When one runs an animal rescue, we assume they take in animals to rehome. We do not assume they collect, hoard or BUY animals from kennels, auctions, or other sources. When we say BUY, we mean BUYING animals by the pound. (By the pound by weight--not from an animal shelter pound) We mean BUYING animals at a livestock auction, where you buy the animal and have to actually PAY for each animal by the pound. Stay with us here, because at the last paragraph we will tell you what type of income Grace Foundation has been taking in, as evidenced by their IRS990 form.
Then we see the Grace Foundation primadonna, Bethie POO Decrapio, who claims she cannot provide the $$$ to buy enough food for horses she helped seize...........hmmm???? WTF? Then she should not have taken animals she cannot afford to house and feed! Grace Foundation was PAID to take Mr. Bennett's seized horses, and it was $40,000, not $400, not $4,000. And that's even with the seizure being improper and likely completely not legal.
Just look at all of the postings online done by Grace Foundation, all the interviews, all of the postings of her "horrific" video, she has them everywhere, in fact she sends out the donation begging pages to help, help, help, but fails to tell everyone that she was already PAID $40,000 to take care of the seized horses that didn't even need much, if any, medical care. In fact you won't see any pictures of THOSE seized horses because there is nothing wrong with them!!
Does anyone smell a rat? Decrapio knows and admits that Wells Fargo and possibly Bank of America GAVE her at least $40,000 to take Bennett's horses "seized" by receivership. Nevertheless, Grace Foundation did NOT take "starving" horses, as the horses were not starving and did not need medical attention. They were not seized because they would die. They were seized because the Wells Fargo attorney wanted to seize the real property estate and wanted the horses cleared off the land. By bringing in Grace as a conduit, Grace Foundation simply started the video rolling and the rest is history. Lassen County didn't pay Grace to take any horses. But somehow Lassen County got involved enough with Wells Fargo receiver such that Lassen county employee, receiver, and Grace Foundation Decrapio all wrote declarations that horses were going to perish if not removed. Funny how the actual status of the horses do not match up with any declarations.
Seizing animals via "ex parte" means you don't get much notice, if any. Ex parte seizure by receivership is very uncommon and receivership in residential property is very uncommon. Yet Wells Fargo was and is determined to take the property because it involves predatory foreclosure, which is something Wells Fargo wants to keep quiet. The laws involving questionable title procedure has been in the news daily, since California, Nevada and Florida are hard hit by foreclosures. The property the horses were seized from is NOT in foreclosure because Wells Fargo doesn't want to go there due to the improper procedures used to transfer title during the years of ignoring state laws and title transfer requirements. California is a non judicial foreclosure state and is actually more difficult to challenge predatory foreclosure.
So Grace Foundation keeps showing horse remains in her video, letters, and her $$$$ pitches to people to "donate to the hay barn" campaign, to donate, donate, donate because Grace cannot afford these animals. If one cannot afford animals and to feed them, then why BUY them at auction? Why claim you can take 20 animals if you cannot afford to feed them? Why take animals of any kind that costs more than you can ever recover in a bad market?
Why try to say you need to get all the 'not yet born foals' homes when you do NOT even OWN the animals? If Grace had their way, they would have killed the unborn foals (according to what Grace stated) but claimed it was too late to do that now.
Only several days AFTER Grace Foundation acquired the "seized" horses (July-August), Decrapio went online in yet ANOTHER interview and claimed she couldn't afford to care for the horses and had them placed in Auburn, NOT at the Grace "ranch." By the way, Grace's "ranch" is 600 acres where she pays one dollar ($1.00) per year to use the land. That's it--$1.00 per year. Not $10,000, not $15,000 and not $20,000. JUST $1.00 per year. Yet she claims she cannot feed or provide housing for seized horses she did agree to take for $40,000?
Grace Foundation works with the notorious Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) which is a known animal rights lobbying/marketing group, with the largest amount of monetary backing of any animal rights group in the USA. This is verified by reviewing the HSUS IRS 990 documents. On Charity Navigator, HSUS has now been downgraded to a "D" from their former rating. HSUS cannot brag about being A rated. They are not.
HSUS is being investigated by the IRS for excessive lobbying, which violates the 501(c)(3) rules. HSUS is being sued for racketeering when they were caught during a 9 year lawsuit, when they helped pay a Plaintiff to BE the Plaintiff in Federal Court. HSUS has lost several United States Supreme Court cases, including one on depictions of "animal cruelty" and they will be losing their "downed animal" law for California at least as to non ambulatory pigs. The United States Supreme Court just heard argument on the non ambulatory pig case, and the law (written by HSUS/friends) will almost certainly be preempted by Federal law already in place.
Ok now for the Grace Foundation revelation. The Grace Foundation that cannot pay for hay or seized animals, and has to keep begging, begging, begging for $$$$ showed a gross in the $700,000 range, up from $400,000.
Maybe you tell us why a person running an organization that takes in $700,000, most of it in DONATIONS, cannot buy enough hay for the horses. We think it's pretty simple. When your expenses are higher than your donations, and you actually BUY horses by the "pound" that you cannot afford to feed, and you keep 100 (one hundred) horses as permanent fixtures that you certainly do NOT need since many of them are likely unnecessary yard ornaments that cost big dollar to keep, and require excessive vet care and costs, and you continue to take "seizure" animals that cost more money to store, feed and train, then you are not in the business of running a charity, but are just hoarding animals that likely would have been killed a long time ago when their useful lives were expended. When people think that running a charity means you must keep and save every single thing you can get your hot little hands on, they have missed the boat entirely.
Animal rescue does not mean to save the worst and keep them forever, especially when you claim you cannot afford it. Rescue's purpose is to save the best and amplify the numbers, not take the worst and use the pathetic creatures as a sickening marketing money tool. But that is exactly what animal rights does.
No comments:
Post a Comment