ME-ow

Gggrrrr...it's getting personal on the on-line newspaper! Today, the editor reported he has documents from an inside source regarding the PS. His "interview" revealed some very personal happenings at the PS, which makes me wonder why in the world the PS would want to pursue this case, especially if the editor has some personal "stuff" that may be embarrassing to them.

Which got me thinking, I haven't received any "inside" information from my source since the on-line newspaper lawsuit was posted on the Internet. I'm thinking the source was either found out or is too scared to report any more details. Perhaps the source is now helping the on-line editor?

Gotta Love Myspace & Facebook

The last I heard the "heirs apparent" were planning back-to-back trips, first Port Arthur than off to Las Vegas (8/15 & 8/22). I learned both the youngest daughter and son have the gambling bug and love to drink the night away. I have lots of photos of the "heirs" drinking at clubs and other locations. The son's only ambition seems to be alcohol, getting laid, and gambling. I guess the apple didn't fall very far from the tree. It is well known the heirs' parents are alcoholics, with serious marital problems. Their on-again, off-again divorce is such a joke! And the female director loves Las Vegas and it is my understanding she travels there as often as she can with her youngest daughter. Hmmm -- who actually pays for these Vegas trips? The animals?  Dah...



Pictures can even be found on the
their friend's Facebook page!

Now normally I'd leave the adult "kids" out of my blogs--until I found out they were the ones planning on taking over the business! It is my understanding the Board of Directors even blessed the new heirs by drafting up a "contract" agreement in the event the current directors became incapacitated. So much for the senior animal caretakers taking over in the event of a "change" in management. I wonder how they would feel about working for the alcoholic "kids?" The youngest daughter apparently arrives to work hungover from her drinking binges. The son? Does he even show up to work, or just collects a paycheck?

This entire case took a strange twist. To think, last December I was ready to give up and let the chips fall where they may--then out of no where an "insider" started providing me with little gifts at my door. Now the insider is gone, but the case has taken on new life and a new direction with the filed lawsuit. One thing for sure, there should be a lot more open records material available very soon!

Be more concerned with your character than your reputation,
because your character is what you really are,
while your reputation is merely what others think you are." - John Wooden

New Board Treasurer, Employee Newsletter, and More!

[Posted: Present Date]

The WAO held another board meeting -- no doubt in response to all the San Antonio Lightning stories!  And this one is a doosy...

ASUS Board Meeting - 082909

Wow!  Behaine, the convicted criminal, is now the WAO Treasurer?  And look at that...he made a motion to allow the Asvestas to purchase the WAO vehicles they requested with the monies allegedly owed them!  Then there's Sumner, going along for the ride, seconding the motion.  What in the world were these people thinking?

Hmmm....leave of absence...would that be Ron or Carol wanting to leave for awhile?  It would be much simpler if they would just quit!

And look at that...trying to grab the Leslie Road land, again.  Well thank goodness this item was tabled until "paperwork" (no existent paperwork) can be found.  Sure.

Love the idea of a comment box and employee newsletter!!  Two thumbs up!  What a hoot -- Carol only wanted employees with a year or more of employment to receive the newsletter!!   Not surprisingly, this motion was tabled. 

And in conclusion -- Go San Antonio Lightning Go!!!

The Press Conference

On Thursday, the pseudo-sanctuary (herein known as PS to save time and blog space) held a press conference to explain the deaths of Vivi and four cougars. It was reported to me that on Tuesday, the PS attorney didn't even know there was a press conference scheduled.

So, why did the PS say they wanted to hold a press conference? A local on-line newspaper reported the deaths of Vivi, several cougars and tigers (13 animals in all). This article spurred a lawsuit filed against the on-line publisher.

Last Friday, the PS was contacted by a local magazine for an update on the Vivi's necropsy report which was supposed to be posted on the PS' website ("We will be posting a complete veterinarian report on "Vi Vi" with the next week") several weeks ago. The PS female director claimed she would hold a press conference on Thursday at its touring facility but no time was set.

The following week when a time was requested, the PS female director apparently waffled,  saying she may not hold a press conference after all.   Instead, she faxed the necropsy report to the media.

When reminded that the magazine's on-line readers were promised a press conference, the PS director relented and decided to hold one after all.  Only two tv news media crews and the on-line magazine reporter showed up to the press conference since they were the only ones tipped off that there would be a "press conference." It is my understanding, other media (newspaper and three other tv media stations) were not invited to the "press conference" by the PS.

A person from one of the media outlets reported when one of the reporters tried asking specific questions, the reporter was told that if she interrupted the "press conference" one more time with questions, she would be asked to leave. I heard the PS' vet was rude to the reporter and unwilling to give specific answers to the reporter's questions.  Apparently, when the reporter asked about the high number of animal deaths within the last six months, the PS director became upset and demanded if the paper she was holding was the PS animal inventory list.  The reporter responded by saying something like "this is my notes."  Actually, the reporter was holding the animal inventory listing, so she could ask specific questions about the number of cats left at the tour facility.

Now before the "press conference," I was asked to give my opinion of all the reported missing animals at the PS. The interview was held outdoor, in the summer Texas heat, for approximately 5-10 minutes.

So, later that night, the news carried the PS press conference as its second lead story! It lasted for about a minute and a half and it was very enlightening. I was told I came across as professional and credible, while the PS female came across as very angry. I just hope the message, that we do not want to close the facility, but rather we are hoping for a change in management, resonated with the public. The PS director was flanked by the PS attorney and her "vet." The PS claimed only 4 cougars died this year and that they all died from "renal failure." Gee, there's a shock, renal failure, the #1 cause of death at both facilities. So what happened to the other 4 cougars that went missing? What happened to 5 tigers? From December 2008 - July 2009, the following animals were reported dead: 1 liger, 8 cougars, and 6 tigers (including ViVi). So where are their necropsy reports?

The following day, I spoke with the USDA/APHIS vet investigator and was able to tape the entire conversation. According to the vet, ViVi arrived in poor condition--she apparently was underweight with a collar embedded in her neck. She said one week before ViVi's death, the workers observed the tiger having problems and the PS contacted the PS' vet. Despite ViVi's serious health condition, the tiger was left on tour for viewing by the general public. When I asked why the tiger was left on tour, the vet first said she didn't know why, then changed her mind by saying saying something like "where would they put her?" I asked, don't they have a clinic? The reply was that the quarantine cages behind the "clinic" were being used to store primates!  More primates stored in the so-called quarantine warehouse area? Good grief! My guess is they'll be living in "quarantine" for a very long time, but that's another story.

I guess the dog and pony show in March 2009 at the PS' vet office, where Vivi was shown undergoing medical tests and an x-ray, was just that, a dog and pony show. The PS vet claimed during the newscast the tiger cub was in good condition and there was no mention of any serious health problems at that time. It's no wonder no one could understand why the tiger died a few months later. Even the USDA/APHIS vet was surprised to learn of Vivi's death, for the last time she saw the tiger a few weeks prior, she appeared to be in good health (per our email correspondence).

So Vivi was left on tour, despite her downward health condition, when she apparently died in her cage from lesions on her brain. According to the USDA/APHIS vet, they investigated the case and found no foul play. So Vivi's case is now closed. When I pressed the vet for information as to why the WAO only claimed 4 cougars died during the year, the vet said she would have to check her records about the cougars. She was very evasive when I asked about the 5 other tiger deaths. Funny, she vividly recalled the details about Vivi's case, but she couldn't seem to recall anything about the cougar and tiger deaths which I reported to her last month. It just seemed very strange to me. For you see, in July 2009, she confirmed the high number of cougar and tiger deaths during our phone conversation (the conversation which was documented for posterity on my other blog site since I did not tape this conversation) and asked me if the additional male tiger that died in mid-July was from the back of the property, near the Patas monkeys, seeing how"several" other tigers apparently died in this area.

One thing did strike me odd. The USDA vet claimed that if it wasn't for all the media attention to Vivi's death, chances are they would never have conducted a full necropsy. Hmmm.

When I asked where the PS disposes the animal bodies, I was told by the USDA vet that they were buried! Gee, a second surprise. When I repeated, "they bury the animals?" she said yes, as long as they bury them deep enough no smell emanates from the burial site, it's okay. Yet, according to the PS' own web site, they claimed BFI disposed the bodies!

I did learn during the course of our 25+ minute conversation that the PS is finally changing the big cats' diet from frozen chicken to a "prepared diet." I wonder if the change in diet is due to all the cats dying from "renal failure?"

The vet asked me why I was pursuing this case. She started to allude I had a personal problem with the PS' female director.  Shocked by her words, I cut her off and stated quite clearly that this had absolutely nothing to do with the PS director, but rather it had everything to do with saving the animals. She made sounds of agreement to this comment. She asked me what I hoped as an outcome and I told her I wanted to see a change in management. I told her there was serious mismanagement issues when it came to the PS' finances and I asked her why the PS felt it had to lie to the public in order to fund raise for its animals.

The vet said that many sanctuaries exaggerated the health of its animals in order to make a buck. I told her that I believed it was wrong, because it gave real credible organizations a bad name, especially when word gets out that donations are not going towards the care and support for the animals. The USDA vet was quick to point out that the alleged mismanagement of money issues had nothing to do with the USDA investigation. I told her that I understood, however if the money was spent wisely, the cages could have been expanded, enrichment provided, and the animals received a proper died. My thoughts are--when it comes down to it, the finances play a huge part in animal care, but heck, let's not get bogged down with such minutia.

She seem to agree with me that the current board of directors is a "puppet board" (her words) and that if she checked on the 4 additional dead cougars, she would not be surprised if the proper "paperwork" would have been recently filed. The vet did say that due to all inspections and attention to the touring property, the PS directors were now complying with inspection regulations. I remarked that despite all the positive changes, there were still too many animal deaths discovered within a very short time span. The vet made sounds of agreement to this statement. So while the animals records are finally "updated" and the facility looks "cleaner," the animals are still dying in large numbers. Reminds me of a beautiful red apple that is rotten at the core.

Here's a burning question -- if the sanctuary is finally coming into compliance after all these years, why weren't they written up in the past?  Ahhhh...good question!

So apparently, while all this is going on, the heirs apparent of the PS (ps kids), jetted off to Vegas for the weekend in quest of gambling and lots of alcohol . I guess the apple (no pun intended) didn't fall very far from the tree. I shall be writing more about the heirs apparent in future blogs, seeing how the board agreed they should replace the current "directors" in the event the quit or become incapacitated.

I have to wonder why the eldest daughter was not considered to take over the sanctuary.  As far as I can tell, she has not been acting childish and ridiculous on Facebook.  Interesting.

Later:  Just learned another lawsuit was filed against the pseudo-sanctuary out of Justice of the Peace #3 recently.  I'll have to submit a request for open records to learn what this one is about.  Looks like the noose is tightening around the pseudo-sanctuary directors.  I wonder if the board knows about this lawsuit.

[Present Day:  Here is a copy of the lawsuit.  I believe a payment arrangement was eventually made between the WAO and AT&T.  According to the WAO bankruptcy notice, AT&T is still owed $400.]

AT&T Lawsuit - 081909

Best Laid Schemes

The best laid schemes o' mice an' men
Gang aft agley,
An' lea'e us nought but grief an' pain,
For promis'd joy!

- Robert Burns

Translation

The best laid schemes of mice and men
Go often askew,
And leaves us nothing but grief and pain,
For promised joy!

During the course of the investigation, I've been struck by the staunch supporters of the "sanctuary" whom declare that while they know the "sanctuary" is not "perfect," it's their good 'intentions' that make them a viable member of the community. Even when these same "supporters" examine the facts, their commitment is unwavering. Instead the supporters attack the messengers -- demanding they send MORE money to the organization (yeah, that will fix the problems) or volunteer their time (except the "sanctuary" refuses to accept volunteers or unpaid interns, hmmm). This seems so indicative of many of our Nation's problems. People refuse to accept the truth of a particular situation; praises the perpetrator's 'intentions'; and instead, attacks those trying to make a positive change. Ridiculous!

As I mentioned in the previous post, the "sanctuary" is now suing the local Internet on-line newspaper for "libel." The director claimed in the suit she was embarrassed by the new stories (no mention of the animals) and felt her "good name" was tarnished. Therefore, based on the her humiliation, she is asking for unspecified damages. She also claimed the Vivi news story was totally false, even though on sanctuary's web page there is a statement, made by the female director, confirming the death of the tiger cub.

On August 5th and August the 6th I went to the "sanctuary's" web page to see who were the current board members. I did not see the Vivi "death disclaimer" on either day (trust me, it would be hard to miss). In fact, I did not see the disclaimer until a week later! Yet the director's misleading disclaimer reports it was posted on "July 2009."

Talk about a CYA! I think this posting was put up during the second week of August 2009 because the Vivi newsletters went out the previous month and the director was concerned, with the filed lawsuit, that it would come out she was fund raising for  dead animal (again!).

So again, according to the "sanctuary's" supporters, we should not look at the directors' actions, but rather at their 'intentions.' Sad thing is, the animals are the one's suffering from all these 'good intentions.'

I think the animals could really use some positive actions about now instead of all these disastrous 'intentions!'

A Whole Lot of Fighting Going On

There has been so much happening this last week I almost do not know where to begin!

I would be remiss if I did not set the stage. Apparently life at the so-called sanctuary has been in an uproar for the last couple of weeks. I've learned workers are not allowed to speak with one another because if caught, the male director starts yelling at everyone. The directors have no idea who may be speaking out against the organization, so needless to say, everyone is now under suspicion.

Apparently, the "happily" married directors are fighting amongst themselves as well. The female director supposedly threatened to report the male director's "attitude" towards her to the board of directors, so as to get him fired!  Meow!  No doubt the male director sees this as empty threat as he also has information against the female director he could 'spill' to the board.

So what are the adult children of the directors up to -- you know, the ones reportedly planning to take over the sanctuary in the event something happens to the current directors? Well, the son's Facebook page  prominently shows him getting "liquored up." There he is, looking completely stoned with a Bud Lite in his hand. It's hard to believe this is the photo the son wanted the public to see attached to his Facebook page! The photo was finally taken down and a new one was put up instead. The replacement photo shows him posing with a Texas Longhorn shirt on while standing next to a young man wearing just a pair of jeans and no shirt.

Now I heard the son and middle daughter may be going to community college, but because the female director is so apparently frustrated with her adult children, I heard she cut the purse strings, electing not to continue paying for their education. What is scary is the middle adult female child wants to become a teacher! Heaven help the children!!

So, with distrust and anger running amok through the so-called sanctuary, the directors resort to their best known tactic--silencing those who report the truth about the organization--by filing a lawsuit against an on-line newspaper. The on-line newspaper started reporting animal death irregularities since 2007  to include reports about the missing potbellied pigs, pit bulls, tigers, lions, cougars, etc.

I'll be writing more about this lawsuit later in the week as it unfolds. I have a feeling this is going to the big break the animals need to finally get rid of the pseudo-directors.

The Story of the Potbellied Pigs

I cannot recall if I ever wrote about the 100+ pot bellied pigs (including pregnant and little baby pigs) taken to the so-called sanctuary.

Several years ago, an animal lover rescued 100+ potbellied pigs from a dire situation. Here is an account of what transpired, as told by the rescuer, Jeanette Ferro:

You may or may not be aware of the 98+ potbelly pig rescue I did from October 1999 to January 31, 2000 in Louisiana.

All the mini pigs were inbred, being born over a 2 year period from  one pair that a man in Slidell, Louisiana had. Perhaps, like so many  others, he thought he would get rich by breeding and selling mini  pigs, but was soon in over his head, with over 100 pigs he couldn't  feed or contain. After complaints from the neighbors about the pigs  being every where and eating their gardens and rooting up their yards,  the St. Tammany sheriff's department and animal control shelter  confiscated the pigs and charged the man who was later convicted.

I happened to see the news story as it aired one night in October  1999. The news reporter said the pigs would soon be up for adoption  and anyone who wanted to adopt one, to go to the shelter. I called  the shelter to ask if they would  give me time to find sanctuary placement for the pigs and to please  not adopt them out due to their inbreeding.

The shelter director informed me that the news reporter was wrong to report that the pigs would be adopted because the shelter planned on  killing them all. I pleaded for time and they reluctantly gave it to me.

It took me 3 months to do that rescue and ran close to $10,000. All the local TV channels and newspapers from three parishes covered the story over the entire time, and helped me get donations. Out of the donated funds, I paid to have all the pigs blood tested and tagged, the neutering of the 40 to 45 males, paid for some of the feed and hay bills for the months the pigs were at the shelter (I bought hay, feed, vegetables, and fruit for them also during that time out of my own pocket), and paid for the transport of the pigs as well as other animals (wolves, foxes, a Capuchin monkey with his little security blanket, and I can't remember who else) from another abuse case in an adjoining parish's animal control shelter. Carol Asvestas had agreed to take all of these animals. There was no funding for the animals from the other parish, but Carol and Ron Asvestas told me they would need $4,500.00 up front to cover the cost of constructing a new barn for the pigs and to fence off the acreage the pigs would be living on. Carol Asvestas was paid the $4,500.00 as agreed. Carol Asvestas  promised the pigs and I that the pigs would have several grassy acres with lots of shade trees to live out their lives in peace and quiet. I specifically requested, and was promised that the pigs would be able to remain together as the familiarity of their herd members was the only sense of security and safety the pigs had ever known in their short little lives. Several months after the pigs were in [city with held], I sent $500 of my personal funds to Carol Asvestas  and later sent 3 pieces of my jewelry for which Carol Asvestas  told me she got an additional $1,500.00.

I was in contact with Carol Asvestas for years after the pigs arrived in San Antonio via phone and email. I repeatedly asked for photos of the pigs and was always promised pictures but never received. All I ever got was her pat answer, "They're fine!" I heard different rumors along the way about Carol Asvestas and my pigs and other animals and every time I would ask Carol Asvestas to give me proof with photos or a video of the pigs to quiet any rumors and to rest my own anxieties, Carol Asvestas would always want names and would always threaten to sue me or anyone else saying anything derogatory about the WAO.  Carol Asvestas wrote to me and told me that the "beautiful barn" had been completed. Again, I requested photos, but never given any. According to the news story, Carol Asvestas now says the barn was built, but they later tore it down. She certainly never conveyed that to me. Carol Asvestas told me some months after the arrival of the pigs at the WAO that she sent about half of them to a board member who lived near by. She said she kept the rest. She would never give me a name or address, but said the pigs were close by and she could and did check on them regularly and "they were fine!" Much later on, she said all the pigs were sent to two different board member's homes, but again, the pigs were nearby, as always, "They're fine!"

I was told at one point by one person that Carol Asvestas said she "got rid of them" when asked how the pigs were doing, and later told by someone else that Ron Asvestas had been seen loading all the pigs up on a truck not long after they arrived at the WAO.  I was told a few pigs could not be caught and they may still be there at the WAO,  but I have found no one to this day who has said they have seen them. I was told while the pigs were seen by workers at the WAO being loaded onto a truck; no one at the sanctuary was ever told where Ron Asvestas took the pigs to that day.

For almost 8 years now, this has haunted me. I can't begin to tell you the guilt I feel for letting those babies down if anything has happened to them. It has been torture not knowing their whereabouts or if they are even alive or dead. Other than to take in a few pigs and other animals myself, I can no longer bring myself to do rescue work if I can't personally take the animals. 

Potbellied Pigs - Additional Information

And yet, when Jeanette had the audacity to question Carol about the pigs, this was the result:
Pigs

As a former board of director, I can assure you, the potbellied pigs were NOT given to board members!

For years, there were questions swirling around the disappearance of the 98+ potbellied pigs.  Court records did not help explain their disappearance - just the opposite, it raised additional questions:




click to image to enlarge



click image to enlarge

About two years ago, the so-called sanctuary's vice president provided the OAG an update on the missing pigs, claiming the pigs were given to a day laborer who owned enough land to care for the pigs. The "sanctuary" claimed it did not know the name of the person who took in the pigs as the pigs' records were supposedly destroyed in the 2002 flood waters (The "Growing Up Lion" video and OSHA records proved this to be a false statement). 

Potbellied Pigs - E-mail From Matthes

Even the editor of the San Antonio Lightning, RG Griffin, was left with more questions than answers when he called Carol Asvestas in 2008, requesting an explanation as to where the whereabouts of the potbellied pigs.

ORPHANED ANIMALS VANISHING

The 90 Pig Mystery
Secrets Of An Animal Welfare 'Angel'
Or Maybe Just Playing Another 'Angle?'
Investigations Swirl Around Wild Animal Orphanage

SAL Political Snitch - Copyright 2007 By SAL(Editor's Note: Many of the sources for this story have asked for anonymity, some citing fear of retaliation and current employment fears as a reason.)

Where did the little pigs go? More on that later.

But first...

* * *

You've seen her on TV, ministering to the 'orphaned' animals who are abused or abandoned, and it gives you a warm feeling in your heart; but here's some cold water for your brain.

Her name is Carol Asvestas, and for years she has been head of the Wild Animal Orphanage (WAO) sanctuary. Her husband Ron and other family members are also employed there.

According to numerous sources Asvestas and kin are now under investigation by the Texas Attorney's General office -- initially for funds discrepancies at the charity, and now the USDA is questioning licensing violations.

Other agencies may join in.

* * *

Carol Asvestas has a checkered past.

Locally, in the 90's, she was arrested once for drunk driving and a different case of theft of services was settled with restitution.

The Lightning has learned that Asvestas stunned court clerks when she tried to pay her fine with a check written on a WAO account.

She has been involved in at least three bankruptcy proceedings, according to public records. At least two liens have been levied.

Questions of what happened to pitbulls rescued from a gambling ring remain unanswered. (See story below.)

* * *

Many allegations have been aimed at Asvestas.

According to one donor, approximately 90 potbellied pigs were sent to the compound on the promise that they would receive a new "pig barn" and a life of leisure.

The donor paid $5,000 to Asvestas and the WAO.

Asvestas tells the Lightning that the barn was built, and then destroyed when the pigs were "relocated." She wouldn't say where they were sent.

Former employees and associates tell stories that indicate "pork" was fed to some of the exotic cats, during the same time frame the pigs vanished. Where the meat came from is part of the mystery.

They also scoff at the notion of a no-kill facility.

"It happens all the time," said one.

* * *
A Motion Of Understanding, prepared by the AG has gone unresolved.

The Better Business Bureau "Wisegiving Seal" has been removed from WAO promotional publications.

The USDA has been ignored on civil fines. The AG will probably catch that squeal, too.

A former attorney for WAO emailed Asvestas and basically told her to stop talking about such matters with the news media.

There is much more hidden in the WAO facilities. And we will tell you!

More to follow.

- Developing -

Then lo and behold, the "sanctuary" contacted the pigs' "new owners" this year and requested they provide a letter to the directors claiming they took the pigs to be raised on their "family farm."

I have recently come in possession of this "letter" which was on file at the "sanctuary," and wouldn't you know it, the pigs new owner happens to have a criminal record with Bexar County! What a surprise. Turns out he was also, at one time, a day laborer.
Leon

Finally, after years of trying to figure out where the pigs went, we have a name. But since the "owner" lives in a subdivision (since the 90s), it makes one wonder where the pigs really went and are any still alive or were they slaughtered years ago as I suspect? From what I have been able to learn, his family members mainly consist of women and do not appear to own any land.

So the question remains, where did the pigs go?  And why did the Asvestas' deny the USDA/APHIS inspectors access to the property on more than one recorded occasion?  Why was this letter "created" in 2009?  Was this a CYA letter to hide the truth as to what really happened to the potbellied pigs?  I say YES!

[Present Day:  Upon my return to the WAO in December 2009, I learned from Mary Reininger that all the baby pigs were trampled horribly by the adult pigs due to overcrowding in the small potbellied pig pen.  What was worse is that the vultures, smelling meat, descended upon the pigs causing more confusion for the adults.  I was told it was a horrible situation and that the workers asked for help from the Asvestas to save the few remaining baby pigs.  I learned the Asvestas told the workers there was nothing they could do to save any of the baby pigs.  Instead the solution the Asvestas came up with was to get rid of as many adult pigs as possible.  Just another example of terribly sick animal care at the WAO.  What I don't understand is how the Reiningers could just sit on their hands allowed this type of animal abuses/deaths occur without saying something to the USDA or OAG.   Why didn't they try to save the animals?  Why? Why?  Why?

The hardest thing I ever had to do was tell Jeanette what happened to the baby pigs.  I will never the know the truth as to what happened to the adults.  I still believe Mary and Michelle Reininger knows what really happened to the adults--they just won't tell anyone because it leads one to ask the natural questions--why did you not say something to someone about this horrible animal slaughter?]

Gotta Love It

You gotta love it when you discover that the two animal caretakers working at the unregulated, non-inspected property continue to try and obtain information from my first blog. It never fails, right after a Google bot hits my site, the two animal caretakers attempt to download the latest cached file. You would think by now they would figure out there will be no more new entries listed on that particular site.

If they are so desperate for the truth, why don't they conduct their own investigation? Why don't they request their own Open Records documents from the OAG and USDA? I gave them specific details in my first blog, so either they are just too lazy to conduct their own investigation, or they just don't care enough to do the research. Either way, they may as well give up on my old blog and focus on cleaning up their own mess.

There is a Connection

I just could not figure out how a vet tech ended up on the pseudo-sanctuary's board of directors as its corresponding secretary. I could not imagine the sanctuary's directors wanting anyone with animal knowledge around the facility. It just did not make sense to me, especially since the vet tech works for a vet clinic that used to do business with the so-called sanctuary. If she was actively involved with the WAO, like she claims, then the vet technician must have known what was going on at this place? What in the world would compel this person to serve on the board and hold her tongue when it came to animal care? Simple...money.

It took some research, but I finally discovered a connection--a connection that was promptly elevated to the OAG. You see, the board member is married to the sanctuary's independent animal hauler contractor! The hauler apparently does not work for any other business, but is self-employed, contracting out his services to the sanctuary on a monthly basis to haul mainly dogs and cats throughout the United States. From what I understand the so-called sanctuary started a little side business of hauling dogs and cats from a shelter  in Mississippi to other shelters primarily on the east coast.


The sanctuary hired the independent driver to haul the animals (as far back as 2005 I learned), and after submitting his invoice, is paid by the sanctuary. This side business has nothing to do with the sanctuary's mission -- it is strictly a side job, with the sanctuary animals paying for his services. The independent contractor also hauls the sanctuary's latest acquisitions to its property from various states, which fortunately, is not too often.

Why is any of this significant? Well, there are no independent contractors listed on the 2006 and 2007 990 (the hauling business has been going on since 2005).  Interesting enough, contractor services are listed on the 2005 990, but no where else after that year. Also, the female board member never identified herself as being married to the highest paid independent contractor on the 2005/2006/2007 990. Talk about a conflict of interest! Shouldn't the public know that her board decisions may be influenced by the work her husband performs for the sanctuary? How in the world did the so-called sanctuary ever balance its books, when a large sum of money is paid to the independent contractor each month? Did the directors roll his "salary" into the employee salary category, hence why the amount rose two consecutive years since 2005, despite several employees quiting their employment with the sanctuary?


Did the board director join her husband on some of the trips, enjoying a little vacation away from work?  Was she reimbursed for travel, meals, and lodging as well as her husband?


Is the "contract" driver even operating legally throughout the US?  Doesn't he require a special license or something?  And how can he be a 'contract worker,' when he uses the "sanctuary's" Humane Train (as reported in various on-line articles), operates on a schedule/plan prepared by the "directors" and is reimbursed for a stolen GPS device by the animals?  No, no, no!  He is NOT a contract worker--he is an employee!!  So a question for the IRS is this...at the end of 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008, did this 'employee' receive a W-2 or a 1098? 

I believe this "love" connection has a hint of fraud about it --don't you?