The USDA's Sarah Conant is Becoming a Target of Freedom Loving Americans

A few weeks ago, I broke a story of the connections between an animal rights activist named Sarah Conant who had infiltrated the USDA and committed acts of tyranny greater than King George against the colonies. Yes, I can support that claim when you consider the American revolutionaries fought a revolution against tyranny that amounted to about 2.5% in taxes and Conant's engineering of fines against people like John Dollarhite, whose rabbit hobby brought in a whopping $200 in profits in sales to a petting zoo at Silver Dollar City, is far more excessive at anywhere between $90,000 plus an up too $3.9 million.

More blogs are beginning to target Conant's ascent up the USDA ladder looking back at her roots to show where the tyranny stems from.

The Calvary Group writes today:

HAS THE HSUS “HIJACKED” THE APHIS OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT?!

In May of 2010 the Inspector General of the USDA released a scathing report that criticized APHIS for placing too much emphasis on education and not enough on enforcement.  One of its recommendations included creating an Office within APHIS that would specifically focus on enforcement.  And the person who was hired to fill the new position was an attorney who had specialized in Animal Law Issues.  Her name is Ms. Sarah L. Conant, and she has been issuing a number of “enforcement” letters to dog breeders, and to at least one rabbit breeder with assessed fines up to $50,000 or more.  A sampling of some of Ms. Conant’s “legal qualifications” that may have been considered by the USDA when she was selected to fill the newly created APHIS position, which may give all responsible breeders a reason to say “OMG,”is set out below:

·     Ms. Conant was employed by the HSUS as a Litigation Attorney immediately before she was hired by the USDA.

·     Ms. Conant first became associated with the HSUS when she was designated as an HSUS Litigation Fellow.

·     In 2007 Ms. Conant was featured and quoted in a Virginia Law Publication entitled “Humane Society Lawyers Fight Culture of Cruelty, Government Bureaucracy.”  One of her quotes included the statement that “Humane Society lawyers are working with legislatures and in the courts to change laws that affect the lives of farm animals,” and that “they are forced to go state by state in this effort because there are very few federal laws regarding farm animals.”

·     Ms. Conant was employed by the HSUS in the same HSUS Litigation Office which was so actively involved in the Litigation last year that challenged placing the Proposition B Ballot Initiative on the November 2011 Ballot in Missouri.

·     Ms. Conant’s “Name” has appeared as Counsel of Record for the HSUS on Lawsuits and Complaints filed against Federal Agencies such as the Federal Trade Commission and the U. S. Department of Agriculture, which now is her current employer.  (Here it is significant to note that on at least one Lawsuit document that may be found on the HSUS Website, the name of “Sarah L. Conant” was no longer listed as one of the Counsel of Record, even though the originally filed document filed listed her name.  Surely the HSUS would not engage in a “COVER-UP!”  Or would it?!?!?!?!?!?)

·     Ms. Conant worked in the same HSUS Litigation Office that sued the USDA under the Freedom of Information Act last October.  This Lawsuit seeks personal, confidential and business sensitive information on every USDA Licensed Breeder in Missouri.

·       Ms. Conant is listed as the Vice Chair of the Animal Law Section of the DC Bar, and is listed as representing the HSUS with no reference to the position that she currently holds with USDA.

While some may suggest that Ms. Conant has appropriate qualifications to act as the Chief of the Enforcement Section of APHIS, I personally and professionally believe that an egregious“Conflict of Interest” exists.  In this regard, Rule 1.11 that is published by the American Bar Association specifically addresses “Conflicts of Interests For Former and Current Government Officers and Employees.”    The relevant language states: “a lawyer currently serving as a public officer or employee shall not participate in a matter in which the lawyer participated personally and substantially while in private practice or nongovernment employment, unless the appropriate government agency gives its informed consent, confirmed in writing.”    This is why a FOIA Request was submitted for a copy of the USDA “Informed Consent Document,” or a comparable “Conflict of Interest Document.”   In the Practice of Law, some would consider a Breach of the “Conflict of Interest” Standard to represent a serious issue that involves “Legal Ethics.”

Read More