- Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) is being sued by a former employee that sustained permanent injuries.

This story begins with the seizure of purebred Great Danes from their breeder and owner, Tina Fay, in New Hampshire in 2017.  The dogs were confiscated and held by HSUS in their own facility.  One of the people hired to care for the dogs was Amy Simcik, the woman now suing HSUS.  She was witness to the conditions that led to the death of 7 of the confiscated dogs.

Her in-depth recounting of the ordeal reveals the abhorrent conditions in which the dogs were kept, all while HSUS was making money off of the “bad breeder”, a narrative from a deluge of donations.  Ms. Simcik has also emphasized in her account that these conditions over a long period of time brought out unwanted behaviors in the dogs, which led to the attack on her person.  The following excerpt is from the article linked next:

The state director of HSUS in New Hampshire at the time was Lindsay Hamerick, who advocated for Ms. Fay to serve jail time, has moved up the corporate ladder in HSUS after this incident; she is now the Director of Shelter Outreach & Engagement for the entire HSUS.

Remember, HSUS donates less than 1% of its profits to actual animal shelters.  Also, keep in mind that in many cases like this, the owners are made to pay for the incurring charges of having their animals kept by the organization and authorities that took charge of the confiscation, so they actually profit off of the removal of animals.  Some have said that some individuals have been targeted for their animals, especially widows.

Ultimately, Ms. Fay did not have to serve jail time, but she was ordered by the courts to pay nearly $2 million to both HSUS and the local animal control for housing the confiscated dogs.

In lieu of the jail time, she was mandated to attend therapy.  She was allowed to keep 2 of her 84 dogs, and the rest were adopted out - those adopted dogs were all spayed or neutered, removing them from the genetic diversity of the breed in the US.  She appealed her case on account that her right to privacy was violated by the search and seizure of her property, but most of the 17 charges stayed.  Her appellate attorney argued the following:  He said “it was an invasion of Fay’s privacy to allow Humane Society workers to take photos and videos of the raid and then to use them on social media to raise $189,000, plus another $135,000 worth of in-kind donations for the private agency".  

Those of us familiar with these tactics know this is a known, repeated pattern perpetuated by animal rights groups fashioning themselves as governmental authorities, however, without the proper jurisdiction.  Instead, they buddy up to local animal control and city council, even going so far as to hold training workshops for sheriffs departments in order to be the moral authority when a supposed animal incident occurs.

A similar case using such tactics was recently decided in the Texas Supreme Court, finding that even so-called animal-rights attorneys cannot engage in such activities. (read the related story)

There is a pending civil lawsuit against the town of Wolfeboro (NH), and HSUS filed in Washington D.C. purposefully to attempt a fair hearing.  Ms. Fay is seeking $25 million for unfair treatment she has endured since the genesis of this saga.  (See NH Case: Case No. 215-2021-CV-00080)

There is a well-written timeline of how and why HSUS managed to get away with their scheme against Ms. Fay here.

HSUS has an extreme dearth record of this behavior that has been very well documented here.