “Practicing Law without a License.”

In contrast, Patti Strand has questioned my “credentials” and relies up “legal opinions” rendered by her de facto in house attorney, Julian Prager, who questions my assessments as to the Legal Standing of the AKC, and the bases for an Injunction.  I intentionally have not detailed all of the legal arguments because to do so would be a form of “legal malpractice” to give a “heads-up” to your potential adversaries, including the HSUS, as to the details of your legal arguments.

Curious as to how many Federal Agency Rulemaking Controversies Julian Prager has been involved in as part of his “credentials?”   My resume of “credentials” in the rulemaking arena do include successes with respect to Federal Agencies such as EPA, OSHA, and the Department of Defense.  And Julian Prager’s  credentials include……….??????

To suggest that the USDA “have crafter rules that they believe will exempt almost all of us; let’s see if they are right” begs the question:

And if they are not right, how do you recover from irreparable harm; and what do you tell the “victims” who relied upon the advice that all was well in “Happy Valley,” and all verbal assurances were as good as “GOLD,” notwithstanding the caveat of the use of such phrases as “case by case????”

 

 

USDA WEBINARS – -ADMISSION OF “OOPS”

October 29, 2013

Webinars will be held Thursdays from 2 p.m. to 3 p.m. EST for a four-week period. The schedule of topics for the webinars is as follows:

▪ November 7 – Am I regulated under USDA’s Retail Pet Store Rule?

▪ November 14 – How will USDA implement the Retail Pet Store Rule?

▪ November 21 – What is USDA’s inspection process in a home?

▪ December 5 – How will USDA enforce the Retail Pet Store Rule?

In my opinion, the fact that the USDA decided it needed to augment its prior teleconference calls and responses with 4 Webinars constitutes a de facto admission that it did not do its rulemaking in accordance with  Rulemaking Laws and the Executive Order that addresses rulemaking.

And adding insult to injury is the fact that the subject of “USDA’s Inspection process in a home” IS NOT SCHEDULED UNTIL 3 DAYS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE ENFORMENT DATE OF THE RULE.  THAT  SPEAKS VOLUMES AS TO THE BIG “OOPS,” AND IT STRENGTHENS THE CASE FOR AN INJUNCTION!!!!!!!!

I simply do not recall reading details in the Proposed Rule about Inspection Process in a Home!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hopefully, USDA will discuss ripping up carpet and perhaps drilling holes in the floors and the need  for Hobby Breeders to realize that if they have a full time job and are not at home 8-5, M-F, to let the APHIS Inspectors enter  their homes during NO NOTICE INSPECTIONS, THEY WILL ISSUED A NON-COMPLIANT CITATION, WHICH COULD POTENTIALLY RESULT IN A MAXIMUM FINE OF $10,000.  THIS COULD RESULT IN AN EXPENSIVE “HOBBY” FOR HOBBY BREEDERS

Hopefully, USDA will discuss ripping up carpet and perhaps drilling  holes  in  the floor and the NO Notice Requirement for making sure that

 

October 25, 2913

What is USDA’s inspection process in a home?

Three questions for all potentially affected hobby breeders to ponder –  – and consider asking during the Webinars:

1.  Why didn’t APHIS detail in its regulatory impact assessments on small businesses the details of what an APHIS inspection of a breeder’s home would entail, to include, but not be limited to, the details of how a Hobby Breeder’s home would have to be modified in order for their home to meet the standards set out in the existing APHIS Regulation that addresses housing and sanitation standards for dogs and puppies, as well as the projected costs to make those modifications?

2.   Why didn’t APHIS detail in its regulatory impact assessments on small businesses the requirement for a Hobby Breeder to ensure that someone is always at home between 8 am to 5 pm, Monday through Friday, in order to ensure that “NO NOTICE” access by APHIS Inspectors to the breeders home occurs?

3.   In short, why didn’t the APHIS Rule highlight this fact so that Hobby Breeders would realize that the failure of unfettered access to their homes by APHIS Inspectors during that time period could subject them to a NON-COMPLIANT “CITATION” THAT CARRIES WITH IT THE POTENTIAL OF A MAXIMUM FINE OF $10,000?

NOTE:   These questions and issues could be cited in a lawsuit as part of the multitude of reasons why an Injunction should and could be granted.

 

 

October 16, 2013

 

I can’t speak for AKC and haven’t talked to them about their take on an injunction.

It may be that Frank can show credentials and examples of winning cases like the one he is proposing that would inspire taking up such a suit.  At any rate, AKC has a lot of resources at its disposal if they chose to go down this path.

I personally think this approach fails in its most fundamental mission, stopping this or worse regulation. Even suggesting this approach shows a lack of understanding the big picture.

Again, if this approach was somehow successful in its most rudimentary form and achieved an injunction, Durbin or some other lawmaker would immediately bring forth another PUPS type bill and it would pass with sweeping margins. Unfortunately, where this issue is concerned, opportunists with no record of success have seized the platform to gain attention for themselves and their groups. The problem is that they are so far off the       mark with their recommendations, and behaving so irrationally they are simply convincing the decision makers that we should not only be regulated, but locked away.

Yes, according to Durbin’s office PUPS is no longer in play.  But while I believe it is not their intention to bring it forward, I think we all realize that it remains a possibility until the session is over. PUPS operated as a Congressional sword of Damocles hung over the USDA to assure action on this issue.  If the rule is overturned, we will simply see the AWA amended in Congress to achieve the same thing or worse.

In the event that the new regulations are interpreted and enforced in ways that concern us, we can then initiate legislation to correct the problem. Hopefully, we’ll still have some friends in Congress at that time.

Patti

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

Now that Mrs. Strand has gone “public,” and trivialized my “understanding of the big picture,” as Paul Harvey would say:  “And Now the Rest of the Story!”  And the “Rest of the Story” will allow all to judge for themselves the credibility of Mrs. Strand and her Agenda, and the Agenda of the organization that she leads.

For everyone to fully understand the “Big Picture,” I reluctantly am compelled to share the following documented facts that show how Mrs. Strand either wittingly or unwittingly aided and abetted the HSUS in its efforts to obtain personal and financial information on every USDA Licenses and Inspected Breeder in the entire State of Missouri.

By way of background, the HSUS made a Freedom of Information  Act  (FOIA) Request in 2009 to the USDA, and requested personal and financial information that every USDA Licensed Breeder must annually provide to the USDA to renew their USDA Licenses.  (For the AKC Hobby Breeders who will be ultimately required to obtain a USDA License, you too will have to provide personal and financial information each year to the USDA.)  Initially, to the credit of USDA, the HSUS FOIA Request was denied.  Then the HSUS sued the USDA to obtain the information that it requested.  After the HSUS Lawsuit was filed, the USDA reversed its decision and told every USDA Licensed Breeder in Missouri that if they did not sue the USDA to block release of the information to the HSUS, it would release the requested information to the HSUS.  The Missouri Pet Breeders Association – – a non-profit, tax exempt organization like the AKC – – on behalf of the USDA Licensed Breeders in Missouri, filed a Lawsuit that sought to block the release of information to the HSUS.  Here it is significant to note that the “Legal Standing” of the Missouri Pet Breeders Association (MPBA) was not challenged, even though all USDA Licensed Breeders in Missouri were not Members of the MPBA,  and the MPBA continues to be a named Plaintiff in the Lawsuit that is still on-going, after nearly three years of litigation.

And now the “plot thickens!”  Why did the USDA reverse itself and decide to release the requested information to the HSUS?  Legal Briefs that are available to the public revealed comments submitted by Mrs. Strand were used in the decision made by APHIS to decide to release personal and financial information to the HSUS.   Of note, Mrs. Strand was a Paid Member of the AKC Board of Directors at the time that she provided information to Dr. Rushin – – the same Dr. Rushin who is at the Center of the APHIS Final Rule.  Of further note, the Federal Judge in the Lawsuit delayed making further rulings in the Lawsuit until the USDA addressed why proper notice to the Plaintiffs as to the private communications  between Dr. Rushin and Patti Strand had not occurred.

As a result of Mrs. Strand’s “behind the scenes ” “involvement” in the HSUS FOIA Lawsuit, the USDA Licensed Breeders in Missouri  have had to incur the stress of the Litigation for nearly three years, in addition to the legal costs that now exceed  $100,000, and the legal fees and expenses continue to mount.

As an aside, I had a conversation with Mrs. Strand in early 2011, and shared with her the status of the HSUS FOIA Request and told her that we were trying to learn why the USDA reversed its decision, and that we understood that there was some type of correspondence that the USDA relied upon.   I asked her if she had any knowledge.  She told me she would contact her sources at USDA and see what she could find out.  She never got back to me.  Subsequently, I learned about the exchanges of E-Mails between Dr. Rushin and Mrs. Strand, which exchanges had occurred approximately two months before  Mrs. Strand “coyly” told me she was not aware of what the correspondence may have been used by USDA/APHIS to decide that it would release to the HSUS personal and financial information on all USDA Licensed Breeders in Missouri.    Hmmmmm…..I wonder why?!?!?!?!?!?!?

Another conversation that I had with Mrs. Strand occurred about the time that the APHIS Proposed Rule was published in the Federal Register last year.  Mrs. Strand called me, and urged me to support the APHIS Proposed Rule, because in her words, “there will be a Rule,” and if we work with Dr. Rushin, we will be able  to influence the Final Rule, as evidenced by the fact that he supports  increasing the number of intact females from 3 to 4.    I told her I could not support the Proposed Rule because I believed that APHIS had failed to comply with the Administrative Procedures Act and the Executive Order that covered Federal Rulemaking.   And I continue to believe this to be the case, and I continue to believe that APHIS’s failure to comply with the Administrative Procedures Act, the Executive Order, and several other Federal Statutes would constitute one of – – not the only  – – legal arguments that could be made in support of a Lawsuit that sought to enjoin and block the USDA from enforcing the Final Rule.

Mrs. Strand’s support of the APHIS Rule was further documented on September 24, 2012 when she stated:  “We generally oppose bad laws and regulations completely but not in the case of the proposed APHIS regulation.”

Mrs. Strand has questioned my “credentials” and “examples  of winning cases.”   With respect to this “Question,” I have:

  • Served as a Military Judge while on Active Duty in the U.S.  Air Force;
  • Served as a Special Government Counsel in a Classified Investigation of Charges of Misconduct by Air Force Officers during the 1969 Gadaffi  Military Coup in Libya;
  • Served as Defense Counsel in Five Different Homicide Cases – – three of defendants had no convictions, and the other two received sentences of 1 and 10 years respectively while facing the Maximum Sentence of Life;
  • Served as the Air Force Director of Civil Law in the Pentagon  where I had oversight over all Litigation involving the U.S. Air Force, and I interfaced with Justice Department Attorneys who represented the U.S. Air Force in all Litigation in Federal Courts;
  • Submitted Briefs that were considered by the U.S. Supreme Court;
  • Served as the U.S. Spokesperson for the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative at an OECD Meeting in Paris, France;
  • Orchestrated the repeal of a Congressional Statute over the Objection  of the Department of the Navy, the Department of Defense, and the Department of Justice;
  • Participated in discussions with Government Officials, including the Administrators of the OMB Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, with respect to more than 30 Proposed Regulations that were published in the Federal Register by the Department of Defense, the Department of the Navy, the Department of the Treasury, the Department of the Transportation, OSHA and EPA.   Of note, these Federal Agencies made major changes to many of the Proposed Regulations, and in more than one instance, the Proposed Regulation was withdrawn and the Agency did a “Do Over,” which addressed and resolved the issues of major concern.

Mrs. Strand has stated that my suggested approach “fails in its most fundamental mission, stopping this or worse regulation.”

Although I have “only” been licensed to practice law for 49 years, I have difficulty understanding the logic of Mrs. Strand’s statement that a Federal Injunction would not stop this regulation.   That is exactly what an Injunction would do – – STOP THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE APHIS FINAL RULE.

While I do not question the fact that if the Injunction were successful, it would  not preclude APHIS from doing a “DO OVER,” and start from scratch and begin the Rule-Making Process over again, Mrs. Strand does not seem to appreciate that this would take several years to accomplish, in all probability, because when a Federal Court says, in essence, “you didn’t do it right,” it creates a heavy burden on the Regulatory Agency to dot all the “I’s” and cross all of the “T’s” to make sure it does it right the second time over.  And that process could take two or more years.

And then Mrs. Strand suggests that I have demonstrated a “lack of understanding of the big picture.”  Allow me to “dummy down” my perception of the “Big Picture,” which is based upon more than 20,000 hours of research that has given me an insight into the corporate ethos and evil agenda and practices of  the HSUS, which often preys upon the gullible who believe that you can work with the HSUS.

  1. The HSUS wishes to destroy the ability of      all breeders, including those who are small scale Hobby Breeders, to breed dogs.
  2. Like the spider who told the fly, “Come  into my parlor,” the HSUS has used the same approach in the past in dealing with the AKC. For example, in 2006 the HSUS was pushing the PAWS Bill. I sat in the Hearing Room and listened to Mr. Ron Menaker, the then AKC Chairman, who sat next to Wayne Pacelle, testify in support of the PAWS Bill.  Obviously, there was a belief at that time within the AKC Leadership that by working with Mr. Pacelle and the HSUS, the HSUS would recognize that the AKC Breeders were responsible breeders and they did not need to feel threatened by the HSUS.         However, one of the “Lesson of History” is that short-term appeasement does not always work in the long run as evidenced by the fact that at the end of April of 2013      – – after the comment period for the APHIS Rule had passed – – the HSUS stated that AKC was“joined at the hip” with the “PMs.” Was the timing of this statement,      which preceded the publishing of the Final Rule, an indication that the  HSUS now has the AKC Hobby Breeders in their “targeted” sights, and will use the APHIS Rule to turn the lives of 1,000s of AKC Hobby      Breeders into a “Living Hell?!?!?”
  • As an aside, one may wonder “why” Senator Santorum, who was sponsoring the PAWS Bill in 2006, and  who held the Hearing where Mr. Menaker and Mr. Pacelle testified in support of the PAWS Bill, allowed the PAWS Bill to “die” without bringing it to the floor for a Vote when he was in a Leadership Position; and “why” Senator Santorum issued a Press Release in which he stated that the overwhelming majority of commercial breeders were “responsible breeders.”    Could the reason “why” be that Frank Losey, who has been accused of lacking an “understanding of the big picture, provided to Senator Santorum a Public Condemnation of Substandard Kennels in 2006 by the Missouri Pet Breeders Association.  That public condemnation by the MPBA set the stage for Commercial Pet Breeding Associations in 9 other States to also publicly condemn Substandard Kennels – – over 80% of all USDA Licensed Breeders were located in those 10 States.
  • The MPBA Public Condemnation occurred over 7 years ago.  Despite that fact, many used and continue to use the HSUS crafted “PM” phrase to disparage responsible commercial breeders, and now those same people, who are serving and who have served in “leadership positions” are being told by HSUS that the AKC is “joined at the hip” to the “PMs!” 
  • The assertions made by Mrs. Strand that “PUPS is no longer in play,” and that “Durbin or some other lawmaker would immediately bring forth another PUPS type bill” shows a “lack of understanding” by Mrs. Strand about when the PUPS Bill “is no longer is in play.”  In this regard, PUPS Bill is still lurking in Congress; the HSUS is still quietly continuing to add co-sponsors to the PUPS Bill; and the PUPS Bill does not “die” until the end of December of 2014 – – not 2013.    Plenty of time for more HSUS Mischief, and don’t be surprised when the Big Push for the PUPS Bill occurs early in 2014 without regard to whether the APHIS Rule is challenged or not!
  • Regardless of whether or not the APHIS Rule is challenged, I fervently believe that, based on my 20 years of working experience on Capitol Hill, and interfacing with  Members of Congress and their Key Staffers,  the HSUS will continue to push for enactment of the PUPS Bill.  Never forget that Mr. Pacelle brags about the fact that “We have passed 1,000 laws in the last decade!”
  • I have never sought annual contributions to support my efforts on behalf all responsible breeders in all 50 States for the last 10 years.  I have done what I have done in an effort to support all responsible breeders, be they commercial or hobby breeders, because my Parents instilled in me the Guiding Principle to always strive to do what is “Fair, Right, and Just. “ In this regard, I believe that the HSUS is on a “mission” to destroy the lives and way of life of Millions of American Citizens – – not just dog breeders!
  • When I was first Commissioned as an Officer in the U.S. Air Force,  I took an Oath to “uphold and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”  Each time I was promoted, I repeated that Oath.  And I will live by that Oath until the Day that I Die!  And I consider the HSUS to be a “Domestic Enemy” of the U.S.
  1. If the APHIS Rule is not challenged, it is folly to believe that the HSUS will not begin pressuring the USDA to      immediately challenge most of the claims of AKC Hobby Breeders who assert correctly or incorrectly that they fall under an “exception,”  which assertions will be “reviewed” by the likes of Sarah L. Conant, the former HSUS Litigation Attorney.  And as sure as “God made little green apples,” it will not take long for the HSUS to assert that the APHIS Rule is filled with exceptions that can only be fixed with the passage of the PUPS Bill, which will provide the HSUS with yet another opportunity for “mischief” with last minute floor amendments.
  1. If Mrs. Strand is suggesting that I am an “opportunist”      with “no record of success,” and that I have “seized      the platform to gain attention for” myself, I find such a      statement to be not only ludicrous, but that it also suggests that whomever espouses such a statement needs to look at themselves in the mirror!
  1. Mrs. Strand has stated that “In the event that the new regulations are interpreted and enforced in ways that concern us, we can then initiate legislation to correct the    problem.”  Such a statement ignores the fact that      initiating legislation provides no guarantee that any legislation that seeks to correct any cited problem will be enacted in a timely manner. Thus, once again, Mrs. Strand has demonstrated by the naiveté of her words that she “lacks an understanding of the big picture” as it relates to the practical  reality of how long it takes to pass favorable legislation.  Even assuming that such legislation could be enacted, it would realistically take at least a year – – probably  years – – for such legislation to be enacted, and during that intervening      time the lives of 1,000s of AKC Hobby Breeders will suffer irreparable    harm.  And this “Irreparable Harm” to 1,000s of AKC Hobby Breeders could be avoided if the AKC, which Mrs. Strand has stated has a “lot of resources,” would file for an Injunction. 

In previous postings, I have stated the reasons why I believe that the AKC  has “Legal Standing” to file a Lawsuit that seeks an Injunction; and why it has a fiduciary responsibility to do so, in addition to taking action that would protect its major source of financial revenue and International Prestige – – AKC Registrations.  And as I have stated in the past, I will willingly assist the Attorneys that AKC would retain to represent its interests in filing for an Injunction, without the benefit of  compensation.

POSTSCRIPT OBSERVATION:   Reflect for a moment and ask yourself how many individuals, by name, have been libeled and disparaged, as I have been by Mr. Pacelle who has stated in writing that I am “dishonest,” hostile to animal welfare” and am “not an honorable person.”  Personally, I consider Mr. Pacelle’s description of me to be one of my sterling “credentials” which Mrs. Strand has questioned!

 

 

 

The Aphis Rule…What If

October 13, 2013

IF APHIS DECIDES, AFTER A “CAREFUL” REVIEW, BASED UPON A “SUBJECTIVE” “CASE-BY-CASE” ANALYSIS,  THAT AN AKC HOBBY BREEDER WILL BE REQUIRED TO OBTAIN A USDA LICENSE, AND BE SUBJECT TO NO-NOTICE INSPECTIONS BY APHIS INSPECTORS WHO SEND THEIR INSPECTION REPORTS TO SARAH L. CONANT FOR REVIEW, THE AKC HOBBY BREEDER WILL NEED TO BE PREPARED TO DO THE FOLLOWING, AS A BARE MINIMUM:

1.  MAKE MAJOR ALTERATIONS TO THEIR HOME SO THAT THEIR HOME WILL MEET THE STRICT REGULATORY STANDARDS THAT REQUIRE VERY SPECIFIC SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE HOUSING OF DOGS AND PUPPIES.  THIS MAY REQUIRE MAJOR CONSTRUCTION ALTERATIONS TO THEIR HOMES AND THE REMOVAL OF CARPET IN THOSE AREAS WHERE THEIR DOGS AND PUPPIES HAVE BEEN ACCUSTOMED TO USING.  FAILURE TO MEET THE MINIMUM USDA KENNEL STANDARDS MAY RESULT IN MULTIPLE CITATIONS, EACH OF WHICH COULD RESULT IN A MAXIMUM FINE OF $10,000.  ALTHOUGH APHIS FINE LETTERS OFTEN ARE LESS THAN THE MAXIMUM FINE AUTHORIZED, THEY MAY BE SUBSTANTIAL.  FOR EXAMPLE, SEVERAL YEARS AGO, SARAH L. CONANT SIGNED A FINE LETTER THAT WAS FOR “ONLY” SLIGHTLY MORE THAN $90,000 WHEN THE MAXIMUM FINE COULD HAVE BEEN SEVERAL MILLIONS OF DOLLARS.

2.  ENSURE THAT SOMEONE IS AT HOME BETWEEN 8 AM TO 5 PM AT ALL TIMES, MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY, SO THAT THE APHIS INSPECTORS MAY INSPECT YOUR HOME TO ENUSRE THAT IT MEETS THE REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS FOR A “KENNEL.”  APHIS INSPECTORS MAKE “NO NOTICE” CALLS ON USDA LICENSED BREEDERS, AND IF NO ONE IS HOME, A CITATION IS ISSUED BECAUSE NO ONE WAS HOME.  IF THAT HAPPENS A SECOND TIME, IT BECOMES A “REPEAT VIOLATION.”  ONCE A BREEDER RECEIVES REPEAT VI0LATIONS, THAT BREEDER IS OFTEN SUBJECT TO MORE FREQUENT NO-NOTICE INSPECTIONS.  THE “GOOD NEWS” IS THAT IT IS RARE FOR ANY USDA LICENSED BREEDER TO RECEIVE MORE THAN 4 NO-NOTICE VISITS BY AN APHIS INSPECTOR IN ANY GIVEN YEAR.

3. “ROLL THE DICE” AND HOPE THAT THEY ARE FORTUNATE ENOUGH TO BE INSPECTED BY AN OBJECTIVE AND REASONABLE APHIS INSPECTOR.  WHILE SOME OF THE APHIS INSPECTORS ARE OBJECTIVE AND REASONABLE, AND MANY OF THE CITATIONS ISSUED BY APHIS INSPECTORS ARE LEGITIMATE, NOT ALL APHIS INSPECTORS ARE OBJECTIVE AND REASONABLE, AND SOME OF THE CITATIONS ISSUED BY SOME OF THE APHIS INSPECTORS DEFY LOGIC AND REASON.

4.  BE PREPARED TO BE SUBJECTED TO INCREDIBLY HIGH INSPECTION STANDARDS THAT MAY SEEM TO DEFY ALL LOGIC AND REASON!    ALTHOUGH I AM NOT A BREEDER, I CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING  FOUR “ACTUAL” CITATIONS TO BE AMONG THE MOST UNREASONABLE CITATIONS EVER GIVEN TO BREEDERS BY AN APHIS INSPECTOR:

SANITATION CITATION:  FRESH POOP ON THE FLOOR OF A KENNEL.  DOGS AND PUPPIES POOP, AND THEY DO NOT DO IT ON CUE.  YOU WOULD THINK THAT AN APHIS INSPECTOR WOULD KNOW THAT IT IS “FRESH” WHEN “STEAM” IS SEEN COMING OFF OF THE FRESHLY DROPPED POOP IN THE FREEZING MONTHS OF WINTER.

HYDRATION CITATION:  WATER BOWL WAS EMPTY AS A RESULT OF PUPPY KNOCKING IT OVER AND  WATER WAS SPILLED AND STILL PRESENT ON THE WET FLOOR, WHICH CLEARLY SUGGESTED THAT THE WATER HAD JUST BEEN SPILT, AND THAT THE PUPPY DID NOT GO WITHOUT WATER ALL DAY.

 

SANITATION CITATION:   A DEAD FLY WAS FOUND ON A WINDOW SILL OF THE KENNEL.  (HAS ANY AKC HOBBY BREEDER EVER FOUND A DEAD FLY IN THEIR HOME?!?!?)

SANITATION CITATION:  A COBWEB WAS FOUND IN THE KENNEL.  (HAS ANY AKC BREEDER EVER FOUND A COBWEB ANYWHERE IN THEIR HOME?!?!?)Yes, a USDA Licensed Breeder has the Right to Appeal any Citation issued, but there is no guarantee that the Appeal will be favorably considered.  Again, the Burden is always on the USDA Breeder to prove compliance, and failure to do so results in the Citations being posted on the APHIS Website, and those Citations are used by HSUS and ASPCA to “prove” that all USDA Licensed Breeders are “PMs,” as documented by a Federal Agency of the U.S. Government!

POSTSCRIPT OBSERVATION:  HOW IN GOD’S NAME CAN ANYONE HONESTLY SAY ALL IS WELL IN THE “HAPPY VALLEY” OF THE AKC HOBBY BREEDER WORLD, AND THAT THERE IS NO NEED TO WORRY ABOUT HOW THE APHIS RULE WILL AFFECT AKC HOBBY BREEDERS?!?!?!?!?

 

Franks response to ‘make your case’

October 12, 2013

I have devoted the last three weeks to reprising the Role of a Figurative “Paul Revere” in an effort to tell all AKC Hobby Breeders that “THE APHIS IS COMING,” THE APHIS IS COMING!”  If AKC fails to heed the Sound of Alarm, it does so at its Peril, and the Peril of the 1,000s of AKC Hobby Breeders who are relying upon “assurances” of those who are saying there is nothing to worry about the APHIS Rule.

My “first order of business” was is to make a “WAKE-UP” Call to the complacent and disbelieving that the immediate threat to the most vulnerable breeders – – AKC Hobby Breeders – – was that there was a figurative “wolf” at their door, and that the assurances of those who are viewing  the APHIS Rule through “rose colored glasses” need to fully appreciate the potential and “realistic” consequences that may flow from their “wishful thinking” assurances that there is no figurative “wolf” lurking outside of the doors to the “homes” of 1,00os of AKC Hobby Breeders.   In short, the corollary to the “ostrich head in the sand” saying is that “the butt of the ostrich is still exposed!”

A false sense of security did not protect the 6 Million Jews from Hitler’s carnage.  Likewise, the false sense of security  generated by those who, with unfounded confidence, “assure”  all AKC Hobby Breeders that there is nothing of substance to worry about the APHIS Rule.  Those “wishful thinking” assurances may produce unimaginable harm to literally 1,000s of AKC Hobby Breeders who will ultimately be adversely affected by the APHIS Rule, as “implemented.”  Prophetically, “Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.”

With “bruised humility,” no one  – – repeat:  “NO ONE” – – knows better than me the difference between emotional “gastronomic jurisprudence” and the Letter of the Law that a Judge will follow in determining if a legal basis exists to issue a Temporary or Permanent Injunction.  In this regard, my legal “resume” includes being involved in challenging over 30 different Federal Rule-Makings on behalf  of multi-billion dollar corporations; having multiple discussions with different Administrators of the OMB Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs; and successfully orchestrating, on several different occasions, the legal rationale that established that Federal Agencies, such as EPA, did not comply with the Administrative Procedures Act, the Paperwork Reduction Act and Executive Order 13563.  This legal rationale resulted in Federal Agencies rescinding or changing Regulations.   This is why I believe that a strong legal argument may be presented in a Federal Court in support of a Lawsuit that would seek an Injunction that would block APHIS from beginning to enforce the APHIS Rule on November 18, 2013.

Unfortunately, time does not permit dawdling and debating while “Rome is Burning” and the “Titanic is Sinking.”  The “Time Clock” for Action  is ticking, and as of October 13, 2013, there are only 35 days left before APHIS will have the “Right” to begin the process of entering the homes of AKC Hobby Breeders.

What I have written in the past three weeks was never intended to lay out the details of the legal basis for an injunction.   It was intended to Sound the Alarm for Action.

With respect to  your statement that I need to “Make your case,” I am already on record as stating that I would assist  the AKC in preparing the legal basis for an injunction.  However, it is not prudent to detail the legal basis “publicly.”  That would be the epitome of “Legal Malpractice!”  In this regard, why tell the opposition in advance of filing a Lawsuit  – – opposition would predictably include the HSUS which would seek to intervene in the Lawsuit – – what your plan of attack will be!

I know how to “Make your Case.”  If those who have a fiduciary responsibility to protect the interests of AKC Hobby Breeders do not wish to avail themselves of the “legal drafting” services that I have offered to provide, that is their “Call.”   However, I do fervently believe that if a timely Lawsuit is filed, the legal basis for seeking an injunction would be so compelling that a Federal Judge would grant a “temporary” injunction to block enforcement of the APHIS Rule before November 18, 2013, and then after extensive litigation that could last for more than a year, APHIS would be ultimately directed by a Federal Court to go back to the drawing board and do a “Do Over,” from scratch, and begin the process of Rulemaking all over again.

“To be forewarned is to be forearmed.”   In this regard, I have never, ever led anyone off of the proverbial cliff by making “wishful thinking” assurances that proved to be “fatal” to those who relied upon my assurances.

PS:  And to those who may think or be told that by not objecting to the APHIS Rule, it will ensure that the HSUS will drop its efforts to enact PUPS, that assurance has as much validity as an “Eternity” “GET OUT OF HELL PASS!”

October 9, 2013

As one who worked in Washington DC for 20 years; as one who was  actively involved during the Rule Making Process of Regulatory Agencies in over 50 different instances;  as one who has interfaced and had multiple discussions with Officials in the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs; and as one who successfully asserted that a Regulatory Agency failed to comply with the Administrative Procedures Act, and had to go back to the “drawing board” and republish for public comment a revised new proposed rule, I  came  to the following overriding and resonating conclusion:

STATEMENTS AND THE IMPLIED NUANCES OF REPRESENTATIONS MADE BY GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS DURING CONFERENCE CALLS AND GENERIC RESPONSES TO SPECIFIC QUESTIONS, SUCH AS WE WILL MAKE DECISIONS ON A “CASE BY CASE ” BASIS,  ARE RARELY, RARELY, RARELY EVER SUCCESSFULLY USED AS A DEFENSE TO SUBSEQUENT ALLEGATIONS OF NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE “LETTER OF THE LAW” AS SET OUT IN THE FINAL REGULATION.  IN SHORT, THE VALIDITY OF THOSE REPRESENTATIONS HAVE THE LIFE SPAN OF A “LOVE LETTER WRITTEN IN THE SAND AT THE WATER’S EDGE DURING LOW TIDE.”

Those who rely upon those representations, rather than reading the words as set out in the Final Regulation,  rely upon those representations at their PERIL!  THAT IS WHY I CONTINUE TO BEAT THE DRUM AND SHOUT THAT IF THE APHIS RULE IS NOT BLOCKED BY AN EFFORT TO SEEK AN INJUNCTION, IT WILL DO LITTLE GOOD AFTER THE “GLASS IS BROKEN” TO SAY:  “GEE, I GUESS WE SHOULD HAVE CHALLENGED IT AFTER ALL.”  THE “AFTER ALL” TRANSLATES  INTO “IT IS TOO LATE TO ABATE THE IRREPARABLE HARM!”

 

 

APHIS RULE – – AKC “LEGAL STANDING” AND OTHER

QUESTIONS

October 6, 2013

WHY I BELIEVE THE  AKC HAS “LEGAL STANDING” AND SHOULD FILE FOR AN INJUNCTION

BACKGROUND:  Since September 18, 2013, I have received over 150 Offline E-Mails  asking what can be done to stop APHIS from enforcing the “Final Rule” on “Retail Pet Stores” that was published in the Federal Register on September 18, 2013.  Most of the E-Mails were sent to me by AKC Hobby Breeders, and most of the E-Mails asked why I have stated that if the AKC took the lead and filed for an Injunction on behalf of all AKC Hobby Breeders that sought to stop APHIS from enforcing the APHIS Rule, the chances of success would be increased.  Other E-Mails asked why I stated that the AKC had “Legal Standing – – if it decided to assert it – – to seek, on behalf of all AKC Hobby Breeders, a Federal Injunction, while others have stated that the AKC does not have “Legal Standing” to seek such an injunction on behalf of all AKC Hobby Breeders.  (As a practical matter, since the effective date of the APHIS Rule is November 18, 2013 – – a Monday – –  any effort to obtain a Federal Injunction needs to be filed NLT Friday, November 15, 2013.)

To the best of my knowledge, the AKC has not explicitly stated that it would not seek an injunction, but it has never said that it would. Furthermore, many AKC Hobby Breeders have received “form letter” responses to the their requests that asked that the AKC take the lead and seek a Federal Injunction. The AKC responses did not indicate that the AKC was considering pursuing such an option.  Still further, Mr. Julian Prager, NAIA’s “Legal Analyst and Legislative Coordinator,” has authored an opinion that stated that the AKC does not have “Legal Standing” to seek a Federal Injunction on behalf of AKC Hobby Breeders because he believes that none of the AKC Hobby Breeders are “Members” of the AKC.  I respectfully disagree with Mr. Prager’s assessment that the AKC does not have “Legal Standing” for the reasons as set out below.

On July 10, 2012 I submitted my 20 pages of Comments that cited 21 Reasons why the Proposed Rule should be withdrawn.  The majority of the 21 reasons that I cited referenced the potential adverse consequences that would confront the Hobby Breeders.  (I also raised a “National Security Issue” that was not specifically addressed.)

WHY I BELIEVE THE AKC HAS “LEGAL STANDING” TO ACT ON BEHALF OF AKC HOBBY BREEDERS, AND WHY I BELEIVE THE AKC HAS A LEGAL RESPONSIBILTY TO DO SO BASED ON ITS PUBLIC STATEMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE TO ALL HOBBY BREEDERS WHO REGISTERED THEIR PUPPIES WITH AKC FOR A “REGISTRATION FEE.”

  1. 1.       The financial interests of the AKC are inextricably intertwined with the financial interests of AKC Hobby Breeders.  Consequently, if the APHIS Rule creates an adverse financial impact on Hobby Breeders who register their puppies with the AKC for a “FEE,” that adverse financial impact will inevitably have a correspondingly adverse financial impact on the AKC “Registration” revenue stream.  In short, there is a realistic probability that the APHIS Rule will result in fewer puppies being whelped in the homes of AKC Hobby Breeders.  In turn, fewer puppies whelped will reduce the number of puppies registered as AKC puppies, and the corresponding decline in AKC Registrations will reduce the annual revenue received by AKC from AKC Registrations.
  2. 2.       Proof of the direct correlation between the number of puppies produced by AKC Hobby Breeders and the Revenue received by the AKC from Registration “FEES” may be substantiated by reviewing the Tax Returns of the AKC.  In this regard, the AKC Program that generates the highest amount of annual revenue for the AKC is “Registrations,” which in 2011 resulted in revenue that totaled over $28 Million.  Thus, any reduction in the number of AKC registered puppies would result in a reduction in annual revenue for the AKC.  Such a reduction in annual revenue for the AKC provides a requisite “financial interest,” which in turn provides the requisite “Legal Standing” for the AKC to seek a Federal Injunction that would prevent APHIS from enforcing the APHIS Final Rule.
  3. 3.       The AKC Website explicitly states:  “Your registration fee helps the AKC.”
  4. 4.       The AKC Website publishes an “Online Breeder Classifieds” to facilitate the sale of AKC Puppies through the use of the Internet.
  5. 5.       The AKC Mission Statement contains a commitment – – a “legal” obligation – – “to work to protect the rights of all dog owners.”
  6. 6.       The AKC Website uses the phrase “Working to protect the rights of all dog owners” in at least six different places.
  7. 7.       The AKC Website states that it has “More than 600 MEMBER clubs and 5,000 licensed clubs belong to the American Kennel  Club.”  (“Member” Clubs have AKC Breeders as “Members.”)
  8. 8.       The AKC Website includes its “Taking Command” postings which have stated: “the AKC supports the establishment of a state federation in each state so that clubs can unite and FIGHT BAD DOG LAWS THAT WOULD IMPACT THEM DIRECTLY.”  In this regard, the APHIS Rule will have a direct impact on the AKC Hobby Breeders who are members of the  “More than 600 MEMBER clubs and 5,000 licensed clubs belong to the American Kennel  Club.”
  9. 9.       The APHIS Rule is a Federal Rule that has the Force of “Law” as a result of Congressional Language that is set out in Sections 1507 and 1510 of Title 44 of the U.S. Code.  In short, if AKC Hobby Breeders believe it is a Bad Rule that will have the potential of “Bad” consequences for them, it would fall into the category of “BAD DOG LAWS” that the AKC has affirmatively stated that it will “FIGHT.”
  10. 10.   To file a Lawsuit that seeks to obtain a Federal Injunction against a Federal Agency, such as the USDA, will cost a substantial amount of money.  The Multi-Million Dollar Cash Reserves of the AKC as listed on the AKC 2011 Tax Return – – the majority of which was accumulated from Registration Fees – – provide the financial footing needed to cover the legal expenses associated with filing and litigating a Lawsuit that would seek a Federal Injunction against the USDA.
  11. 11.   Mr. Alan Kalter, the AKC Chairman, stated in his September 10, 2013 Chairman’s Report that the AKC “will expand our voice to include breeders . . . and over 700,000 grassroots followers.”  One way that the AKC could “expand our voice” is to file on behalf of all AKC Hobby Breeders a Lawsuit that seeks to obtain a Federal Injunction that would stop the enforcement of the APHIS Rule.
  12. 12.   In Mr. Kalter’s September 2013 Chairman’s Report, he stated:  “Tell us . . . what the toughest questions are that you face.”  If you are concerned about the potential intrusions, harm and adverse financial impact that you will face as a result of the APHIS Rule, contact Mr. Kalter and tell him your “toughest question” – – “Why has the AKC not filed a Lawsuit that seeks a Federal Injunction that will block enforcement of the APHIS Rule?”  He has stated: “Tell us . . . “   And if Mr. Kalter and the AKC heard from a majority of the AKC Hobby Breeders, who are responsible for cumulatively generating Tens of Millions of Dollars each year in Registration Fees for the AKC, he and the AKC Board of Directors may decide that it is in the best financial interests of the AKC to file a Lawsuit that seeks to obtain a Federal Injunction that blocks the enforcement of the APHIS Rule.

FOLLOW-UP QUESTION 1 THAT I WAS ASKED:  If the AKC decides not to file a Lawsuit that seeks an Injunction, do AKC Hobby Breeders have “Legal Standing” to file for an Injunction?

ANSWER TO FOLLOW-UP QUESTION 1:   Yes.  They are one of the major “Targets” of the APHIS Rule, and they will be directly affected, both financially, legally and emotionally by the APHIS Rule.  However, the following issues and “risks” must be considered.

  1. ISSUE 1:  As a practical matter, no single AKC Hobby Breeder has the financial wherewithal to fund the filing of such a Lawsuit.  Thus, it would require a large number of AKC Hobby Breeders to step forward to pay the expenses associated with filing a Lawsuit against the USDA – – the United States Government!
  2. ISSUE 2:  If only a few AKC Hobby Breeders were listed as Plaintiffs, the practical likelihood of success would be minimal because the Government would inevitably argue to the Court that the impact would be minimal because only a few of the 1,000s of Hobby Breeders claimed they would be adversely affected by the APHIS Rule.
  3. 3.       RISK 1:  The AKC Hobby Breeders who would be willing to have their names listed on the Lawsuit as Plaintiffs would become immediately known to Animal Rights Organizations such as the HSUS and the ASPCA, and would become potential “targets” for harassment and “anonymous” complaints that could result in Law Enforcement and Animal Control Officers entering your homes; confiscating your animals; arresting you; charging you with violating animal cruelty laws and ordinances; and if convicted, being barred for life from ever owning a dog again.
  4. 4.       RISK 2:  There is a distinct possibility that the homes of the AKC Hobby Breeders who listed themselves as Plaintiffs would go to the top of the List for APHIS Inspections.

THESE ISSUES AND RISKS FOR INDIVIDUAL AKC HOBBY BREEDERS WOULD NOT ARISE IF THE AKC  TOOK THE LEAD, AND FILED A LAWSUIT ON BEHALF OF ALL AKC BREEDERS THAT SOUGHT A FEDERAL INJUNCTION THAT BLOCKED THE APHIS RULE.  SUCH ACTION BY THE AKC WOULD VALIDATE ITS CLAIM TO ALL AKC HOBBY BREEDERS AND “CLUBS” THAT IT IS “WORKING TO PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF ALL DOG OWNERS” AND THAT IT WILL “FIGHT BAD DOG LAWS.”

FOLLOW-UP QUESTION 2 THAT I WAS ASKED:  Can a Class Action Lawsuit be filed to stop the APHIS Rule?

ANSWER TO FOLLOW-UP QUESTION 2:   No.  Typically, a Class Action Lawsuit is filed on behalf of a large class of people who have a potential monetary claim against one or more defendants.  In the case of the APHIS Rule, the intent of a Lawsuit that seeks a Federal Injunction is to stop the APHIS Rule from  creating harm that may have adverse financial consequences.  In short, STOP THE POTENTIAL HARM BEFORE IT OCCURS.

This Question does raise a collateral and potential issue that AKC should consider during its “due diligence” review of whether or not it should file a Lawsuit on behalf of all AKC Hobby Breeders that seeks a Federal Injunction to block the enforcement of the APHIS Rule.

“DUE DILLIGENCE” ISSUE FOR THE AKC TO CONSIDER:   If the AKC rejects the requests of 1,000s of AKC Hobby Breeders to file a Lawsuit on their behalf that seeks a Federal Injunction to block the enforcement of the APHIS Rule, will it open itself up to a potential Class Action Lawsuit being filed by a Class of AKC Hobby Breeders against the AKC for creating false expectations in the minds of AKC Hobby Breeders who relied upon its representations, and cumulatively paid Tens of Millions of Dollars each year to the AKC in the form of Registration Fees?   “Legal” representations that were made include:

  • “Your registration fee helps the AKC.”
  • The AKC Mission Statement contains a commitment – – a legal obligation – – “to work to protect the rights of all dog owners.”
  • The AKC Website uses the phrase “Working to protect the rights of all  dog owners” in at least six different places.
  • The AKC has stated that it supports the effort to “FIGHT BAD DOG LAWS.”
  • AKC Registration Fees generates tens of millions of dollars for AKC each year, but none of those fees were used to protect the rights of AKC dog owners during their “Hour of Greatest Need.”

Consequently, if a Class Action Lawsuit were filed against the AKC by disgruntled and disappointed AKC Hobby Breeders, the AKC would  be forced to address the issue of why none of the Registrations Fees that it collected were used to protect the AKC Hobby Breeders from the financial, legal and emotional harm that they incurred as a result of the failure of the AKC to challenge the APHIS Rule.   If the AKC were unable to refute such claims, it could result in a Judgment in the amount of Millions of Dollars being awarded to the Class of AKC Breeders who paid their Registration Fees in “Good Faith.”

FOLLOW-UP QUESTION 3 THAT I WAS ASKED :  If the AKC decided to file a Lawsuit that sought a Federal Injunction, would you provide to AKC your Legal Analysis as to the reasons why an Injunction should be granted?

ANSWER TO FOLLOW-UP QUESTION 3:   ABSOLUTELY YES!!!!!

 

 

FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONS ASKED ABOUT MY CALL TO BATTLE  STATIONS Posted September 28, 2013

In the last week I have received over 75 offline E-Mails from Breeders asking follow-up questions concerning my “Call to Battle Stations,” and why it is of utmost importance to contact the AKC.     I try my best to personally respond to every E-Mail that I receive, but for economy of effort, I wish to post some of the questions and my responses in the hope that this posting will answer lingering questions that some are wondering about.  The Questions are not in the order received, but are presented in a sequence that reflects continuity of thought.

Q 1:  Why did you suggest that the AKC take the lead in seeking a Federal Injunction?

A 1:  To have any  chance of success, the Plaintiffs must have what is called “legal standing.”  That is legal “mumbo jumbo” for “do you have a dog in this fight?”  AKC has the “biggest dog” in the fight because of its connection to AKC Breeders in all 50 States, and everyone of the AKC Breeders who are not currently USDA licensed breeders face the potential of being affected by the APHIS Rule because, according to Dr. Rushin, decisions will be made on a “case-by-case” basis.

Q 2: I sent an E-Mail to AKC asking that AKC seek an injunction.  AKC basically ignored the issue of an injunction, and sent me a “form letter” E-Mail response that told me that I should “keep checking our online Regulatory Re  source Page for the latest information on what the AKC is doing on this issue and how you can help. ”  What more can I do?

A 2: It never hurts to follow-back-up and tell AKC that giving a status report of when the APHIS Rule goes into effect does not help AKC Breeders.   Furthermore, an ever increasing number of AKC breeders may be forced to go out of business; or face the risk of harassment, no notice inspections,  warrantless invasions of the privacy of their homes based upon complaints filed by the HSUS or its sympathizers who are now calling AKC Breeders “PMs;” or face potential fines and criminal prosecutions.   And then ask if all this occurs, how is AKC really protecting the interests of AKC Breeders?

Additionally, you could encourage all of your AKC Breeder Friends and Colleagues to contact AKC as well, and ask the same questions.  If AKC received 1,000s of phone calls and E-Mails, AKC would have to rethink the wisdom of form letter responses that are not very reassuring to its core base of breeders whose activities generate Millions of Dollars each year in AKC related revenue.

Q 3:  Do you have any background experience in dealing with injunctions?

A 3:  During my last Air Force Assignment I served in the Pentagon as the Air Force Director of Civil Law and had oversight over all Civil Litigation against the Air Force.  This included litigation involving injunctions.  While it is the responsibility of the Justice Department Attorneys to represent all Federal Agencies in cases involving injunctions or actions that sought to block the Air Force from doing something, I personally was involved in the discussions, decisions and actions taken by the Justice Department Attorneys in all such litigation involving the Air Force.

Q 4:  Are you attempting to drum up business for yourself?

A 4:  No!  If a Lawsuit is filed by the AKC, it should use its Law Firm of choice.  I am sure that the AKC has a working relationship with a Law Firm that would be able to file for an Injunction.

Q 5:  If the AKC were to file a Lawsuit seeking an Injunction, would you provide information and assistance to that Law Firm.

A 5:  Absolutely yes!

Q 6:  Do you believe APHIS will not be truly objective in its “case-by-case” analysis of the status of each “hobby breeder” who may be affected by the APHIS Rule?

A 6a:  While I believe Dr. Rushin may be sincere and is well intentioned, my greatest concern is that the “case-by-case” decisions will be made or “influenced” by Ms. Sarah L. Conant, the former HSUS Litigation Attorney who is continuing her support of the HSUS Agenda, with the able assistance of the USDA IG who ignored the documented complaint that established the “conflict of interest” associated with the hiring of and the activities of Ms. Conant.  Of note, when I submitted a follow-on complaint to the Government Integrity Office about the fact that the USDA IG Office closed its investigation of my complaint about the Sarah L. Conant conflict without providing me with a written notice that the investigation of my complaint was closed, the Government Integrity Office asserted that it had no jurisdiction to review my complaint.  And oh yes, who was the Chair of the Government Integrity Committee?  Why none other than Ms. Fong, the USDA IG!  So I have my personal and professional doubts about the objectivity of the case-by-case analyses of APHIS, notwithstanding my personal belief that many Career APHIS Employees are truly dedicated, honest and sincere Civil Servants.  However,  the final decisions are made at the top – – such as by the Secretary of Agriculture whose wife sought to defeat Iowa Congressman King in a 2012 Congressional Election.   Of major significance, HSUS opposed Congressman King, and its Lobbying Subsidiary contributed over $750,000 in its failed political campaign to defeat Congressman King while supporting Mrs. Vilsack.  Do I smell rats? Yes I do!

A 6b:  Sometimes “case by case” decisions are made based on information that may not always be from the “best source.”  For example, over 3 years ago, the HSUS made a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for personal and tax-related information about every USDA Licensed Breeder in Missouri.   APHIS initially denied the HSUS FOIA Request, but then reversed its decision when the HSUS sued the USDA under the authority set out in the FOIA.  Documentation produced under the Judicial Discovery Process revealed that the APHIS reversed its decision not to release the requested information to the HSUS after it had received information in an E-Mail from Mrs. Patti Strand, who was not an USDA Licensed Breeder, nor was she a party to the Lawsuit.   This is “evidence” of how APHIS used the information provided by Mrs. Patti Strand – – Mrs. Strand was not an USDA Licensed Breeder, nor was she a party to the Litigation.   Thus, the representation that APHIS made a “case-by-case” decision to reverse course and decide to release the requested personal information to the HSUS s legitimizes the concern that “case-by-case” decisions made by APHIS may not always be based upon the most reliable and objective source of information.  In this regard, APHIS apparently relied upon information received from a non-USDA licensed breeder, which information adversely affected the best interests of over 1,000 USDA licensed breeders in Missouri.  Therein lies the fallacy that “case-by-case” decisions made by APHIS will always be totally objective.

Q 7:  The Cavalry Group and SAVOA have urged its Members to write letters to Members of Congress that urge Members of Congress to intercede; conduct hearings; and stop the USDA from enforcing the APHIS Rule.  Why don’t you think that will work?

A 7a:  As one who has issued Calls to Action over the last 5 years, I have resorted to recommending letters to the IRS in the past, but My Calls to Action to Members of Congress have always emphasized the importance of E-Mails.  There are two major reasons why Letters or even E-Mails to Members of Congress would not be effective in this instance.

First, those who have never worked in DC and with Members of Congress and their Staffs for a number of years may not realize that after the Anthrax Incidents that resulted in Members of Congress receiving letters in their Offices with Anthrax in them, all letters now mailed to a Member of Congress are diverted for safety screening before being delivered.  While processing times have improved, they can take up to 4-6 weeks (28-42 days).  Thus, Members of Congress may not receive “letters” until 8 days, or less, before November 17, 2013 – – not much time to act.  And many of those letters are lost and never received. (That is why E-Mails should always be used when possible.)  And even if you delivered a letter to a Field Office in your State to your Member of Congress, it could become lost as well.  A classic example is an E-Mail that I received, as recently as September 26, 2013, where a State Director for a U.S. Senator stated the following:

“All mail to Senate offices are first delivered to a central depository where they are scanned for security purposes – then delivered to the offices. Sometimes, it takes several weeks for mail to reach our offices – if the mail gets there at all.”  This is why I do not have a “warm fuzzy” about sending “snail mail” to Members of Congress.

This response did not come from the Office of a Member of Congress who is a lap dog sycophant of the HSUS.  It came from a Senior Staffer from Senator Rand Paul’s Office!

Second, the Time Bomb Clock is ticking and we now have 50 days before the APHIS Rule goes into effect.  The legal Mumbo Jumbo Expression for this situation is “Time is of the Essence.”  Stop and reflect for a moment.  The House Oversight Committee began its Hearings in May over the IRS/Lois Lerner Scandal.  That issue has generated far more Congressional Attention than an APHIS Rule, and yet over four months have elapsed since Ms. Lerner asserted her Fifth Amendment Rights, but no resolution as of yet.  If Congressional Hearings about the Lois Lerner IRS Scandal that dominated the National News has been drawn out for over 4 months already, does anyone realistically believe that a Congressional Hearing will result in Congressional Action to stop the APHIS Rule in the next 50 days?????  I for one believe that it is not possible.  AND THAT IS WHY I HAVE STATED FROM THE OUTSET THAT THE ONLY WAY TO STOP THE APHIS RULE IN A TIMELY MANNER IS TO CHALLENGE IT IN A FEDERAL COURT BY SEEKING AN INJUNCTION, WITH AKC TAKING THE LEAD BECAUSE IT CAN MAKE THE CASE FOR CLAIMING THAT IT HAS “LEGAL STANDING.”

A 7b:  Those who profess to protect the Constitutional Rights of Animal Owners need to reflect on alternative ways to protect the Constitutional Rights of Animal Owners besides the use of Letters to Members of Congress.  In this regard, the Constitution of the U.S. established Three Branches of Government which are often referred to as the “Checks and Balances” of our Government.   The APHIS Rule represents what I believe will create  unconscionable opportunities to violate the Constitutional Rights of breeders without affording them their Due Process  Rights that include the Equal Protection of the Laws of the U.S.   The Judicial Branch of our Government has the Constitutional Right to enjoin the Executive Branch of our Government from enforcing the APHIS Rule, AND IT DOES NOT NEED TO WAIT AND SEE WHAT CONGRESS – -THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH OF OUR GOVERNMENT – – WILL DO.

BOTTOMLINE:   WHILE THERE ARE NO GUARANTEES IN LIFE, IT IS ALMOST CERTAIN THAT IF A FEDERAL INJUNCTION IS NOT GRANTED TO PROHIBIT APHIS FROM ENFORCING THE APHIS RULE ON NOVEMBER 17, 2013, THE HSUS WILL HAVE A FIELD DAY CREATING A NEW CLASS OF “VICTIMS” IN THE HOBBY BREEDER WORLD, WHICH IN TURN WILL RESULT IN BOLSTERING THE ABILITY OF THE HSUS TO PUSH FOR ENACTMENT OF THE PUPS BILL NEXT YEAR, WHICH WILL BE FOLLOWED BY PRESSURE ON APHIS TO PUBLISH YET ANOTHER RULE THAT WILL FURTHER LIMIT AND ELIMINATE EXEMPTIONS AND EXCEPTIONS.  IN SHORT A “FIGURATIVE DEATH” BY ATTRITION WILL EVENTUALLY LEAD TO THE FIGURATIVE DEATH OF THE ENTIRE DOG BREEDER COMMUNITY AS IT IS KNOWN TO EXIST TODAY!

 

posted 09/24/2013

wish to share what I believe “Everyone Needs to Hear, Rather Than What They Want to Hear.”

The APHIS FINAL RULE is like a runaway freight train, and I personally and professionally believe that the only realistic, practical way to “derail” the “freight train” before November 17, 2013 is for a Federal Judge to issue a Temporary (ideally a Permanent) Injunction that would expressly prohibit the USDA from implementing the Final Rule.   In short, the “60-Day Time Bomb Clock” is ticking, and if a Federal Injunction is not issued before November 17, 2013, the APHIS Final Rule will have the “EFFECT” OF LAW THAT MAY BE ENFORCED AGAINST ANY BREEDER THAT APHIS (A.K.A.  MS. SARAH L. CONANT) DETERMINES TO BE IN NON-COMPLIANCE!   

Although the APHIS Final Rule is a “Regulation,” it is a “Readers Digest” version of the PUPS Bill, and it will “grease” the HSUS path for HSUS to begin 2014 with a Full Court Press to persuade Congress to enact the PUPS Bill.  In this regard, an unchallenged APHIS Final Regulation will strengthen the arguments that HSUS will put forward for Congress to enact the PUPS Bill.  And what it so chilling is that when the PUPS Bill comes up for a vote, the APHIS Rule will – – repeat “WILL” – – be cited in support of an “eleventh hour” floor amendment to add a few tweaks that purportedly will be technical in nature, but could be the final nails being drilled into the figurative coffins of all Hobby and Commercial Breeders.

While there is so much truth in the adage that “Desperate Times Call for Desperate Measures,” I fervently believe that “Desperate Measure” of citing subjective “loopholes,” such as claiming that all dogs bred fall into the hunting or working or any other “exempt” dog category is doomed – – yes doomed – – to failure because Dr. Rushin stated that decisions will be made on a “case by case” basis.  Such a subjective “case by case” statement could be cited as one of the judicial arguments for seeking a Federal Injunction because it constitutes an admission that the Final Rule is so vague and ambiguous that breeders may be subject to subjective rather than objective standards, which will create a realistic potential that their Constitutionally guaranteed due process rights may be jeopardized because they will be subject to arbitrary interpretations that would not stand the scrutiny of judicial review.   In this regard, bear in mind that “case by case” interpretations may very well be made by Ms. Sarah L. Conant, the former HSUS Litigation Attorney who is now the Chief of the APHIS Investigative and Enforcement Branch!  And she has the authority to decide how great fines will be for a violation of this Final Rule, and in “appropriate” cases, she may further make recommendations as to “prosecutions!”  

BOTTOMLINE:  Those who believe they can circumvent compliance with the Final Rule by claiming that they fall within an “exception” are playing with fire that could ultimately result in fines and lifetime prohibitions from ever being permitted to breed dogs.  That is why it is so important to challenge the Final Rule before it becomes, in effect, a “Rule of Law.”  In this regard, if all breeders contacted their respective Member Organizations and urged them to immediately and collaboratively work together in order to seek a Federal Injunction NOW, the “Window of Opportunity” to stop the “runaway freight train” will not be lost, and the PUPS Bill may be mortally wounded, and lose Congressional Support!

The “Desperate Measure” that has the greatest chance of success to stall and “derail” the runaway APHIS FINAL RULE freight train is for all  breeders – – Hobby and Commercial Breeders –  – to make a commitment to “STAND UNITED,” and to cease and desist “pointing fingers at one another,” and follow the HSUS Playbook Strategy of presenting a “unified front.”

Last year the HSUS orchestrated the APHIS Proposed Rule as part of its “masterful” and diabolical Strategic Plan, which it has “masterfully” orchestrated over the last 10+ years by, step-by-step, deceiving and dividing the breeder community of Hobby and Commercial Breeders.  First, it deceived the hobby breeder community in the 2004-2006 time-frame by claiming that it only was targeting the commercial breeders which it referred to as the nasty and inhumane “PMs.”  (Note I never publicly use the phrase that the “PM” stands for because it was designed by the HSUS to create a false image in the minds of the America Public and Elected Officials!  And it has worked, even though it is the equivalent of a despicable racial or ethnic slur.)

Many within the Hobby Breeder Community have used the HSUS’ “PM” phrase over and over again without realizing that this usage supported the “divide and conquer strategy” of the HSUS because it offended a significant number of Commercial Breeders who truly, truly care about the health and welfare of their dogs and puppies, and who meet or exceed even the AKC Standards.  And to the dismay of AKC and the thousands of AKC  Breeders,  they were shocked on May 1, 2013 when the HSUS stated that the AKC was “joined at the hip” with the “PMs!”  All the more reason for AKC Breeders to cease using the “PM” phrase that predictably will transition into the HSUS referring to Commercial “PMs” and Hobby “PMs.”

Predictably, the HSUS will use any attempt by the Hobby Community to exempt themselves out from under the Final Rule as further evidence that the AKC and its Hobby Breeders are “joined at the hip” with the “PMs,” and the HSUS will put on a major push at the beginning of next year to claim that the flaws associated with the APHIS Final Rule can only be corrected by the passage of PUPS.  In short, “loophole” arguments will be cited as a reason for swift passage of the PUPS Bill, at which time a few “tweaked” provisions will be added as late night “Floor Amendments,” which Amendments would tighten the noose tighter around the necks of all breeders – – Hobby and Commercial – – and provide yet another basis for HSUS to press for publishing a new and even more stringent Final Rule that will have death knoll implications for all breeders.    This is why Commercial Breeders must support all efforts by the Hobby Breeder Community to stop the USDA from enforcing the Final Rule with a Federal Injunction.   In this regard, if the collective efforts of “ALL” breeders resulted in a Federal Injunction that barred the enforcement of the APHIS Final Rule, such an Injunction would all but absolutely- positively “kill” – – like a “poison pill – – the  PUPS Bill, which Bill is even worse than the APHIS Final Rule.  Thus, a “WIN-WIN” for all Hobby Breeders and all Commercial Breeders.  In short, the PUPS Bill would become “toxic,” and even the current co-sponsors would not push for a vote.

In the words of Benjamin Franklin:  “We must indeed all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately.”   In short, Commercial Breeders must support any effort by the Hobby Breeders to obtain a Federal Injunction that will stop the USDA from enforcing the APHIS Final Rule on November 17, 2013.

The time, cost and expense of seeking a Federal Injunction will be substantial.  However, in the long run, the cost of supporting the effort to obtain a Federal Injunction will pale in comparison to the financial and psychological cost to all affected breeders who are forced to either comply with the APHIS Final Rule, as interpreted by Ms. Conant, or to cease breeding dogs all together.   In this regard, no Hobby Clubs or State Commercial Breeder Organizations have the financial resources to independently fund an effort to stop the immediate and follow-on “carnage” that will occur if the Final Rule is not successfully challenged in a Federal Court.  That is why I believe that it is imperative for an organization, such as AKC, to take the lead in pursuing the effort to seek a Federal Injunction.  They have the name recognition and stature to make the representation to a Federal Court that it has “legal standing” to represent the interests of the single “largest class” of breeders in the U.S., as opposed to just a few breeders.   Here it is significant to note that AKC Breeders not only include Hobby Breeders, but also include a significantly large number of USDA Commercial Breeders.  While AKC is in the best position to take the lead, all other Commercial and Hobby Breeder Organizations should financially support the Federal Injunction Option to the best of their financial ability.

If the APHIS Final Rule is not Successfully Challenged, there may not be another opportunity to derail the HSUS Freight Train.  From a military perspective, when possible, it is best to pick the battles you have the best chance to win.  The APHIS Final Rule may be the best battle to wage because there are so many flaws and “omissions” in the Background Justification published in the Federal Register that may be cited as the legal bases for a Federal Judge to grant an Injunction.  (I do not wish to publicly cite all of the legal bases as I do not believe it is prudent to give the HSUS a “heads-up.”   Never tell your enemy how you plan to defeat it!)

BOTTOMLINE:  As an attorney, I professionally believe that the published discussion of the Comments that APHIS referenced in the September 18, 2013 Federal Register provides a number of legal arguments that may be cited in support of a Lawsuit that seeks to restrain the USDA and APHIS from enforcing the  APHIS Final Rule.

The Words of “It’s Now or Never” have never been truer or more appropriate to say.

Frank

 posted 09/20/2013

To all who have taken the time to send E-Mails and Letters concerning the HSUS to your Members of Congress, and have been frustrated to receive not only a form letter response, but a form letter that does not even mention the topic of your E-Mail or Letter, take Heart in the knowledge that over 30 Members of Congress have provided tailored letters of support to their respective constituents

While some may poo-poo the significance of “30+,” “30+” is a significant number in light of the following:

1.  I, who worked in Washington DC for  20 years and whose responsibilities included “lobbying,” and who is still registered with Both Houses of Congress as a “Lobbyist,” consider 30 to be significant because of the fact that breeders began the fight against the HSUS influence on Congress 15 years after the HSUS began its Campaign to destroy the image and credibility of breeders – – all breeders.  In short, the HSUS had a 15 year head start and maniacally spent over One Billion Dollars during this time period to deceive and brainwash the American Public and all too many Legislators at the Federal and State Levels of Government.

2. Although it has taken “us” 5 years to garner active support from 30+ Members of Congress, the pro-active efforts of several of those 30, and especially those of a Missouri Congressman, have postured “us” to be able to have sufficient credibility within the Treasury’s Office of the Inspector General for Tax Administration to launch a collateral investigation that is occurring in the shadows of its Investigation of Lois Lerner and the discriminatory actions of the IRS against “conservative” organizations.

3. My letter of June 26, 2013 to Mr. George, the Treasury’s Inspector General for Tax Administration was assigned Complaint File Number 55-1307-0105-C, and I was personally called by the Treasury Special Agent who has been assigned the task of Investigating my Complaint.  Of note, he personally called me, and we spoke for nearly an hour; and at his request I sent him additional documents!!!!!!!!!! In short, a serious and substantive investigation is now on-going!!!!!!

4.  If all plays out, as I believe it eventually will in the next 12 months, (be patient – – we were 15 years behind the power curve, and did not have a spare Billion to counter the false and deceitful propaganda)the credibility of the HSUS will be severely damaged.  And when that occurs, Members of Congress will abandon the HSUS “Ship of Fools” like rats jumping from a sinking ship.

5.  During my time in Washington DC, I witnessed how scandals will turn Congressional Supporters of false prophets into “cuckold” husbands with an axe to grind!

Yes, I know the APHIS Final Rule is pressing, but when the HSUS loses its credibility and its Congressional Support and the “Blind Eye” Support of the IRS, opportunities will present themselves to correct many injustices.

To the Thousands who supported my Calls to Action over the last 4 1/2+ years, and whose collective actions set the stage for Complaint File 55-1307-0105-C to become an active and on-going investigation, “T-H-A-N-K   Y-O-U!!!!!

Frank