Animal Crackers

HLS: Special Dispensation

As yet another measure of their success, Animal Rights terrorists in the UK can point to the inability of Huntingdon Life Sciences to find an auditor to prepare their accounts so that they may be filed, as required by UK law. The English government is making allowances:

Huntingdon Life Sciences, the animal testing laboratories whose auditor resigned after becoming the target of animal rights activists, has been told that it does not have to file accounts in the UK until the Government passes legislation to protect the identity of its advisers.

HLS has not filed accounts since 2003 under a series of rolling exemptions granted by the Department of Trade and Industry. But a DTI spokesman said last week that circumstances were unlikely to change until legislation was introduced that would give auditors anonymity where a security risk existed.

The Government hopes to include the relevant measures in the Companies Bill, but that might not become law until the end of next year.

"The Government is fully aware of this issue and is considering how best to resolve it," the DTI spokesman said.

It's hard to know, but it looks like the government is getting the message: the tertiary targeting techniques used by AR terrorists are effective. Better late than never.

The Cambridgeshire company does its banking with the Bank of England, and its insurance is handled by the DTI, because commercial firms dare not do business with it. However, the company is unable to obtain an audit in the UK as this would reveal the auditor's identity when the accounts were published at Companies House.

The company's former auditor, Deloitte, resigned in 2003 after its offices around the world were targeted by animal rights activists.

As I say . . . tertiary targeting is very effective.

HLS is audited in the US, but this is unacceptable in Britain because the audit firm involved is not UK registered.

An HLS spokesman said: "We are in a situation where anything that could be done to normalise our business practices would be welcome."

Measures proposed for the Companies Bill would exempt auditors from the obligation of signing off accounts and revealing their identities if they would be in danger from extremists.

But accountants believe the measures will not be adequate. Peter Wyman, a partner at PricewaterhouseCoopers, said: "There are inevitably large numbers of people at the audit firm who know the identity of the client and it only takes one of those to blow the whistle." [My emphasis . . . ed]

For the government to "get the message" is one thing, for them to do "something" is a second thing, and for that "something" to be effective is a third thing.

In this case, the government "got the message," and have done something. But I doubt it will be effective.

In my view, passing a law allowing a company to audit HLS anonymously won't make much difference. The fear of any auditor being "outted" by an employee, for whatever reason, renders the law an exercise in frustration: no auditing firm can count on remaining anonymous, and so no accounting firm is likely to audit HLS.

This tertiary targeting tactic is so very effective that it's just a matter of time before other terrorist groups, domestic and foreign, pick it up and use it for their own cause, be it environmental or "other."

Beyond this, there's always the worry about ideologically-distinct terrorist groups combining resources according to the concept that the "enemy of my enemy is my friend."

Still, there is no question that the British government recognizes tertiary targeting as the grave threat it is, not just to HLS but to all aspects of British life (political, social, cultural and economic), and are trying to counter it.

That's a good first step — and I have no doubt that if the legislation fails in its goal for HLS to find an auditor, the government will take other steps.

The British government seems to have seen the dots and begun connecting them, and I don't think they'll let AR thugs drive HLS out of business if they can possibly help it.

Thanks to "a source."

Brian

HLS: The History of Their Application to be Listed on the NYSE

I've posted quite a bit on the October 26 hearings conducted by the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, and have welcomed the legislation that came out of those hearings.

But to me, one of the most striking things to have emerged was the testimony of Mr. Mark Bibi, the General Counsel of Huntingdon Life Sciences. It is truly remarkable because it details the process that HLS had gone through to win listing on the New York Stock Exchange. And this, in turn, provides context for the last minute decision of a frightened Catherine Kinney, President of the New York Stock Exchange, to "postpone" listing HLS.

When you read this, it's impossible (at least for me) to believe that anything other than her fear of being targeted by Animal Rights activists stampeded Kinney into her abrupt 12th hour decision.

The fact that extremist groups like SHAC can exercise this much power is truly frightening, and the fact that Kinney caved so easily shows how totally unfit she is for her job.

What follows is the prepared testimony of Mr. Bibi.

Good afternoon, Chairman Inhofe, Ranking Member Jeffords and members of the Committee. My name is Mark Bibi. I am General Counsel of Life Sciences Research and its operating subsidiary, Huntingdon Life Sciences. Thank you for this opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the dangers posed by SHAC , identified by the FBI as one of the nation’s leading domestic terrorist threats. It is a serious matter and deserves a serious response.

LSR is a publicly traded company headquartered near Princeton, New Jersey. An important part of our work is to conduct government-required animal testing on drugs and chemicals to identify risks to humans, animals and the environment. Because of these efforts to make sure products are safe, HLS and those who do business with us have been relentlessly terrorized by SHAC.

As I awoke on a chilly November morning and looked out my window, the fears that had been building ever since I was first targeted for terror by SHAC a few months earlier were realized. My car’s front windshield had been smashed with a large boulder. The car was covered with animal rights graffiti. Warning messages were spray painted all over my house – “Pup Killer”; “Close HLS”; “Quit Now”. I immediately knew that I had been the victim of a SHAC attack. The impact of this violence -- and the implicit threat of future violence -- is a terrifying life-changing event.

In passing — the symbolism of the threat, and Mr. Bibi's ability to foresee in his mind's eye a terrible future purely on the basis of the symbolism, is a kind of fear that humans have but animals do not: I can assure you, Mr. Bibi's cat wouldn't have been a bit terrified about her future from the events of that night.

When it comes to suffering, it is this human capacity to construct in the mind a terrible future based on symbolic acts and abstract threats that separates the human capacity to suffer from that of animals.

A few months earlier SHAC identified me as a target in their newsletter and on their web site. They posted my name, home address and phone number, with the exhortation “Go get ‘em.” Almost immediately, the harassment and intimidation had begun – nasty phone calls in the middle of the night. Threatening letters and e-mails. Protesters at my home screaming through bullhorns that I’m a “murderer”. And now the sanctity and safety of my home had been violated.

Other SHAC targets have suffered beatings, acid attacks, car and letter bombings.

SHAC uses these terror tactics not only against HLS and its employees, but also against third parties to force them to sever their business relationships with Huntingdon. Time and again, in dozens of cases, both customers’ and HLS’ providers –from accounting firms, to banks, to lawn gardeners and even our security firm –have been forced by fear to capitulate to SHAC’s demand that they cease working with us, deciding it’s safer to them and their employees to give in rather than to suffer the personal harassment and intimidation.

SHAC is now attacking the integrity and independence of the US stock market system. LSR’s stock trades on the OTCBB market. SHAC targets and harasses any market maker that dares to trade in LSR stock, and more than forty market makers have caved in to SHAC’s intimidation. Only one, Legacy Trading, currently consistently makes a market in LSR stock. [My emphasis . . . ed]

And Mr. Boruchin, of Legacy Trading, has been relentlessly and savagely targeted himself.

SHAC has a current campaign against LSR’s institutional investors. Taking advantage of public SEC filings to identify those institutional investors, SHAC has intimidated most of them into selling their LSR stock, causing significant dislocation in the market.

But perhaps the most shameful apparent capitulation to date and that which poses the greatest risk to the US economy is that of the New York Stock Exchange. In the summer of this year LSR entered into listing discussions with the NYSE. We met all of the financial requirements to list our stock on the Exchange. We told them about the SHAC campaign. The NYSE dismissed the potential risks, pointing out that since 9/11, they had been a target of the most dangerous terrorists in the world, assuring us they would not be scared off by SHAC. We spent a number of weeks completing all the necessary paperwork and interviews, keeping in regular contact with NYSE staff throughout, and on August 22nd the NYSE told us that we had been authorized for listing. We issued a press release announcing that approval and reporting that we expected to begin trading on the NYSE on September 7; that press release was approved in advance by the NYSE, and the President of the NYSE, Catherine Kinney, even included a quote [in that release] welcoming us [My emphasis . . .ed]

On the morning of September 7 our senior management team went to the NYSE’s Wall Street headquarters for the original listing celebration. But only minutes before we were to go down to the trading floor to watch the first trade in LSR stock, the President of the NYSE told us that they would not be listing LSR stock that day, and that our listing was postponed. One of my LSR colleagues and I spent the next hour or so meeting with senior NYSE officials. We spoke only about the animal rights campaign against the Company. It was patently clear to me that the only reason the NYSE postponed our listing was because of concerns about the SHAC campaign. [My emphasis . . . ed]

All Americans took pride when the New York Stock Exchange reopened for business only four business days after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Yet, apparently purely on the basis of a perceived threat from SHAC, the NYSE postponed plans to list LSR. A handful of animal extremists had succeeded where Osama bin Laden had failed. [My emphasis . . . ed]

And that really is the bottom line: A handful of animal extremists had succeeded where OBL had failed.

One may ask how that could be. I suspect that the answer is that Kinney didn't feel personally threatened in the case of the al Qaeda attacks of 9/11, but did feel personally threatened by the AR extremists.

So — if al Qaeda and (and other terrorist groups) are serious about destroying the US, why are they screwing around trying to blow things up? Why not just personally threaten Ms Kinney and others like her?

It would go largely unnoticed by the mainstream media (meaning there wouldn't be an outpouring of sympathy against the terrorists) and it would be much more effective!

We have received no information from the NYSE since September 7. They have never raised with us any question of our eligibility or suitability to list. They have not asked us for any further information. We just seem to have been indefinitely postponed, with no indications as to when – if ever –the NYSE will tell us anything. [My emphasis . . . ed]

It's worth noting that even in the senate hearings, the NYSE stonewalled. They merely claimed that the fact that HLS met the criteria for being listed didn't guarantee them a listing — that the NYSE reserved the right to make such decisions based on criteria other than the health of the company.

And, of course, the NYSE won't divulge the basis of their decisions because of "confidentiality."

The risks posed by SHAC should not be underestimated. SHAC is the tip of the iceberg –they are the test case for a whole new brand of activism through personal intimidation. Other activist campaigns are no doubt waiting in the wings to see how SHAC is dealt with. Imagine the impact if SHAC tactics were used by those opposed to various other industries from defense, to mining, to oil, to timber, to who knows what else. [My emphasis . . . ed]

Exactly — if Kinney et al won't draw the line at SHAC, where will they? Or better, will they ever be able to draw a line at all?

SHAC’s greatest impact has come in targeting third parties doing business with or providing services to HLS. I urge the Congress to adopt more effective laws that can be used to control this third party targeting.

Of course, there's only so much that Congress can do — private citizens are going to have to take a principled stand and resist them if terrorists are to be defeated. Clearly, it requires courage — a quality that Ms Kinney lacks, and that I would argue makes her unfit to continue as President of the NYSE.

She should resign.

We cannot allow the domestic terrorism practiced, fostered and encouraged by SHAC to flourish in our own backyard.

Thank you for your time. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.

In the question and answer session that followed oral presentations (scroll forward to 1:11:34) Mr. Bibi stressed that HLS had been "affirmatively told in writing that we had cleared the eligibility review process and were invited to submit the formal application." The invitation for HLS to submit its application occurred after the confidential review of HLS, and after the NYSE had reassured HLS that "they [NYSE] would not be scared off by SHAC."

What SHAC has discovered is that terrorizing a few weak people occupying positions of power is all it takes to force compliance and effect major societal change.

To get some idea of the scope of the problem, consider that in his testimony, John Lewis, Deputy Assistant Director of the FBI, Ecoterrorism, noted that "Over 100 companies — many of them in the U.S. — have severed ties with HLS, including Aetna Insurance, Citibank, Deloitte & Touche, Johnson and Johnson, and Merck. SHAC’s current target list includes GlaxoSmithKline, Roche, Novartis, UPS, and multiple financial institutional investors. SHAC has targeted not only the facilities of these companies, but also their employees and family members."

Folks, if SHAC and the NYSE get away with this, it's just the beginning . . .

Brian

HLS Investors May Sue NYSE

By now, AC readers under no illusions about my feelings towards Catherine Kinney, President of the New York Stock Exchange, and the decision she made to nix Huntingdon Life Sciences' bid for listing HLS on the NYSE: it was a cowardly act, born of the fear of being targeted by Animal Rights thugs who regularly use coercion, intimidation and vandalism — including arson and bomb attacks — to force compliance.

In the event, HLS had passed the screening the NYSE required of potential applicants, and had been invited to apply for listing on the exchange. The NYSE was well aware of SHAC's efforts to bring down HLS, and the application had been approved and a formal announcement had been scheduled for September. HLS's public notification that it would be listed on the NYSE and that the announcement would be made official on September 7 was approved by the NYSE and contained a message from Kinney herself.

On the morning of September 7, Catherine Kinney announced instead — to HLS executives gathered at a celebratory breakfast only 45 minutes before HLS's moment of triumph — that the listing would be "postponed," stunning everyone, including her own colleagues as well as HLS executives, none of whom had any inkling at all this was coming.

In the immediate aftermath — lasting about an hour — the conversation between Kinney and HLS executives focussed almost exclusively on Animal Rights issues, not on any "skeletons" in HLS's closet. Neither Kinney nor the NYSE has yet offered any specific explanations as to why the lurch backwards, even when questioned during the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works hearings that were held on October 26. Everything is "confidential" — which is a neat way to avoid accountability.

Suffice it to say, Ms Kinney's reversed course cost HLS many millions of dollars — or, more precisely, it cost HLS's shareholders many millions of dollars.

But it looks like like shareholders may not take that lying down:

Investors in Huntingdon Life Sciences are threatening to sue the New York Stock Exchange over its last minute decision to block the share listing of the controversial drugs testing company.

Hundreds of institutional investors are nursing heavy losses after buying shares in Huntingdon in anticipation of the listing on the NYSE.

Shares in Huntingdon, which currently trades as Life Sciences Research on the Over The Counter Bulletin Board, a lightly-regulated trading service, soared by more than 10 per cent after the company announced at the end of August that it was planning to list on the NYSE.

However, since the NYSE's shock decision on September 7 to indefinitely postpone the planned listing, Huntingdon's shares have plummeted by more than 30 per cent.

A spokesman for Huntingdon in the US confirmed that investors were considering taking legal action against the NYSE. "A lot of investors bought in on the expectation of the company listing," he said.

The threat of legal action will put further pressure on the NYSE to reconsider its decision.

I hope they sue, and I hope they collect big-time.

And I hope Kinney does the honorable thing and resigns. An institution with the power the NYSE has can't be led by someone who is a coward.

Thanks to an anonymous reader for the tip.

Brian

S. 1926 — A Response to Tertiary Targeting

The hearings held on October 26, 2005 by the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works has produced legislation designed specifically to counter the tertiary targeting techniques used by Animal Rights extremists. (Tertiary targeting refers to a campaign of intimidation and coercion, characterized by harassment, threats and vandalism — up to and including the use of arson and bombs — to coerce suppliers and clients to separate themselves from a principal target. The idea is that if clients and suppliers abandon the principal target, it cannot survive. Tertiary targeting works.)

Here's the gist of the legislation:

INHOFE INTRODUCES ANIMAL ENTERPRISE TERRORISM ACT

S. 1926 Will Provide Federal Authorities With the Necessary Tools to Help Prevent, and Better Investigate and Prosecute Eco-terror Cases

WASHINGTON, DC – Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Chairman of the Environment & Public Works Committee, has introduced legislation that will enhance the effectiveness of the U.S. Department of Justice’s response to recent trends in the animal rights terrorist movement. S. 1926, the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, was drafted with technical assistance from counter-terror experts at the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

“The chilling testimony embracing assassination and destruction that we heard from the ‘spokesman’ of the Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty eco-terror group only points to the need for a tightening of current law for authorities to be to able to prevent future activities, and to better investigate and prosecute eco-terror cases,” Senator Inhofe said. “S. 1926 specifically addresses the ‘tertiary targeting’ tactic employed by eco-terrorists by prohibiting intentional damage of property belonging to a person or organization with ties to an animal enterprise. Currently, only the animal enterprise itself is covered by law. The bill also increases penalties for intentional economic disruption or damage, and for intentionally causing bodily harm or placing a person in reasonable fear of death or bodily harm.”

On Wednesday, the Committee convened a hearing on eco-terrorism, specifically examining the Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty group.

The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act:

Amends the Animal Enterprise Protection Act and enhances the effectiveness of the Department of Justice’s response to recent trends in the animal rights terrorist movement.

Addresses the “tertiary targeting” or “third party targeting” system used by animal rights terrorists by prohibiting the intentional damaging of property of a person or entity having a connection to, relationship with, or transactions with an animal enterprise. Previously, only the animal enterprise itself was covered by the law.

This is a big deal, and the most important provision of the legislature, at least in my opinion. It should give the Feds the legal tools to investigate and prosecute groups like SHAC, who have perfected tertiary targeting and practice it regularly.

Prohibits veiled threats to individuals and their families. It prohibits intentionally placing a person in reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury to that person or their family because of their relationship with an animal enterprise.

If the notion of "reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury" sounds vague and perhaps to be a violation of the First Amendment, there is precedent that it is a sound legal concept ("True Threat"), one that grew out of the anti-abortion movement and now may be applied to the trial of the SHAC 7. This about "True Threat":

The best-known case to address threats over the Internet is Planned Parenthood of Columbia/Willamette, Inc. v. Am. Coalition of Life Activists, 290 f.3d 1058 (9th Cir. 2002) (en banc). In 1994, the American Coalition of Life Activists (ACLA), an anti-abortion extremist group, released a "Deadly Dozen" poster, designed in a wanted-style format with "guilty" captioned at the top and a list of names and addresses of 13 abortion providers.

In 1997, a pro-life activist affiliated with ACLA gave a much longer list of more than 200 "abortionists" to anti-abortion hardliner Neal Horsley, who then posted them on a section of his Christian Gallery Web site labeled "Nuremberg Files." Horsley highlighted the names of those doctors and others murdered by anti-abortion terrorists by striking through their names on the list; those who were merely wounded had their names grayed out [Planned Parenthood, 290 f.3d at 1065.]

Several abortion providers listed on the posters and the Nuremburg Files site sued ACLA and twelve anti-abortion activists. A jury later found that the defendants violated the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, awarding the plaintiffs $107 million in actual and punitive damages. The judge enjoined the posters and restricted the content on the Web site. [See Planned Parenthood, 290 f.3d at 1058.]

On appeal, the defendants argued that the content of the posters and Web site were protected speech under the First Amendment. But the full Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld ACLA's liability, finding that the content on the posters and Web site constituted an unprotected true threat.

The court defined a true threat as a statement made when a "reasonable person would foresee that the statement would be interpreted by those to whom the maker communicates the statement as a serious expression of intent to harm." [See Planned Parenthood, 290 f.3d at 1074, 1088.] The test is an objective one; the defendant does not have to actually intend to, or be able to, carry out the threat. [Id. at 1076.] In the Planned Parenthood case, the Ninth Circuit found that it was reasonable for ACLA members to foresee that the named abortion providers would interpret the posters and Web site postings as a serious expression of ACLA members' intent to harm them.

In a more recent case, a panel of the Ninth Circuit took a more restrictive view of the true threats doctrine when dealing with criminal prosecutions. [See United States v. Cassel, 2005 Wl 1217387 (9th Cir. May 24, 2005).] In Cassel, the defendant was convicted of interfering with a federal land sale after he threatened to burn down any home built on federal property adjacent to his home. The court held that in order to prove that a true threat is unprotected by the First Amendment, the prosecution must show that the defendant subjectively intended the speech as a threat, something not required by the Planned Parenthood case.

Back to the provisions of S. 1926.

Increases penalties for intentionally causing economic disruption or damage and for intentionally causing a person bodily injury or intentionally placing a person in reasonable fear of death or bodily injury.

Broadens the definition of animal enterprise to include a commercial enterprise that uses or sell animals or animal products for profit or otherwise including animal shelters, breeders, pet stores, and furriers.
Makes crimes under the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act eligible for Title 3 electronic surveillance.

Defines the term “economic damage,” which includes the loss of property, costs associated with a lost experiment, or lost profits.

Defines the term “economic disruption,” which means losses or increased costs resulting from threats, acts of violence, property damage, trespass, harassment, or intimidation taking against a person or entity on account of their relationship with an animal enterprise. This does not include lawful boycott.

This is certainly a good start — it was the absence of provisions like these that let Peter Daniel Young mostly off the hook, and to plea-bargain himself into a two year sentence for having released mink into the countryside.

Senator Inhofe and his committee did well, and should be commended.

And, if you haven't listened to the exchanges between Senators Inhofe and Lautenberg with Dr. Jerry Vlasak, do so if you possibly can — they are riveting and revealing in the extreme. You can find the exchange here (scroll to October 26, 2005, and then scroll to 1:18:00 of the video and listen to the last 15 minutes of the hearing).

Notice, in particular, the disbelief in Senator Inhofe's voice after Dr. Vlasak confirms that he regards the life of an animal and that of a human to be of equal moral worth, and allow yourself to be carried away by Senator Lautenberg's fire.

Brian

Vlasak: Audio From Senate Hearing; Boruchin Transcript

The Center for Consumer Freedom has assembled a little "Best of" audio clip from Wednesday's U.S. Senate hearing on "SHAC" and the violent wing of the animal rights movement. You can access it here.

The brief clip focusses on a series of give-and-takes between Dr. Jerry Vlasak, and Senators Inhofe and Lautenberg, respectively.

A thousand thanks to the CCF for making this available to us.

And here is a transcript of the testimony of an amazingly courageous Mr. Skip Boruchin, whose life has been a living hell because he's not done what NYSE President Catherine Kinney did — cave to AR demands. I offer it without comment, but with a suggestion: if you possibly can, listen to Mr. Boruchin first hand (scroll forward to 53:45):

Good afternoon, Chairman Inhofe and Ranking Member Jeffords. Thank you for this opportunity to testify before this Committee today.

Daily, we all are faced with choices. My choice today is to present to you factual information that I hope will assist you. The alternative for me would be to leave it for someone else. My past personal experience indicates my choice to present information to you will unfortunately lead to retaliation against me and my family.

For the last few years, I have been living a somewhat captive existence, held hostage by members of Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (“SHAC”), an animal rights activist/terrorist group. As you have heard, SHAC is an underground group that uses fear and terror to force their viewpoint upon others. I am a NASDAQ Market Maker, lawfully working in the State of Oklahoma making a market in the common stock of many companies. I have been targeted by SHAC because of my job. I am a market maker, that is I am continually prepared to buy or sell shares of these companies thereby providing a liquid ready market for those who desire to buy or sell shares. Huntingdon Life Sciences also known as Life Sciences Research, Inc., (Ticker Symbol -LSRI) is a contract research organization that performs testing on animals and is one of the companies I make a market in.

Beginning roughly about (3 1/2) three and one half years ago, my employer, Legacy Trading, became the TARGET, the proverbial Bull’s Eye for SHAC. This Bull’s eye on my back and on my life is solely due to the fact I have been and remain the only market maker in Life Sciences Research Inc. (LSRI). SHAC launched an all out terrorist attack on too many other Market Makers. Merril Lynch, Charles Schwab, Goldman Sachs to name a few. They were terrorized by “SHAC’s direct action campaigns” specifically to influence and control the market in Life Sciences Research, LSRI.

“Drop LSRI or else!!!” I am the only hold out of dozens of market makers who all capitulated to SHAC’s demands and dropped; that is ceased trading LSRI stock. Viewing me as the sole provider of a market for LSRI, SHAC launched a campaign of sheer terror on me and my family, destroying our privacy, causing dramatic changes in our daily lives now and I’m sorry to say forever.

SHAC’s attempts to force me to stop trading the LSRI stock included local, national and international harassment, intimidation and terror. Personal information of my family, Names’ address’s social security numbers home phone numbers as well as those of nineteen of my neighbors, placed on the SHAC site. “Run him out of town, tell him to drop the stock, or we will publish credit card, medical and other personal information about you.” Daily thousands of obscene and threatening phone calls, to home and office at all hours, day or night; outright slander calling me a “child pornographer” in the media and all over the internet. When these threats and actions did not work, SHAC moved to far more dangerous and insidious tactics. Describing me as the “dreaded Legacy.” SHAC brought their crimes of terror to my home, office and family. One day I awoke to find that SHAC had been in my yard. They spray-painted large messages like “Puppy Killer” “Drop HLS” all over the entire house. They wrote “Skip is a murderer.” “Nine Million Dead” on my garage door. In addition to defacing my home, they cut all lines of communication. The next day, the SHAC website bragged that this was the beginning; more “direct action” will come if you don’t drop LSRI!!”

On four occasions Legacy’s office has been terrorized. The criminals have shattered the front office windows, incendiary devices thrown in, red paint over everything in the office including computers, furniture, the floors and walls. Office equipment was sabotaged and spray-painted messages were left for me to know that I suffered this felony for exercising my right to make a living. “DROP HLS quit making a market!!!”

If tactics like this were not enough, SHAC also targeted my relatives and even my 90-year-old mother. In December of 2004, my mother came under attack. SHAC posted MY MOTHER’S name, her address at her assisted living residence and her phone number on the internet with specific instructions to have her put pressure on me as I spoke and visited with her frequently. I quote the SHAC website when I tell you that SHAC members were instructed to “send her sex toys, have an undertaker arrive to pick up her ‘dead body,’ and call her collect in the middle of the night, pretend to be a friend of Skip’s; ask for his cell number in order to place it on the Internet.”

The SHAC torment of my family did not stop with my Mother. My family has been targeted and terrorized in neighboring states with SHAC action tactics. I have chosen only to tell you of just a few of the harrowing traumatic events I’ve gone through and go through at the hands of SHAC.

It is difficult to describe the emotions that accompany actions such as I described. I feel violated, vulnerable, angry, and gravely frightened for my family. This is precisely SHAC’s goal – to leverage your love of your family, your value of safety, your pursuit of life removing my freedoms to advance their beliefs.

Because I go to work each day as a Market Maker. It is apparent for most people facing this dilemma the decision is simple drop LSRI/ drop Huntingdon Life Sciences.

Well I did not, and I do not intend to. I fundamentally believe in the rights that we all receive as Americans. The right to liberty and privacy. The right to participate in government and even the right to disagree with government. The right to free speech. These are all sacred opportunities that we must not take for granted nor use against others. The healthy exercise of free speech should not hold others captive or force them to do anything.

SHAC inexcusably promotes the lives of animals over the lives of the humans they target. I do not confuse SHAC’s tactics with a noble cause nor should anyone else. Huntingdon is a company that performs a role in the world of developing technology. But more importantly, they perform a lawful function, as do I. Respectfully I ask what would you do if your mother, brother, sister, niece, nephew just went to work and were fanatically terrorized. I urge this Committee to simply evaluate the consequences of such unchecked activism. Please do not allow people to force their causes, ideas or opinions upon others using fear, intimidation, threats of crimes, and criminal acts. I thank you for the opportunity to be heard, and I am happy to answer any questions.

Brian

Senate Hearings on AR and Eco Terrorism Continued III

Here's a marvelous account of happenings that occurred during yesterday's Senate hearings, which can be read in the Americans for Medical Progress newsletter of October 27, 2005 (subscription required).

In particular, Dr. Jerry Vlasak was eaten alive — he stumbled in his testimony, at first seemingly reluctant to say clearly before the senate committee what he so clearly said in other venues: that he finds assassinating scientists to be morally acceptable, if that were to save animal lives (to Dr. Vlasak, and all Animal Rights zealots, the life of an animal and that of a human are of equal value):

Dramatic and passionate interchanges by two U.S. Senators with animal rights militant Jerry Vlasak highlighted yesterday’s hearing by the Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works on the illegal terrorism campaign run by SHAC and its followers against the use of research animals in medicine.

Committee Chairman James Inhofe, (R-OK) announced that he would file legislation this week and vowed to work to get it passed “and give the FBI and the Department of Justice the necessary tools to stop this type of perversion in our society.” Senator Inhofe proposes amending the Animal Enterprise Protection Act to address several gaps and ambiguities in the law that make it difficult to prosecute some of the recent criminal activity against research facilities and their business partners.

The hearing was called specifically to investigate the decision by the New York Stock Exchange to “delay” the listing on the NYSE of Life Sciences Research, Inc., the parent company of Huntingdon Life Sciences. Most observers believe the NYSE executives acted because of their concern about threats of violence by extreme animal rights groups, including SHAC.

While representatives of the NYSE, the FBI and Department of Justice testified before the Committee, and an executive of Life Sciences Research and one of the company’s market makers offered vivid and compelling witness to the threats to which they and their families and staffs have been subjected, the extreme bent of the animal rights philosophy and the violent nature of the activists’ campaign against biomedical research were made extraordinarily clear in the question and answer session following Animal Liberation Press Officer Jerry Vlasak’s prepared testimony. Senator Inhofe and fellow committee member, Senator Frank Lautenberg (D - NJ) seemed incredulous at times as they questioned Vlasak about his radical beliefs, including what he maintained was the moral justification of killing scientists to save animal lives. [My emphasis . . . ed]

Here is a portion of that segment, when Senator Inhofe questioned Vlasak about his statement at the 2003 Animal Rights Convention in which Vlasak said “I don’t think you’d have to kill – assassinate – too many vivisectors…I think for 5 lives, 10 lives, 15 lives, we could save a million, 2 million, 10 million non-human lives.” :

Sen. Inhofe: So you call for the murder of researchers and human lives?

Vlasak: I said in that statement and I meant in that statement that people who are hurting animals and who will not stop when told to stop, one option would be to stop them using any means necessary and that was the context in which that statement was made.

Sen. Inhofe: Including murder, is that correct?

Vlasak: I said that would be a morally justifiable solution to the problem.

Senator Lautenberg, who noted he helped establish the Lautenberg Cancer Center in memory of his father, his uncle and grandfather (all of whom died young from cancer), and in order to help with the search for new therapies for cancer, followed Senator Inhofe’s line of questioning:

Sen. Lautenberg: Dr. Vlasak, you approve of these dastardly acts in the name of liberation, of a liberation movement?

Vlasak: Yes.

Sen. Lautenberg: Do you have any children?

Vlasak: I have no children. And may I – Just to be clear, I don’t approve of any unnecessary suffering and I wish these things didn’t have to happen…

Notice Dr. Vlasak's qualifier "necessary." It is Dr. Vlasak who Dr. Vlasak believes should define "necessary." To him, it is not "necessary" to take animal lives to help cure disease; but it is "necessary" to take human lives to stop animal experimentation — which is why he openly advocates killing scientists, which he believes to be morally acceptable.

Dr. Vlasak sees himself as his own god — a person whose conscience is infallible and who feels perfectly confident in deciding for himself which lives are forfeitable and for what purpose they are.

Dr. Vlasak would reserve for himself the power of deciding, on the basis of his infallible conscience, who lives and who dies . . .

Sen. Lautenberg: You do, and what you said confirms this, so I just want to go there. I want to know who you are and what makes you tick, because it is so revolting to hear what you say about murder. These aren’t extermination camps. What is being done whether you like it or not is to try and improve the quality of life for human beings. This isn’t Germany. How do you feel about the people? You said you think that people who have a cause have a right to violence. How about the guys who kill our soldiers and who killed the people in the Trade Towers? They have a cause. Is that okay with you?

Vlasak: No the unnecessary loss of life is never okay with me. But I extend that loss of life to animal life, non-animal (sic) life as well.

Sen. Lautenberg: You are the super moralist. You are deciding where it is right and where it is wrong. There are many people who have causes. Some of them are justified, but to take tactics like the intimidation of people, to spoil their lives or spoil their ability to make a living is an outrageous thing to propose. You are anti-social in your behavior, obviously. But to sit here so smugly and be proud of the fact that you stand by this statement about five or ten lives…if those lives were your kids…maybe you don’t have anyone you love. Maybe you don’t have any kids.

(Vlasak attempted to use the cloak of his M.D. degree to validate his statements. However, he seemed highly reluctant to state where he currently practices medicine:)

Sen. Lautenberg: Where do you practice now?

Vlasak: I practice in the Los Angeles area.

Sen. Lautenberg: You practice at a hospital.

Vlasak: I do, at a number of hospitals.

Sen. Lautenberg: What is your favorite – what is your dominant hospital?

Vlasak: I practice at several hospitals in the Riverside and San Bernardino area.

Sen. Lautenberg: Name one.

Vlasak: Uh, Loma Linda University.

What a great question — I've often wondered where Dr. Vlasak practiced, and noted with interest that he has never specified a hospital name. You can only imagine how the administrators at Loma Linda Univesity must feel about this . . .

(Vlasak pushed his medical background:

I deal in trauma patients, I see people die everyday. I save lives, but I lose lives sometimes as well. I see these people…)

Sen. Lautenberg. But you are willing to take lives. That is the anomaly here. You are willing to say that somebody you don’t know, somebody’s kid, somebody’s parent, somebody’s brother, somebody’s sister – take that life, that’s okay.

Vlasak: These are not innocent lives. [My emphasis . . . ed]

In my opinion, Dr. Vlasak needs professional help, and lots of it . . . he cannot conceive of the possibility that his conscience could be incorrect.

Just a reminder: Dr. Vlasak is a former spokesman for the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, and the PCRM is a has close ties to PeTA.

Skip Boruchin, who makes a market in Life Science Research stock, told the Committee an incredibly personal story of the threats he has endured and the posting of his family and neighbors’ contact information on the internet, making them the subjects of targeting as well. His mother was harassed by phone calls and mail at her assisted living residence. “It is difficult to describe the emotions that accompany actions such as I described,” he told the Committee. “I feel violated, vulnerable, angry and gravely frightened for my family. This is precisely SHAC’s goal – to leverage your love of family, your value of safety, your pursuit of life…removing my freedoms to advance their beliefs.” He vows he will continue to sell LSR shares.

FBI Deputy Assistant Director John E. Lewis, who heads the Counterterrorism Division, noted in his testimony the development of SHAC splinter groups over the past 18 months. “This is most likely an attempt by animal rights extremists to continue the SHAC campaign while appearing to distance themselves from the SHAC organization.” He said despite SHAC’s claims that it is merely an information service or a media outlet, it remains closely aligned with these groups and with the Animal Liberation Front.

Director Lewis told the Committee, “The FBI’s efforts to target these movements in order to prevent and disrupt criminal activity have been hindered by a lack of applicable federal criminal statutes. This is particularly frustrating as we attempt to dismantle organized, multi-state campaigns of intimidation, vandalism, threats and coercion designed to interfere with legitimate interstate commerce, as exhibited by SHAC. While it is a relatively simple matter to prosecute extremists who have committed arson or detonated explosive devices, under existing federal statutes it is difficult, if not impossible, to address a campaign of low-level criminal activity like that of SHAC.”

At the end of the hearing, Senator Inhofe told Vlasak, “If you believe that (animal lives are equated with human lives) in your own heart, which I believe you do, and you have advocated the assassination and murder of human lives, of human beings, of researchers, then I don’t see any reason to go any further with this. I can just assure you that we are going to give law enforcement the necessary tools to stop this type of thing from happening. I can assure you of that. That is not a maybe, that is a definite.”

Our government seems to be taking Animal Rights extremists far more seriously than the government in the England.

I think Mark Bibi, a lawyer for HLS, made the single best point of the day when he said of Catherine Kinney's precipitous reversal of course, when he said this: "A handful of animal extremists had succeeded where Osama bin Laden had failed." (Quote from Debra Saunders' excellent column "Kill the Researchers."

Amen.

Thanks to AMP for the excellent summary, and the partial transcript of Dr. Vlasak's testimony.

But there's more . . . and you should read all of the Center for Consumer Freedom's take on the hearings and on Dr. Vlasak here. This is a must read . . . and includes this:

Lautenberg, unfazed, insisted: "You have no right to intimidate people who are engaged in a proper practice under our laws." He put his finger on the animal rights movement's problem: Shadowy groups like Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC -- the focus of yesterday's hearing) are only part of a larger animal rights movement whose entire strategy involves intimidating and terrorizing ordinary Americans.

The CCF piece goes on to note that PeTA is adopting some of the same techniques that SHAC uses:

More recently, PETA has begun to engage in the same kinds of tactics that appear to have given SHAC's masked thugs the upper hand over institutions like the New York Stock Exchange. PETA's anti-chicken protesters have begun venting their spleens at fast-food executives at their homes and churches. And this year PETA is using its teen-oriented bulletin boards to arm a large animal-rights mob with home addresses and phone numbers of executives and their extended family members. Given yesterday's gripping Senate testimony from a stock trader who has been similarly targeted by a relative handful of SHAC activists, it's not hard to imagine what PETA has in mind for people who dare to serve up two-piece dinners.">upper hand over institutions like the New York Stock Exchange. PETA's anti-chicken protesters have begun venting their spleens at fast-food executives at their homes and churches. And this year PETA is using its teen-oriented bulletin boards to arm a large animal-rights mob with home addresses and phone numbers of executives and their extended family members. Given yesterday's gripping Senate testimony from a stock trader who has been similarly targeted by a relative handful of SHAC activists, it's not hard to imagine what PETA has in mind for people who dare to serve up two-piece dinners.

What more can I say?

Brian

Senate Hearings on AR and Eco Terrorism Continued II

First things first: A video of yesterday's Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works on Eco/AR extremism and violence is available here (scroll down to October 26). Though I haven't yet had a chance to see it, I'm told Jerry Vlasak has "done incredible harm to the AR cause and himself":

BE SURE to watch the video on the committee's website, especially about 1 hour 20 minutes into it where Frank Lautenberg questions Vlasak. Incredible! It should be in the hands of every reporter covering the issue, in the hands of every citizen. [ . . . ]

Lautenberg is to be commended for demonstrating that the emperor has no clothes! We all should be writing notes of appreciation. Vlasak has done incredible harm to the AR cause and himself.

The mainstream media apparently continues to ignore Investment Terrorism, the sort of intimidation that SHAC evidently instilled in the heart of Catherine Kinney, President of the New York Stock Exchange, that caused her to precipitously "postpone" the listing of HLS on the Exchange at the last moment, without explanation.

One notable exception is Debra Saunders, who wrote another superb column, this one on the hearings, which appeared today:

"ALL AMERICANS took pride when the New York Stock Exchange reopened only four business days after the 9/11 terrorist attacks," Mark Bibi, a lawyer for Life Sciences Research, which tests drugs and chemical on animals, testified before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Wednesday. The committee was investigating the New York Stock Exchange's decision to pull a planned listing of Life Sciences on Sept. 7, after animal-rights extremists vandalized a members' yacht club. So Bibi opined, "A handful of animal extremists had succeeded where Osama bin Laden had failed." [My emphasis . . . ed]

The company was delisted in 2000 because of damage due to "economic terrorism," according to the Financial Times. Bibi and other execs were breakfasting at the NYSE on the morning of Sept. 7, preparing to celebrate the listing on the exchange, when NYSE officials abruptly announced they were postponing the listing.

At the time, NYSE President Catherine Kinney wouldn't say why. A lawyer she sent Wednesday to testify before the committee also refused to say why. He said the exchange is still considering a Life Sciences listing.

Deputy Assistant FBI Director John E. Lewis testified that, shortly after Carr Securities began marketing the Life Sciences stock, activists vandalized the yacht club, to which Carr biggies reportedly belonged. Carr cut all ties with Life Sciences. Later, the NYSE, once defiant in the face of terrorism, caved.

Interesting — Saunders correctly transferred Kinney's shameful, panic-stricken decision to the NYSE itself. Kinney's decision was the NYSE's decision.

Kinney's precipitous decision has discredited the institution she represents: she should resign.

Animal-rights fanatics have figured out that you beat medical research that uses animals not by going after the researchers, but by going after those who do business with the researchers. They cow Wall Street, not by flying into buildings, but by trashing members' clubs.

. . . which is how tertiary targeting works. These are the same tactics used so widely in the UK, and readers of AC will be aware of how AR extremists there terrorized an entire village for years, and whose tactics even included desecrating a grave.

Bibi knows what it is like to be a target. Anonymous thugs vandalized his house, smashed his car's windshield and made nasty phone calls to his home in the middle of the night.

Skip Boruchin, the only trader who refused to be scared out of business with Life Sciences Research, testified about the relentless intimidation he and his family endured. Activists painted his yard red with slogans such as "Skip is a murderer." On line, they called him a "child pornographer." One Web site instructed people to send sex toys to his ninetysomething mother at an assisted-living home. Another Web site listed the names, phone and Social Security numbers of 19 neighbors, and threatened to publicize information about their credit cards or medical history. [My emphasis . . . ed]

This is called tertiary targeting — it's essentially taking hostages.

Violence? Well, there were the two bombs set at Chiron's Emeryville offices in 2003. Agents believe the second bomb was timed to go off as first-responders arrived. The FBI also believes the violence is escalating.

Jerry Vlasak, a Southern California physician who is spokesman for the North American Animal Liberation Press Office, also testified Wednesday. Vlasak dismissed the intimidation of Boruchin and others as "getting a little spray paint on the wall."

Committee Chairman James Inhofe, R-Okla., questioned Vlasak about a statement Vlasak had made defending the assassination of medical researchers. Once again, Vlasak justified violence. For "people who are hurting animals and who will not stop when told to stop," he answered, one option would be murder, a "morally justifiable solution."

You can listen to Dr. Vlasak speak those words here.

If anti-abortion fanatics were behind this vandalism, the Life Sciences saga -- not to mention Vlasak's support for killing medical researchers -- would be the stuff of countless editorials. But because the fanatics say they stand for beagles -- not Bibles -- the cognoscenti barely take notice. They're too busy complaining about how GOP limits to federal funding might crimp research to notice that some zealots advocate killing medical researchers.

Yup — Ms Saunders has made this point before, and I can't help but think she's correct.

If animal-rights nuts can get away with this brand of personal intimidation, extremists of all ideologies will take note. What began in the rat-hugging left will grow on the extreme right and the extreme left.

Bibi sees his company's plight as a "test case for a whole new brand of activism through personal intimidation." And it's winning: Life Sciences Research still remains off the New York Stock Exchange. Terrorism works.

Vlasak testified, "The animal-rights movement has been notoriously nonviolent up to this point."

It sounds as if the days of the friendly spray-painting, bomb-setting, child-porn accuser and club-vandalizing rat-hugger may be over. No more Mr. Nice Guy.

Ouch. Saunders did herself proud.

I'll have more on this later.

Brian

NYSE: The First Report of Senate Hearings

Here's the first report on the NYSE's response to questions by the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works on why, at the very last moment, Catherine Kinney, President of the NYSE, precipitously and without warning "postponed" the Exchange's decision to list Life Sciences Research, Inc, the parent company of Huntingdon Life Sciences.

As you might expect, the NYSE's testimony is distinctly non-specific:

WASHINGTON, Oct 26 (Reuters) - The New York Stock Exchange told a U.S. Senate committee on Wednesday that it is still reviewing the application of an animal-testing company whose listing was postponed last month, minutes before it was slated to start trading.

"Still reviewing," of course, is their "out," and I suspect the NYSE will ultimately list HLS.

Ms Kinney's use of the word "postponed" — probably selected more instinctively out of haste than thoughtfully out of prudence — gave her a little wiggle room and bought an opportunity for the Exchange's cooler heads to craft a reason to undo what Ms Kinney has wrought.

But even if HLS is finally listed, that does not excuse Ms Kinney's precipitous decision of September 7, one which defies rational explanation other than that she acted out of fear, fear that she would be a target of an AR "direct action."

You don't want the President of the NYSE so easily intimidated into compliance by any special group, much less an extremist one.

Richard P. Bernard, general counsel for the NYSE, apologized to Life Sciences Research Inc. for the timing of the postponement, which some said came after pressure from animal rights activists.

"We got our cart before the horse," he said.

Bernard did not explain the reasoning behind the postponement, saying that confidentiality rules prevented him from doing so. [My emphasis . . . ed]

[ . . . ]

It wasn't just the timing of the announcement, it was the fact that Kinney's announcement was precipitous and caught everyone — NYSE people (the NYSE Board of Directors and its PR chief) and HLS people — completely unawares.

Keep in mind that the NYSE had advertised publicly that the listing would be announced on September 7, and that they had arranged a celebratory breakfast to honor the listing. Everyone thought the listing was a "go" right up until Ms Kinney unilaterally pulled the plug.

Confidentiality is a legitimate wall, but one used in this case to shield President Kinney from being held accountable for her bizarre and erratic behavior the morning of the event, behavior that Christopher Byron documented so well.

Mark Bibi, general counsel for Life Sciences, testified at a Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works hearing on Wednesday that he met with NYSE officials on September 7 and that they spoke only about the animal rights campaign from the group Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC).

"It was patently clear to me that the only reason the NYSE postponed our listing was because of concerns about the SHAC campaign," Bibi said. [My emphasis . . . ed]

[ . . . ]

What Kinney did September 7, the day HLS was to be listed, was bad enough: she panicked and made a unilateral decision at the last moment out of fear. But what she's doing now — by not resigning — is inexcusable.

The honorable thing for her to do is to resign.

Bibi said there has been a clear negative impact from the NYSE's postponement.

On the day before the postponement, shares of Life Sciences closed at $17.50 per share on the Over the Counter Bulletin Board. The shares have since traded as low as $8 per share.

The stock closed on Wednesday at $12.25 per share.

The honorable thing for Ms Kinney to do is to resign. No company should have to worry about the erratic behavior of the likes of Ms Kinney being in charge of an institution that they and their shareholders depend on.

"The investment community is losing faith in the stock exchange doing the right thing," Bibi said.

Senator Frank Lautenberg told Bernard during the hearing that it is within the Senate's power to subpoena NYSE records, but did not say it would do so.

He questioned if there is any reason not to list Life Sciences.

"The exchange has the right, under rules approved by the SEC, to bring in other factors to determine a listing," Bernard said.

The exchange may have the right to bring other factors to the table, and certainly should have it.

But power that great should be used with extreme care. Ms Kinney evidently exercised her power recklessly, out of fear of an AR "direct action." In doing, she so provided incentives to those — Animal Rights activists and any other extremist group — who are inclined to use violence, coercion and threats to get their way.

Nor has her subsequent behavior assuaged concerns that Ms Kinney was panicked into her decision by fear: all the evidence points in one direction, and one direction only.

The long and the short of it is this: Ms Kinney allowed herself to be stampeded by fear into a horrible decision that can only be a beacon of hope to each and every extremist group that wants to dictate the terms of listing on the Exchange . . . Or so I would argue.

A predecessor of Life Sciences, Huntingdon Life Sciences Group plc, was previously listed on the NYSE for 12 years, starting in 1989. It was delisted in December 2000 for failure to meet the exchange's financial listing requirements.

At the time, the company indicated that the financial downturn was due to "economic terrorism" by animal rights activists, Bernard said in his testimony.

And how galling for the courageous Mr. Brian Cass, director of HLS, who was beaten by three SHAC thugs wielding pickax handles and yet has not flinched from standing up the AR extremists: now, he has had to watch the spectacle of Ms Kinney cave so easily!

What can I say? I think Ms Kinney should resign.

Brian

Kinney Cancels Senate Appearance

This just in: Catherine Kinney, President of the NYSE, has abruptly cancelled her appearance before the Senate's Environment and Public Works Committee, where she was expected to be asked why she precipitously reversed course and postponed the listing of Huntingdon Life Sciences at the 12th hour.

THE president of the New York Stock Exchange has pulled out of giving evidence at a Senate hearing into why the Big Board cancelled the stock market listing of Huntingdon Life Sciences, the animal research group, last month.

Catherine Kinney had been scheduled to appear before the US Senate Environment and Public Works Committee into animal rights activism today, but has been replaced by Richard Bernard, the NYSE’s chief lawyer. A spokesman for the NYSE declined to comment about the change of plan.

Ms Kinney’s appearance was considered crucial by the committee as it is understood that it was her decision to stop the listing of Huntingdon’s shares. She had been due to give evidence along with Jerry Vlasak, an animal rights activist banned from Britain for advocating violence against company directors.

The committee wants to know about the connection between Dr Vlasak, a heart surgeon and official spokesman for the Animal Liberation Front in America, and Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (Shac), a group of animal rights protesters who have targeted the research company in a relentless campaign of intimidation, vandalism and violence.

The panel will ask Dr Vlasak if he knows of any threats that would have led the NYSE to cancel Huntingdon’s listing at the last minute. It is understood that the committee will focus its questioning of Dr Vlasak on an attack by animal rights activists this year on a New York area yacht club. Some members of the club are understood to have a close association with the NYSE and Huntingdon’s Wall Street advisers, sources said.

There was, of course, more than the attack on the yacht: As Christopher Byron reported: "In recent weeks, the SHAC Web site has been listing the direct-dial office phone numbers and e-mail addresses of dozens of the NYSE's top officials." Plus, Animal Rights activists had launched an e-mail writing campaign urging the NYSE not to list HLS.

Dr Vlasak told The Times last night, however, that he was not aware of any reason why Huntingdon’s float was pulled, but did admit that he knew about the yacht club attack.

The NYSE has not explained why it halted the listing a move that angered Huntingdon directors, who were gathered at the NYSE for a celebratory breakfast when the decision to stop their listing was announced by Ms Kinney.

Nor are Kinney and company likely to . . . again, I call on Kinney to do the honorable thing and to resign.

Mr Bernard is set to be questioned just as intensely as Dr Vlasak. The senators are understood to be incensed that the supposed bastion of market freedom in America would apparently capitulate before a threat from extremists.

We should all be very worried that extremists could panic the President of the NYSE so easily into making such a horrible decision. If she buckles to one group of extremists, why not to others?

Talk about throwing gasoline onto a fire — what better incentive for extremists is there than Kinney's abject capitulation to what appears to be a minor threat.

I continue to believe that if she can't stand the pressure, she should resign.

Last year Dr Vlasak was banned from entering Britain under orders from David Blunkett, the former Home Secretary, because he advocates violence. Dr Vlasak told The Times that he still believes the animal rights movement should use violence. “I think like any struggle against oppression there unfortunately may be the need for violence. Not against innocent people, but against those who are responsible,” he said.

Looks like Kinney got the AR message, and is, in addition, afraid to testify before the Senate!

She needs to resign.

Brian

Advance Notice on Senate Testimony

We have advance notice on how Catherine Kinney, the President of the New York Stock Exchange, will attempt to justify to the Senate's Environment and Public Works Committee her precipitous decision last month to postpone the listing of Huntingdon Life Sciences on the Exchange.

Ms Kinney made her decision at the last minute in the wake of a garden-variety Animal Rights campaign to stop the listing, and it caught everyone by surprise, including her close colleagues and the HLS executives who had gathered — at the invitation by the NYSE, no less — for a celebratory breakfast.

We also have some an idea about what Dr. Jerry Vlasak will say.

Here's what an MSNBC story suggests we are to expect:

The debate over animal rights protesters’ campaign against Huntingdon Life Sciences, the UK drugs testing company, will reach the US Senate on Wednesday as its environment and public works committee holds a day of hearings into “eco-terrorism”.

But the New York Stock Exchange, which has been criticised for abandoning last month’s planned listing for the company at the last moment, appears set to refuse to offer the reasons for its decision, citing its duty of confidentiality to companies seeking a listing. [My emphasis . . . ed]

I guess the reasons are so confidential, they won't even be shared with the company seeking a listing!

According to testimony by Richard Bernard, the stock exchange’s general counsel, which was published last night, HLS was de-listed [from the London Stock Exchange . . . ed] in December 2000, having been listed since 1989, because it had suffered financial reversals due to “economic terrorism” by animal rights activists.

He added: “Regardless of the cause, given the financial situation in which the company found itself, the Exchange’s rules dictated that the company should be de-listed.”

Mr Bernard’s testimony says the exchange decided in August that the company could re-list, after going through the usual processes for assessing its eligibility. He said: “Following that announcement, reactions from persons associated with member organisations and others focused our attention on information that we should have considered in determining the advisability of listing Life Sciences Research’s common stock on the Exchange.”

He added that the decision was taken to postpone the listing, hours before it was due to take place “to provide an adequate opportunity for us to evaluate the information”.

This doesn't pass the laugh test . . . if this was the real reason, the NYSE could have engineered a way to postpone the listing without waiting until the 12th hour, and, had it been the real reason, it would have been simple enough for Kinney to say as much when she announced her decision. And then, there's the little matter of her colleagues being entirely caught off balance by her announcement too. As a reminder, this is how Christopher Byron put it:

For the NYSE to have agreed to list Life Sciences shares for trading on the Big Board may have been gutsy, but it was certainly unnecessary. And it was plainly idiotic, having issued a press release announcing that trading would begin on Sept. 7, to invite the company's top officials for a celebratory breakfast, only to inform them, mere minutes before the opening bell, that there'd been a change of plans and the listing would be "postponed" indefinitely.

According to Life Sciences' Chief Financial Officer Richard Michelson, who attended the traditional breakfast, the bombshell news of the exchange's about-face was delivered to the group by Kinney herself, who cleared her throat, looked at the Life Sciences brass seated around here and declared, "Well, there's no way to sugarcoat this, but the listing will not be taking place today. It is being postponed."

Once her stunned listeners were able to gather their thoughts, they began asking her to explain why. Had the Big Board found some skeleton in the company's closet? Some financial irregularity? Anything?

No, explained Kinney. It was nothing like that.

Well, what then?

"[Kinney] just wouldn't say," Michelson said. "She kept questioning us about SHAC and the animal-rights people," he said. "But she simply wouldn't say why the NYSE had changed its mind."

A few minutes later, Kinney summoned NYSE PR boss Margaret Tutwiler, a former chief press spokesperson for the U.S. State Department in Washington, and ex-Undersecretary of State for Public Diplomacy in the Middle East, presumably someone who could be counted on to keep a secret.

But not even Tutwiler knew what was up. When she came in and sat down, she seemed totally clueless as to why she was even there, and had to be briefed by Kinney as to why she had been summoned at all: To prepare a press release announcing that the Life Sciences listing was being postponed — a subject she seemed to know nothing about.

TWO days later, I con tacted a member of the board of directors who agreed to speak if not identified by name. The member said no one on the board was informed, adding, "Security is the biggest hot-button issue imaginable at the exchange, and I cannot believe something of this magnitude would have happened without the board being briefed."

At week's end a wall of silence had descended around the exchange, with officials refusing to answer questions of any sort regarding the Life Sciences matter, from The Post or indeed any other media outlet.

The stonewalling even extended to the NYSE's seeming defiance of a U.S. Senate Committee, which early last week opened its own probe of the Big Board's behavior. Sources in Washington said the committee had been unable to get the exchange to even return phone calls.

[ . . . ]

It's hard to reconcile Mr. Byron's heated report with the bland explanation offered by Mr. Bernard, the Exchange's general counsel, that they (the NYSE) had had concerns since August and needed to investigate further . . . what useful purpose would it serve to not inform HLS that the Exchange were having second thoughts, and what useful purpose would it serve to not give HLS a chance to respond to whatever the concerns were? What useful purpose did it serve to spring such a surprise on the HLS people at in the way it was done and at the 12th hour?

Back to the MSNBC report.

Mr Bernard describes the situation as “unfortunate” and says the exchange regrets the circumstances, as the publicity “is quite at odds with our policy of affording applicants a confidential listing evaluation”.

Say, what? Confidentiality is apparently so important that Kinney evidently didn't inform the Exchange's board of directors; the Exchanges PR boss Ms Tutweiler; or HLS that the listing would be postponed, much less the reasons why!

Even if you buy Mr. Bernard's highly implausible yarn, you have to wonder why Kinney didn't handle the PR more adroitly. She must have been aware that rumors were flying about that she'd caved to AR threats, and she chose not to address them at all, to HLS (who certainly deserved better), or to the public (not that the mainstream media was all that interested . . .).

Rumors of that sort undermine confidence in leadership, and when that happens, confidence in the institution itself is undermined. Kinney is the Exchange's steward, and should have moved heaven and earth to dispel such destructive rumors, to provide something stable for the restless to calm their spirits and rebuild their confidence.

She apparently did nothing of the sort, and let the destructive rumors own the day. She's either wretchedly incompetent or believes she's unaccountable. I'll leave it to you to decide which is worse.

My take on this is pretty straight forward: Kinney cut HLS off at the knees when she panicked; she didn't try initially to dispel the rumor that she caved to AR intimidation because the rumor was correct; and now that she's been dragged kicking and screaming to a Senate hearing to account for her actions, she and Mr. Berhard have come up with a tale that they hope will be believable enough to let them weather the storm.

Again, from Mr. Byron (op cit):

SHAC also maintains a Web site that lists the names, addresses and phone numbers of all Life Sciences' clients and suppliers worldwide, along with links to the Web sites of SHAC chapters throughout Europe and Asia.

The site's home page includes a running tally of the latest attacks by activists on the company and its business partners, and offers "how to" advice for, among other things, making harassing phone calls from untraceable phone numbers. In recent weeks, the SHAC Web site has been listing the direct-dial office phone numbers and e-mail addresses of dozens of the NYSE's top officials. [My emphasis . . . ed]

So — did Kinney reverse course because of legitimate concerns about HLS's financial situation, or because she was intimidated?

I know what I think . . . you make your own call.

Dr Jerry Vlasak, the Los Angeles heart surgeon who has taken a leading role in the protests against HLS, will also testify to the committee. In an interview with the Financial Times, he was unapologetic for the group’s campaign.

Referring to Catherine Kinney, the exchange’s president, he said: “If you look at the financial information about Huntingdon Life Sciences, it’s amazing that the NYSE would have even considered listing them.

If Kinney and her minions believed HLS had a shaky financial situation, it would have have been easy enough for them to inform the company well in advance of the 12th hour, at the 12th hour, or even in the weeks thererafter. But Kinney et al chose not to break silence until now, and they're saying nothing now they couldn't have said over the past few weeks.

But I don't believe for a minute that there were serious questions about HLS's finances: if they were, why did the Exchange agree to consider them, and, having considered them, why (according to Mr. Byron) did the Exchange issue "a press release announcing that trading would begin on Sept. 7 . . . [and] . . . invite the company's top officials for a celebratory breakfast . . ."?

Whether she decided not to list them because of their financials, whether she decided not to list them because she is opposed to the immoral acts they carry on in their facilities, or whether she was intimidated by animal rights activists we don’t really know, but those are all good reasons.”

Well, there you have it straight from the horses mouth: being intimidated by Animal Rights activists is a good reason for Kinney to reverse course!

I wonder what what the companies listed on the Exchange would say if she simply fessed up: "Sure, I decided not to list HLS on the Exchange, but I had good reason! I was intimidated!"

If Mr. Byron's facts are correct, there just is no good face that can be put on Kinney's actions.

Frankly, she's inadequate to the task and should resign.

Brian