Shon Rahrig Animal Donation Scam
The Shon Rahrig donation scam.
Are animal rights advocates out of control in our country?
Do we need new criminal and civil laws to protect the public from these self-designated enforcement groups comprised of citizens?
THE LIBERTY PRESS – 2008 All Rights Reserved
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA
www.knightsofliberty.com
Your guide to a tyranny of deception
Shon Rahrig donation scam - A Woman named Mary Poliseno fueled the scam, which included lies and cyber smearing. This occurred in 1999 in Westerville, Ohio a small suburb of Columbus, Ohio. Shon Rahrig originally adopted a cat from Mary Poliseno who was also the President of the animal organization Citizens for Humane Action.
The cat had been caged up in Mary Poliseno’s care for months and was in a nervous and agitated state. Mary did not seem to be concerned about the demeanor of the cat at the time it was adopted. The conditions of the shelter at the time seemed very poor and would make anyone want to adopt the animals to give them a better home. It seemed they were desperately in need of adoptions and ways to get funding to build their new facility that would eventually be built.
Not long after Rahrig adopted the cat, it became apparent that despite all normal efforts to acclimate it to its new environment with patience and tender loving care, this was an animal with serious issues. The uncontrollable cat had many problems including urinating on everything except the litter box, clawing and ruining furniture and generally acting like a wild animal. Shortly before the incident that started the lies, the scam and cyber smearing, the cat would not come out of the bathroom for a 24 hour period. Worried that the cat would be hungry, Rahrig went in and picked the cat up to take it to the food bowls. The cat locked its teeth onto his thumb and clamped into a locked position. The tooth went all the way through from one side of his thumb almost piercing out of the other side. The cat would not release its grip so that he could move away. “When Shon realized the cat had locked down on his thumb and would not let go, he felt he needed to retaliate to make it let go.” It was obvious that there was no other viable alternative other than to get the cat to release its bite. In the struggle Rahrig stepped on the cat’s leg by accident and the cat retaliated by scratching his nose when he again tried to calm it down. Rahrig was bleeding; the cat crawled away and hid. He could not be found for days.
When the cat was found, Rahrig became aware that the cat had injuries that needed a veterinarian’s attention. He asked his girlfriend at the time to take the cat to a veterinarian. The girlfriend, angry at Rahrig and blaming him for their problematic relationship, took the cat to the veterinarian and told them Shon Rahrig was responsible for the injuries even though she had no physical proof. The girlfriend at the time thought he was not faithful and the relationship at the time was on the brinks.
Will American people allow the media and private groups to be an extension of our legal and justice system? Can it affect the fairness our citizens receive in courts? How about fairness outside of our courts?
Under the Ohio legal system at the time, prosecutors had and may still have a huge advantage over a defendant. They could investigate and prepare evidence that the defendant may not be aware of until it is presented to them and discovered at a hearing and just prior to entering their plea. http://www.aclu.org/crimjustice/gen/27162prs20061024.html When you mix the alleged harassment tactics of Mary Poliseno and allowing her circus stunt acts such as bringing paparazzi into the court at every part of the process and allegedly calling the media to cover the story so as to have a “media verdict” before it ever went to court. It makes one wonder if the process were fair and if Mary Poliseno and the media is what prevented it from being fair. The Constitution does guarantee that every person is entitled to a fair trial, although when you mix elements such as this combined with high cost to defend, and other exotic pressures; greatly decrease the ability for a person accused of a crime with these elements to mount a defense that would be victorious.
Mary Poliseno of Citizens for Humane Action allegedly called the local news stations to drag Rahrig through the local media prior to him knowing what evidence was being held against him and having a chance to Plea in Court. This was shortly after a threatening phone call was made by her. It seemed she had found a target she could use to draw sympathy to her advantage and to further her political and financial objectives. She had animal rights extremist groups, and a group of her friends show up to the Franklin, County Ohio Courthouse. After seeing his own face on the local news with Mary Poliseno speaking about him, it was obvious to Rahrig that he would not get a fair trial as she involved chaos before he ever had a chance to discover evidence and to plea not guilty for this misdemeanor. Instead Rahrig pled guilty originally because he was promised no jail time and he felt some responsibility.
On the day he showed up to plea this was changed to further terms. And the media was not present to cover the story a second time so by pleading guilty Rahrig also avoided further media coverage that would damage his career whatever the outcome might have been and gave him a way to get away from the circus. Of course this really gave Mary Poliseno more credibility and more donations for her Organization, Citizens for Humane Action, by endorsing this local media event. Shon Rahrig pled guilty as he felt some responsibility in picking the cat up and retaliating when it bit him. He also desired to get away from the undue publicity, prior to his exercising his right to due diligence and a fair trial. Also Rahrig was not in a financial position in 1999 to fight this charge as at the time he was about to graduate from college in this same year and was juggling final exams and classes.
Will our country allow ordinary citizens to self designate their selves as quasi-justice and law enforcement entities?
In 1999, after Rahrig fulfilled his obligations to the county court, and received permission to move out of State, Mary Poliseno of Citizens for Humane Action still was not happy. She was not happy with the length of his sentence imposed by a competent Ohio judge and the fact that he had the legal right to move out of State, so she decided to get involved as an alleged self-designated, civilian extension of the Franklin County Ohio Court. As quasi law enforcement entity of her own taking, allegedly she recruited other people and groups. For some groups, the only proof we reviewed were messages by people claiming to be members of other larger groups and asking for donations, but no official indication that it was indeed who they said like something directly being posted on their site. Other groups we were fortunate to come across evidence and were easily go back to archive and track their internet movements with posting dates. These three groups actually advertised other of their actions with websites which people could donate to, postings with company links attached, Blogs in which one person would be appear to be entering for everyone under different accounts and even one calling the news for a donation campaign at the beach in which they were filmed. People on the beach were surprised and got mixed reviews from people there. This reporter could have simply checked the official record to find out he was not convicted of multiple animals as it is public information. Instead, he joined Mary Poliseno’s defamation campaign. We later found the president of this organization has his own criminal history. (See below)
Who are the internet stalkers allegedly responsible for the illegal postings?
The following groups allegedly took claims for their remarks that are false against Shon Rahrig through posting directly on their sites, flyers, and blogs or with links to their donation sites. It appears as if they are many separate entries by individuals. Although if you analyze and categorize the links used to the companies you would find that 90% of what was posted falls into a few companies’ links to donation sites owned or operated by a few individuals. The organizations are listed in the order we believe funnels back to the original source, Mary Poliseno of Citizens for Humane Action.
Capital Area Humane Society is the animal control entity which sought the original prosecution. As you see by the link and endorsement this organization has a working relationship with www.petfbi.com http://www.cahs-pets.org/resources/lost_and_found.htm
What is important for people to realize is that none of the groups or individuals listed below was involved with had known or had any kind of affiliation with Shon Rahrig. They are complete strangers. This is what disturbs Knights of Liberty in that it is more than just harassment from a lady who misunderstood a situation due to her own actions and a humane society that followed. It is a systematic scheme among a group of individuals to pass an illegal right to others for money and against a fellow American.
Now look at Citizens for Humane Action, the organization Rahrig adopted the cat from. http://www.chaanimalshelter.org/resources.shtml again another working relationship with www.petfbi.com When you compare all of the links for www.petfbi.com with the number of postings that included their with their link, It is clear to see they were one of the original and main points of the dissemination of false information.
www.petfbi.com
Maresa Fanelli was an original contributor. Helped to pull in other groups as well as other people close to her. Kept a stalking diary that she tried to change information on several occasions to cover her tracks. We have evidence of every defamatory statement that she made as well as her attempts to cover her tracks. Used networks and email in volume as her internet weapon.
Leads a group of volunteer followers. It is apparent Maresa Fanelli likes to attack others privacy behind the guise of her monitor and in the comfort of her own home. Maresa Fanelli tries to avoid anyone posting anything about her on the internet as one could search and find there is little about her. It is shocking that a former professor of one of our educational institutions would take part in this kind of alleged illegal and unethical activity.
Reference
http://67.15.70.205/talk/showthread.php?t=102220 This link shows one of hundreds of typical ads with a link to www.petfbi.com The ad states that there is a warrant out for Rahrig. This is not true, but an example what they did to create public panic for the benefit their own donations.
www.animalscam.com Shows the beliefs those involved subscribe to.
www.pet-abuse.com
Alison Gianotto An alleged PETA member (“Google” Alison Gianotto Peta ) who is allegedly responsible for many technical “direct actions” related to stalking online. Alison Gianotto moves around quite a bit, as any length of stay will have someone be able to determine her whereabouts to prosecute her or sue her in civil court. Her main hobby is to harass people on the internet who were convicted behind the guise of her website www.pet-abuse.com and people who have been convicted in the past and who have already served their obligations in courts within the United States. She then mass emails press releases to promote herself for free, in this case based on false information to various media outlets, and post internet pages with her links to make it appear as if many people were promoting her. Allison Gianotto started a database of convictions (Creating her own equivalent to a government sponsored Megan’s Law database in which she could profit) to publish information that people can use to harass them. Even though we already have an official source of verifying a record officially through the courts. Someone (hopefully the judge) should tell her we do not live in a preventative detention society. We wonder what Alison Gianotto will do when all those criminals in her database get a hold of her address information and find out what she did to them.
Reference
http://www.pet-abuse.com/pages/support_us/where_it_goes.php - Link with pet-abuse.com trying to use Rahrig as a story to make people want to donate. Also shows admittance that what they really do with donations is chase people as in the case of Rahrig there is no legal purpose for this behavior. Even if it were to prevent him from adopting another animal there is nothing that would legally prohibit him from doing so and that leaves the other purpose it could be for which is to harass him.
http://www.acofunstop.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1607 This link shows Allison trying to take credit in what seemingly would make her a hero. Based upon false information, but shows how she plays upon the assumptiveness of media that anything related to animals must be for good.
http://www.billingsgazette.net/articles/2006/07/11/features/technology/30-abuse.txt Another newspaper fleeced. Anyone can see that Allison Gianotto was obsessed with Rahrig. "Google" www.google.com Alison Gianotto Shon Rahrig
Another one of Alison Gionotto’s distortions.
See how Alison Gionotto sees herself http://www.phpchick.com/
Now meet the real Alison Gionotto http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.bestfriends.org/images/alison_gianotto.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.bestfriends.org/
nomorehomelesspets/weeklyforum/bioagianotto.cfm&h=258&w=194&sz=17&hl=en&start=1&um=1&tbnid=GVgeP-KlNj_S_M:&tbnh=112&tbnw=84&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dalison%2Bgianotto%26ndsp%3D20%26svnum%3D10%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN
Shows Alison Gianotto going for animal hero of the year. She lost! http://animal.discovery.com/convergence/hero_of_the_year/nominees/alison.html
Whats she up to now? Like a hyperactive child on sugar she can't stop her internet stalking and mass polution. Her aeithiestic ways prevent her from seeing she has many faults of her own including not being able to do something truly good for animals to make a difference. At least now shes moved up to people who have commited true multiple counts that were felonies. (Although we do not support any defamation to anyone, even to Michael Vick.)
Do we want to take away the justice system we already have in place and to let these citizens become our law enforcement, prosectuion, judge and jury? The unofficial "google" background check is the biggest device to promote people violating others rights without claiming they used it.. We dont know which is worse, the people putting mass polution of lies on the internet or the sneaky petes that google someone and rely upon the false information without giving the person a chance to explain the truth. But dont make anyone serve their sentence and fully participate in the justice process, which is designed by the people to fit the punishment for the crime. If we replace one with the other then fine. But the democratic nature of American people would never allow it, they are just turning their heads as to the lack of what is not being done. Everyone has their name on the internet waiting to be cybersmeared. Its just a matter of time for you. Maybe for money, maybe for manipulation, maybe because you upset them, maybe just because they dont like you.
"Google" www.google.com Alison Gianotto Peta Michael Vick
Brian Pease is president of www.aprl.com. His wife is Kath Rogers listed above also of www.aprl.com He advertises as a freedom of speech attorney. We did a little “Google” research on Brian Pease. We find it surprising for someone working in a profession with such high ethical standards to be involved with this.
Bryan Pease and wife Kath Rogers lied to the media based upon false information to benefit their donation group. They called the local news and passed flyers around the beach to promote her and her Husband Brian Pease’s company.
The flyers they passed out to the public falsely indicated
Kath Rogers passed out flyers trying to get sympathy from Californians on the beach and then trying to get publicity for her and her husbands company www.aprl.com They didn’t realize there are intelligent people here and her promotion received confirmation that their point of view was an issue they were taking too far after 7 years. After all, after their company receives donations to pay their salaries, so truth was probably not an issue for them as they could have verified what was true through official public records, rather than a Google search.
It appears in this case as if we have a California Attorney chasing around a citizen of the United States in a scheme that any normal person would construe as major harrassment. We did a little “Google” research on Brian Pease. We find it surprising for someone working in a profession with such high ethical standards to be involved with this. If citizens find out what he did, we think it in good taste to request the bar revoke his California License privileges.
Reference
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,47951,00.html
http://www.activistcash.com/biography.cfm/bid/3247
http://blogs.chicagoreader.com/food/2007/03/02/theres-no-ban-slapp-suits/
How the groups might have targeted your Grandmother for Donations
The defamation campaign against Shon Rahrig initiated through collating false information, having an email message perpetuate animal groups around the country and posting over and over the same message 800-1000 times, sometimes phrased slightly differently on many sites with links back to the site where a person could donate money for the cause. A campaign of lies then started and each time they were generated they became a little more horrendous. The first lie originated when it was posted on a site that Shon Rahrig had tried to adopt another pet through a Pets Mart on Sawmill Rd. in Columbus. Of course he wasn’t even in town at the time or anywhere near a Pets Mart. (Later we found proof that Mary Poliseno was involved with her organization at this location) His probation department was called with a person trying to perpetuate a lie in which at the time they called Rahrig to investigate. Shon Rahrig was in California at the time and had been there for some time.
The lies would continue to grow and eventually several groups signed on to Mary’s campaign and perpetuated further lies around the Internet. The truth was not enough to get donations, so they lied and deceived people. These new sites would contain donation links in which the site promoted people giving money for its cause. This is why the lies were started, so that un-knowing grandmothers and animal lovers would take money out of their pockets to support these individuals’ expenses under the cover of non-profit organizations.
The money motivation of non-profit donations and the transgression to an illegal systematic operation
This systematic defaming scheme was used to cause paranoia and public panic in the minds of individual animal lovers and animal advocate groups across the country. Each posting having a lie attached and the links to the groups. Each lie producing donations. Each lie continued to get worse and perpetuating the cause and effect of social paranoia. This is one of the reasons that Shon Rahrig until now was unable to determine who to even sue civilly in Federal Court. At one point there were thousands of sites posting the same message.
A litmus test of the unfairness they applied
This is now much more than just a case of defamation against Shon Rahrig. It is an orchestrated cyber smear campaign of alleged fraud from businesses that rely on donations. It is a few groups that have been involved in a stalking and cyber smear campaign of a person for a misdemeanor case for over 8 years! If you don’t believe that this was an unfair situation, all you have to do is http://www.google.com Maureen McLaughlin. Maureen McLaughlin, who was convicted in Ohio in 2006 and accused of drowning over 650 pets received a much less response. (see her references below) If you http://www.google.com Maureen McLaughlin, there is very little information found compared hundreds to thousands of pages with Shon Rahrig. Even though the degree of the same crime of animal abuse was exponentially worse, in this case multiple (originally 650 counts) vs. a single misdemeanor. (One count opposed to six hundred and fifty) You will find Maureen McLaughlin does not have anywhere near the amount of postings. Ironically, Maureen McLaughlin, was herself a proclaimed animal rights advocate. Also, notice www.pet-abuse.com prominently near the top of the search.
References:
www.nbc4i.com/midwest/cmh/news.apx.-content-articles-CMH-2007-08-23-0026.html
http://www.10tv.com/?sec=news&story=sites/10tv/content/pool/200708/675760681.html
www.wbns10tv.com/?sec=home&story=sites/10tv/content/pool/200703/1765432341.html
www.columbusdispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2007/08/23/catlady.html
It is obvious that this was a group of people were more mesmerized by the use of the imagery of Shon Rahrig. The campaigns also eventually led to other alleged illegal activities such as harassment, interstate stalking, reverse extortion, fraud, invasion of privacy and defamation with damages in the millions and the list goes on and on.
The cost to obtain his justice
Current retainers have ranged from $10,000 to over $20,000 with overall attorney fees going into the hundred thousands.
Other disturbing evidence
There is currently a mound of evidence showing things that were posted that are not there anymore but were thoroughly preserved. There is also other evidence, which shows intent of violent criminal acts such as death threats by specific individuals traceable to their IPs as well as threats received via U.S. Postal Service. The ongoing lies contain many of the items listed in the table below. While there are now 4 to 6 main groups involved, there are many other groups and individuals that would be held responsible as well as a great deal of other evidence to be disclosed upon the completion of an investigation and upon recommendations from legal counsel.
The complete Evidence showing thousands of postings may display upon completion of investigation and upon approval of Mr. Rahrig’s attorneys. That link would be displayed here-----
An investigation is in process. All evidence is being reported to Internet providers. Letters are being written to officials. A mound of evidence has been archived including thousands of printed this internet pages, Death Threat letters, Web blogs conversation files, etc. If you have any information regarding the illegal activities including donations based upon false information or other information pertaining of these or other individuals or groups send the information to: operations@knightsofliberty.com.
We do not live in a preventative detention society. And could this be an attack on religion, in that most religions teach us the most important thing is forgiveness? And what about a persons right to go on with their life after they pay debt to society?
The case highlights a huge and escalating problem in our country of the overly zealous self proclaimed advocates who are willing to break our laws to further their agenda. It also highlights why we should never let ordinary citizens act out justice as in such cases as the “minute men” on the border or other similar groups. All that matters to them, is their opinion regarding their political and social causes and getting their donations with no care as to the real truth and how they might be ruining lives. Action in the system seems to be spawned by how loud and obnoxious a person is rather than deciphering the real issues at hand and logically applying reason. Their political agenda in this case is for animals to have rights, which makes no sense in this case. When other factors are combined and when animals attack us there is no one to blame.
The laws of libel and slander do not reflect the relatively new internet technology. Current law does not adequately protect people and promote internet decency.
The Shon Rahrig Donation Scam is based upon an old trick which can be related to a person screaming “FIRE” in a movie theatre. Just as freedom of speech would not protect this act, it would neither protect the act of the falsifications regarding Shon Rahrig.
Reference
US Supreme Court, Oliver Wendell Holmes, 1919
The groups used lies as their tool to cyber smear Shon Rahrig and to promote their websites which are funded by donations collected on their sites. And especially since those involved used false statements that were made with reckless disregard of the truth, they do not enjoy constitutional protection of freedom of speech.
Reference
Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942)
Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971)
Feiner v. New York, 340 U.S. 315 (1951)
Cox v. Louisiana, 377 U.S. 288 (1965)
The organizations must learn that the right to have an opinion about another has constitutional limitations.
Although, it is our position that due to the volume and the time that it appears this campaign may have lasted that there are already other laws in place to cover this.
Reference
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-12-06-internet-death_N.htm
While the above link was based upon a harassment case based upon one series of entries from one person and within a defined set of time, (And with absolutely devastating effects to a child.) the cyber smearing against Shon Rahrig appears to have lasted over 8 years.
Write your local state and federal legislators and 2008 Presidential candidates today, to insure by the time this happens to you or yours, that strong laws are in place to address the problem, and to have those involved immediately prosecuted. Urge them to prosecute cyber smearing and cyber stalking as stalking crimes under criminal law vs. only having civil law recourse. Remember in criminal law the government picks up the tab to prosecute and to dispose of the crime. In civil law you could be faced with tens of thousands of dollars out of your pocket for someone’s five second mouse click.
An investigation is in process. A mound of evidence has been archived including thousands of printed internet pages, Death Threat letters, Web blogs conversation files, etc.
If you have any information regarding the illegal activities including donations based upon false information or other information pertaining to these or other individuals or groups in this campaign send the information to: operations@knightsofliberty.com
We will forward to the appropriate law enforcement official.
The Aftermath of his innocence
Rahrig took responsibility for his action 8 years ago by pleading guilty to one misdemeanor count, and consequently fulfilled his obligations almost a decade ago. These disturbed individuals shall cease any further activity of all of these as well as subsequent lies and slander. The time is it has persisted is ridicules and there are many other examples of more extreme crimes and of worse degree that were given less attention. He has been unfairly targeted and has still has held courage and confidence in the face of diversity and has the endorsement of honor by Knights of Liberty. There must be some reform regarding laws pertaining to what people can or cannot say behind the shield of an anonymous computer monitor as well more control over an organizations use of lies, media and propaganda for fund raising and political purposes.
Reference Other Online Harassment cases:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-12-06-internet-death_N.htm
http://deathby1000papercuts.blogspot.com/2007/11/megan-meier-myspace-suicide-message.html
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-10-10-internet-defamation-case_x.htm
We will be heard until these postings desist and until laws change.
Hail, to the Knights of Liberty!
