An Interesting New Trend

There is only one thing a sanctuary, operated by greedy, thieving directors fear most--workers and/or volunteers who come forward to report illegal activities at the sanctuary.  Ever since the demise of the WAO, workers and volunteers seem to be questioning what they see and hear at their sanctuaries.  

First it was Wild Cat Sanctuary where the workers alleged the "founder" misappropriated funds for years which were later proven true by the State's OAG.  

Then it was Wildcat Haven's turn to be in the news after the death of one of its employees--it was eventually proven that the sanctuary was at fault for the employee's death.

I was shocked to learn of In-Sync Exotics' problems from a webpage hosted outside of the US from a friend who thought I should know what was happening at ISE.

Then I learned of the Big Cat Rescue Watch Facebook page by Juan Garcia, which interesting enough, was first brought to my attention by Big Cat Rescue's own Facebook page.  This particular website takes a close and hard look at the BCR's operations and marketing campaign.  On a side note, Juan better watch out or Baskins will try to silence him as an animal abuser on the 911 animal abuse website she created to discredit her competition/voices of dissent!

And today I discovered Tiger Creek Wildlife Refuge Concerns and Issues Facebook page, which I learned about from the Big Cat Rescue Watch's FB page.

What an interesting trend happening in the US!  People are slowly waking up and asking questions about animal care, quarters, enrichment, and exactly how the donated money was spent by the "founders."

I believe sanctuaries have a fiduciary responsibility to be as transparent as possible.  If there is any hint of impropriety then the sanctuary should be thoroughly investigated by a forensic accountant.  The sad thing is, if there was inappropriate theft of funds, the government would only slap the hands of the violators and the accusers dismissed and eventually forgotten.  

These crooks know the government does not want to shut down a large animal sanctuaries because of all the "red tape" and bad press the prosecution would cause--so they'll cut a deal and move on.  Does this mean that all the lies, animal abuses, and theft of funds should be left unreported?  NO!  

The more people that cry out, the better chance the media will pick up on the stories and actually do a real investigative reporting on this huge problem.  Lives are at stake.  Life should be honored and protected.  Not exploited for cash.

So keep on reporting the facts animal warriors -- let people know that we're going to stand up for those who cannot do so for themselves.  We will be their voice.  We will never let them down nor turn a blind eye.  We are just the beginning of a new trend.  Thieves and animal abusers beware!

Charity Theft - Not a Surprise Any More

If you've been reading my blog for some time, then you already know how easy it is to set up a non-profit business to scam money from unsuspecting donors.  

The story below may not be centered around animals, but it does show how people prey on others, stealing money from folks in need in order to support their life style.  This is a sickening story, but not surprising one.  There are so many "non-profits" out there that prey on children, elderly, sick patients, and of course, animals.  The sad thing is, if State Attorney General Offices and the IRS refuses to prosecute these criminals (sending them to jail), more and more people will be scammed out of their hard working money.  As I read this story, I cannot help but compare the illegal activities perpetrated by the "Cancer Charities" and the WAO board of directors.  Both filed false 990s (making it difficult for consumers to identify financial problems). Both lied on their websites.  Both lied in their direct mail outs.  Both used donations to buy cars, trucks, trips, home payments and various entertainment events/items for family and friends.

There are so many thieving charities out there -- just look at Wildcat Sanctuary and its "Thieving Director"-- did you know that she is still allowed to continue running the charitable organizations with no serious consequences? Shouldn't thieving board members go to jail?  If you rob a bank, you go to jail.  If you rob a charity, you get your hands slapped plus you get keep your job or  open another "charity" as in the case of Carol Asvestas and her "Animal Shelter Assistance Program (ASAP)".

What is very disturbing is that Asvestas is now claims her organization takes in less than $50k per yer, so she only has to file 990-N (e-postcard for 2012-14). I wonder, did she ever pay back the "loan" she took from ASAP?  Where does the charitable dollars she receives from donors go now that she doesn't take care of "shelter" animals?  How much is she really raking in every year and how much goes towards her personal expenses...hmmm?  Does any of it go towards a legitimate non-profit mission?

Here is last year's ASAP e-Postcard filed with the IRS:

Tax Period:  2014 (01/01/2014 - 12/31/2014)

Employer Identification Number (EIN):  27-1492357

Legal Name:  ANIMAL SHELTER ASSISTANCE PROGRAM INC

Mailing Address:  9488 Leslie Road San Antonio, TX 78254 United States

Doing Business As:

Gross receipts not greater than: $50,000

Organization has terminated: No

Principal Officer's Name and Address:  Carol Asvestas 9488 Leslie Road San Antonio, TX 78254 United States

Website URL:  animalasap.org

Notice how Carol Asvestas couldn't help but list herself as the principal officer?

Still want to donate your hard earned money to charity?  Not this gal.

FTC, All 50 States and D.C. Charge Four Cancer Charities With Bilking Over $187 Million from Consumers

Complaint Alleges Defendants Falsely Claimed Donations Would Help Pay For Pain Medication, Hospice Care & Other Services; But Spent Donations on Cars, Trips, Sports Tickets, & Professional Fundraisers

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2015/05/ftc-all-50-states-dc-charge-four-cancer-charities-bilking-over

FOR RELEASE

May 19, 2015

TAGS:

• deceptive/misleading conduct
 
• Bureau of Consumer Protection
 
• Northwest Region
• Consumer Protection
 
• Charity

The Federal Trade Commission and 58 law enforcement partners from every state and the District of Columbia havecharged four sham cancer charities and their operators with bilking more than $187 million from consumers. The defendants told donors their money would help cancer patients, including children and women suffering from breast cancer, but the overwhelming majority of donations benefitted only the perpetrators, their families and friends, and fundraisers. This is one of the largest actions brought to date by enforcers against charity fraud.

Named in the federal court complaint are Cancer Fund of America, Inc. (CFA), Cancer Support Services Inc. (CSS), their president, James Reynolds, Sr., and their chief financial officer and CSS’s former president, Kyle Effler; Children’s Cancer Fund of America Inc. (CCFOA) and its president and executive director, Rose Perkins; and The Breast Cancer Society Inc. (BCS) and its executive director and former president, James Reynolds II.

CCFOA and Perkins, BCS, Reynolds II and Effler have agreed to settle the charges against them. Under the proposed settlement orders, Effler, Perkins and Reynolds II will be banned from fundraising, charity management, and oversight of charitable assets, and CCFOA and BCS will be dissolved.  Litigation will continue against CFA, CSS and James Reynolds Sr.

“Cancer is a debilitating disease that impacts millions of Americans and their families every year. The defendants’ egregious scheme effectively deprived legitimate cancer charities and cancer patients of much-needed funds and support,” said Jessica Rich, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “The defendants took in millions of dollars in donations meant to help cancer patients, but spent it on themselves and their fundraisers. I’m pleased that the FTC and our state partners are acting to end this appalling scheme.”

Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring said, “The allegations of fundraising for personal gain in the name of children with cancer and women battling breast cancer are simply shameful. This is the first time the FTC, all 50 states, and the District of Columbia have filed a joint enforcement action alleging deceptive solicitations by charities and I hope it serves as a strong warning for anyone trying to exploit the kindness and generosity of others.”

South Carolina Secretary of State Mark Hammond said, “When charities lie to donors, it is our duty to step in to protect them. At the same time, however, this historic action should remind everyone to be vigilant when giving to charity. This case is an unfortunate example of why I always tell my constituents to give from the heart, but give smart.”

According to the complaint, the defendants used telemarketing calls, direct mail, websites, and materials distributed by the Combined Federal Campaign, which raises money from federal employees for non-profit organizations, to portray themselves as legitimate charities with substantial programs that provided direct support to cancer patients in the United States, such as providing patients with pain medication, transportation to chemotherapy, and hospice care. In fact, the complaint alleges that these claims were deceptive and that the charities “operated as personal fiefdoms characterized by rampant nepotism, flagrant conflicts of interest, and excessive insider compensation, with none of the financial and governance controls that any bona fidecharity would have adopted.”

According to the complaint, the defendants used the organizations for lucrative employment for family members and friends, and spent consumer donations on cars, trips, luxury cruises, college tuition, gym memberships, jet ski outings, sporting event and concert tickets, and dating site memberships. They hired professional fundraisers who often received 85 percent or more of every donation.

The complaint alleges that, to hide their high administrative and fundraising costs from donors and regulators, the defendants falsely inflated their revenues by reporting in publicly filed financial documents more than $223 million in donated “gifts in kind” which they claimed to distribute to international recipients. In fact, the defendants were merely pass-through agents for such goods. By reporting the inflated “gift in kind” donations, the defendants created the illusion that they were larger and more efficient with donors’ dollars than they actually were. Thirty-five states alleged that the defendants filed false and misleading financial statements with state charities regulators.

In addition, the FTC and 36 states charged CFA, CCFOA and BCS with providing professional fundraisers with deceptive fundraising materials. The FTC and the attorneys general also charged the defendants with violating the FTC’s Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR), CFA, CCFOA and BCS with assisting and facilitating in TSR violations, and CSS with making deceptive charitable solicitations.

In addition to the bans imposed on charity work by the settling individual defendants and the dissolution of two corporations, CCFOA and BCS, the proposed final order against CCFOA and Rose Perkins imposes a judgment of $30,079,821, the amount consumers donated between 2008 and 2012. The judgment against CCFOA will be partially satisfied via liquidation of its assets; the judgment against Perkins will be suspended based upon her inability to pay.

The proposed final orders against BCS and Reynolds II impose a $65,564,360 judgment, the amount consumers donated between 2008 and 2012. The BCS order provides an option, subject to court approval, for spinning off its Hope Supply Warehouses program to a legitimate, qualified charity. BCS’s remaining assets will be liquidated and used to partially satisfy the judgment. The judgment against Reynolds II will be suspended when he pays $75,000.

The proposed final order against Effler will impose a judgment of $41,152,231, the amount consumers donated to CSS between 2008 and 2012. The judgment will be suspended upon payment of $60,000. The full judgment amounts against the individuals will become due immediately if they are found to have misrepresented their financial condition.

The Commission vote authorizing the staff to file the complaint and proposed stipulated final orders was 5-0. The documents were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. The proposed orders are subject to court approval.

NOTE: The Commission files a complaint when it has “reason to believe” that the law has been or is being violated and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest. Stipulated orders have the force of law when approved and signed by the District Court judge.

Before giving to a charity, read the FTC’s Charity Scams.

The Federal Trade Commission works for consumers to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and to provide information to help spot, stop, and avoid them.  To file a complaint in English or Spanish, visit the FTC’s online Complaint Assistant or call 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357). The FTC enters complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to more than 2,000 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. The FTC’s website provides free information on a variety of consumer topics. Like the FTC on Facebook(link is external), follow us on Twitter(link is external), and subscribe to press releases for the latest FTC news and resources.

Interesting Reading For You

For those of you who are reading the end of the blog, instead of starting at the beginning, this post may not make too much sense to you. 

If you have read this blog from the beginning to the end, then you already know how I feel about IFAW, PETA, HSUS, and all the other alleged animal rescue/protection organizations out there.  This article highlights the flaws of the afore mentioned organizations. While I am against killing animals (all wildlife in my opinion is precious and should be respected--#LoveLife) for sport or pleasure, this article highlights the hypocrisy of IFAW, PETA, and other animal organizations I've been writing about for awhile now..

A Stampede of Hypocrisy 

I hope this article gives you some food for thought and encourages you to look into these organizations before you send them any of your hard earned money.  

If you really want to make a difference in the life of an animal, give something of yourself by volunteering, fostering or adopting a dog or cat at your local animal control.  So many animals are killed every year because there are not enough caring individuals willing to make a difference.  It is easy to write check or fill out an on-line donation form.  It's much harder and much more rewarding to get "into the weeds" so to speak and really, really make a difference.  Who knows, the soul you save could be your own--so go out a make a difference today!

The second article below is also very interesting discussion (as I included the comments made by others) about chimp sanctuaries.

 Chimpanzee Retirement: Facts, Myths and Motivations

I'd like to broaden this topic as I believe the chimp "industry" (and believe me there is a lot of money in the "chimp industry"--just look at the tax returns of the non-profits who house chimps--according to Guidestar.org, in 2013 the two largest chimp sanctuaries took in more than $5 million each) is not the only one that "exaggerates" its animal population and where/conditions the animals originated. 

It is not uncommon for sanctuaries to call a simple "rehome" a "rescue."  If you look up the definition of "rescue" you will see that it means to save (someone or something) from danger or harm.  Moving animals from one location to another is NOT a rescue--it's called rehoming.  Unfortunately, to the big money makers, "rehoming" sounds less dramatic than "rescue" and so many sanctuaries will over exaggerate the conditions from which animals originated.  Or even worse, in the case of the WAO, the sanctuaries refused to acknowledge that a failed sanctuary was responsible for the deplorable conditions from which the animals were found when they finally left San Antonio area; instead sanctuaries focused on the home the animals came from prior to being sent to the WAO (ie. private owner, "roadside zoo, or circus).  Right now, private owners, roadside zoos, and circus, zoos, and animal attractions like SeaWorld are on the animal rights "hit" lists as terrible places for animals to reside.  I've heard these groups say that the "animals are better dead than fed" at these so-called horrible places. So for now, sanctuaries have jumped on the band wagon, even though many sanctuaries are little more than "roadside zoos" themselves or they were started with the founders own personal "pets."  I predict that eventually animal rights groups will start attacking sanctuaries when they start running out of zoos and circuses to bring down.  After all, for the most part, sanctuaries have rather small enclosures compared to the vast land wild big cats, bears, and other common animals found in sanctuaries, are used to roaming and enjoying.  If AR groups think the whale enclosures are small at SeaWorld, what must they think of the small animal enclosures majestic animals such as lions, tigers, and ligers are forced to live in at sanctuaries all over the US?  Beware sanctuaries.  You are next on the AR hit list.  

Did you know that all sanctuaries have their great looking "areas" that are the seen in the majority of their publicized pictures and then there are the not-so-good animal living areas that are not displayed to the public?   If the sanctuary is not proud of their enclosures,  you will find the picture's background of these not-so-good looking animal living areas faded out so all you can see is the front profile of the animal. 

The WAO had a lot of small, not-so-good looking animal living areas at both Talley Road and Leslie Road. Two chimps named Wally and Mandingo lived in a very small enclosure  (approximately 6 feet wide and about 15 fee long) for years until they were moved to the Talley Road property.  When I last saw the two chimps, their living area contained hard packed ground and dead trees.  The guillotine door did not work properly due to rust and the inside building had holes in the roof, burned out light bulbs and the room smelled horrible. When it rain, the enclosure flooded as there was not proper drainage.  In my opinion the chimps quarters were absolutely horrible.  And then there were the yellow jackets that would set up nests in the building!  Yikes!  There were no enrichment activities and when I mentioned to the animal caretakers that the USDA/APHIS had chimp guidelines on animal care, they had no idea what I was talking about when I brought up that they would have to present to an inspector the environmental enrichment plan and journal books if Talley Road ever became licensed!  (USDA APHIS AWA - § 3.81 - Environment enhancement to promote psychological well-being).  

You can read for yourself some of the issues the chimps faced from the animal caretakers' own email to the former director and founder of the WAO:

Email from MM to CA Regarding Chimps Area - 2006 

Now keep in mind, the WAO had NO animal enrichment plan for the chimps or any of the other animal species living at this so-called sanctuary.  Many of the chimps that went to the WAO (18+) were used in medical experiments and the HIV chimps were very aggressive animals.  Their body hair looked blotch, thin, and dull in color.  They had no medical care, no dental care, and they did not receive  proper diets for years.  I have to wonder if there are other animal sanctuaries out there that fail to provide proper care for its chimps.  Are they forgotten laboratory chimps, much like the animals that used to live at the WAO's Talley Road property, or do visitors and caretakers simply do not care what conditions their chimps (or any other animals) lives in any more?

Later:

Additional reading recently sent to me:

July 31, 2014

By: Awesome Ocean

Breaking: HSUS Loses Charity Rating    News

Earlier in July, word got out that America's non-profit media darling, the Humane Society of the United States, ran into a bit of bad luck. And when we say bad luck, we mean they finally got what was coming to them. Their fingerprints were all over the movie Blackfish and they're currently leading the smear campaign against aquariums to raise money for their own selfish interests.

When you think of the HSUS you automatically think of the saintly organization that operates shelters nationwide and saves hundreds of thousands of animals, the organization that stands up for the adorable and abused animals in TV commercials, and above all you probably believe this is the organization that big-hearted animal lovers should donate to. Right?

Wrong. All those associations are complete crap.

The HSUS has historically bragged about their 4-star rating from Charity Navigator, one of the most trust-worthy charity evaluators in the game. Recently, they were downgraded to a 3-star rating and now their rating has been completely revoked, a "Donor Advisory" warning taking its place.

The deceiving game of bait-and-switch has been played for years, with the HSUS inviting misplaced associations between themselves and local animal shelters (sometimes called Humane Societies). To put this in perspective, let's break down what this despicable organization did to motivate you to reach for your wallet and fork over millions of dollars to a corrupt "charity".

A film crew would go to a local humane society pet shelter and film some of the cute, cuddly, abused animals that volunteers dedicate their lives to rescuing. Those commercials would air on national television, pulling on America's heartstrings and leading unsuspecting viewers to believe that the HSUS had a hand in rescuing that animal or providing care after the rescue.

Want the truth? The HSUS didn't have anything to do with rescuing that animal. They didn't provide medical assistance or care for that animal and that poor animal won't see a penny of your donation. They scandalously only give 1% of their budget to local pet shelters and the HSUS doesn't even operate one pet shelter of its own. Yes, you read that correctly. Even though 85% of their fundraising propaganda features shelter animals, they do not operate a single local pet shelter.

Check out this national commercial featuring Wendie Malick. But while you're watching, keep in mind what we just told you. Feeling deceived yet?

Now you might be wondering, "Where exactly do those donations go?" Here's a hint.

In June, the Charity Navigator donor advisory warning went public.

HumaneWatch.org : “The advisory notifies website visitors of the $15.75 million settlement of a racketeering and bribery lawsuit that HSUS was a part of last month.”

Also according to HumaneWatch.org, you can read more about that settlement here, but the lawsuit involved HSUS money allegedly paying a witness who lied to a federal court. Yikes.

Aside from the lawsuit, it has come to light that the HSUS diligently moved money to several funds in the Cayman Islands, calling them "investments". We're pretty sure that moving $26 million to offshore accounts in the Cayman Islands is called stashing money. And it's shady as hell.

The HSUS has essentially operated under the same donation-guise as PETA, where a large portion of their funding comes from people who are clueless about their real agenda. The time has come for American citizens to open their eyes and stop allowing the HSUS to misuse their hard-earned money.

In fact, PETA and the HSUS are driving the anti-captivity movement not for the welfare of animals, but to make money for themselves. They use and deceive people to promote corrupt agendas and the Cayman Island accounts confirm just how rotten this organization has become.

So if you care about puppies and kittens, as opposed to lobbyists and corrupt organizations, send your donations to local pet shelters instead of the HSUS. The animals will thank you for it.

End.

____________________________________________________________________________________________

If you have been reading my blogs from the beginning, then you know this article comes as no surprise to me.  I believe I used IFAW in my example as to how large animal organizations uses animals to further their own agendas and line their own pocket with your contributions for years. 

I have to wonder--why did it take us so long to realize that exploiting animals was such a huge business?

Much later:  I found this video on the Big Cat Rescue Watch Facebook page.  I think this video highlights the hypocrisy of AR groups who target SeaWorld and not exotic animal sanctuaries for the same alleged misdeeds.  Well done, Juan.  Well done!