Case Finding


How the USDA/APHIS conducts predetermined inspection reports
and the chronic misuse of their authority. 

-“APHIS conducting biased investigations initiated and conducted with the obvious intent according to a predetermined conclusion.” [page 4]

The United States Department of Agriculture, Animal Plant Health Inspection Service, (APHIS) over the past several years has begun a relentless bombardment of unfair practices, to the point of the illegal acts to deprive licensees of their right and fair ability to conduct business in a regulated commerce. Many stories have been told and conversations had by such licensees over the years of such acts by inspectors, even to the extent of many recorded inspections and the unbelievable biased, predetermined approach, flawed inspection procedures, and misuse of their official capacity to predetermined inspection outcomes in a direct, deliberate and collaborated effort to harm licensees unfairly.

A recent case from February 1, 2013 with devastating findings against APHIS from their own Chief Administrative Law Judge,  Peter M. Davenport found the following:

-“APHIS conducting biased investigations initiated and conducted with the obvious intent according to a predetermined conclusion.” [page 4]

-“Regional Directors refused to take licensees telephone calls for assistance and feel under no obligation to assist licensees by providing guidance”. [page 7]

-“Investigations directed against licensees are inappropriately influenced an unacceptably biased from their onsets as APHIS personnel involved in preparing a special orders by other directors/supervisors and her staff include language and reports of alleged violations that were not present. All in an effort to produce pre-concluded results from such inspections.”
[page 7]

-“The Regional Director erroneously improper conduct produced such a thoroughly flawed investigation that such scant reliance should never be placed on such an inspection or investigation.” [page 8]

-“Inspectors instructed to mark inspections as “routine” inspections of licensees. Despite the benign and innocuous characterization given to the inspection, it is clear from such testimony in this case concerning the elaborate preparation for it, that it was anything but routine.” [page 8]

-“[SIC] APHIS accused of conducting inspections on the licensee that were actions it intended devastatingly destructive damage to the licensee.” [page 10]

-“Licensee was subject to an improperly conducted investigations by individuals(from APHIS) misusing the authority vested in them, the result of which was professional embarrassment and significant financial loss.” [page 12]

-Chief Administrative Law Review Judge confirms “that animal welfare act considers license, once granted, contained no restrictive endorsements or limitations as to what animals may be exhibited on the face of its license.” [page 12] Note: APHIS Inspectors routinely will tell licensees that obtain other animals that they are not licensed for such animals. This is completely untrue.

-“APHIS continuously scrutinizes through unfair practices the determination of a licensees’ asked variance when concerning large carnivores, elephants, marine mammals, etc. as far as the experience level of a licensee APHIS is unable to provide any testimony concerning the extent of the evaluation process, it is unclear whether the additional documentation of a licensees background was actually examined or simply ignore. It is clear that none of the references were contacted.” [page 15] Note: This seems to be the exact same practice that the IRS used in the current denials of certain non-profit’s status request.

-“The abuse of authority in directing that on substantiated language place in inspection reports and questionable review of licensees qualifications to handle felids was the proximate cause of the licensee experiencing the loss of control of animals she had purchased and the revenue generated by their exhibition. “
[page 16]

-Subsequently the Chief Administrative Law Review Judge in this case finds that the licensee in fact does have the experience to handling care for such animals and continuously notes APHIS inability to prove otherwise or to explain the procedure on how such experience is validated confirmed or otherwise. [page 16]

Complete Findings Attached:

Decision & Order COVER_page_001