Articles PETA

PETA: Maya Lawsuit Update

Affidavit submitted to court by former employee details how PETA lies to acquire animals to kill, removes pets from homes, kills highly adoptable animals such as puppies and kittens without ever trying to find them homes, and kills feral cats using cruel methods.

For those who have been following this blog, you already know that PETA and two of its staff are being sued for taking and killing Maya, a family’s dog. You also know that PETA rounds up and kills thousands of animals like Maya every year. Finally, you know that PETA has filed various motions to have the case dismissed by arguing that the dog was worthless, she had no value beyond the cost of replacement for another dog, they had permission by the property owner to remove community cats so they cannot be guilty of trespass for entering and killing a dog, the family is not entitled to punitive damages because PETA’s theft and immediate killing of a happy, healthy, beloved dog is not “outrageous” conduct, and in an argument with racist overtones, that the family may not be in the country legally so PETA should be allowed to get away with the theft and murder of their dog.

New filings in the case  shed even more light on PETA’s killing campaigns. An affidavit and supporting evidence filed on behalf of a former PETA employee contains the following explanations and quotes:

  • PETA hired people whose “primary responsibilities included gaining possession of as many cats and dogs as possible, almost all of which were euthanized.”
  • “The main purpose of the Community Animal Project was to persuade people to surrender their animals, so that PETA could then euthanize the animals.”
  • On getting hired by PETA, “a type of indoctrination took place” about the need to kill and “that the best thing to do was to kill them ‘humanely.'”
  • “I was ordered to do whatever I had to do to get custody of the animals and I was instructed to do and say anything I could to induce people to give me possession of their dogs and cats.” “This included our telling people that PETA would find a good home for their dog and cat when we knew that PETA had no intention of trying to find the animals homes but would instead euthanize them almost immediately.”
  • “If someone had feral cats on their property, we were told to tell them that we would take them to a feral colony, but 100% of the feral cats were euthanized using a method that was very frowned upon by other shelters: because it could cause suffering, but it was the one Ingrid [Newkirk] insisted upon using.” [Note: I am trying to determine what method was used.]
  • “If we saw animals loose, even on someone’s property, we were to take them whenever we could. PETA would not hold them for five days [as the law required]. We would not obtain signed releases if an animal was stolen, but would euthanize the animals immediately.”
  • “We would routinely euthanize healthy puppies and kittens and other highly adoptable animals.”

And more:

PETA insists that the affidavit was done by a disgruntled former employee, but included with the filing is a performance review signed by Newkirk which describes the employee as “excellent.”

Other employees should soon be deposed (interviewed), but so far it appears that PETA is not complying with court orders regarding discovery. The affidavit was part of a motion to compel compliance. I believe that will never happen because PETA fears further revelations in the case and does not want to expose its killing apparatus to the ongoing light of public scrutiny.

To that end, it has filed a motion to dismiss the case (summary judgment). If they lose and the court compels discovery, I believe PETA will settle the case for an undisclosed sum of money, under a condition that the plaintiff not speak about it, and without admitting guilt.

Truth dies in darkness.


Have a comment? Join the discussion by  clicking here.