This is the Form 990 (tax return) filed by the Humane Society of the United States for the tax year 2010. It was filed with the IRS on September 2, 2010. At 146 pages, this tax return covers most financial aspects of HSUS, and provides accounting details unavailable anywhere else.

According to this tax return, less than 1 percent of the HSUS budget in 2010 consisted of grants to real "humane societies" and other hands-on pet shelter groups in the United States.

Here are some other highlights:

• Total revenue: $148.7 million
• Total expenses: $126.4 million
• Net assets as of December 31, 2009: $187.5 million
• Fundraising expenses: $24.3 million
• Salaries and benefits: $36.2 million
• Pension contributions: $2.6 million
• Total grants to other groups: $5.3 million
• Grants to ballot-initiative political front groups: $1.75 million
• Funds passed through to the HSUS-affiliated "Humane Society International": $1.7 million

Download 2010 HSUS Form 990

This document is a December 2, 2010 campaign contributions report from the "Misourians for the Protection of Dogs" ballot committee, as filed with the Missouri Ethics Commission.

Since it was submitted nearly a month after the 2010 election (in which the committee's "Proposition B" was approved by a 3-percent margin), this report is likely the final assessment of donation levels for many contributors. Amounts listed next to each donor are "aggregate" amounts.

While this report is not exhaustive, it does show contribution totals for five notable animal organizaitons:

Download Campaign Finance Report, “Missourians for the Protection of Dogs,” Dec. 2, 2010

This document contains a set of all of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests made by the Humane Society of the United States to the U.S. Department of Agriculture during 2010.

In total, HSUS made 17 requests, including inquiries for records involving predator control methods (M-44 and sodium fluoroacetate) and licensed animal breeders.

(Note: This file is 6.5 megabytes. We strongly recommend that you right-click on the "DOWNLOAD" link and select "Save Link As" to save the document to your computer instead of viewing it in your internet browser.)

Download HSUS Freedom of Information Act Requests to the USDA, 2010

This PDF contains a 98-page report from the "Shelter Evaluation Services" department of the Humane Society of the United States. It was delivered to the city of Carson City, Nevada, during November 2010. The local Nevada Appeal newspaper first reported on its findings on December 30, 2010.

According to the Appeal, the city's Health and Human Services Department, which oversees Animal Services, requested the evaluation last spring. The report is based on a three-day site visit conducted in July to tour the shelter's current operations, services, and programs. HSUS charges $25,000 for such evaluations.

The report criticizes the Carson City Animal Services (CCAS) facility for not watering its lawn; causing stray, feral, and otherwise unsocialized cats elevated stress levels through improper housing; insufficient housing for exotic animals, birds, and small mammals; "a complete absence of nurturing animal care and animal enrichment programs"; inadequate animal-handling training for staff members; flawed communication with off-site veterinarians; limited usable animal-housing space; and unhygienic cleaning practices. HSUS also recommended that CCAS "contact local teachers who may be interested in receiving KIND News," a monthly publication put out by HSUS's youth-education division.

The Carson City Board of Supervisors moved to accept most of HSUS's recommendations on December 7, 2010, shy of building a new facility.

“We asked for this to get an idea of how we're doing compared to other communities and to find out if we can be doing better,” Gail Radtke, Carson City's animal-services manager, told the Appeal.

However, given that the evaluation was based on a very short visit to the Carson City facilities and that HSUS doesn't operate or oversee any shelter of its own, it's unclear why the city paid HSUS for the report, especially amid a statewide budget deficit of up to $3 billion. The super-rich HSUS has yet to explain publicly why it shouldn't be providing evaluation reports like this one for free.

We believe reproducing this material constitutes a "fair use" as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use this material for purposes of your own that go beyond "fair use," you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Download HSUS Shelter Evaluation Report to Carson City Animal Services, November 2010

This document is a federal fraud lawsuit filed on December 2, 2010 by the Humane Society of the United States. HSUS sued the Vermont-based Manchester Asset Management and its principal officer, Bayard R. Kraft III.

According to HSUS’s lawsuit, in late 2008 Manchester sold it a $15 million stake in a Cayman Islands-based vehicle called the “Equinox Alternative Offshore Fund L.P.” HSUS claims it made its investment in two stages, giving Manchester $10 million in October 2008, and then adding an additional $5 million a month later at Manchester’s suggestion.

During the month of October 2008 alone, the Equinox fund lost 4.8% of its value, costing HSUS $480,000 of the first $10 million it invested.

HSUS’s lawsuit contends that while it intended to make its final $5 million investment effective on November 1, Manchester instead “backdated” that investment to October 1—costing HSUS an additional $240,000 in “retroactive” losses.

The HSUS would not have incurred the $24 0,000 loss allocated to it on or about November 1, 2 008 had Manchester not backdated The HSUS's additional $5.0 million capital contribution to October 1, 2008. If Manchester had treated The HSUS's additional contribution as "at risk" and thus subject to profit or loss on November 1, 2008, The HSUS's additional contribution would not have been subject to any losses resulting from Equinox's investments during October 2008.

The lawsuit doesn’t address any reasons why HSUS would knowingly invest the second $5 million—regardless of which month it was to be made official—in a fund where it had already lost $480,000 of its contributors’ money.

Nor does it indicate why HSUS had $15 million in cash available for investment in the Caymans, when its own Bylaws require that:

All available funds of the Society shall be used for the immediate relief of suffering and the vigorous prosecution of humane education except as otherwise provided by law or the specific terms of a gift or mandate of a donor.

The lawsuit does, however, suggest that HSUS may have other capital investments with Manchester in addition to the Equinox fund:

Manchester receives a quarterly fee based on the value of all assets invested by The HSUS through Manchester, including all assets invested in Equinox.

Download HSUS v. Manchester Capital Management, 2010 Lawsuit

This PDF contains a brief excerpt from page 18 of the 2010 "Watchdog Report" from Animal People News. (A complete printed copy costs $25 and can be ordered online.)

It includes a basic assessment of the Humane Society of the United States's financial health, and of its major initiatives during 2008. Financial information is drawn from HSUS's 2008 federal income tax return (Form 990). 

Among other things, Animal People notes that HSUS has a vegan-only meal policy for events it sponsors:

Food Policy: Since 2005 HSUS has required that "At HSUS internal events where food is served and to which staff and/or guests have been invited to participate, HSUS will purchase vegan fare and we will strive to have organic products ... External events under the control of HSUS should also provide for the purchase of all non-animal products. If that is not possible, events should be vegetarian—no meat (including fish and shellfish). For events sponsored by HSUS with other organizations, strong efforts should be made to serve all vegan or vegetarian food. Partnering organizations are to be informed that vegan options should be available and that they are preferred.

In addition, Animal People provides the result of its own analysis of HSUS's fundraising expenses, as they compare with "program" expenses (those that are not considered "overhead"). According to this analysis, HSUS spends one-half (50 percent) of every dollar on fundraising.

         (click to enlarge)

This excerpt is reproduced under the Fair Use provision of U.S. copyright law.

Download 2010 Animal People News “Watchdog Report” (Excerpt Covering HSUS)

This PDF contains HSUS's reply in the case of Daniel Reed Christensen et al. v. Rosie Quinn et al., a federal lawsuit filed in September 2010. The reply, filed October 15, contains HSUS's defense against the claims made in Christensen's complaint.

Christensen sued HSUS following a September 2009 raid on his property. A judge ruled in early 2010 that the search warrant used in the raid, which was executed largely by HSUS and two animal control officers, was wrongfully obtained. The judge also declared that  the animal control officer requesting the warrant "intentionally misled the issuing court by omitting material information in her affidavits and supplemental testimony."

HSUS is represented by the Sioux Falls, SD law firm of Davenport, Evans, Hurwitz & Smith, L.L.P.

Download HSUS Reply to $5 Million Federal Lawsuit in South Dakota

This document is from the federal court records of Feld entertainment v. ASPCA et al. Filed on November 19, 2010, it contains the plaintiff's proposal for a 27-month schedule encompassing discovery, depositions, and other matters related to Feld's RICO lawsuit against several animal-rights activists and groups, and their lawyers.

The defendants include the Humane Society of the United States, the HSUS-controlled Fund For Animals, and two attorneys employed by HSUS.

Feld, the parent company of the Ringling Brothers "Greatest Show On Earth" circus, has proposed a schedule through March 1, 2013. HSUS and its co-defendants, on the other hand, asked a federal judge to put everything on hold until its motion to dismiss the whole case has been heard.

Download Feld Entertaiment’s 11/2010 Proposed Trial Schedule in its RICO Case Against HSUS (et al)

This PDF contains a 122-page report from the "Shelter Evaluation Services" department of the Humane Society of the United States. It was delivered to the city of Dallas, Texas during November 2010. The exact date is unknown, but The Dallas Morning News leaked a copy online on November 29. 

The report itself was commissioned in December 2009 by Dallas Animal Services, which agreed to pay HSUS $25,000 for the evaluation. HSUS staff spent three days on-site in April 2010, basing their report on their observations in this very short period of time. HSUS reportedly prepared a similarly expensive report for the same organization in 2001.

The actual funds for the report's completion were provided by an organization called the Metroplex Animal Coalition (MAC), which describes itself as being "focused on spay and neuter assistance ONLY" (as opposed to live-animal adoptions). However, since MAC's money comes from dues paid by member groups, and most of its members are themselves animal shelters, it stands to reason that the HSUS report was funded (however indirectly) by private shelters that HSUS should be financially supporting—not the other way around. MAC's Advisory Board includes one member (out of five) who works for HSUS. Its Secretary/Treasurer chaired a 2010 Dallas fundraising gala for HSUS. 

The report itself criticizes Dallas Animal Services for the way it cares for cats; the lack of stimulation and exercise its dogs receive; flawed communication with veterinarians; a lack of hygienic animal handling; a failure to provide significant space to care for horses and other livestock; and a feeling of "alienation" among its staff. HSUS also complained about how the Dallas City Council, whose interests lie in getting animals off the streets, crosses swords with the animal shelter management's goal of reducing the number of animals that are euthanized every year.

Contained on the report's last page, as a way to establish HSUS's bona fides, is the false claim that HSUS is "backed by 11 million Americans, or one in every 28."

The super-rich HSUS has yet to explain publicly why it shouldn't be providing evaluation reports like this one for free.

We believe reproducing this material constitutes a "fair use" as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use this material for purposes of your own that go beyond "fair use," you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Download HSUS Shelter Evaluation Report to Dallas Animal Services, November 2010

In this September 28, 2010 letter to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Arkansas horse trainer and businesswoman Denisa Malott asks the FBI for an investigation of the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and the Humane Society of Missouri (HSMO).

On November 12, 2009, HSUS and HSMO raided Malott's property and seized all 25 of her trail horses. She was ultimately charged with 25 felony counts of animal cruelty. What followed was a Keystone Kops-like series of denials, backtracks, and legal body blows which left the impression that the entire search and seizure was unlawful. At one point HSUS was ordered to return the horses to Malott because many of them were starving while in the group's legal custody.

This letter specifically asks for a federal government investigation on the grounds that HSUS and HSMO allegedly violated the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA). This 2006 law provides for harsh penalties against anyone who crosses state lines to intentionally damage a business that uses animals in the furtherance of its main purpose.

Malott writes:

In the truest sense of the word, I have been "terrorized" by the vigilante-like actions of the representatives of the Humane Society of the United States and the Humane Society of Missouri, and if truth be known, one or more of them may very well have improperly misled the Sheriff into becoming an unwitting accomplice in the violation of the AETA as well as my Civil Rights.

Download Request for Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act investigation into HSUS, 2010

This is the published program for the US Department of Agriculture's "Future Trends in Animal Agriculture" symposium on September 22, 2010.

Download Program for “Future Trends in Animal Agriculture” Symposium, September 22, 2010

This is a copy of a federal lawsuit filed on September 2, 2010 by South Dakota dog breeder Dan Christensen. He sued numerous defendants, including the Humane Society of the United States, its CEO Wayne Pacelle, and former employee Scotlund Haisley, over events related to a 2009 raid on his property which was carried out by HSUS and a local animal rescue organization.

All of Christensen's dogs were confiscated during the raid. A judge later ruled that the search warrant was obtained under false pretenses, and the raid itself was therefore illegal.

The lawsuit demands $5 million in compensation for the following allegations:

• Deprivation of Constitutional Rights Guaranteed by the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution (42 USC § 1983)
• Malicious Prosecution
• Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
• Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress
• Negligence per se — Criminal Trespass in violation of South Dakota Code 22-35-6
• Negligence per se — Intentional Damage to Private Property in violation of South Dakota Code 22-34-1

Download Federal Lawsuit against HSUS (et al) Filed by South Dakota Dog Breeder Dan Christensen

This document is the official program from the Humane Society of the United States's "Taking Action For Animals" conference held in Washington, DC from July 23 to July 26, 2010.

Of particular interest is the top-sponsor billing of the American Anti-Vivisection Society. The group's ad (see page 25) describes its mission as working to...

legally and effectively end the use of animals in science...

The conference program identifies ten financial sponsors, none of which is directly engaged in pet sheltering (just like HSUS).

We believe reproducing this material constitutes a "fair use" as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use this material for purposes of your own that go beyond "fair use," you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Download 2010 HSUS “Taking Action For Animals” Conference Program

This Humane Society of the United States direct-mail fundraising letter was received by countless Americans on the animal rights group's mailing lists in July 2010.

In the three-page letter, which was packaged with a "2011 Pet Lover's Calendar," HSUS CEO Wayne Pacelle writes:

One of my goals is to build this nationwide animal protection organization from 1,200,000 to 2,000,000 members.

This startling statement is directly at odds with HSUS's long-standing practice of claiming it has "11 million supporters"—a statistic which now appears to have been inflated by more than 900 percent.

We believe reproducing this material constitutes a "fair use" as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use this material for purposes of your own that go beyond "fair use," you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Download July 2010 HSUS Direct-Mail Fundraising Letter

This is a letter from U.S. Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer to IRS Exempt Organizations Director Lois Lerner, dated May 12, 2010.

On March 23 of that year, Luetkemeyer had sent a letter to IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman conveying the concerns of his constituents regarding HSUS's significant lobbying activities as a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt group.

In this particular letter, Luetkemeyer refers to a May 5, 2010 conversation between himself and Lerner about these concerns, and attaches additional information about HSUS's activities.

Luetkemeyer writes:

The attached information unquestionably demonstrates that HSUS invests a substantial amount of time and money in political campaigns and attempts to influence specific legislation, a clear and direct violation of section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.

Download Letter from U.S. Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer to IRS Director Lois Lerner

On April 28, 2010, U.S. Congressman Pete Visclosky (R-IN) wrote to IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman, and attached correspondence from one of his constituents who was concerned about HSUS's lobbying activities.

Rep. Visclosky wrote: "I would appreciate your addressing her concerns."

Download Letter from U.S. Rep. Pete Visclosky to IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman

This is a March 23, 2010 letter from U.S. Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer to IRS Commission Douglas Shulman.

In it, Rep. Luetkemeyer writes that many of his constituents have conveyed concerns about HSUS's tax-exempt status, given its wide-ranging lobbying activities.

Luetkemeyer's letter includes several appendicies with screenshots of various HSUS websites and blogs that describe the group's lobbying activities.

Download Letter from U.S. Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer to IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman

This is a circulated draft of an agreement in principle reached on June 30, 2010 between:

• The Humane Society of the United States;
• Ohio Governor Ted Strickland; and
• The Ohio Farm Bureau Federation

It outlines a series of actions that the parties reportedly agreed to pursue as a condition of HSUS not pursuing a November 2010 ballot initiative in Ohio. HSUS's proposed ballot question would have dictated specific livestock standards to the state's Livestock Care Standards Board.

Download 2010 “Buckeye Compromise” draft agreement between HSUS and the Ohio Farm Bureau

This document contains 48 copies of "Form 15" submitted to the Ohio Secretary of State in relation to a campaign to put an HSUS-favored question on the state's November 2010 ballot.

Specifically, "Form 15" notifies the State of Ohio that the signer intends to be paid (or to pay a third party) for gathering signatures related to a ballot initiative. "Ohioans for Humane Farms," an HSUS front group, supervised the campaign in question.

These forms are organized according to the organizations they represent, as follows:

• pp. 1-5: Mercy For Animals
• pp. 6-9: M+R Strategic Services (a for-profit firm)
• pp. 10-12: Progressive Campaigns, Inc. (a for-profit firm)
• pp. 13-14: DRW Campaigns (a for-profit firm)
• pp. 15-16: Professional Petition Consultants (a for-profit firm)
• pp. 17-19: Farm Sanctuary
• pp. 20-28: The Humane Society of the United States
• pp. 29-32: Ohioans for Humane Farms
• pp. 33-39: Miscellaneous non-Ohioans
• pp. 40-48: Miscellaneous Ohioans

Of particular interest, page 1 is the form submitted by Nora Kramer, who provided an e-mail address related to Ohioans for Humane Farms along with the mailing address of Mercy for Animals.

Some of this paperwork (those copies submitted on an obsolete version of Form 15) may be invalid. They include pages 10-16, 24-25, 29, 33-38, and 40-47.

Download “Form 15” Submissions from Ohioans for Humane Farms

In Friedlander v. Brunner, the Humane Society of the United States sought to invalidate an Ohio law holding that only residents of the state can gather signatures to put a legislative initiative on the ballot. The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.

On May 13, 2010, U.S. District Court Judge Michael H. Watson declared the Ohio law unconstitutional, opening the door for HSUS to hire out-of-state workers as signature collectors.

The judge's decree still requires signature gatherers to truthfully disclose their permanent address; but it also restrains the Ohio Secretary of State from invalidating signatures that were gathered by non-Ohio residents.

The "Ohio Humane" campaign's public statements about its signature-gathering totals indicate that as a result of this ruling, HSUS began employing paid signature-gatherers almost immediately.

Download Federal Court Order in “Friedlander v. Brunner,” 13 May 2010

In March 2009, a group of plaintiffs organized by the Humane Society of the United States filed a class-action lawsuit against the Petland pet-store chain and one of its pet suppliers (The Hunte corporation), alleging that Petland had orchestrated a scheme to defraud its customers by selling sick puppies that were raised in "puppy mills" and other environments where veterinary illnesses are pervasive.

In August 2009, a federal judge in Arizona dismissed the entire lawsuit, but allowed the plaintiffs an opportunity to re-file the case.

In January 2010, most of the claims in that re-filed case were dismissed a second time. This document is the judge's ruling, which permitted only a few narrow claims to proceed against Petland.

One plaintiff sued Petland under the Maine Unfair Trade Practices Act. That claim survived the judge's scrutiny because she is a resident of Maine.

That same plaintiff and one other were also permitted to proceed with their lawsuit against Petland on the ground that the company received "unfair enrichment" because of fraud. This narrow claim was only allowed to proceed because those two plaintiffs alleged that specific Petland employees had toldthem that the dogs they purchased were not raised in "puppy mills" or other unsanitary conditions. (It's likely that Petland will contest their claims at trial.)

All other claims in this lawsuit—including the RICO claims—were dismissed.

Download HSUS Lawsuit Against Petland: Dismissed in Large Part (the second time)

This decision was issued by U.S. District Court Judge Harold Baer, Jr., on May 6, 2010. It's an order granting Summary Judgment to the Humane Society of the United States in a lawsuit the group filed against Hudson Valley Foie Gras, a duck farm in upstate New York. As part of its long crusade to force foie gras (duck liver) out of the reach of Americans, HSUS had alleged in 2009 that the farm was violating its pollution permits under the federal Clean Water Act (CWA).

While HSUS asked the judge to impose somewhere from "$550,000 to over $600 million in civil penalties," the ruling awarded no money at all. And despite a boastful press push by HSUS after the ruling was issued, the only penalty handed down was a nine-month probationary period during which the farm will be subject to outside environmental audits. The judge also told the farm to spend $50,000 on "an environmental project to remediate its CWA violations."

In 2006, HSUS unsuccessfully sued the state of New York (HSUS v. Empire State Development Corporation) in an attempt to stop this same farm from receiving a $420,000 grant to improve its manure treatment and other pollution-related operations. In effect, HSUS sued the state to prevent the farm from improving its environmental practices, and then (after that suit was dismissed) HSUS sued the farm for not being "green" enough.

Download Federal District Court Decision, “HSUS v. Hudson Valley Foie Gras, LLC,” May 2010

This is page one of HSUS's KIND News (Jr. Edition) publication for April 2010; the newsletter targets children in grades 3 and 4 with nine issues each year. It's widely distributed in U.S. elementary school classrooms.

In this issue, HSUS tells an emotional, sensationalized story about the supposed health problems of children who live in rural agricultural areas. HSUS then openly recruits minor children (without parental notification) to lobby their elected legislators, the EPA, and the USDA—to take action against "factory farms":

... It's up to you to tell the government how you feel about these issues!

You can help by writing to your lawmakers and government agencies like the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Environmental Protection Agency ...

We believe reproducing this material constitutes a "fair use" as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use this material for purposes of your own that go beyond "fair use," you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Download HSUS “KIND News” front page, April 2010

In Friedlander v. Brunner, the Humane Society of the United States sought to invalidate an Ohio law holding that only residents of the state can gather signatures to put a legislative initiative on the ballot. The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.

Beatrice M. "Bee" Friedlander, a Michigan lawyer who serves as Managing Director of the Animals & Society Institute (and was a past president of Michigan's "Attorneys for Animals" group), was the first named plaintiff.

HSUS's stated reason for litigating this in late April 2010 is that it had "filed a Form 15 with the Ohio Secretary of State, stating that it will provide compensation to an individual or entity for supervising, managing, or otherwise organizing an effort to obtain signatures on a statewide initiative petition."

A reasonable analysis is that HSUS suddenly found that (1) it was behind schedule gather signatures exclusively through the use of in-state volunteers; and that (2) it was legally prohibited from bringing a "hired gun" in from out-of-state.

Download HSUS Lawsuit: Friedlander v. Brunner (2010)

This is a ruling by South Dakota Magistrate Court Judge Tami Bern. It concerned a motion to suppress a search warrant executed (in part) by the Humane Society of the United States, in a September 2009 raid on a hunting dog breeder. The judge noted that "the warrants were largely executed by agents from the Humane Society of the United States" with the assistance of two animal control officers.

Judge Bern ruled that the warrant was wrongfully obtained, and found that an animal control officer requesting the warrant "intentionally misled the issuing court by omitting material information in her affidavits and supplemental testimony."

The animal control officer had not told the court that she had already requested a warrant days earlier, resulting in the discovery of dogs on the property that were in good health.

Download South Dakota Search Warrant Suppression Ruling by Judge Tami Bern, 2010

This is a marketing packet for HSUS's "Humane Choice" dog food. It was collected from the booth of G&B Marketing Inc. at the 2010 Global Pet Expo in Orlando, Florida.

We believe reproducing this material constitutes a "fair use" as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use this material for purposes of your own that go beyond "fair use," you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Download “Humane Choice” dog food trade show sell-sheet

This is the full text of Iowa HF 2280, a bill signed by Gov. Chet Culver that regulates commercial dog breeders.

In its published language, a "commercial breeder" is defined as anyone who keeps more than three dogs for breeding purposes.

But HSUS promoted this law's passage as an effort to "broaden state oversight of large-scale puppy producing operations, known as puppy mills," and said it "gives state officials the authority to inspect mass-scale puppy production facilities."

Download Iowa House File 2280

This is a report generated on March 6, 2010 by the website of the Massachusetts Office of Campaign & Political Finance.

It shows a total of $528,428.38 in contributions from the Humane Society of the United States to a ballot campaign group called the "Committee to Protect Dogs," between 2005 and 2009.

The Committee to Protect Dogs successfully waged a 2008 ballot campaign to ban greyhound racing in Massachusetts.

Download Campaign Finance Report: Massachusetts “Committee to Protect Dogs”

This is a two-page excerpt (pp. 64-65) from Wesley J. Smith's book A Rat Is a Pig Is a Dog Is a Boy: The Human Cost of the Animal Rights Movement (Encounter Books, 2010)

In this excerpt, Smith explores the devious nature of HSUS's legal strategies, using its crusade against Hudson Valley Foie Gras as a case study. He also examines the animal rights movement's goal of awarding legal "standing" to animals as a way to increase the cost of raising livestock for food.

We believe reproducing this material constitutes a "fair use" as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use this material for purposes of your own that go beyond "fair use," you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Download Excerpt: “A Rat Is a Pig Is a Dog Is a Boy,” Wesley J. Smith, 2010

This document is a federal lawsuit filed on February 16, 2010 by Feld Entertainment (the parent company of the Ringling Brothers and Barnum & Bailey Circus) under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act.

Feld is suing:

• The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS);
• The Fund for Animals (which merged with HSUS in 2004);
• Jonathan Lovvorn, an attorney employed by HSUS;
• Kimberly Ockene, an attorney employed by HSUS;
• The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA);
• The Animal Welfare Institute;
• The Animal Protection Institute (d/b/a/ Born Free USA);
• Tom Rider (a discredited witness in a recently dismissed lawsuit against Feld, who a judge ruled was paid at least $190,000 for his testimony);
• Meyer Glitzenstein & Crystal (the outside law firm which handled that lawsuit against Feld);
• Katherine Meyer (of Meyer Glitzenstein & Crystal);
• Eric Glitzenstein (of Meyer Glitzenstein & Crystal);
• Howard Crystal (of Meyer Glitzenstein & Crystal); and
• The Wildlife Advocacy Project (a nonprofit organization founded and managed by Meyer Glitzenstein & Crystal, which was used as a pass-through vehicle to allow animal rights groups to pay Tom Rider for his discredited testimony against Feld).

The central claim of the lawsuit (see page 13 of the PDF) is:

[D]efendants have perpetrated and continue to perpetrate multiple schemes to permanently ban Asian elephants in circuses, to defraud FEI of money and property and/or to unjustly enrich themselves, with the ultimate objective of banning Asian elephants in all forms of entertainment and captivity. To carry out these schemes, defendants conspired to conduct and conducted the Enterprise through a pattern of, among other things, bribery and illegal gratuity payments (in violation of both state and federal law), obstruction of justice, mail fraud, wire fraud and money laundering. (emphasis addad)

Download Racketeering Lawsuit Filed against HSUS and its Lawyers by Feld Entertainment, 16 February 2010