HumaneWatch

Really - the so called watch dog for MFA was guilty as H##L and should be prosecuted too!
What a monster!

The filmmaker should also be prosecuted for his involvment.  Because if he were truely sickened by the actions of Mr. Gregg, he would have reported it earlier.  He kept doing the same things as Mr. Gregg and he should be prosecuted along with Mr. Gregg.  I believe it is correct, the owner should NOT be prosecuted.  Because of the splicing that this so called animal rights group did, the whole dairy industry took a hit that it should NOT have had to take.

that film is phony—notice the guy’s fist when he hits the calf he relaxes his hand like in big-time wrestling, and the crow bar? He’s not hitting the cow hard enough to be hurting it. If he did, that cow would really go nuts and not stick her ears out then push forward wanting his attention. She’s not scared of him. Its fake!

Suddenly I’m wondering if the false reporting statute in Ohio is applicable to the filmmakers.  If I were Gary, I’d be thinking defamation and property damage (for poking stock with a pitchfork).  How about trespass to chattel?

Jeez, we have to start holding these activists accountable or they’ll just keep this stuff up!

Why isn’t the viedeographer being prosecuted? Especially now that we know he participated in the abuse. This is despicable!!!!!

Seems like to me that an edited version of what happend would be like lying on the witness stand….why aren’t these people held acountable???  They are as guilty as the person doing harm to the animals…It is plain to see that the court system is not working correctly. “GOD BLESS AMERICA”

Thanks once again for putting the truth out. Turns out that what many of us suspected is, indeed, true. Hopefully the family can recover from this horrible rendering of ‘animal protection’.

David, could you personally add a section on this blog post explaining (in-depth) how stabbing a cow with a pitchfork is in an attempt to “help the cow?”

Thanks!

May I add:  The ‘investigator certainly incited Gregg to perform his cruel acts, when he kicked and poked cows himself.  One could claim that he instigated Gregg to do his acts and says that BS.  Let’s not forget that Gregg is a few fries short of a happy meal…  Wonder how the defense will use that argument.

Does this leave the farm owners open to sue hsus and the videographer? just wondering because that could be a good publicity thing as well as bringing justice to those set -up and wrongly accused.

Dude,
Have you every been on a factory farm?  I worked last summer in Lakeland Fl cleaning cages (battery cages) for egg laying hens.  I quit after two weeks, I’ll never forget the cruelity I observed.  I donated my paycheck to the H.S.U.S, as I couldn’t except the blood money.  I’m 18 years old now and jaded for life by this experience.  I don’t know how you can live with yourself for promoting such cruelity. How much money do you get paid by the meat, dairy, & poulity industries to write such lies.  If you would like I can take you to this factory farm or show you my home video of my experience (unedited).  My friends uncle own this shop of horrors. Sincerely Craig

Ugh.  I don’t understand how you can claim to believe animals are equal to people, and then just sit there and film that man abusing animals and participate in it yourself for a month.

Would the camera man have done the same if he was working undercover at a day care and children were being abused?

I am certainly no lawyer by any stretch of the imagination, but how is this situation any different than the one created by the HSUS and Feld Entertainment (owners of the Ringling Bros circus)?  Basically you have an animal rights group creating false evidence of abuse, proclaiming to the public about the alleged abuse, only to have the legal system, determine it was all made up.  As a result of this, Feld is suing various animal rights groups that brought up the original abuse lawsuit against them.  It seems to me the situation with Mr. Conklin is a very similar incident.  Mr Conklin was accused of participating in abuse based on video evidence that was presented in a manner that did not represent the situation in which if occurred.  Mr Conklin would have more than enough grounds to pursue some sort of suit against the animal rights organizations that produced, edited and release the video.

There has to be some point where lying (which is what in essence took place here with the false video created) by animal rights groups has to carry a price.  If the H$U$ is not going to use their huge bank accounts for the care of animals, maybe they can use it to provide retirement funds for persons such as Mr Conklin instead of their own pensions funds.

If you combine Michael A’s comments with Marcus’s very insightful observations, you cut right to the heart of the legal liability issue:  WAS THE ABUSER WAS BEING REWARDED TO ABUSE ANIMALS SO THE VIDEOGRAPHER HAD FILM TO EDIT AND TURN OVER TO THE REAL CULPRIT!

How many of you really believe that defendant Gregg just fortuitously happened to go to work for the Conklin Dairy a few months before the undercover videographer started his “sting”?  I don’t believe it was was fortuitous at all. 

Either H$U$ had several hundred “sting operations” going on and managed to catch one sick employee on tape to use for its own purposes, OR WHAT IS FAR MORE LIKELY, IS THAT GREGG WAS PLANTED (OR PERHAPS FOLLOWED AS A KNOWN ABUSER) TO THE DAIRY FOR FILMING BY THE VIDEOGRAPHER.

Michael A is absolutely correct that the Ringling Bros. case and the Conklin Diary case are very similar—too similar to be accidental!  Anyone care to speculate that as the real story unwinds, just like it did in the Federal Circus Case, we will find that not only the videographer was hired by H$U$ but so was Gregg?  And Michael A. —I am a trial lawyer with 30 years of experience and my gut instinct is that you are right on target.

Dear 628:
I have not personally viewed the video, but I’ve read enough to get the picture. This discussion brings to mind a comment I made last night in a posting on the 7/1 blog titled One Day Wiser in Ohio….“Some of these practices might seem primitive or simple to you, but I doubt Blue Cross Blue Shield would have accepted the claim if we tried our family practitioner.” If this situation were to re-present itself, you are welcome to give the cow a crash course in English 101 so it can comprehend the phrase “Stand Up,” but I have a feeling the cow would die before she mastered the language. Now, considering both outcomes, which seems like the more humane option in the end? There are moments in the farming profession when a farmer is left with the problem of figuring out how to invoke the appropriate response from an animal that cannot be reasoned with because they obviously don’t speak our language. I have a somewhat comparable experience every time I take my child in for well-baby appts. I drive there knowing full well she’ll be crying when I walk out the door. The nurse will have me restrain each leg while multiple shots are administered. Its not pleasant for me to do this, but I do so knowing its for her well-being. I can’t tell her “hold still until the nice lady is done!” See the parallel? Secondly, have you ever carefully observed these animals? Do you watch how they interact with each other? They often kick or head ram each other with alot more force than most people could muster. I am in no way advocating physical contact as a common avenue of interaction with livestock, but sometimes you have to evaluate the individual situation at hand. To label someone a criminal for making an attempt to keep an animal from developing a complication that can result in death….well, lets just say there are alot of people I’d hate to meet in a dark alley, but Gary Conklin probably isn’t one of them.

We continue to get hundreds of e-mails from activists around the world making demands that I prosecute Mr. Conklin or resign.  They ignore (or don’t know) that the MFA investigator told law enforcement that Conklin did not abuse the animals, nor did he know of Gregg’s actions. The MFA investigator did not tell Conklin about the abuse.

Regarding Gregg being a “plant”, we did investigate that possibility.

I remain concerned about the threats against the Conklin family ranging from murder to tearing the farm down.

Dear Mr. Phillips,

It is very unfortunate that many of these “activists” don’t WANT to know that the investigation cleared the Conklin family.  They are looking for a reason to be angry and the activist groups give them “permission” to vent that anger, whether there is a basis for it or not.  Seems to me that if I incited terroristic threats with my rhetoric, I could be prosecuted not only for my own words, but also for failing to control my followers.  Prosecuting such threats, at least within the Conklin’s home state, might send a strong message.

Joane Pappas White

Mr. Phillips,

Why is the MFA videographer not being prosecuted for allowing the abuse to continue for so long without informing either the farmer or the authorities? In many people’s opinion they are as guilty as the person doing the abuse. If this person was prosecuted it would send a message to the AR activists that this type of behavior would not be tolerated in the future.

Many films used by animal “liberation” groups are highly edited, heavily manipulated or even staged.

Here is our accounting of the history of the misuse of video in the animal welfare debate: http://www.furcommission.com/news/newsC7.htm

As far as the videographer is concerned, knowledge is not enough.  Nor is a statement admitting that he hit and stabbed the cows without more evidence.  We need to be able to establish a crime independent of the admission (the corpus delecti).  That said, if MFA was concerned about animal welfare, one would think they would have called law enforcement immediately, or even told Conklin. They did neither.

The threats are not felonies under Ohio law, but a pattern may violate the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act.

Question: Why is the prosecutor, the exonerated smear victim and the accused (who as of now, still remains un-tried and therefore “innocent until proven guilty”)  the ONLY NAMES mentioned here? What about “Daniel Hauff, director of investigations for Mercy For Animals”? Why isn’t he mentioned as a false accuser? What about the name of that despicable “filmmaker” or the film’s morally bankrupt editors? Why aren’t any of these people taking “credit” for their actions?