| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 11/23 |
| 2004/2/20 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Reference/Tax] UID:12320 Activity:low |
2/20 http://www.consumerfreedom.com/petaPetition.cfm \_ interesting, there are lots of articles about the total slime (but probably Hero Of The Revolution to a strict 100 percent Let Corporations Do Whatever The Fuck They Want In All Case, Common Sense Be Damned You Smelly Socialist Hippie free market guy) who runs the network of shadowy tax free industry lobbyist front groups behind http://consumerfreedom.com and other sites, Rick Berman, NO NOT THE STAR TREK GUY, ok let's begin: http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Berman_%26_Co http://www.prwatch.org/improp/ddam.html http://www.consumerdeception.com http://www.organicconsumers.org/Toxic/tobacco.cfm http://www.theecologist.org/links.html?section=32 http://ngin.tripod.com/190502b.htm So I find it fascinating that this guy, who is VERY well paid, in millions per year, to head a trio of non profits, that are directly funded by Phillip Morris, to cry and whine about the funding of PETA. Give me a break. The deeper argument here is not at all about PETA, but why don't assholes like Rick Berman get pancreatic cancer, the world would be much better off. \_ also I bet Rick Berman was the inspiration for a lot of the really funny book "Thank You For Smoking" \_ oooh, you're so sexy when you wear your tinfoil hat and use "shadowy" to describe someone that any ninny like you can find out everything on using google. sheesh. even if berman is a total asshole and is better off dead that doesn't mean peta is anything but a bunch of cocksuckers and better off dead either. \_ kinney? is that you? \_ This petition is idiotic. First they say PETA is engaged in all sorts of nevarious criminal activity, which may well be true, but then they say that this means that they shouldn't be tax exempt as a non-profit, which is what their petition if for. That's just dumb. If they're criminals, call for them to be investigated as such, but unless they're atually in danger of turning into a for-profit corporation, this is unfounded. When a cult religion decides to go nuts and kill a bunch of people, we don't go round saying they're not really a religion and take away their non profit status, we convict the leaders of crimes. \_ you know all those urls I posted detailing the background of the slimebags behind http://consumerfreedom.com, they weren't that foaming at the mouth and were actually quite well thought out, i think it's important to understand the context of who writes this crap, i hate you selective motd censor. \- your petition has been heard. restored. \_ I do not think you understand how the legal system operates in this or other law based country, and you are mixing sentiments, which I share, with legal tactics. You go after the bad guys with EVERY legal arsonal. Like you attack terrorists on financial front as well as military front (and yes if terrorists are using non-profit foundations then their tax-exmpt status should be revoked - that will cripple them faster). \_ Ok, mister legal scholar. Name one case where this "legal tactic" was effective. \_ There are legion. Some of the mafia cases were cracked first with an IRS violation. Illegal income are rarely reported to IRS. Usually it is easier to prove that you failed to report an income than to prove that income comes from murderous activities. I can't recall any precedent involving non-profit but it would be in the same vein. \_ Which mobster was it that went down on a single IRS conviction for failure to fully report his income yet got away with untold numbers of other crimes including murder? Was it Capone? \_ PETA is cool. It's Malthusianism taken to it's logical extremist conclusion. I wonder if people who are activily involved in PETA are clinically insane. \_ I've known some PETA people and they all seemed sane enough to me. One of them is now wanted by the FBI for bombing some animal research labs, though. Another one is a lawyer for Wilson and Sansini now though, so whattya know. \_ Now aren't you morally obliged to turn that bomber in? \_ this is a different poster, but no one has seen the guy in months, either in real life or online. critical path was just full of freaks! \_ people eat tasty animals. \_ Anyone rememeber back in the day when http://peta.org was registered by the group People Eating Tasty Animals? Probably back in 1997... \_ Yeah, those were the days, I remember them fondly. WTF?! Who cares who owned which random fuck domain 7 years ago? \_ I am a fruitarian and I believe vegetables have a life force and the peta people are killing innocents.. PETOV \- the nature conservancy as also been corrupted by liberal hypocrites ... http://www.sovereignty.net/p/ngo/A17879-2003May5.html [sovereignty.net might be a whacko organization but much of this was unearthed [NPI] by the washinton post ... i couldnt find the story in their "deep web"]. --psb \_ Soylent Green Fuel and Soylent Green Battery. \_ Meat is murder! Salad is slaughter! Jainism or bust! |
| 11/23 |
|
| www.consumerfreedom.com/petaPetition.cfm Posted January 19, 2004 Despite its deceptively warm-and-fuzzy public image, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals PETA has donated over $150,000 to criminal activists - including those jailed for arson, burglary, and even attempted murder. In 2001, PETA donated $1,500 to the North American Earth Liberation Front, a criminal organization that the FBI classifies as domestic terrorists. And since 2000, rank-and-file PETA activists have been arrested over 80 times for breaking various laws during PETA protests. Charges included felony obstruction of government property, criminal mischief, assaulting a cabinet official, felony vandalism, performing obscene acts in public, destruction of federal property, and burglary. Click here to listen to PETA vegetarian campaign director Bruce Friedrich encouraging activists to commit arson against restaurants, medical laboratories, and banks. But few of these other tax-exempt groups share PETAs total disregard for the law. In 2002 PETA collected over $17 million from Americans, avoiding over $3 million in federal income taxes. Because this tax break amounts to a huge subsidy, every American taxpayer is footing the bill for PETAs behavior . PETAs tax-exempt status was granted by the United States government on the basis of the groups willingness to conduct itself in a lawful fashion. We believe that PETA has failed to live up to its end of the bargain, and that the Internal Revenue Service should cancel PETAs tax-exempt status. Your signature - along with those of thousands of other Americans - will be used to encourage United States government officials to take action. PETA is currently being investigated by the IRS, so this is the perfect time to make your opinion known. Note: We will not sell or otherwise transfer your personal information to any business, organization, or government agency. By repeatedly and continuously giving financial support to individuals and organizations devoted to domestic terrorism, PETA has demonstrated that it is incapable of conducting itself in a manner expected of nonprofit groups receiving federal tax subsidies. PETA should not enjoy tax-exempt status similar to that of universities, houses of worship, and legitimate social service and educational organizations. |
| www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Berman_%26_Co Berman & Co - Disinfopedia. Disinfopedia Recent changes Edit this page Page history Printable version Disclaimers. Berman & Co There is currently no text in this page. |
| www.prwatch.org/improp/ddam.html It states that its mission is to expose where anti-consumer organizations and activists get their money. It attacks activists as nannies, anti-choice zealots and hypocrites who pretend to represent grassroots citizens while taking money from foundations. According to ActivistCash, they have a hidden agenda aimed at eliminating your right to eat, drink and smoke as you please in restaurants, hotels and taverns. In reality, none of the information that ActivistCash exposes has ever been hidden. It is available in public foundation reports and IRS tax statements that nonprofit organizations make available to anyone who asks. Most of the information in the ActivistCash database can already be found in public libraries or downloaded via the Internet. Nonprofit organizations are not required to disclose the names of specific individual or institutional donors, but most of the organizations attacked by ActivistCash have gone beyond the requirements of the law in providing the information which ActivistCash is now using to attack them. It attempts to discredit activists by suggesting that there is something disreputable about the money they have received from foundations. Personnel Richard Berman is listed as president and his wife Dixie is listed as secretary/treasurer of Berman & Co. Two of Bermans front groups the Guest Choice Network and the Employment Policies Institute Foundation have registered as tax-exempt nonprofit organizations, and both list Berman as their executive director. The two groups have the following listed officers: Employment Policies Institute Foundation Ray Kraftson, director Thomas K. Dilworth, secretary, is also listed in some news stories as EPIs research director James R. Ledley, director Jacob Dweck, director Richard Toikka, a member of the Republican National Lawyers Association , is also EPIs chief economist . Berman, secretary/treasurer Dan Popeo, director Popeo is also chairman of the Washington Legal Foundation , a corporate-funded right-wing think tank which paid him $301,593 in salary and benefits in 2000. Allison Whitesides, director Whitesides has also worked as a public relations representative for Coca-Cola North America and Outback Steakhouse. In November 2001, she went to work as a legislative representative for the National Restaurant Association. The Guest Choice Network also has an advisory panel, which in 1998 included the following individuals: Dave Albright, National Steak & Poultry Jane Innes, Perkins Family Restaurants, LP. Steve Bartlett, Meridian Products Corporation Robert Basham, Outback Steakhouse, Inc. Berglund, Minnesota Licensed Beverage Association Lou Chatey, Sebastiani Vineyards HA Andy Divine, University of Denver Timothy J. In 1995, these ties figured in a House Ethics Committee investigation into allegations that House Speaker Newt Gingrich gave favorable treatment to Brinker and Berman in exchange for a $25,000 contribution. In 1990, Berman lobbied on behalf of restaurant chains as they fought against the Pepper Commission, a blue-ribbon panel studying the problem of uninsured Americans which recommended that the federal government oblige restaurateurs and other employers to provide employees with medical insurance. His first front group, the Employment Policies Institute , was launched in 1991, around the time of the economic recession that led to the electoral defeat of then-president George Bush. Launched in 1991, the EPI deliberately attempted to create confusion in the eyes of journalists and the general public by adopting a name which closely resembles the Economic Policy Institute , a much older, progressive think tank with ties to organized labor. In addition to imitating the name and acronym of the Economic Policy Institute, Bermans outfit even used the same typeface for its logo. In reality, the two groups have dramatically different public policy agendas. The Economic Policy supports a living wage and mandated health benefits for workers. Bermans organization opposes both and in fact opposes any minimum wage whatsoever. In 1992, Los Angeles Times business columnist Harry Bernstein noted that EPI was using misleading studies to help put a positive spin on rising unemployment. The conservative EPI, financed mostly by low-wage companies such as hotels and restaurants, is issuing reports the titles of which alone could help put a bright face on the miserable job scene, Bernstein wrote. The latest one is The Value of Part-Time Workers to the American Economy. It hails as a great thing the distressing growth of part-time jobs because they offer flexibility in economic planning for both workers and companies, and say that flexibility is vital in the growing and increasingly competitive global economy. Tell that nonsense to the more than 65 million workers forced to take part-time jobs because nothing else is available. That is an increase of more than 15 million involuntary part-timers since 1990, the Bureau of Labor Statistics says. EPI has been doing more or less the same thing ever since, sponsoring cooked studies and issuing tendentious sound bytes whenever attempts are made to establish healthcare or better wages for workers. Berman continued to fight against mandated insurance in 1992 and 1993, when president-elect Bill Clinton attempted to make health care reform one of his first legislative priorities. Berman created yet another front group, called the Partnership on Health Care & Employment, representing mostly large companies known for paying low wages and high worker turnover. It sponsored a study claiming that compulsory insurance for business would wipe out nine million jobs. During the health reform debate, Bermans study was cited in TV commercials sponsored by the Republican National Committee. The commercials continued to air even after Berman admitted that his study had actually been produced before the Clinton administration even formulated the details of its health plan. Its initial funding came entirely from the Philip Morris tobacco company. Id lke to propose to Philip Morris the establishment of the Guest Choice Network, Berman stated in a December 11, 1995 letter to Barbara Trach, PMs senior program manager for public affairs. The concept is to unite the restaurant and hospitality industries in a campaign to defend their consumers and marketing programs against attacks from anti-smoking, anti-drinking, anti-meat, etc. I would like to solicit Philip Morris for an initial contribution of $600,000. The tobacco company complied with Bermans initial funding request for $600,000 and pitched in another $300,000 early the following year. As of this writing, PM USA is still the only contributor, though Berman continues to promise others any day now, wrote Philip Morris attorney Marty Barrington in an internal company memorandum dated March 28, 1996. No further information is publicly available about Guest Choices finances or activities until its public launch two years later, in April 1998, sporting an advisory board comprised mostly of representatives from the restaurant, meat and alcoholic beverage industries. In 1999, Berman continued to combine tobacco flackery with his role as a restaurant lobbyist, as his American Beverage Institute published a study titled Effects of 1998 California Smoking Ban on Bars, Taverns and Night Clubs. The study surveyed bar owners and managers, asking whether business increased or decreased after January 1, 1998, the date the California bar ban went into effect. Another $163,026 in salary and benefits went directly to Rick Berman as EPIFs executive director, a job on which he reportedly spent 28 hours per week. EPIF secretary Thomas Dilworth sometimes described in news stories as the organizations research director worked an average of 8 1/2 hours per week and received $32,863 in salary and benefits for the year. The Right Guide reports that the Employment Policies Institute received $75,000 in 1995 from the John M. Of course, this is neither a complete nor current picture of its funding. The Guest Choice Network claims to represent more than 30,000 United States restaurants and tavern operators. However, the IRS Form 990 wh... |
| www.consumerdeception.com -> www.consumerdeception.com/ The Center for Consumer Freedom, formerly known as the Guest Choice Network, was set up by Berman with a $600,000 donation from tobacco company Philip Morris. Berman arranges for large sums of corporate money to find its way into nonprofit societies of which he is the executive director. He then hires his own company as a consultant to these nonprofit groups. Of the millions of dollars donated by Philip Morris between the years 1995 and 1998, 49 percent to 79 percent went directly to Berman or Berman & Co. He has worked out a scheme to funnel charitable donations from wealthy corporations into his own pocket. In exchange, he provides a flurry of disinformation, flawed studies, op-ed pieces, letters to the editor, and trade-industry articles, as well as access to his high-level government contacts, who are servants of the industries he represents. In 1995, Berman and Norm Brinker, his former boss at Steak and Ale Restaurants, were identified as the special-interest lobbyists who donated the $25,000 that disgraced then-House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who was hauled before the House Ethics Committee for influence-peddling over the money. Berman and Brinker were lobbying against raising the minimum wage. For example, he has argued against a Mothers Against Drunk Driving MADD initiative to lower the blood alcohol content BAC limit for drivers by claiming that the stricter limits would punish responsible social drinkers. He has claimed that United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention CDC warnings about salmonella-related food poisoning are just whipping up fear over food. Heres how an internal Philip Morris memo described Bermans spin: His proposed solution would broaden the focus of the smoking issue, and expand into the bigger picture of over-regulation. |
| www.organicconsumers.org/Toxic/tobacco.cfm Or perhaps your tastes run more toward on-line articles from PETA , the Organic Consumers Association , or the immodestly self-named Dairy Education Board . Any way you slice it, there are plenty of imaginary tales being told about mad cow this month, mostly by self-promoting organic food activists, animal-rights lunatics , and assorted other professional scaremongers . The scoundrels in these stories are slightly harder to identify than your typical literary villain because they masquerade as media experts. Allow us to help: John Stauber - runs the radical Center for Media Democracy , and has been claiming since 1997 without any proof that mad cow disease runs rampant among United States beef cattle. His chosen hook is the unproven claim that American elk and deer are mad-cow conduits between animals and people. Stauber reacted to the recent Canadian mad-cow situation by referring to a single, isolated case as our North American outbreak , and by claiming again, with no evidence that the disease is inevitable in the United States. Michael Greger - a vegetarian activist doctor who runs the mad-cow scare website of the Organic Consumers Association , and is fond of speaking at animal-rights events, living wage protests, and anti-globalist rallies . He recently provided PETA with a laughable treatise suggesting that the SARS outbreak came from intensive livestock farming . A few weeks ago, Greger told a trio of Gannett News Service reporters: We cant say we dont have mad cow in the United States . Mark Ritchie - scaremonger-in-chief at the anti-corporate, anti-free-trade Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy in Minnesota. In addition to mustering the troops whenever opportunities for food-scare activism arise, Ritchie is an accomplished media flack. He told the Associated Press last month that the Canadian mad-cow situation would soon involve multiple farms and multiple countries, ominously adding that it is disingenuous to say this is about one isolated cow . Were not holding our breadth for Rictchie to retract these statements - even though no other infected cow has been found. Howard Lyman - one part animal-rights scold , one part revival tent preacher click here for video . Lyman trades on the fact that he was brought up in a cattle-ranching family to imply that his strict vegetarianism is somehow more informed than everyone elses dietary choices. Lyman famously and incorrectly predicted on the Oprah show that mad cow disease would make AIDS look like the common cold . He told the Great Falls MT Tribune last month that the Canadian mad-cow case is just the tip of the iceberg . And in a recent Internet polemic, Lyman described Canadas lone l case as a war that will only be ended when we fill our cemeteries . Michael Hansen - a self-proclaimed expert on genetically enhanced food , bovine growth hormone, mad cow disease, and any other food issue he deems ripe for scaremongering. Inexplicably, Hansens blatant activism and string of misrepresentations he has claimed that mad cow disease is often misdiagnosed as Alzheimers has not endangered his job with Consumer Reports magazine . Since the Canadian mad-cow story broke, that food safety concerns should dictate that we start eating only grass-fed, organic, and other specialty beef , as if that would make any difference. Ronnie Cummins - a Ralph Nader disciple who runs a social pressure group called the Organic Consumers Association . Cummins has openly expressed his hope that a United States mad-cow epidemic would fuel a crisis of confidence in American food , similar to the one that he claims drove British consumers to organic and other high-priced options. He told a Canadian Press reporter last week that no case of mad cow has ever been found in a cow raised on an organic farm . Germanys very first case of mad cow disease was diagnosed in a slaughterhouse that only processed organic beef cattle . And Cummins should know this: his website redistributes the Wall Street Journal article that first told the story. Robert Cohen - an animal-rights radical who is convinced that cows milk is the root of all evil . While he hasnt yet penetrated the mainstream media with his doom-and-gloom mad-cow message, Cohens thousands of daily website visitors recently read his unfounded conclusion that Mad Cow Disease is now here in America . A few weeks ago, Cohen claimed that dairy foods made from Canadian milk were a ticking time bomb . These seven scaremongers are responsible for almost all of the hyperbole, misrepresentation, and make-believe stories you hear about mad cow disease. |
| www.theecologist.org/links.html?section=32 Youve done a tremendous job in making accessible some of the most censored stories in the British media. I want to congratulate you from the bottom of my heart on the content, style, design and relevancy. Dedicated to providing the data, tools, knowledge, and expertise that will help tribes, governments, community groups, and businesses communicate the various facets of environmental, health and social problems, solutions, and achievements . PR Watch offers investigative reporting on the public relations industry helping the public recognise manipulative and misleading PR practices by exposing the activities of secretive, little-known propaganda-for-hire firms that work to control public debates and opinion . Run by Washington lobbyist Rick Berman, this web site claims to expose the hidden funding behind environmental and health activists, but wont disclose its own funding-which comes from the tobacco, alcohol and restaurant industries. CorpWatch gives out bimonthly Greenwash Awards to corporations that put more money, time and energy into slick PR campaigns aimed at promoting their eco-friendly images, than they do to actually protecting the environment. Nominations for these Awards come from you, when you send in a print, electronic or television ad, along with the reasons why you think it deserves an Award. Many people donate millions of pounds each year to organizations that say they are working to protect the environment and wildlife. But how much do we really know about these organizations and their activities? Disclaimer: Please note that listing any of the following linked sites is for directory purposes only and does not, in any way, imply endorsement of any of the sites, their views or policies or the accuracy of information that they contain. |
| ngin.tripod.com/190502b.htm In Bermans published letter he asserts that he actually paid at least a part of the non-profit money he has steered toward his corporation to other people he chooses to employ, as opposed to putting it in his own personal bank account. Bermans tortured defense is akin to someone reporting Harrison Ford is paid $20 million a picture, and Ford protesting, No, that money doesnt go to me! The check goes to my CORPORATION, and then I have to pay my script reader, my office rent, my phone bill, my agent, my bookkeeper, my housekeeper, my personal assistant, my cook, my pool cleaner, my helicopter mechanic, my masseuse, my ex-wife and the guy who washes my Rolls! To claim Im paid $20 million a picture is defamatory - my employees get some of that! Imagine if the Executive Director of the Sierra Club raised in one year a total of $100 million for the respected non-profit organization - and then paid 79 or $79 million of it to himself directly as salary and to a corporation he wholly owned, as consulting fees. Berman would probably be first at the door of the Internal Revenue Service trying to get the Sierra Clubs non-profit status yanked. Is moving the majority of corporate donations from a non-profit you run to a for-profit you own what the IRS intended for non-profit status? It may all be perfectly legal, but theres an Enron-esque feeling to it - and Berman is currently acting like he REALLY doesnt want this information out there. |
| www.sovereignty.net/p/ngo/A17879-2003May5.html Conservancy officials hailed it as an important victory for conservation on Marthas Vineyard, part of a campaign to save the Earths Last Great Places. The Conservancy, known for buying and holding raw land in perpetuity, did not opt for 100 percent preservation in this case. Instead, as part of the deal, the Conservancy placed restrictions limiting some development on the newly purchased land and then immediately resold half of it to others, paving the way for Gatsbyesque vacation houses on pristine beach and grasslands. Those buyers included a pair of Oracle software tycoons, a retired Goldman Sachs executive and comedian David Letterman. Its a Last Great Place for David Letterman, quipped former Conservancy executive David Morine, now one of its critics. For their part, Conservancy officials defend the deal as one that preserved half the land and preempted denser development on the other half. A closer look at the serpentine deal reveals another unexpected facet: the transaction hinged on an $185 million charitable gift made to the Conservancy two days before the closing, according to interviews with people involved in the purchase. The Conservancy used the gift to buy the land from business entities owned by the same family that donated the money. That series of transactions allows the family to seek an $185 million tax deduction, according to a family spokesman. The gift would not be deductible under Internal Revenue Service rules if it were made with a binding restriction that it had to be used to complete the property deal. Conservancy officials said there was no restriction on the donation. They said the deal violated no IRS rules and represented a use of tax incentives for conservation that served the public good. Birle, said in a separate interview that the money was used to close the gap between the buyers and sellers. How did the Nature Conservancy, once known as natures real estate agent, end up clearing a path for resort-sized houses on environmentally sensitive land in Marthas Vineyard? Wallace approached officials on the island with a plan to rezone a historic oceanside property known as Herring Creek Farm in order to build 54 homes. When development-shy officials rebuffed the plan, the Wallaces challenged the decision in seven lawsuits. In November 1999, Lettermans development company, MV Regency Group, offered to buy Herring Creek Farm. His agent promised limited building: six eco-friendly oceanside homes. More than half the property - 115 acres - would be donated to the Farming Agriculture and Resource Management Institute, a small local nonprofit, to create a farming demonstration project for children, an institute official said. But the Letterman proposal languished because of strong local opposition to development on the site. The Cohan family, the original owners who sold to the Wallaces, could block the deal until 2010 because they had a first option to repurchase the land. The Cohans were opposed to any further development at all, said Joseph Shea, a Cohan family attorney. We always wanted less rather than more development, Shea said yesterday. In 2000, the Conservancy, which had a long-standing interest in the property, quietly made its own offer to the Wallaces. The Conservancy said it planned to keep and preserve half of the acreage and sell the rest to conservation buyers who would agree to development restrictions on the land. The Conservancy convinced the Cohans to go along with the deal, Conservancy officials said. After the Conservancy expressed an interest, the Wallaces let it be known in the small island community that the respected environmental nonprofit organization was a potential buyer, according to Stuart R. With the Conservancy in the picture, the Wallaces were able to finally satisfy their desire to get a rezoning that would boost the value of their property. Julia Wells, who covered the Herring Creek Farm saga for the Marthas Vineyard Gazette, said Johnson used the Conservancys name to help sway votes on the zoning commission. Key people were told on the commission that the Wallaces would not build on the property but instead intended to sell the land to the Conservancy, Wells said. Said Johnson, I might have said that in the final quarter of the process. But he said other factors influenced the vote as well, including a desire to end the long standoff. Conservancy officials said they were unaware their organizations name was used by the Wallaces with the zoning commission and that we did not, nor did we try to, have special influence over public officials. The commission voted 7 to 6 to give the Wallaces permission to build 33 houses on the land. The rezoning boosted the propertys estimated fair market value to $78 million, or $363,000 an acre, a considerable premium above the $64 million, or $298,000 an acre, that the Conservancy eventually offered. This would allow the Wallaces to apply for a $14 million IRS deduction for the difference, under tax provisions allowing such deductions for bargain sales to charities. Johnson said in an interview that the Wallaces viewed the deduction as a way to soften the pain of taxes and the linchpin to the deal. With the rezoning in hand, a complicated transaction went forward - so complicated that even some participants say they dont understand all of its aspects. About $45 million came from a varied collection of buyers: the farming institute; That left $185 million that the Conservancy needed to come up with to meet the Wallaces $64 million purchase price. On July 10, 2001, Real Estate Equities LP, a Wallace-owned company, donated a partial interest in another family partnership, known as Windsor at Hauppauge LP, to the Wallace Foundation, whose trustees are the Wallace brothers. On July 18, 2001, the foundation gave $185 million to the Conservancy. Two days later, the Conservancy placed $64 million in escrow for the purchase. Conservancy officials and Johnson initially said that one key to the deal was the $185 million donation. Later, Conservancy officials denied the gift was tied to the purchase. They said the Wallace Foundation developed its tax strategy with no consultation with the Conservancy. We needed to find $18 million somewhere, Conservancy officials said in a statement, but the funds could have come from anyone interested in conservation on Marthas Vineyard. Mike Dennis, the Conservancys general counsel, said there was never a legal obligation for his organization to use the $185 million to purchase the farm. Because if you do it one way, its allowable, acceptable and done all the time. A 1972 IRS ruling states that for a contribution to be allowed as a tax-deductible gift, there can be no expectation of procuring a commensurate financial benefit in return. The IRS has additional provisions regulating gifts from family foundations to prevent self-dealing by their members, such as the use of charitable donations to benefit themselves. In the end, the Conservancy, the Wallaces and the private buyers all emerged as winners. In addition to the $64 million sale price, the Wallaces gained $32 million in tax breaks. The Conservancy ended up with 102 acres of what it terms the most ecologically important parcels of the land, which it plans to restore. The organization also got a choice lot worth several million dollars earmarked for development of a luxury home. Only 1 percent of sandplain grasslands ecosystem remains in the world. Wallace family spokesman Johnson hailed the $185 million donation as probably the biggest gift in the history of the Commonwealth and for sure in the history of Marthas Vineyard. A Conservancy ad published in the Wall Street Journal last May saluted the Wallaces as among seven top donors to its Last Great Places campaign. Letterman acquired one of the old Wallace homes, a sprawling, 4,750-square-foot structure on 24 acres looking out on the Edgartown Great Pond. It is a short walk to a private ocean beach bordered by grasslands that are home to osprey, short-eared owls and piping plover. Early last year, Stanton began bulldozing for a $14 million mansion that soon resembled a high-end resort. |
| consumerfreedom.com Anti-tech Leader: Traditional Science Stinks (5/13/04) We've told you before how the likes of Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth seek to employ the "Precautionary Principle" as a way to smother scientific progress. In Great Britain's Guardian newspaper yesterday, Foundation on Economic Trends (FOET) president and neo-Luddite granddaddy Jeremy Rifkin sounds the battle cry for more precautionary nonsense, declaring: "The precautionary principle is deeply at odds with the traditional Enlightenment idea about science." Rifkin and his fellow technophobes see the Precautionary Principle as a way to suffocate advances in biotechnology, stifle modern farming, and basically thwart science. Lawsuits Chipping Away At Food Choices (5/12/04) PETA front-man Neal Barnard deemed an expert witness in an obesity lawsuit? Litigation-happy John Banzhaf finding a single judge and jury who agrees with his argument that restaurants should be liable for their customers' weight gain? In March we told you about one of the top five ridiculous lawsuits of 2003 -- courtesy of the legal reform group Common Good -- where the Illinois Court of Appeals determined that parents could sue a Chinese restaurant for a hot tea burn, even though their child caused the burn by spinning a lazy Susan. Now Common Good has drawn our attention to a 9-year legal assault on Doritos, in which the chips were charged with being too darned hard. Food Cops Infest Congress (5/11/04) It's time to call the exterminator. Capitol Hill is becoming infested with nutrition zealots who aim to restrict our food choices -- namely, the self-described "food police" at the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI). Today CSPI diet scold Margo Wootan hosted a press conference with Sen. Assorted media assembled to watch them demonize school vending machines and promote Sen. Harkin's bill designed to increase federal control over children's diets. Harkin's plan has already been dubbed "legislative lunacy" by one commentator, but the craziness is bound to escalate proportionally with CSPI's ever-growing presence in the halls of Congress. Their increasing influence on federal legislators should alarm anyone with taste buds, a fondness of food, and a basic understanding of personal responsibility. Hey CSPI - Soda Still Doesn't Cause Obesity (5/11/04) Two weeks ago, the Center for Consumer Freedom reported on the Center for Science in the Public Interest's (CSPI's) flawed attempt to show that soda is somehow linked to childhood obesity -- using a single study from fat-tax advocate David Ludwig. Back from the drawing board, CSPI apparently thinks that two entirely inconclusive studies are better than one. School Boards Beware: Animal Rights Group Poses As Health Charity To Promote Vegetarian Only Meals The Center for Consumer Freedom sent letters today to the nation's 75 largest school boards, warning about a radical animal-rights group that is posing as a health organization and trying to advance its radical vegan agenda on public schools in the wake of the mad-cow hysteria. |
| peta.org PETA Business Friends PETA believes that animals deserve the most basic rights--consideration of their own best interests regardless of whether they are useful to humans. Like you, they are capable of suffering and have interests in leading their own lives; |
| sovereignty.net Read Testimony How Environmentalists Intend to Rule the World Ron Arnold has analyzed a speech by Randall Hayes, President of the Rainforest Action Network, which lays out in great detail, how global greens are working to transform and control the world's economic system, in pursuit of global governance. Read more Jesse Helms warns UN Security Council Here is the full text of a most remarkable speech by Jesse Helms to the UN Security Council, delivered January 20, 2000. Read more Global taxation gaining momemtum Well funded NGOs are promoting a variety of global taxing schemes to set the UN free from depedence upon the contributions of member nations. Read more Socialism in America Socialism in America is alive, well, and growing. Aided by such influential Congressmen as John Conyers, Ranking Member of the House Judicial Committee, David Bonior, the pit-bull-dog who successfully whipped Newt, Maxine Waters, the President's outspoken defender in the impeachment debates, and nearly fifty Representatives, socialism is advancing in America behind the "Progressive" label. |