From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: PETA in hot water
Organization: WP Group
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 05:09:31 GMT

Russell Lawrence writes:
>> Let me get this straight.  You're saying that your claim has been
>> corroborated by your reference, namely the CFAAR newsletter 4(1).
>> Would you mind telling us more about the "CFAAR" so that we can
>> judge the credibility of its legal opinions?

From article <mhulsey-211292132342@fatrat.fcs.uga.edu>, by mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey):
> One need not be a lawyer to read the Appeals Court opinion and discover
> that it directly addressed Taub's claims that he did not mistreat his
> monkeys.

Do you have a copy of the Appeals Court opinion?  If so, would you
be willing to mail me a copy of the full text?

> The reference I gave indicates that ten lawyers with which Taub has
> conferred unanimously agree that the Appeals court's opinion is "far from a
> technicality." 

If memory serves, your reference was a newsletter from CFAAR.   Would
you mind telling us more about the "CFAAR" and perhaps comment on its
standing as a journal of legal opinion?

Vis-a-vis the opinions of Taub's lawyers, let me quote a passage from
the Washingtonian's retraction of Katie McCabe's article:

======================================================================
"The article stated on page 185:  'Along with the pictures of Domitian,
at least two photographs that were introduced into evidence had been 
staged, Pacheco admitted.'

"Correction and Clarification

"In making this statement, Ms. McCabe relied on Dr. Taub's lawyers'
characterization of the testimony that Mr. Pacheco admitted the pictures
were staged.  She now as reviewed the transcript and acknowledges that
Mr. Pacheco did not testify or admit that the photos were staged"
======================================================================

Was the Washingtonian finger-pointing here to the same set of 
attorneys that you're now citing to prove your claim re: the 
opinion of the appeals court?  

Incidently, I first heard about PETA and the "Silver Spring Monkey" 
case from my own lawyer, and he claimed that the conviction was 
overturned on a technicality.   

> ...
>> > Being PRESIDENT of PETA should indicate a disinterest in animal research.
>> > Don't you agree?
>> 
>> The PETA that you're referring to isn't the PETA that exists today,
>> Martin.  As I recall, it had only twenty members or thereabouts, and
>> the two principle figures had come together... not because of opposition
>> to animal research, but because of their prior experiences working
>> together at a dog pound.   It would be a mistake to take Pacheco's
>> present views and project them onto a Pacheco who was some 13 years
>> younger.
> 
> It is no mistake to say that, in typical fashion, you again avoided my
> question.   

I don't have enough facts to answer the fundamental question of whether
Pacheco was or wasn't interested in animal research when the story
first unfolded.   I don't agree with your assumption that presidency
of an infant PETA would indicate otherwise.

> The fact remains that Pacheco lied to Taub about his intentions when he
> applied for work in Taub's lab.

Such a claim would be hard to prove without an overt omission from
Pacheco.   Mind-reading evidence doesn't carry much weight. 

>> You're free to speculate about Pacheco's private intentions, but
>> it's important for all of us to remember that you're not an expert
>> historian/psychologist/mind-reader.   In fact, it's fitting to
>> point out that you have an "ABSYMAL PUBLICATIONS RECORD" [your caps]
>> in all three of these fields.   Why don't you stick with facts 
>> rather than resorting to suppositions and crystal-ball-gazing...
>> like those ludicrous comments you've made about my alleged presence 
>> in Athens, Georgia?
> 
> I'm not speculating about Pacheco's intentions.  It is clear that Pacheco
> targeted Taub; he did not simply wander into Taub's lab by chance.  It is
> also clear that Pacheco was more concerned about his "evidence" being
> discredited than he was concerned for the welfare of Taub's monkeys.  These
> are facts.

They're conjectures, Martin.

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals