I have blogged about Porter County, Indiana previously.
http://workingtohelpanimalstodaytomorrow.blogspot.com/2011/11/no-kill-lies-again-and-again-and-again.html
http://workingtohelpanimalstodaytomorrow.blogspot.com/2011/11/more-on-shelters-to-watch-per-no-kill.html
http://workingtohelpanimalstodaytomorrow.blogspot.com/2011/11/winograds-now-short-one-bragging-right.html
Now it appears they have finally awoken to the truth about "No Kill".
http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/porter/valparaiso/report-calls-for-porter-county-to-build-animal-shelter-in/article_c879599b-2ac0-53ed-837b-833f36111f30.html
VALPARAISO | A study released Friday, commissioned by Porter County officials to assess the county's animal shelter and operation, identified several areas of concern, including the need for a new shelter and reassessment of the shelter's no-kill policy.
The Porter County Board of Commissioners agreed in December to pay Shelter Planners of America $6,500 to conduct a needs assessment, feasibility and building program study. The study was conducted in the wake of missing funds, three different directors within a year, and numerous facility and animal health problems.
And the animals suffered. The legacy of "No Kill", suffering and more suffering. When will people learn that this morbid movement is not about the animals, they could care less. It is about serving a vile, little man's ego.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
valparaiso university, home of the lawyer nutter guardian ad litem for the vick dogs.
this one must have had a special hurt for winograd.
" It is about serving a vile, little man's ego."
Behind that little man, No Kill serves the needs of the breeders so they can deny responsibility for overpopulation, continue to do nothing to address it, oppose anti-cruelty laws that might upset their puppy mill cash cow, and force rescue and shelters to go bankrupt cleaning up after the breeders.
That little man is involved with a lot of animal torturers for profit.
I think I know what Barnette and Best Friends may be doing to the city. Of course, they are screwing rescue, first of all, as well as everyone else in the city.
This may all be a lot worse than anyone thinks, using taxpayers private details to sell to marketing companies. I guess the AKC already does it, and more than likely Barnette is giving the AKC access to license registration information to sell. Best Friends is probably doing that too, so they can sell people's name and addresses to marketing lists and make more money to stuff in their pockets and steal from the animals.
Here is what has been forwarded. I bet no one knew this was going on. Koretz may be more corrupt than anyone thinks! Maybe this is a cash cow for him too and Rosendahl.
"“Is your name on the mailing list? AKC provides mailing lists of registered dog owners to various companies for a profit. Right now AKC is working with The Travelers Insurance Company to provide homeowner’s insurance to those in the fancy that may be experiencing difficulty in obtaining homeowners insurance. Isn’t that nice of the AKC to do this for these people? Actually, being nice has little or nothing to do with it.
The deal is that the AKC will receive a 50/50 split on commissions for providing this list. Questions were brought up during the December’99 delegates meeting regarding this issue. Some of questions that intrigued me the most involved the possible cross referencing of existing policies; people being put into a separate risk pools; and possibility of the names being used for more than one type of insurance.
Insurance companies sell many types of policies. Will the 50/50 split of commissions be restricted to homeowner’s policies or will they include life, health, or liability policies sold as a result of this mailing list as well? How long will AKC receive a split on the commission, is it the entire life of the policy? Do high-risk categories mean higher premiums, and do higher premiums equate to higher commissions? Is the AKC seeking a bigger piece of the pie and thus creating the need to generate even more inside funds through increased registration fees and an expanded DNA program? When you register your dog with AKC are you setting yourself up for contacts by insurance companies, credit card banks, and others? It seems that you are. The AKC is already involved with First USA Credit Card Bank. When you pay for your litter registration you are identifying yourself as a credit card user? Will your name be put on a “good-risk” mailing list? Is your name being sold for a premium?
I wonder just how many and what type of mailing lists does the AKC generate? Additionally, with the advent of DNA and genetic testing, will you one day be encouraged/required to purchase health and liability insurance on each dog that you own? Will the AKC be seeking a 50/50 split on those commissions as well?”
Thanks Anon for that insightful comment. I will do a little investigating, this has promise.
Oh brother, this is worse than I thought. I would hope that the rescue community is looking into this for these kennel clubs looking to hurt these shelter pets. What is with this Mayor and Koretz? This is major tax fraud.They have one of them running animal control? Rescues should really start a class action lawsuit.
"Is the AKC in danger of losing its tax-exempt status? The AKC is the largest not-for-profit organization in the nation. It has grown from a group of 12 men involved in various dog clubs in 1884 to an organization with an annual budget of $50 million and 500 employees. It enjoys a tax-exempt status because the IRS recognizes it as a social club.
But under IRS rules regarding C-7 tax exemptions, a club is permitted to receive not more than 35% of its gross receipts, including investment income from sources outside of its membership.
Remember, the AKC is a “club of clubs” it has no individual members so anything that affects the tax-exempt status of these clubs affects the AKC. Each one of these dog clubs is a C-7 club. Each one of these clubs is considered a social club. How can AKC, which is a big social club made up of several little social clubs continue to enjoy a tax-exempt status when the little clubs are losing their tax-exempt status by holding AKC dog shows?
According to a tax attorney speaking at the March ’99 delegate’s meeting, there are 11 C-7 clubs losing their exemptions, or their exemptions are being taken away because the AKC dog shows violate the 35% rule for outside income.
According to the IRS, of that 35%, not more than 15% of the gross receipts may be derived from use of the club’s facilities or services by the general public or from activities, not furthering social or recreational purposes for its members.
These dog shows obviously generate a lot of money from outside sources or these clubs would not be losing their C-7 status. Dog food companies and others who promote their goods or services at these events are sponsors who contribute revenue to the AKC. And revenues from dog shows aren’t the AKC’s only sources of outside income. Has the mandatory DNA program been created to increase the amount of money generated inside the AKC to offset the amount of money AKC receives from outside sources so as not to exceed the 35% limit on gross receipts?"
daWNJAMES that is Rebecca Huss of Valparaiso University, associated with breeders and indirectly dog fighters.
She has committed contempt of court because the judge told her and wrote in his court order that the Vick dogs were not to be used for fund raising, and her Best Friends pals flagrantly ignored the judge and committed contempt of court and fundraised wildly and pocketed the money, millions of dollars, for their big salaries and lobbying.
She had responsibility for making sure the judge's orders were obeyed, and she committed contempt of court.
That is a bad lawyer end of story.
She should be reported to the bar. Why does Valparaiso hire a lawyer who commits one one of worst crimes a lawyer can commit as an officer of the court.
From the IRS page http://www.irs.gov/charities/article/0,,id=139515,00.html :
Form 1023: Purpose of Conflict of Interest Policy
What is the purpose of the conflict of interest policy?
Charitable organizations are frequently subject to intense public scrutiny, especially where they appear to have inappropriately benefited their officers, directors, or trustees. The IRS also has an oversight role with respect to charitable organizations. An important part of this oversight is providing organizations with strategies that will help avoid the appearance or actuality of private benefit to individuals who are in a position of substantial authority. The recommended conflict of interest policy is a strategy we encourage organizations to adopt as a means to establish procedures that will offer protection against charges of impropriety involving officers, directors, or trustees.
A conflict of interest occurs where individuals’ obligation to further the organization’s charitable purposes is at odds with their own financial interests. For example, a conflict of interest would occur where an officer, director, or trustee votes on a contract between the organization and a business that is owned by the officer, director or trustee. Conflicts of interest frequently arise when setting compensation or benefits for officers, directors, or trustees. A conflict of interest policy is intended to help ensure that when actual or potential conflicts of interest arise, the organization has a process in place under which the affected individual will advise the governing body about all the relevant facts concerning the situation. A conflict of interest policy is also intended to establish procedures under which individuals who have a conflict of interest will be excused from voting on such matters.
Apart from any appearance of impropriety, organizations will lose their tax-exempt status unless they operate in a manner consistent with their charitable purposes. Serving private interests more than insubstantially is inconsistent with accomplishing charitable purposes. For example, paying an individual who is in a position of substantial authority excessive compensation serves a private interest. Providing facilities, goods, or services to an individual who is in a position of substantial authority also serves a private interest unless the benefits are part of a reasonable compensation arrangement or they are available to the public on equal terms and conditions.
Anon, if you have any inside info that you might to want to share, just mark it NOT FOR PUBLICATION and it won't be posted. I do know that Barnette keeps close tabs on this blog and I don't want her puttting two and two together via a comment. Although I doubt, judging from her poor use of English, that she is capable of adding properly as well.
Post a Comment