July 23, 2019

Taxpayers Funding the Industrial Complex

This is nothing new, right? We all know that for a very long time us taxpayers have been funding just about every pet project of some corrupt, fascistic politician and all his or her crony buddies for personal gain and political votes. Here’s another look at the hegemony thriving in this country, when powers of the industrial complex wield their control over government, forcing the government’s hand, which then becomes the responsibility of contracted citizens (you and me) to pay taxes and more taxes to fund the criminal enterprise – and liking it. One such example is found in an article at the Wall Street Journal. Unfortunately this article is behind a paywall.

Yvon Chouinard, founder of Patagonia, it turns out, spends lots and lots of time and money lobbying the Federal Government to do things like TAKE more and more land from the states/people for the main reason to have more and more land where his customers can do things like hike and camp and rock climb, etc., which places him and his company in a position to profit monetarily. The Federal Government taking land is nothing new. But are they really taking it? I’ll leave that discussion for another time.

The problem with this scenario is that the contracted citizen is left with the bill to subsidize the company of Patagonia by providing its customers a place to play. The more places to play the more money Patagonia stands to make. In addition, if companies like Patagonia can continue to successfully lobby the Federal Government to restrict use of those lands to only the activities of which they provide gear for, all the more money and exclusivity.

The taxpayer’s responsibility grows however. We know that the Federal Government is seriously in arrears in maintenance and upkeep of the land they already have in direct control. The cost of such maintenance falls on the taxpayer. The Federal Government needs at least an additional $20 billion dollars each year just to keep up with the federal land maintained. It seems ridiculous to keep adding to the shortfall by taking over more land…unless of course the powerful Industrial Complex forces presidents, like Barack Obama, to keep creating national monuments, perhaps knowing full well that Congress would not approve taking over more land for more parks. Or maybe it’s not forcing anybody to do anything. Aren’t they all in it together?

We know that just before Obama left office he designated two new national monuments – Katahdin Woods and Waters in Maine and Bears Ears in Utah. We now know that Chouinard lobbied Obama very hard to get the Utah national monument in order to pad his own wallet at our expense.

In both cases, Maine and Utah governments are working hard to get President Trump to somehow overturn the designation of the two monuments. It appears quite clear that the majority of the people did not want either of the two monuments but the Federal Hegemony cannot be reeled in.

In addition, the author of the WSJ piece suggested that a solution to this problem would be to implement an excise tax on camping, hiking, mountain biking, rock climbing, etc. gear, similar to the Pittman-Robertson excise tax on shooting and hunting gear, and the Dingell-Johnson excise tax on fishing gear, to fund the upkeep of federal lands and/or to get that section of the outdoor sports and recreation industry to begin paying their way. I’m not so sure that this would actually solve anything and might create more problems if not implemented properly. Otherwise, the present act of federal takeover of land and lobbying efforts would not bring into check the hegemony but might expand it even further. I would have to examine this very closely.

Share

Powerful Animal Rights Lobby Puts Profits Over Mankind

This is a rebuttal to a hypocritical blog by Val Philbrick on Don Loprieno’s blog at the Bangor Daily News.

The blog spends ample time attempting to convince readers that lobbying efforts by certain members of Maine’s hunting, fishing and trapping industry are corrupt and causes harm to wildlife in pursuit of profits. Ignorance and hypocrisy abound.

I basically have two points to make. The first is that while the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation is still practiced, at least to some degree by fish and game agencies that have not fully succumbed to the “new ways to discuss wildlife management,” it is a proven model for the management of abundant wildlife of all species for the benefit of ALL. The new way wildlife management is discussed, promotes scarcity and disease, along with the destruction of rights and private property, while limiting access to public lands. Over-protection of animals is a perverted practice that places the health, safety and general welfare of people at risk at the expense of people’s right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

The second point to make is that it is quite hypocritical that this author, evidently suggesting lobbying for the hunting, fishing and trapping industry is somehow unethical, immoral and a danger to wildlife, doesn’t happen to mention that she is a member of the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). If one wanted to discuss ethics and morality as related to HSUS and PETA, a book could be written.

Evidently a man is not worthy of his hire. There seems to be opposition to a couple of tens-of-thousands of dollars made to promote and protect the hunting, fishing and trapping industries while there is no mention of the MILLIONS of dollars being made by members of HSUS, PETA and many other Environmental and animal rights groups. I wonder how this small handful of Maine outdoor industry lobbyists’ ethics would stand up in comparison to the filthy, rotten, lying, cheating and stealing done by most of these Environmental/Animal Rights groups?

This author claims that lobbying the government to perpetuate a proven means of wildlife management is exploiting wildlife for profits. The author indicates that this practice should be ended. Really? I certainly have my own opposing thoughts and opinions to the corruption of lobbying, as it exists today, and so, if one is to call for the ending of lobbying of the hunting, fishing and trapping industry, then let’s put an end to the perverted and exceedingly corrupt lobbying efforts of the HSUS and PETA, along with any and all groups. In short, let’s outlaw lobbying at every level of government.

I find it interesting that for years groups like HSUS and PETA, as well as Environmental groups, have become spoiled due to their fine organizational skills and fund raising, to do their lobbying and propagandizing of a nation, unopposed. Decades too late, the lobby opposed to the radical and perverted ways of HSUS and PETA, etc. are beginning to get their act together, in the sense that they are figuring out that the best way to fight fire is with fire. They have been left with no other choice. And now we see animal rights perverts and human haters throwing hissy-fits because a handful of lobbyists in Maine are opposing anti-human activities of the far more powerful and organized groups such as HSUS and PETA.

If this author is honestly suggesting that an end be put to political lobbying in Maine, then sign me up. There is nothing more that I would like to be witness to, than HSUS, PETA, Wildlife Alliance of Maine, Audubon, National Wildlife Federation, Natural Resources Council, Animal Welfare Institute, and all the rest banned from buying votes in the Legislature. Bring it on!

If the call for an end to lobbying for everyone is not sincere, and this is only an attempt to clear the field of any opposition for the animal rights knuckleheads, then pointing the finger at the hunting, fishing and trapping lobby only shows the totalitarianism that drives these close-minded groups.

Share

Northwestern Energy Turns Against the Right to Keep and Bear Arms

Press Release from the Montana Shooting Sports Association:

Northwestern Energy, a company usually concerned only with efficient delivery of electricity and natural gas in Montana, took the bold step today to also become an active opponent of the right to keep and bear arms in Montana.

In a dramatic departure from usual corporate practice, Northwestern took a strong stance against House Bill 598, the Gun Owners Access to Justice Act, in a public hearing before the Montana House Judiciary Committee today. Since the purpose HB 598 is to create a referendum on this issue for a vote by Montana citizens, Northwestern is also against allowing Montana people to vote on this important issue.

During the hearing on HB 598, the lobbyist representing Northwestern actually took the committee microphone five different times to reiterate Northwestern’s total opposition to the bill.

Also speaking in opposition to HB 598 was a representative of Moms Demand Action, a national group founded and funded by billionaire and anti-gun former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg. This concurrence and Northwestern’s dramatic departure from its former policy of lobbying only about energy bills raises the question of whether billionaire Bloomberg may have financial ties to Northwestern.

Gary Marbut is President of the Montana Shooting Sports Association, the primary political advocate for gun owners in Montana. Marbut supported HB 598 before the committee and commented on the unusual opposition by Northwestern, “It’s a mystery to me why Northwestern would choose to burn so much political capital with the Legislature, with Montana ratepayers, and with investors, by launching so actively and visibly against the interests of Montana gun owners. I’d guess that 90% of Northwestern’s Montana customers are gun owners. How does it serve Northwestern’s corporate interests to poke a stick at this bear?”

The Gun Owners Access to Justice Act clarifies that a high level of judicial scrutiny be applied to any government actions that impair the fundamental right to keep and bear arms, a level of scrutiny that is already applied to other fundamental rights. It would also allow court costs and attorney fees for any person who successfully sued a governmental entity because the person’s rights had been violated by that government entity.

In D.C. v. Heller, the U.S. Supreme Court confirmed that the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right. Under the Montana Constitution, fundamental rights are considered to be those which the people have reserved to themselves from government interference in Article II, the Declaration of Rights. The right to keep and bear arms is in the Declaration of Rights at Section 12.

If approved by the House Judiciary Committee, HB 598 will move to the floor of the House for Second and Third Readings, and then on to the Senate for the same consideration. If approved by both House and Senate, HB 598 will go on the next General Election ballot for a vote of the people, and will not require the Governor’s signature. HB 598 is sponsored by Rep. Matthew Monforton (R-Bozeman).

Share

$2.6 Million Anonymous Donors Fund HSUS

“According to the tax return of the Humane Society Legislative Fund (HSLF)—HSUS’s lobbying arm—a mere two anonymous donors provided 50% of the organization’s funds in 2012. Those two donors provided $2.6 million to fund HSLF’s rabid attack campaign during the election season. (Members of Congress have already written the IRS about HSUS’s potentially excessive lobbying, but HSLF is a separate group that is allowed to do more political activity.)”<<<Read More>>>

Share

Frank Losey Exposes HSUS For Deceitful Marketing, Illegal Lobbying and More

*Editor’s Note* – Below are copies of letters written by Frank Losey, an associate of the Missouri Federation of Animal Owners (MoFed), regarding Wayne Pacelle, President and CEO of the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). The letters are republished with permission from the author.

Mr. Losey has tirelessly waged a campaign to expose the American public to the deceit, lies and hypocrisy of HSUS. This first letter, which includes a link to a copy of the original email sent to Mr. Losey from Wayne Pacelle in which Pacelle suggests that hunters are poachers, is written by Mr. Losey to Wayne Pacelle calling him out on name calling and challenging Mr. Pacelle and the HSUS to use more of the organization’s money for better animal welfare programs.

The second letter, is a response letter to the silence he received from Mr. Pacelle after the first letter.

If you agree with the position of Mr. Losey and the effort he and others have been doing, I might suggest you visit his website and support the effort in anyway that you can.

~~~~~~~~~~

Franklin W. Losey
2029 Tampa Blvd.
Navarre, FL 32566
f.losey@insightbb.com

August 13, 2012

Mr. Wayne Pacelle
President and CEO
Humane Society of the United States
2100 L Street, NW
Washington DC 20037

Dear Mr. Pacelle:
I have recently become aware of the fact that you personally, in a letter dated July 9, 2012, described me as an “individual hostile to animal welfare,” which description is an outrageous lie!

As you may recall, I am the individual who wrote to you in 2009, and told you that responsible breeders in State Commercial Breeder Associations in the States where over 80% of all Federally Licensed and inspected Breeders were located had “publicly condemned substandard kennels.” I was the individual who orchestrated these “public condemnations” by responsible breeders, and I thought at the time that you would be ecstatic with the fact that a sincere, genuine and substantive effort was being made to advocate what was in the best interest of animals. To my chagrin, you not only declined to share this information with your “following” by publicly acknowledging such “public condemnations,” but you went on to discredit all responsible breeders by stating that “condemning substandard breeders does not help animals.” And then for good measure, you gratuitously went on to disparage “family farmers” by suggesting that they were “factory farmers,” even though my correspondence made no reference to “family farmers.” (See your E-Mail dated November 16, 2009. A copy is attached.) As an aside, if “condemning substandard breeders does not help animals,” why has the HSUS spent Tens, if not Hundreds, of Millions of Dollars since 2004 “condemning substandard breeders” each and every day when that money could have been better spent in support of local shelters that are helping animals each and every day of the year?

Each month my wife and I load up the trunk of our car with dog food, cat food, and supplies and deliver them to a local dog shelter and a cat shelter. If I were truly “hostile to animal welfare,” why would I have received notes of appreciation from the local shelters?!? An illustrative note is attached – – and it begins as follows: “Mr. Losey, SOCKS is fortunate to have such a loyal supporter as you!”As a further aside, since I donate a higher percentage of my annual income to local shelters than does the HSUS, does that mean that the HSUS is more “hostile to animal welfare” than I am?!?!?!?!?!?

Every time I am invited to speak to any group that is associated with animals, I always encourage them to raise the bar by keeping themselves educated on best practices for animal welfare. My Mother taught me that an ounce of praise and encouragement is far more effective than a “slash and burn,” “take no prisoners” approach. That is why I have been so supportive of encouraging every Educational Seminar put on by dog breeder organizations to have at least one Veterinarian discuss best practices to avoid the spread of PARVO, a highly contagious and viral disease that often leads to the death of puppies and young dogs if they do not receive all of their Parvo booster shots. All too often, puppies do not receive the last of their booster shots because the owners of new puppies, who are so filled with the joy of having a healthy, happy, well socialized puppy, innocently do not realize that they must protect their puppies from being exposed to the dreaded Parvo virus that is often contracted from sniffing the feces of other infected dogs in such places as public parks.

Tragically, the HSUS, which professes to care so much about animal welfare, has NEVER – – REPEAT – – NEVER used the “functionality” of its Website to educate pet owners, as opposed to animal shelters, on procedures as to how best to protect their puppies and dogs from contracting Parvo. This “deadly” omission of information about Parvo for pet owners by the HSUS, that purportedly has a following of Millions, suggests that there has been a conscious and unconscionable decision to keep the American Public and Elected Officials at the Federal, State and Local Levels of Government in the Dark so that the spread of Parvo and its deadly consequences will be inhumanely perpetuated, and be exploited and misrepresented to the American Public as being caused by irresponsible breeding practices in order to further enhance the fundraising activities of the HSUS. To dispel such a notion, I implore you to ensure that the HSUS immediately spend a relatively insignificant amount of its annual revenue, that is approaching $150 Million Dollars a year, on a Nationwide Campaign that highlights and educates the American Public, and especially the new owners of puppies, on how best to protect healthy puppies from contracting Parvo. Failure to do so will lead me, and others, to conclude that the Humane Society of the U.S. has a hidden agenda that is “hostile to animal welfare.”

Sincerely,

Franklin W. Losey

~~~~~~~~~~

“UNGLUED?!?” WHY IS PACELLE “TRASHING” LOSEY?!?!?

On August 28, 2012, Mr. Pacelle responded to Frank Losey’s Letter that was dated August 13,2012 and stated that Frank Losey:

Is “an individual hostile to animal welfare;”
Has “a serious honesty problem;”
Defends “puppy mills, soring, factory farming, and all other abuses;”
Has “been dishonest,” and
Is “not an honorable person.”

In a gesture of “Good Faith,” Frank Losey offered Mr. Pacelle an opportunity to withdraw his disparaging comments, which Frank Losey described as “outrageous, unsubstantiated, unfounded, defaming, and libelous lies.” And how did Mr. Pacelle respond to this “Good Faith” gesture? Silence! Deafening Silence!!!!!

Why would Mr. Pacelle so disparage Frank Losey?

Could it be that Mr. Pacelle has learned that Frank Losey has cumulatively submitted over 2,500 pages of incriminating documents to Members of Congress; to the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Agriculture; to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS); to the Department of the Treasury; and to the Department of Justice?

Could it be because Frank Losey’s “Calls to Action” have orchestrated 20,000-30,000, or more, E-Mails and Letters being sent from citizens in all 50 States to Members of Congress, to the IRS and to the Justice Department documented that the Humane Society of the U.S. (HSUS) may be violating the U.S. Tax Code which provides that “Public Charities,” such as the HSUS, may not engage in “TOO MUCH LOBBYING;” and that the HSUS may be violating the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 because it has not been registered as a “Lobbying Organization” since August of 2006, at which time it terminated its Registration as a “Lobbying Organization” with both Houses of Congress? (Prior to August 2006, the HSUS was registered as a “Lobbying Organization,” and listed Mr. Pacelle as its Chief Lobbyist!)

Could it be because the more than 2,500 incriminating documents that Frank Losey has submitted through Official Government Channels, as well as the 20,000-30,000 or more E-Mails and Letters that were received by Government Officials in Congress, the IRS, the Treasury Department and the Justice Department have illuminated a chilling and growing belief by more and more Government Officials who are echoing an internal whispering “BUZZ OF ALARM?”And has that “BUZZ” been “leaked” back to the HSUS, which has been told that Frank Losey keeps documenting facts that establish by “clear and convincing evidence” that “cover-ups” may be occurring within Government Agencies; that information is being improperly ‘leaked’ back to the HSUS; that the HSUS may not be in compliance with the U.S. Tax Code; and that the HSUS may not be in compliance with the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995?!?!?

And could it also be because Mr. Pacelle now knows that Senator Hatch, who chaired the Hearing that ultimately resulted in the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act being amended after “9-11,” has recently told a constituent that, with regards to the HSUS, ” I share your belief that this law (Lobbying Disclosure Act) has been violated, the Justice Department should respond with appropriate action?!?!?” And in this regard, is it possible that Mr. Pacelle could be embarrassed by his prior written correspondence that was dated January 18, 2008 that suggested that the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, is an “unjust law” worthy of “civil disobedience?!?”

And could it also be because as recently as August 9, 2012 a U.S. Representative wrote to the IRS Commissioner and stated: “Years ago when I first wrote you regarding the tax-exempt status of the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). . . . I have provided the IRS with documentation that I believe clearly demonstrates that the HSUS has abused its tax-exempt status, and I stand ready to provide additional supporting documents.”

Perhaps Mr. Pacelle also was not pleased when Frank Losey told Mr. Pacelle that since the HSUS donates a lower percentage of its annual income to local shelters than does Frank Losey, this would suggest that the HSUS is more “hostile to animal welfare” than Frank Losey is!And to add salt to that wound, Frank Losey included a note of appreciation from a local shelter that read as follows: “Mr. Losey, SOCKS is fortunate to have such a loyal supporter as you!”Is Frank Losey figuratively beginning to breathe down the neck of Mr. Pacelle, and he does not like the smell of Frank Losey’s breath?!?!?

And then could Mr. Pacelle have gone ballistic when he read the closing paragraph in Frank Losey’s Letter that was dated August 13, 2012, which read as follows:

“Tragically, the HSUS, which professes to care so much about animal welfare, has NEVER – – REPEAT – – NEVER used the “functionality” of its Website to educate pet owners, as opposed to animal shelters, on procedures as to how best to protect their puppies and dogs from contracting Parvo.This “deadly” omission of information about Parvo for pet owners by the HSUS, that purportedly has a following of Millions, suggests that there has been a conscious and unconscionable decision to keep the American Public and Elected Officials at the Federal, State and Local Levels of Government in the Dark so that the spread of Parvo and its deadly consequences will be inhumanely perpetuated, and be exploited and misrepresented to the American Public as being caused by irresponsible breeding practices in order to further enhance the fundraising activities of the HSUS.To dispel such a notion, I implore you to ensure that the HSUS immediately spend a relatively insignificant amount of its annual revenue, that is approaching $150 Million Dollars a year, on a Nationwide Campaign that highlights and educates the American Public, and especially the new owners of puppies, on how best to protect healthy puppies from contracting Parvo. Failure to do so will lead me, and others, to conclude that the Humane Society of the U.S. has a hidden agenda that is “hostile to animal welfare.”

Regardless of what Mr. Pacelle thinks about Frank Losey, there is NO “HUMANE” REASON for the HSUS to continue to maintain its “Wall of Silence” that keeps the American Public in the Dark as to how best to prevent young puppies from contracting PARVO – – Parvo Booster Vaccine Shots, and shielding young puppies from sniffing “droppings” from contaminated dogs in such places as public parks!

Could it be that the sanctimonious HSUS INHUMANELY wishes to perpetuate the spread of PARVO among young puppies and sacrifice their precious young lives so that the HSUS may continue what appears to be a deceptive practice of citing “sick puppies” as a basis for the American Public to continue to contribute Tens of Millions of Dollars each year to the coffers of the HSUS which contributes a smaller percentage of its annual income to local shelters than does Frank Losey?!?!?!?

Share

Humane Society of United States in Violation of Lobbying Disclosure Act

CALL TO ACTION

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

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

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

TWO ACTIONS TO TAKE

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

“Dear Mr. Machen:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Share