Attitude Of The Heart: The Horses Can Take Us There.

Another lovely and moving essay by Jon Katz, Bedlam Farm blog

The war against the carriage horses in New York has faltered, for now, it is far from over.  Everywhere, the animals are under siege, they are trying to take them away from us, they are persecuting us for loving and working with them. We see in the long and brutal campaign to ban the horses that money does not innoculate anyone against ignorance and cruelty,  and that people who say they love animals can be inexcusably abusive to people.

The mayor of New York has not retracted his vow to banish the horses,  or his claim that the people who ride with them are immoral, nor have the real estate developers stopped drooling and plotting over their stables. The people in the carriage trade continue to live in fear and persecution, the horses remain in peril from the people who would destroy them to save them.

A compassionate and progressive city could easily find a way to keep them safe and healthy in New York – that would be a minor achieivement compared to the building of Central Park –   but the so-called progressives there have not yet figured out that preserving the horses and the environment in the city's fabled park, it's soul,  is, in fact, the most progressive thing they could possibly do.

Despite staggering odds, the horses triumphed, they triggered a great social awakening across the country: we see the need a new kind of animal rights movement, one that keeps animals among us and treats animals and people with love, respect and dignity. Continue Reading

When Does Animal Rights Activism Become Extremism?

By Jeremy Lybarger Wednesday, Aug 5 2015 Comments (14)

On July 28, the FBI arrested Joseph Buddenberg and Nicole Kissane, two Oakland-based animal rights activists accused of releasing thousands of mink from fur farms during multiple cross-country sprees in 2013. The couple were also charged with vandalizing property owned by the meat and fur industries, including, allegedly, a meat distributor truck in San Francisco.

"To free animals from enslavement you have to break minor laws," says Will Hazlitt, a press officer who disseminates communiques from underground animal rights groups such as Animal Liberation Front. "Calling this terrorism is ridiculous. Is cutting a fence terrorism?"

Yes — at least in the eyes of the U.S. government. Buddenberg and Kissane were indicted under the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, a law introduced by Republican Sen. James Inhofe and Democratic Sen. Diane Feinstein in 2006. The AETA prohibits people from engaging in activities "for the purpose of damaging or interfering with the operations of an animal enterprise."
Continue reading . .

The Animal Rights National Conference: We Went So You Don’t Have To

HUMANE WATCH
This weekend, HumaneWatch bravely waded into the belly of the beast: We attended the annual Animal Rights National Conference—undercover, of course. For three days, our researchers selflessly abstained from basic hygiene and survived (read: starved) on a tasteless vegan buffet to blend in with the crowd of hemp-clad animal rights activists.

Well, OK, maybe it was pleather-clad activists.

We feigned interest—and kept a straight face—during group discussions staler (and stranger) than freezer-burned tofurkey. Topics included a very serious conversation about why vegan activists have a responsibility to replace their entire closet with animal rights slogan t-shirts.  Academy Award nominations are a few months away, but we’re hopeful we’ll get a nod.

So what didn’t you miss? Here’s an inside look at the latest schemes and delusions peddled by HSUS and its radical activist cohorts.

Let’s start with the speakers. HSUS representatives joined a not-so-prestigious roster of presenters, with the acclaimed line-up including: Nick Cooney (a convicted criminal with the radical Mercy for Animals), the head of “Fish Feel” (a half-baked organization as ridiculous as it sounds) and Ethan Wolf, president of the Sea Shepard Conservation Society (a group that fancies themselves pirates and has the criminal charges to prove it).

The next time HSUS tries to act like it’s a friend of agriculture or food companies, look no further than the company it keeps.

The content of the conference presentations was exactly what you might expect from an event billed as the Super Bowl (minus the pigskin) for animal rights fanatics. Speakers attempted to make grossly inaccurate and insensitive comparisons likening the treatment of animals to the treatment of African American slaves, Holocaust victims, and gay and lesbian Americans.

Straight from the HSUS playbook, VP Paul Shapiro used cute pictures of pet puppies in his presentation—a strange choice for a talk on farm animals. But then again, HSUS uses lots of pictures of dogs and cats to raise money to attack farmers, so maybe it made sense.

Conference content also included accusations and insults thrown at us, which we take to mean that we’re doing an effective job.

Newkirk has said plenty of batty stuff over the years, but she had a new line this year: “Not to be for animal rights is to be a racist.” (Right.) She also gave us a sneak peak of what life might look like if the vegans had things their way, explaining: “Sometimes on the talk shows, some hosts will usually say… ‘If you ruled the world, would it be against the law to eat a hamburger?’ Yes, yes it would.”
Luckily for those of us who enjoy ice cream or a steak, a vegan future is nowhere in sight.
Attendees at the event this weekend probably feel otherwise: The Animal Rights National Conferences is a pep rally designed to “recharge the batteries” of activists by convincing them the vegan movement is winning. But when consumers are eating a billion chicken wings during the Super Bowl, the celebration of imminent vegan triumph is laughably off-base.

News Briefs and Updates August 6, 2015

 SAOVA Friends,

Chimps are still property and not legal persons. Last week New York Supreme Court Judge Barbara Jaffe rejected a claim that two chimpanzees in a New York research laboratory have a right to bodily liberty. The Nonhuman Rights Project had filed a petition for the two chimps, Hercules and Leo, for a writ of habeas corpus freeing them from unlawful imprisonment.  In her decision, Jaffe stated, "some day [such campaigns] may even succeed," because the status of "legal person" doesn't necessarily equal "human being." But for now, she said, she has to follow precedent set in a case from December, when another New York judge upheld the longstanding principle that "legal persons" have duties and responsibilities to go along with rights — duties and responsibilities that chimps can't perform.

The chimpanzees at the center of the case will no longer be used for research. A spokeswoman for Stony Brook told reporters that the research project had concluded several weeks ago and the chimps would no longer be used for any research at the university. She said the court ruling did not impact the timing of the animals' retirement.

Following Judge Jaffe’s ruling, Steven Wise posted, “That’s one small step for a judge, one giant leap for the Nonhuman Rights Project in its fight for the fundamental rights of nonhuman animals. The Nonhuman Rights Project is greatly encouraged by Judge Jaffe’s opinion. However, we intend to appeal her judgment to the First Department and then, if required, go again to the Court of Appeals.”

Thank you for reading. Cross posting is encouraged.

The world not only belongs to those who show up, it's controlled by the best informed and most motivated.

Susan Wolf

Sportsmen's and Animal Owners' Voting Alliance

Working to identify and elect supportive legislators

REMOVING LESSER PRAIRIE CHICKEN FROM THREATENED LIST

In a letter to US Fish and Wildlife Services Director Dan Ashe, Senator Jerry Moran (R-KS) asked that the bird be removed from its listing under the ESA in the wake of a recent report that suggests the species is rebounding.  A recent aerial survey by the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Association found an estimated 29,162 lesser prairie chickens, an increase from 19,643 in 2013 and 23,363 in 2014. The Fish and Wildlife Service has said the “threatened” listing last year was the result of a steep decline in the bird’s population in recent years. Five states are home to the lesser prairie chicken: Kansas, Colorado, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Texas.

“Strong evidence exists indicating the dramatic rise in the lesser prairie chicken’s population can primarily be accounted for by increased rainfall in the habitat area,” Moran wrote. Moran also cited conservation efforts by local officials in the lesser prairie chicken’s habitat area for the population rebound.

The Kansas congressional delegation helped pass an amendment to the Department of the Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, H.R. 2822, on July 7. That bill could be voted on after Congress returns from its August recess in early September. In June the Senate Appropriations Committee approved a Moran amendment that would bar enforcement of the listing, attaching it to a $30 billion measure to fund the Department of the Interior and Environmental Protection Agency.

Source:  CJOnline.com  http://tinyurl.com/nbd32qj

HOUSE AGRICULTURE COMMITTEE HOLDS HEARING ON AVIAN FLU PREPAREDNESS

July 30, 2015 Rep. David Rouzer (NC-7), Chairman of the House Agriculture Subcommittee on Livestock and Foreign Agriculture, held a public hearing to examine the federal and state response to avian influenza.  Identified as one of the worst animal disease outbreaks the U.S. has ever experienced, the disease infected more than 220 farms in 21 states. As a result, nearly 48 million chickens and turkeys have been depopulated and millions of dollars have been spent to aid in response efforts. Members heard from representatives from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and state officials who have taken part in the response effort and discussed the successes and challenges of the process.

“The impact of the avian influenza outbreak has been devastating, and it is essential that we learn from the outbreak this past spring and put in place the proper steps to minimize the impact of a possible outbreak in the Southeast when the temperatures decrease this fall. Today, we heard what was done right during the response and where there are still opportunities for improvement. As we continue our oversight, we will certainly consider any suggestions to modify our policies in order to expedite and improve the efficacy of our animal disease response capabilities. I want to thank our witnesses for testifying today and for providing their insight on this very important issue,” said Subcommittee Chairman Rouzer.

“The outbreak of this highly pathogenic disease is one of the worst we have ever seen in the U.S. It is absolutely vital that USDA and vulnerable states are prepared to respond quickly if this outbreak returns in the fall, as is expected. Both USDA and the states have put forth great effort to isolate this disease and mitigate loss these past few months, and I thank them for their hard work,” said Agriculture Committee Chairman K. Michael Conaway.

Written testimony provided by witnesses from the hearing and the archived webcast can be found at this link http://tinyurl.com/p2x6l56

FEDERAL JUDGE STRIKES DOWN IDAHO’S UNDERCOVER VIDEO LAW

A federal judge ruled Monday that an Idaho law making it illegal to secretly film animal abuse at agricultural facilities violates the right to free speech. U.S. District Judge B. Lynn Winmill ruled Monday that the statute violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments, marking the first time a court has declared such a law unconstitutional. Six other states have similar rules, including Iowa, Kansas, Montana, Missouri, North Dakota and Utah.

Lawmakers in 2014 passed the statute — dubbed the ag-gag law — after Mercy for Animals, a Los Angeles-based animal-rights group, released a video showing workers at Bettencourt Dairies in Hansen abusing the cows. A coalition of nonprofit groups sued, including the Animal Legal Defense Fund, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, American Civil Liberties Union of Idaho and Center for Food Safety, claiming the law criminalizes whistleblowing and violates freedom of speech.

“The effect of the statute will be to suppress speech by undercover investigators and whistleblowers concerning topics of great public importance: the safety of the public food supply, the safety of agricultural workers, the treatment and health of farm animals, and the impact of business activities on the environment. Indeed, private party media investigations, such as investigative features on 60 Minutes, are a common form of politically salient speech.” U.S. District Judge B. Lynn Winmill wrote in his 29-page ruling.

ALDF’s complaint also challenged the state’s violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Judge Winmill wrote, “ALDF has come forward with abundant evidence that the law was enacted with the discriminatory purpose of silencing animal rights activists who conduct undercover investigations in the agricultural industry. Under the Equal Protection Clause, not to mention the First Amendment itself, government may not grant the use of a forum to people whose views it finds acceptable, but deny use to those wishing to express less favored or more controversial views.” (Mosley, 408 U.S. at 96). Although the State may not agree with the message certain groups seek to convey about Idaho’s agricultural production facilities, such as releasing secretly recorded videos of animal abuse to the Internet and calling for boycotts, it cannot deny such groups equal protection of the laws in their exercise of their right to free speech. Far from being tailored to a substantial governmental interest, § 18-7042 classifies activities protected by the First Amendment based on content. Therefore, under the Equal Protection Clause, it cannot stand.”

Sources:  Idaho Statesman http://tinyurl.com/nzcnrdt ; Agri-Pulse http://tinyurl.com/p8xf67k ;

Case No. 1:14-cv-00104-BLW Memorandum Decision And Order http://tinyurl.com/phnm3sb

COURT UPHOLDS PET SHOP SALES BAN

A federal court has upheld a city of Phoenix ordinance banning retail sales of dogs and cats in stores unless the pets come from animal shelters or nonprofit rescues. Puppies ‘N Love, which has a store at Paradise Valley Mall and other Arizona locations, sued the city arguing the 2013 ordinance was unfair and violated the interstate commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution.

In his opinion, U.S. District Judge David G. Campbell wrote, “Puppies ‘N Love appears to be an exemplary pet store. The store avoids buying from puppy mills and works hard to ensure that its puppies have been raised in a humane and caring environment. No doubt, the burden of the Ordinance will fall hard on the Puppies ‘N Love store in Phoenix. But the Court’s place is not to judge the wisdom or fairness of the City’s decision to pass the Ordinance. Rather, the Court may judge only whether the Ordinance conflicts with the constitutional provisions Plaintiffs have cited. There being no conflict between the Ordinance and the United States and Arizona Constitutions, the Court must uphold the Ordinance and grant summary judgment for the Defendant City of Phoenix and the HSUS.” http://tinyurl.com/nms6d9c

Maureen Beyers, a Phoenix attorney representing the Humane Society of the United States in the case, welcomed the ruling. “The ruling is a great victory, not just for the city of Phoenix, but also for the Humane Society of the United States, which has worked tirelessly to help municipalities throughout the U.S. enact these laws (and defend challenges to them) to stem the trade of puppy and kitten mill animals and decrease animal euthanasia and overpopulation,” said Beyers, one of the Osborn Maledon attorneys who worked on the case.

Pet Parents Or Owners: What’s In A Name?

Great article. We are owners and dogs are property, which is in the best interest of both. Read and share.

By Dana Scott in Holistic Care

I am not a pet parent or a guardian: I OWN my dogs.  While this may make many readers cringe, the terms ‘pet parent’ and ‘pet guardian’ really make me squirm.  As a pet owner, I don’t feel that I’m entitled to push my dogs around, treat them like slaves or tie them to the bumper of my car.  In fact, my dogs all live in my house, are allowed on any piece of furniture except my red fabric couches (what was I thinking?), they have their very own kitchen, their own bedroom with a real hand carved daybed to sleep on, with lovely, clean sheets that get laundered twice a week.  They drink spring water, they have three freezers full of fresh food taking up much of my garage (much to my husband’s chagrin), I never think to go out for  a ride without them (unless the weather is too hot), and I refer to myself as ‘mommie’ when I talk to them (which I do a lot).  So why don’t I call myself a pet parent?

 On the surface, it might appear to be a nice gesture to claim that I don’t own my dogs, but the fallout from that seemingly innocuous gesture could be very dangerous for our pets. That subtle slip in language  opens the door to Animal Rights activists.

According to the American Veterinary Medical Association, “Animal welfare is the ethical responsibility of ensuring animal well-being. Animal well-being is the condition in which animals experience good health, are able to effectively cope with their environment, and are able to express a diversity of species-typical behaviors. Protecting an animal’s welfare means providing for its physical and mental needs.” Animal Welfare supporters believe in our right to own, use and enjoy animals, but insist on humane standards and treatment for all animals, including proper housing, nutrition, disease prevention and treatment and humane handling.

Animal Rights advocates such as PETA (People For The Ethical Treatment of Animals), and HSUS (Humane Society Of The United States), want to end human “exploitation” of animals.  Ingrid Newkirk, co-founder and President of PETA, defines their vision: “[A]s the surplus of cats and dogs (artificially engineered by centuries of forced breeding) declined, eventually companion animals would be phased out, and we would return to a more symbiotic relationship—enjoyment at ‘a distance.’” The goal of Animal Rights activists is to put an end to companion animals – and ironically, pet parents are helping them accomplish just that.  Continue reading at link

 

New York Judge Denies Request to Extend Legal Rights to 2 Chimps

Another chimp personhood case is over. Judge Barbara Jaffe delivered her opinion yesterday. She wrote, “For the purpose of establishing rights, the law presently categorizes entities in a simple, binary, ‘all or nothing,’ fashion,” noting: “Persons have rights, duties, and obligations. Things do not.”

JULY 30, 2015.

ALBANY — In a case watched by animal rights activists and courtroom curiosity seekers, a State Supreme Court judge in Manhattan on Thursday denied a request to free a pair of chimpanzees, Hercules and Leo, being held at a state university on Long Island. The unorthodox petition — which sought a writ of habeas corpus, an age-old method of challenging unlawful imprisonment — was the latest attempt by the nonprofit Nonhuman Rights Project to establish that apes are “legal persons.”

The group argues that chimps are self-aware and autonomous, a contention it has supported by submitting affidavits attesting to the animals’ intelligence, language skills and personalities, among other traits, in several cases filed in New York on behalf of various imprisoned primates.

In what the group hoped was a positive sign, Justice Barbara Jaffe of State Supreme Court in April ordered a hearing on whether Hercules and Leo, 8-year-old apes living as research subjects at the State University of New York at Stony Brook, could be released and transferred to an animal sanctuary in Florida. Arguments were heard in late May.

But while Justice Jaffe took the case seriously — her 33-page decision cited the long history of habeas corpus and included references to discrimination against women and African-American slaves — she could not quite see Hercules and Leo as people in the eyes of the law.

“For the purpose of establishing rights, the law presently categorizes entities in a simple, binary, ‘all or nothing,’ fashion,” the justice wrote, noting: “Persons have rights, duties, and obligations. Things do not.”

“Animals, including chimpanzees and other highly intelligent mammals, are considered property under the law,” she continued. “They are accorded no legal rights,” beyond being free from mistreatment or abuse.

Continue reading the main story

News Briefs and Updates July 28, 2015

SAOVA Friends,

The Congressional Animal Protection Caucus is a collaboration between the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA); Animal Welfare Institute (AWI); The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS); and the Humane Society Legislative Fund (HSLF). Representatives Mike Fitzpatrick (R, PA) and Earl Blumenauer (D, OR) were named as the new co-chairs for the 114th Congress. They have previously introduced a bill to prohibit interstate commerce in primates for the pet trade and have supported legislation to block USDA funding for horse slaughter inspection. Other Caucus members have introduced Big Cats and Public Safety Protection Act [HR1998] to prohibit private possession and breeding of big cats, and the Egg Products Inspection Act [H.R. 1731] to set federal housing standards for egg-laying hens. In the 113th Congress, members of the Caucus hosted briefings on a diverse range of animal-related topics, including increased protections for African lions, the use of antibiotics in industrial agriculture operations, and preventing soring of Tennessee Walking Horses. 

The caucus co-chairs have a history of supporting HSUS initiatives. Rep. Fitzpatrick received an HSUS legislative leader award for support and co-sponsorship of bills in the 112th Congress such as Puppy Uniform Protection and Safety (PUPS) Act [HR835] to regulate dog breeders and American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act [HR 2966] to prohibit the transport (including export) of horses for slaughter for human consumption.  In 2007 Rep. Blumenauer received a Humane Legislator of the Year award for his support of HSUS initiatives. In 2014 Fitzpatrick received $6,000 and Blumenauer received $5,000 in donations from the Humane Society Legislative Fund (HSLF), placing them in the top 11% of House recipients.

In a press release Fitzpatrick stated, “This Congress I am honored to take on a leadership role in promoting animal protection alongside my trusted colleague, Earl Blumenauer. I look forward to building upon the achievements of the 113^th Congressional Animal Protection Caucus and continuing to foster bipartisan support for common-sense animal welfare laws.”

A listing of Animal Protection Caucus members can be found here: http://tinyurl.com/njbqxsm

Thank you for reading. Cross posting is encouraged.

The world not only belongs to those who show up, it's controlled by the best informed and most motivated.

Sportsmen's and Animal Owners' Voting Alliance

Working to identify and elect supportive legislators

saova@earthlink.net  

http://saova.org    

ACTIVISTS CHARGED BY FBI FOR RELEASING MINKS

SAN DIEGO, July 24, 2015. Animal-rights activists Joseph Buddenberg and Nicole Kissane were arrested by the FBI today and charged with terrorizing the fur industry during cross-country road trips in which they released thousands of mink from farms around the country and vandalized various properties. According to a federal grand jury indictment unsealed today, Buddenberg and Kissane caused hundreds of thousands of dollars in damage during the nationwide spree in the summer of 2013. The indictment alleges that the pair snuck onto farms and freed minks and destroyed breeding records in Idaho, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania during multiple trips, and in one case they released a bobcat from a farm in Montana.

The defendants were charged under the Conspiracy to Violate the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act. They were arrested in Oakland this morning by agents from the FBI’s San Francisco field office. The government will seek the removal of Buddenberg and Kissane to the Southern District of California to face charges.

In one instance described in the indictment, the defendants traveled from Oregon to San Diego in their 2012 Honda Fit on July 15, 2013 and used paint, paint stripper, a super glue-type substance, butyric acid, muriatic acid and glass etchant to vandalize Furs by Graf, a retail furrier located in San Diego, as well as the Spring Valley and La Mesa residences and personal property of the current and former owners of the business.

To publicize their crimes, the defendants drafted “communiqués” describing their conduct and posted them on websites associated with animal rights extremists, the indictment said.

Among some of the incidents of vandalism cited in the indictment: The defendants slashed tires of a meat distributor’s truck in San Francisco; smashed windows and glued the door locks at a furrier business in Minneapolis, Minnesota; vandalized and attempted to flood the Sun Prairie, Wisconsin home of an employee of the North American Fur Auctions.
 

“Today’s indictment represents the collective efforts of several FBI Joint Terrorism Task Forces (JTTF) around the country,” said Eric S. Birnbaum, Special Agent in Charge of the FBI’s San Diego Field Office. “The FBI and our JTTF partners will continue to investigate and seek the prosecution of those who engage in similar criminal conduct for the purpose of advancing their own personal agenda.” Source: FBI Press Release: http://tinyurl.com/qx8e3kq

MESSAGE FROM NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH (NABR)

HR 3136, sponsored by Rep. Rod Blum (R‐IA), would require the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) to post on USDA.gov its table of penalty guidelines for violations of the federal Animal Welfare Act. USDA acknowledged creation of this table in a 2010 press announcement but has not released it to the public or Members of Congress.

Several Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests for the table from interested stakeholders were denied by USDA. USDA also refused to provide the information when requested by Members of the Senate and House.

While an overwhelming majority of the regulated community (researchers and veterinarians at colleges, universities, pharmaceutical companies, hospitals) have a strong record of compliance, they and the public have a right to know what penalties can be levied by USDA for non‐compliance with the AWA. This right to know is the soul of open, transparent government, especially when the issuance of financial penalties could impact American competitiveness. If the general public can have knowledge of other penalties like littering, jaywalking, or speeding, the same should apply to laws enforced by USDA.

Publication of the table does not affect the deliberative process of USDA's enforcement of the AWA. The table is intended to be a simple guide to issue a specific dollar amount, where no debate or deliberation is required. USDA, at this point, would have already determined that an institution was not in compliance with the AWA. In fact, USDA claims in the May 2010 press release that the table is meant to serve as a deterrent to violating the AWA. Knowledge of potential penalties could certainly serve as a deterrent and bring trust, clarity and understanding to USDA's enforcement actions. But only if released.

USDA has denied the public access to these documents because it has said it allows the regulated community to weigh the estimated cost for violation of the AWA. This is an instant and unfair assumption that research institutions choose noncompliance. Nearly 80% of USDA's inspections of animal research facilities receive a passing inspection. Additionally, no research program, private or federal, has budget items designed specifically to address levied fines.

Please use NABR’s Capwiz site to send a pre‐written email directly to your Member of Congress and urge them to support the ETA. This quick and easy‐to‐use tool can be found at http://tinyurl.com/q6tnl2m

NORTH GEORGIA PROFESSOR RAISING FUNDS FOR AR ACTIVIST

A professor at the University of North Georgia is asking “every friend of animals” to contribute money for the upkeep of a violent animal rights extremist, Campus Reform reports.

Professor Barry Friedman has a day job teaching political science, but he’s also a full-time animal lover, which one could deduce from the fact that his professor page is topped by five different cat photos. As a result, he begs those visiting his professor page to send money and any other support they can to jailed animal rights activist Camille Marino. Friedman asks for money to go to Marino’s jail commissary account, so she can “pay for food that is compatible with her vegan diet, clothing, toiletries, postage, and telephone calls.”

Marino has been jailed since February, not for her animal rights activism, but rather because she violated a protective order following a domestic violence accusation coming from fellow animal activist Steven Best, a professor at the University of Texas at El Paso. Friedman describes Best as a “rival” to Marino, using a protective order to sabotage her, while Best has described Marino as a “sick individual, dangerous sociopath, and utter fraud who is stalking me and the animal rights movement as a whole.”

Marino is the founder of the group Negotiation Is Over (NIO), which advocates the use of violence to liberate animals used for laboratory testing. The group’s Strategies and Tactics section includes a page that appears to endorse violent assaults against not only college students involved with animal testing, but also their friends and families. Read more at the Daily Caller http://tinyurl.com/n9qls9d