Lawsuits Against PETA to Proceed in Virginia

A judge this week ruled that two lawsuits brought by former animal shelter workers against People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals could proceed.

The lawsuit involves a undercover operation carried out in 1999 by then-PETA employee Bryan Monell. Monell took at job at an animal shelter run by the Portsmouth Humane Society in Portsmouth, Virginia, in order to secretly tape activities at the shelter.

PETA later turned the videotapes over to police and both Keith Jeter and Holly King were charged by prosecutors with animal cruelty. In separate trials, both were acquitted.

They in turn have filed lawsuits seeking $1.5 million apiece in compensatory damages from PETA.

Source:

Judge allows two lawsuits against PETA to proceed. Amy Jeter, The Virginian-Pilot, May 9, 2002.

Animal Rights Activist "Meticulously Planned" Fortuyn Assassination

Contrary to early speculation that the assassination of Netherlands political candidate Pim Fortuyn was an opportunity killing, animal rights activist and suspected killer Volkert van der Graaf meticulously planned the murder at the relatively high-security radio and television complex.

When police searched van der Graaf’s home, they found detailed maps of the complex which van der Graaf allegedly used to plan his crime. He apparently used an unguarded door in the rear of the complex to avoid numerous security checkpoints.

Meanwhile, more information about potential motives and even a possible link to an unsolved 1996 murder emerged in media reports about van der Graaf.

Leading the speculation is the possibility that Fortuyn was murdered over a dispute van der Graaf had with a pig farmer. Van der Graaf had repeatedly squared off in court against pig farmer Wien van den Brink. Van der Graaf accused van den Brink of violating Dutch animal welfare laws. Van den Brink was also happened to be a supporter of Fortuyn.

Dutch police are also investigating van der Graaf’s possible involvement in an unsolved 1996 murder. In that case, an environmental officer who worked closely with farmers was shot multiple times and his body dumped in a nearby ditch.

Farmers who were used to lining up against van der Graaf in court described him as fanatical. Van derBrink was quoted as saying, “I thought he was a real fundamentalist. I actually wanted nothing to do with him. He was as closed as a box and convinced he was right.”

Van der Graaf spent two years fighting Peter Olofson’s application to raise cattle. Olofson described van der Graaf as a fanatic,

It was animals, animals, animals.

…

Most farmers around here know him. His mission was to destroy all our farms.

Even so, Olofson said he was shocked that van der Graaf was the prime suspect in the Fortuyn murder. “I couldn’t believe it,” Olofson told The Times of London. “He was a fanatic, but I can’t believe he murdered a person.”

Sources:

Animal activists ‘meticulously planned killing’. David Graves, The Daily Telegraph, May 9, 2002.

Activist charged with killing Fortuyn. Ian Bickerton, The Financial Times (London), May 9, 2002.

Activist remanded for Fortuyn murder: Mystery surrounds ‘quiet, hardworking’ animal rights campaigner. Ian Black, The Guardian (London), May 9, 2002.

Accused vegan was ‘a fanatic who cared only for animals’. Martin Fletcher, The Times (London), May 9, 2002.

Group Asks IRS to Investigate PETA's Tax Filings for 1997, 1998

In March the Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise filed a complaint with the Internal Revenue Service asking it to revoke the tax-exempt status of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. CDFE’s Ron Arnold argued in that complaint that, “PETA openly and actively induces and encourages unlawful acts by planning.” This month CDFE amended its complaint to ask the IRS to look into PETA’s 1997 and 1998 tax filings.

According to the amended complaint,

We have discovered irregularities in reporting grants and allocations by PETA that reinforce our request to revoke recognition of PETAÂ’s tax-exempt status under I.R.C. Section 501(c)(3):

  • PETA failed to provide a schedule of its grants and allocations to other organizations in addition to the totals in Part III of the Form 990, for the fiscal year ending July 31, 1998; and
  • PETA failed to provide a schedule of its grants and allocations to other organizations in addition to the totals in Part III of the Form 990, for the fiscal year ending July 31, 1997.

Based on examination of PETAÂ’s Form 990 annual reports for those two fiscal years, we find that the public inspection copy now on file with the IRS contains no detailed accounting for nearly one million dollars of PETA funds in grants and allocations to other groups. No schedule of grants and allocations was attached containing any list of any grant amount, any recipient, and any purpose. There is no evidence that such a schedule was ever filed with the IRS for either of the two fiscal years in question. PETA, however, did attach such a schedule to its Form 990 for the fiscal years before and after the two fiscal years in question. This irregularity in reporting prompted this complaint.

Rather than confirm or deny whether or not PETA had filed these forms, as required by federal law, Ingrid Newkirk simply attacked the complaint as irrelevant, telling CNSNews.Com that, “Nobody much cares about it, put it that way, except outlets that are perhaps sympathetic to this kind of thing.”

Source:

Group issues additional call for IRS investigation of PETA. Jason Pierce, CNSNews.Com, May 2,2002.

Re: People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc.. Ron Arnold, Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise, May 1, 2002.

Neal Barnard on Media Distortions

The most laugh-out-loud press animal rights press release yet this year had to be the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine’s press release chastising the media coverage of a New York couple charged with keeping their infant daughter on a strict and extremely unhealthy vegan diet.

PCRM’s Neal Barnard whines in the PCRM press release that,

In the wake of reports of a misguided New York couple who refused to breastfeed or provide baby formula for their infant daughter, many reporters have mistakenly suggested that the couple was following a “vegan” diet. Headlines have implied such a diet is not healthy. Because a vegan diet is safe, increasingly popular, and nutritionally superior to other diets, the PHysicians Committee for Responsible Medicine wants to prevent further misunderstandings.

Huh? I though PCRM’s entire reason for existence was to spread misunderstandings. It certainly has no qualms about distorting and outright lying about the results of animal research.

Barnard is correct that the diet this child was eating was not vegan, since it included cod liver oil. But if Barnard wants the media to be accurate, maybe he should try leading by example and direct his organization to stop intentionally perpetuating the same old tired myths and lies about medical research.

Source:

Physicians say vegan diet healthy, safe, superior. Press Release, Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, May 3, 2002.

Vegans starved toddler, cops say. Jesse Graham, New York Post, April 30, 2002.

PETA Child Watch: Condon Elementary

In March 2002, Ingrid Newkirk appeared on CNN’s Crossfire and denied Tucker Carlson’s accusation that People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals crossed a line by targeting children. According to Newkirk, “… everything we do is based at adults. We’re asking adults [to] be responsible.” Apparently, elementary students are now adults if this PETA press release is accurate,

Babe, it’s not. But when kids see the graphic pig farm video that PETA will show at Condon Elementary, they may not be so keen on eating the hot dogs, ham, bacon, and other unhealthful products now being heavily promoted to school cafeterias by the Pork Council. PETA members, accompanied by a giant “pig” holding a sign reading, “If You Can’t Look — Go Veg,” will show the shocking undercover footage . . .

Apparently the animals used in research that PETA itself champions are not really animals, and elementary school students are not really children. At least PETA is consistent in its obfuscation and deception.

Source:

Cafeteria is the newest battleground in war between PETA and Pork Council. Press Release, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, April 26, 2002.

Public Effort Decodes Mouse Genome

In February 2001, Celera Genomics announced that it had completed sequencing the mouse genome. This week researchers at British and American universities announced they had finished their sequencing of the mouse genome which they promptly posted on the Internet for anyone to use.

Because mice are so similar to human beings, the freely available mouse genome will have far reaching impacts on research into human diseases. Sanger Institute researcher Tim Hubbard told The BBC,

The mouse is a key model organism for humans. Their genomes are so similar that you can just compare the two directly. If there are mouse genes we know something about, we can now find genes that look the same in humans.

In fact contrary to what was thought before the sequencing of animal genomes, both mice and humans have roughly the same number of genes. Of course mice are also quite different from human beings, but those differences also will give researchers important information. According to Hubbard,

The mouse has a fantastic sense of smell and you can already see that in the genes. It has a lot more genes than humans connected with olfactory receptors.

So, the animal has its specialties and even looking at those differences will help us understand those things which are critical to humans that mice don’t have. But the basic biology, the basic physiology, is very similar to humans, and having this new information is going to consolidate our understanding of what are the key parts for making a vertebrate.

Hubbard told New Scientist that progress in understanding such functions will improve even more once more mammalian species have their genomes sequenced. Hubbard said the rat genome should be sequenced by the end of this year.

Source:

Mouse code laid bare. The BBC, May 6, 2002.

Mouse’s genetic code made public. Andy Coghlan, NewScientist.Com, May 7, 2002.