Tag Archives: david martosko

Revenge of the sockpuppet

  By
Some time ago, HumaneWatchers exposed a “secret group” of HSUS fans who were undermining HumaneWatch’s industry-funded efforts to spread lies and libel around the internet. That covert group had been hiding in a place where only the most clever of investigators could have found them: a Facebook group named “Stop HumaneWatch“.

Members of SHW were undoubtedly stunned by the revelation. “How could they have identified us?” they must have wondered. “They must have a spy in our midst!”

HumaneWatch revealed more of that investigative prowess today. David Martosko singlehandedly uncovered the fact that HSUS employees Anne, Sarah, and Hillary were operating under the pseudonyms “AnneHSUS”, “SarahHSUS”, and “HillaryHSUS”. It was a fiendishly clever disguise that only a master of deduction (or perhaps opera) could have exposed. Well, that, or someone who actually reads their comments, in which they often and openly disclosed the fact that they are employed by the HSUS.

Not content to rest on his already-squashed and misshapen laurels, Martosko repeated his false claim that HSUS uses “unethical tactics to hide their identities”, linking to his earlier article about veterinarian Patty Khuly. Following the “sockpuppet” incident — which did not involve an HSUS employee — Dr. Khuly publicly apologized “for having egregiously implied the HSUS was behind the missives”. And in a phone interview, she confirmed that she had notified David Martosko in email that she had no evidence implicating the HSUS or its employees in the incident.

Martosko was informed that his sockpuppet story is incorrect. He knows that his repetition of that falsehood is a lie. and he continues to lie about it, just as he refers to the retracted WSB-TV story he provided misinformation for.

Martosko writes in his blog on sockpuppets:

By trying to hide your identity when you leave a comment, you’re trying to influence everyone else’s perception of how credible the article is by pretending to be a disinterested third party who’s just offering a fair critique.

But here’s a news flash for HSUS employees: Blogs keep logs. And those records include the IP address of everyone who stops by to leave an incendiary remark.

Martosko’s definition is slightly off — a consistent pseudonym does not a sockpuppet make — but his warning about IP traces is absolutely correct.

The HSUS does not use sockpuppets. There is an official policy against it at the Humane Society of the US, and their employees are invariably patient, professional, and courteous in the face of mind-numbing ignorance and hate from HumaneWatchers. If HSUS employees depended on these unethical tactics, they would certainly have been exposed and discredited by now.

Allow me to demonstrate.

Consider the following comment left on this website by an individual named “Greg”, who signed up with the fake email address “SuckItSchiff@EatMe.com”:

Where’s the DISLIKE button? Hope the money from Pacelle feels good. Your heart is a black rock.

When we first saw this comment, we dismissed it as the usual HumaneWatcher bile. But the homoerotic oral fixation expressed by “Greg” towards our happily-married webmaster disturbed us. So we followed Martosko’s advice on incendiary remarks, and traced the IP address of the poster through an IP geolocation service.

A well-known drunk driving zone in Burke, VA

Lo and behold, that IP address is assigned to Verizon FIOS account belonging to a Washington DC account holder residing in Burke, VA. And that address happens to be a stone’s throw away from the home address of that serial liar and crusader against sockpuppetry, David Martosko.

Geolocation is not an exact science: without a subpoena to force an internet provider to hand over access records, only the neighborhood can be pinpointed. So it’s possible that it was one of Martosko’s sexually conflicted neighbors hiding behind that phallocentric sockpuppet identity, and they just happened to randomly target this website with a personal attack. Sure. It could happen.

But it’s far more likely that this is yet another example of Martosko’s true colors showing through his threadbare suit.

Martosko’s lawyer, Atticus Reaser, specializes in DUI defense, traffic defense, and computer crime defense. When David Martosko called his office, Mr. Reaser hit the trifecta.

And here’s a teaser for an upcoming article: if Mr. Reaser can brush up on libel law, he’ll have hit the superfecta.

Martosko’s downward spiral

  By
In July of 2010, David Martosko made the following statement on the HumaneWatch blog:
Instead of seeing my name plastered on everything, you’ll soon be reading articles contributed by various members of the HumaneWatch team. There will even be some outsiders sharing their own analysis.

Some time thereafter, Martosko’s personal biography disappeared from the HumaneWatch site.

Martosko has a substantial ego, and has always enjoyed the limelight, so his sudden withdrawal aroused our suspicions. We now know the reason for his announced departure.

On July 8th, 2010, David Martosko was arrested for yet another alcohol-related incident. He was taken into custody and charged with Class 3 and Class 4 Misdemeanor offenses: trespassing on school/church grounds at night, public swearing, and intoxication. This is Martosko’s 18th run-in with the law that we are aware of.

Martosko was previously arrested in 2008 for a number of violations, including driving while intoxicated, refusing a breathalyzer test, and drinking *while* operating a vehicle. That’s especially shocking conduct when you consider that the Center for Consumer Freedom — HumaneWatch’s parent organization — aggressively attacks Mothers Against Drunk Driving, and protests blood alcohol limits and sobriety checkpoints.

Following his newest arrest in July, Martosko has denied his erratic behavior at the Nebraska town hall meeting. He remains evasive about the events of that night, accusing eyewitnesses of “spinning tall tales”, but declining to refute any of the specific allegations made against him.

Martosko was barred from the town hall meeting in Nebraska due to his belligerence and odd behavior, which culminated in his confronting the meeting’s host, Kevin Fulton, with a recording device at a men’s room urinal. Martosko’s report on the incident only mentioned that Kevin was “reached for comment”, but unsurprisingly did not provide much detail on the location or circumstances of the attempted interview.

At the time, Martosko’s behavior seemed inexplicably bizarre. In light of his arrest on an earlier night for loitering at a church/school while drunk, belligerent, and obscene, his behavior in Nebraska makes a lot more sense.

David Martosko was granted a continuance until May 10th, 2011. We’ll let you know the outcome of that hearing and sentencing as soon as the information is available, and its impact on the HumaneWatch smear campaign.

Despite our differences with Mr. Martosko, we sincerely hope that he will find the strength to confront his addictions in the coming New Year.

Update: January 3, 2011
General VA Court Case information is now available for the trespassing charge and public intoxication/swearing.

Update: January 10, 2011
A FOIA request for the details of the incident was denied due to the criminal investigation underway against Martosko.

This correspondence is in response to your email received by the Internal Affairs Bureau of the Fairfax County Police Department in which you requested a copy of the police report and warrant associated with Mr. David Martosko’s arrest. I have determined that it is not releasable under the Virginia Freedom of Information Act. The complete police report is considered to be criminal investigation information or material. As such, it is exempted from disclosure under Section 2.2-3706 (F) (1) ofthe Code of Virginia. If I can be of further assistance please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely Timothy W. Field Second Lieutenant Internal Affairs Bureau 4100 Chain Bridge Road Fairfax, VA 22030 703-246-2980 FCPDFOIA@fairfaxcounty.gov

We’ll try again later this year, after Martosko’s hearing and sentencing.

HumaneWatch brings out the worst

  By
Wednesday, December 15, 2010, was a banner day for HumaneWatch, or so David Martosko thought.  For this was the day that Wayne Pacelle, president and CEO of the Humane Society of the United States, said that maybe, possibly, if he continues to go above and beyond all the requirements of his probation, Michael Vick might someday be able to own a dog. Judging from the reaction, you would think Wayne had endorsed Vick going back to dog fighting.  But the fact is, Vick sought out the HSUS to assist him in speaking to groups of inner city school children to tell them that dog fighting is wrong.  And who are these kids more likely to believe — an Ivy League-educated leader of an animal welfare organization, or a famous athlete with a multimillion-dollar contract whose image they likely have on their bedroom walls? You might also think that Vick had given money to Wayne to line his pockets.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  What happened was the Philadelphia Eagles donated money for several animal advocacy programs, including $50,000 for the HSUS to start an End Dogfighting Program in Philadelphia, $50,000 for the Philadelphia Animal Welfare Society to build a spay-neuter clinic, and $50,000 for the Berks County Humane Society to fund a mobile veterinary clinic.  Those all sound like pretty good causes to me. For the record, I disagree with Wayne and believe that Michael Vick should never be able to own a dog.  But the court order preventing him from owning a pet expires in two years, and Wayne truly believes that people who abuse animals can be rehabilitated.  If they can’t, why bother having treatment programs such as AniCare, which many animal abusers are ordered to complete? However, none of this has stopped David Martosko of HumaneWatch from trying to make the most of Wayne’s unpopular opinion.  On Sunday, HumaneWatch took out a full page ad on the Vick situation in The New York Times.  Since then, Martosko has posted about Vick on the HumaneWatch Facebook page no less than 24 times, garnering almost 3,000 comments.  The posts are passionate, strongly opinionated, and almost universally blasting Vick and the HSUS. Unfortunately, many of the comments are also quite violent, something Martosko seems to revel in and encourage in order to whip up rage against Vick and the HSUS to as high a fever pitch as possible.  Let’s take a look at a sampling: From Sunday, December 19 PsychicGirl Devine Natura was quite busy making threats about Vick.  Check out these gems:

Effie Natsis wanted to run Vick over, if not one way, then another:

Other commenters wished additional bad things to befall Vick:

Most disturbing, Liz Willnow threatened Vick’s 2-, 5-, and 7-year-old children:

From Monday, December 20 Kira Baulesh spilled her venom against Vick first in regular case letters and then in all caps in case we didn’t get it the first time: From Tuesday, December 21 Ashley Nelson wanted mob-style justice: Jennifer Parmer crossed the line into blatant racism, calling for Vick to be lynched: As you can see from these posts, some sick people hang out at HumaneWatch.  But even worse is the sickness of David Martosko in encouraging comments like these.  The fact that these comments have stretched through a period of days demonstrates a pattern of conduct on the HumaneWatch Facebook page.  In addition, though some of these comments have been taken down, many are still up, and even those that were eventually taken down remained up for hours if not days. What’s even more hypocritical is the fact that many regular commenters on the HumaneWatch Facebook page are animal abusers themselves – people like Katie Dokken, Trish Bragg, Lori Barva Rogers, Barbara Hoffman, and most recently Jennifer Hobbs Butler.  Yet Martosko never bans these people, and their fellow HumaneWatchers applaud their presence and excuse their offenses. So whose side are you on, Martosko?  Either you are against animal abuse or you are not.  If you are against abuse, I challenge you to ban each and every animal abuser from your page and publicly tell us why.  The fact that you don’t speaks volumes about your true agenda.

Martosko has questions. We’ve got answers.

  By

Cow with answersYesterday, David Martosko of HumaneWatch published five questions for his followers to ask Wayne Pacelle at the HSUS town hall meeting in Lincoln, Nebraska.   The answers are readily available at the HSUS website, Wayne Pacelle’s blogs, and in related websites.

Using these materials, I have taken the liberty of putting together some answers that Wayne Pacelle or another HSUS employee might give to Mr. Martosko’s questions. Please note: I do not work at the HSUS and have not run these answers by anyone from that organization.  These are simply my answers based on reading their materials.

1. “In 1980 at HSUS’s annual meeting, the group made it official policy to – and I quote – ‘pursue on all fronts … the clear articulation and establishment of the rights of all animals … within the full range of American life and culture.’ Is this still HSUS’s goal? If you’re trying to give so-called ‘rights’ to cows, pigs, and chickens, why wouldn’t that completely destroy the entire livestock industry?”

The HSUS works to get protections for animals.  It is not so much a question of animal rights as human responsibility.  Humans have the responsibility to treat animals humanely, and this includes animals raised for food, which are by far the largest percentage of animals used by humans.  Unfortunately, we do not always treat farm animals humanely.  This happens in two ways.  First there is treatment that everyone agrees is abuse, such as what the HSUS and even a USDA inspector has uncovered at multiple slaughter plants.  People were kicking calves and ramming them with electric prods, or using forklifts to move cows.  Despite such violations of the Humane Slaughter Act, people at these plants were treating animals this way on a routine basis.  When an inspector tried to report it, his managers demoted him and kept the plant open.  In this case the laws on the books were clearly not working, and the HSUS stepped in to help bring this situation to the attention of state and federal authorities.

Second, there are standard operating procedures in industrial agriculture that are legal but which the HSUS and the general public see as inhumane.  These include the intensive confinement of veal calves, pregnant pigs, and laying hens in cages so small they can’t turn around and cannot perform any natural behaviors such as rooting, nesting or perching.  Most people understand that an animal needs to be able to move around and perform natural behaviors, but intensive agriculture denies these basic needs.  They even deny that these animals have natural behaviors, despite the fact that they have evolved over millions of years, yet it has only been in the past few decades that we have seen widespread use of intensive confinement.  This intensive confinement also leads to food safety problems such as the salmonella outbreak we saw from the DeCoster egg operations that sickened half a million people and led to the largest egg recall in our nation’s history.  When animals are that stressed, they are likely to get sick.  Antibiotics are not the answer, as this has only led to new forms of drug-resistant bacteria that threaten human health.  The HSUS sees the answer as getting the animals out of intensive confinement and into a housing system where they can move around and express natural behaviors.

The HSUS is not out to put an end to animal agriculture as many of our opponents have charged.  Their purpose is to look out for the welfare of the animals in these systems.  If the Humane Society of the United States were to ignore the welfare of over 1 billion animals killed for food each year — by far the largest sector of animal use by humans — then it would not be doing its job.

2. “Can you name a specific meat, dairy, or egg brand that you and the Humane Society of the United States have endorsed?”

Sure.  The HSUS supports humane and sustainable farmers like Kevin Fulton, who arranged this town hall meeting in Lincoln, Nebraska.  Kevin runs a pasture beef operation in which cattle are allowed to graze freely on a natural diet of grass, which cows were evolved to eat.   The HSUS is also one of 30 animal welfare groups that supports the Certified Humane label.  You can see a list of Certified Humane farmers and ranchers on their website.  The HSUS also supports the new Global GAP animal welfare standards, implemented  just last week by Whole Foods.  Again, the HSUS is not out to end animal agriculture.  Its purpose is to put an end to the worst abuses on our nation’s factory farms.

3. “If you got a federal law passed that demanded a nation-wide switch to the kind of livestock production mandated by California’s ‘Proposition 2’ law, would you and HSUS be satisfied with your achievement and completely dissolve the animal-agriculture part of your organization?”

Certainly the HSUS would be thrilled to pass a law that switches the nation to a Proposition 2 type of livestock production.  However, it would be irresponsible for the HSUS to ever dissolve the animal agriculture part of its organization.  As stated previously, farm animals make up by far the largest percentage of animals used by humans in the United States.   The HSUS would not be doing its job if it did not continue to look out for the welfare of these animals.  That might consist of continuing to work for better laws to protect these animals.  But it might also consist of working to see that current laws are being properly enforced.  As we have seen with the Humane Slaughter Act, which the HSUS was instrumental in getting passed in 1958, our nation’s laws are not always followed, and sometimes when they are not, people in charge look the other way.  So the HSUS must continue to be vigilant in making sure farm animals are treated humanely and according to the law, and that the law is being followed on farms, at auctions, in slaughterhouses, and anywhere else humans are making widespread use of these animals.

4. “Is there such a thing as meat that’s ‘humane’ enough that your ethics permit you personally to eat it? If so, where can we buy some? If not, what’s the difference between your group and PETA?”

Wayne Pacelle has not eaten meat for at least two decades, so he would likely choose not to eat meat of any sort.  However, that is his choice, and not one he asks everyone to make, including employees of the HSUS.  Nowhere is there a clause requiring HSUS employees to adhere to a certain diet.  That is one difference between the HSUS and PETA, as PETA does require certain employees to adhere to a vegan diet.  PETA also has a mission statement that precludes any use of animals by humans for any purpose.  The HSUS has no such mission statement.  Its mission is to celebrate animals and confront cruelty, which is what it does, whether cruelty occurs on a factory farm, at a puppy mill, or in an animal fighting operation, canned hunt, fur farm, or anywhere else.

5. “In HSUS’s Articles of Incorporation – its founding documents – you’ll find the following declaration: ‘No substantial part of the activities of the corporation shall consist of the carrying on of propaganda or otherwise attempting to influence legislation.’ Has that been changed since 1954? If not, what on earth have you been doing all these years? Isn’t your job to propagandize and influence legislation? Isn’t that what Prop. 2 in California and Prop. B in Missouri were all about?”

The Humane Society of the United States does not do direct lobbying or campaigning for candidates for political office.  It does have an affiliated 501(c)(4) organization, the Humane Society Legislative Fund, that works to pass animal protection laws at the state and federal level, to educate the public about animal protection issues, and to support humane candidates for office.  The HSLF tracks votes by members of Congress on animal protection issues and creates a Humane Scorecard to inform voters who care about these issues.

The HSUS has also worked with coalitions such as Californians for Humane Farms and Missourians for the Protection of Dogs to help pass ballot measures in specific states.  It is certainly not the only member of these coalitions.  For example, Missourians for the Protection of Dogs was also supported by the ASPCA, Best Friends Animal Society, Humane Society of Missouri, Missouri Alliance for Animal Legislation, and Tony LaRussa Animal Welfare Foundation.  It was also endorsed by over 150 veterinarians and clinics, over 160 Missouri businesses, and over 100 other animal protection charities.  These initiatives have broad support in the states where they have been put to a vote, sometimes winning by a landslide as in the case of Proposition 2 in California, because they are reasonable, common sense reforms that most people want to see passed.

As you can see from this blog entry, which I put together in less than an hour, the answers to Mr. Martosko’s questions are not hard to find.  Unfortunately, Mr. Martosko’s purpose is not to look for fair and balanced information about the HSUS, but to destroy the HSUS by any means necessary including slander and lies so that it cannot work for welfare reforms that might threaten the profits of those who fund HumaneWatch.  My question to Mr. Martosko is:  When are you going to stop waging a smear campaign against the Humane Society of the United States and join the rest of the country in embracing actual animal welfare?

The truth is not HumaneWatch’s friend

  By
Last night, our webmaster repeated his invitation to David Martosko to explain his side of the story in the “Sock Puppet Shenanigans”. The post made on the Facebook “HumaneWatch” group read as follows:
Dear Mr. Martosko: I recently contacted you regarding your claim that HSUS was involved in an incident of “sock puppetry” on the blog of a respected veterinarian, Dr. Patty Khuly. Have you received my letter? I know that HumaneWatch.org mail servers were experiencing technical difficulties during that time, but fortunately, there’s a copy of it available at http://humanewatch.info/blog/?p=168 if you have not read it. I am concerned that you have made intentionally false and defamatory claims about HSUS involvement in this matter, despite Dr. Khuly’s having informed you prior to 7/12 that she had no evidence that HSUS was responsible in any way. I respectfully invite you to correct any erroneous statements you have made on your June 30th blog post, and if you are so inclined, to provide your perspective on the matter. I will be happy to publish your statement verbatim on the humanewatch.info website, completely unedited. At the very least, I would appreciate the courtesy of a response, even if that response is simply “No comment”. I look forward to your reply, and thank you for your time. Sincerely, John Doppler Schiff Webmaster, HumaneWatch.info
The post was immediately deleted without comment, as most dissenting opinions on HumaneWatch’s Facebook group are. So much for courtesy! Or courage. Or integrity. This was not unexpected, however. HumaneWatch has a history of ignoring any facts that run counter to their “we hate HSUS” message, and Martosko is quick to delete any post that doesn’t wave the pom-poms with sufficient enthusiasm. It doesn’t matter how respectfully phrased or truthful that post is: HumaneWatch fears any information that might allow its readers to think for themselves. Consider the case of Atlanta’s WSB-TV. The station ran a segment covering HSUS’ handling of the funds raised for Hurricane Katrina rescue operations, and it relied heavily on misinformation provided by CCF. When the station discovered it had been duped, it immediately pulled the footage of the broadcast and issued a correction. CCF continued to willfully promote copies of the broadcast as “proof” of HSUS wrongdoing, without bothering to mention the correction. This prompted WSB-TV to send an angry cease-and-desist letter demanding that CCF stop referencing the broadcast without referencing the correction. CCF’s response? They fired off a lame, baseless accusation that the Humane Society forged the letter. When WSB-TV demanded that YouTube pull all copies of the broadcast from its servers, CCF resorted to linking to an illegal copy hosted on a video sharing site in Iran. To this very day, HumaneWatch continues to hold up that invalidated report as “proof” of their arguments — without the correction that tells the rest of the story. So, CCF fed false information to a reporter, and then used the resulting story to claim that the false information they fed the station was correct. That’s just one example among many of CCF/HumaneWatch deception. If the facts are on HumaneWatch’s side, why do they resort to misinformation, sleazy tactics, and desperate attempts to stifle honest discussion? They do it because the conclusions HumaneWatch presents do not stand up to scrutiny. They do it because the truth is not a friend to HumaneWatch, and any facts that run counter to HumaneWatch propaganda must be suppressed or ignored. Unfortunately for David Martosko, no matter how deeply he buries his head in the sand, the truth will not go away. Neither will we.