An Ad Campaign We Wish We'd Thought Of First

[OD/NT]

An Ad Campaign We Wish We'd Thought Of First

http://www.nysehostage.com/ads/control_newyorktimes.pdf

http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news_detail.cfm/headline/3023

 

[OD/NT]

MYSTERY SURROUNDING AD
THAT SLAMS THE BIG BOARD

By JANET WHITMAN
Email Archives
Print Reprint
Feeds Newsletters
April 29, 2006 -- A full-page ad in yesterday's New York Times slammed the New York Stock Exchange for caving to pressure from animal rights activists and blocking the listing of a controversial pharmaceutical research company.
But exactly who came up with the big bucks for the ad - which shows a man in a black ski mask below type proclaiming, "I Control Wall Street" - is a mystery.

A Web site link, NYSEHostage.com calls animal rights activists "terrorists."

The campaign looks like a show of support for Life Sciences Research, the New Jersey company whose stock was yanked by the Big Board on Sept. 7 only minutes before it was to be listed, amid pressure from an animal rights group.



Speculation is swirling that animal activists placed the ad themselves to draw attention to their cause.

Richard Michaelson, Life Sciences' finance chief, shares that theory, noting the ad came during "World Week for Animals in Laboratories," which is spurring protests around the globe.

"The first we learned of the ad was when we opened the newspaper," he told The Post. "Animal rights activists are the only ones I can fathom that might be behind this."

The group claiming it placed the ad, NYSE Hostage, purports to be "a project of individuals and businesses who were disturbed" by the NYSE's decision to abandon Life Sciences. Calls seeking comment weren't returned.

Life Sciences has been hounded by animal activists for years.

Stop Huntingdon Animial Cruelty, or SHAC, which formed to target the company's U.K. division Huntingdon Life Sciences, has been particularly fierce.

In March, six of the campaign's U.S.-based leaders were convicted on federal terrorism charges for using the group's Web site to incite threats and vandalism against people linked to Life Sciences.

The NYSE is believed to have bowed to intimidation tactics. NYSE spokesman Christiaan Brakman declined to comment.

Life Sciences' stock has been a dog since SHAC foiled its NYSE listing. It has been forced to list on the pink sheets, where it trades at about a penny.

A Life Sciences' lawyer recently sent a draft complaint to the NYSE seeking damages for breach of agreements. Michaelson said the company hopes to settle the matter out of court.

[email protected].

 

[OD/NT]

MYSTERY AD CLAIMS NYSE BOWED TO TERRORISTS

A full-page ad in Friday's New York Times by an as-yet unidentified group again raised the issue of the last-minute decision by the New York Stock Exchange not to list Life Sciences Research Inc. (LSRI-the parent company of Huntingdon Life Sciences) on the NYSE last fall.

The ad, on the highly visible page A-15, featured a large head shot of a man in a ski mask and bore the headline "I Control Wall Street."

The copy detailed how NYSE officials backed out of listing LSRI minutes before trading opened on September 7th last year. The ad said that NYSE officials were reportedly threatened by animal rights activists. It noted that six of the activist leaders were convicted on federal terrorism charges and concluded "but the NYSE is still running scared."

The ad directed readers to a website but even the information there does not reveal who is behind the ad. While the site spoke to the benefits of animal research, it listed other potential targets of activists, many of which are not related to biomedical research, including McDonald's, Wal-Mart, Ford Motors, Weyerhaeuser, Alcoa, Coca-Cola, IBM and Costco.

The website explains: "Of the companies that make up the Fortune 50 and the Dow Jones Industrial Average, more than one third are the subjects of organized anti-business activist campaigns. There is no threat like a bottom-line threat, and now activists need only look to the NYSE for a taste of their future leverage."

The campaign purports to be "a project of individuals and businesses who were disturbed" by the NYSE against LSRI. Was the $70,000 ad and sophisticated website created by LSRI supporters? Or could it be a stunt by SHAC or other animal rights activists to draw attention to their cause? There's also the potential – suggested by much of the site's text - that it was set up by a group with a wider agenda against the NYSE and/or "anti-business activists." As of Monday morning, all three theories are still in play.

Most importantly, law enforcement specialists are warning people not to visit the site because of the strong possibility of a virus. For that reason, we are not widely distributing the URL or copy of the ad. Please contact AMP if you require additional details.

News article about ad:
Reuters (UK), April 28, "Newspaper ad claims NYSE held hostage by activists" http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=oddlyEnoughNews&storyID=2006-04-28T174242Z_01_N28190772_RTRIDST_0_OUKOE-UK-LIFESCIENCES.XML&archived=False

 

[OD/NT]

FYI
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2006 3:10 PM
To: Reynnells, Richard
Subject: Mistaken identity: ALF confuses ferrets with mink

http://www.furcommission.com/news/newsferret.htm
FUR COMMISSION USA PRESS RELEASE, MAY 1, 2006
Mistaken identity: ALF confuses ferrets with mink

By Teresa Platt, FCUSA Executive Director

HOWARD LAKE, MN: In an apparent case of mistaken identity, the FBI-designated domestic terrorist group known as the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) admitted guilt for attacking what they thought was a mink farm, destroying breeding records, opening pens and scattering nesting boxes filled with animals nursing their kits. However, the animals involved were ferrets raised for pets, not mink raised for pelts.

The raid was discovered early Sunday morning when the farmer went to feed the ferrets, most of which remained placidly stayed in their nesting boxes nursing their young kits.

The Latzig Farm, which has raised mink in the past but none this year, has raised pet ferrets for 50 years and currently has about 200 breeding female ferrets.

Early Monday morning, the North American Animal Liberation Front Press Office issued a press release passing commenting on another press release reportedly issued by the ALF. The ALF press release, which closed with "Let the third and final part of Operation Bite Back commence! For Absolute Liberation, the A.L.F.", stated that the crime was dedicated to Peter Young who is serving time for similar crimes. The statement threatened, "To all of those who smirk at the fate of Peter and other captured activists, remember this: we have broken, closed, and burnt down more of your farms, more or your labs, and more of your buisness than you have been able to capture activists. …[T]his is the last warning: close down your buisnesses, or with boltcutters, fire, and storm, we'll do it for you. …Let the third and final part of Operation Bite Back commence!" and signed "For Absolute Liberation, the A.L.F." (sic)

Farmer Latzig reported that while most of the ferrets stayed in their pens and nesting boxes, it is springtime on the farm and virtually all the females have litters and need continuous care from their mothers. About a dozen kits died due to the raid on his farm.

Fur Commission USA's Executive Director Teresa Platt, who represents mink farmers, commented, "Obviously we have a handful of extremists on an eco-terrorism road trip. Everyone should tighten their Neighborhood Watch programs and report anything suspicious to law enforcement."

For further information contact: Teresa Platt, Executive Director, Fur Commission USA, PMB 506, 826 Orange Avenue, Coronado, CA 92118-2698 USA, (619) 575-0139, (619) 575-5578/fax, [email protected], www.furcommission.com.

To take a cyber-tour of a fur farm, visit Fur Commission USA's Fur on Film at http://www.furcommission.com/video/index.htm


Teresa Platt
Fur Commission USA
www.furcommission.com

Fur Commission USA represents mink farming families, works to
ensure superior standards of animal husbandry, and educate the public
about the merits of fur. We are also affiliated with Man In Nature
(www.maninnature.com), working to promote common sense in the
relationship between humans and wildlife.

Contact: Teresa Platt, Executive Director, Fur Commission USA, PMB 506,
826 Orange Avenue, Coronado, CA 92118-2698 USA, (619) 575-0139,
(619) 575-5578/fax, [email protected], www.furcommission.com.

To take a cyber-tour of a fur farm, visit Fur Commission USA's Fur on Film
at http://www.furcommission.com/video/index.htm

To support the work of Fur Commission USA, please visit the Donations page of our website at www.furcommission.com/donations.htm

 

[OD/NT]

Chicagoans Force-Fed Animal Rights Nonsense

April 28, 2006

Ducking the opportunity to stand up to animal-rights extremists, the Chicago City Council voted on Wednesday to outlaw the sale of the delicacy foie gras. The New York Daily News reported that its own city's council had nothing but mockery for the decision ("I thought we were out of our minds, so I thank Chicago for what they did because it makes our Council look extra ordinary," said one New York councilman), and Chicago Mayor Richard Daley had some choice words for the vote against consumer freedom:
Someone talks about foie gras this week. What's next week? What's on your menu ... You tell me what's next week we're gonna decide what you should eat and what you should do.
Rick Tramonto, executive chef of one of the restaurants affected by the ban, told The New York Times: "Government shouldn't be dictating what we eat ... It's just not right." Gene Bauston of the animal-rights activist group Farm Sanctuary, on the other hand, was clearly pleased at having goosed meat-eaters, promising that the ban's effects "will be felt in other parts of the country."

He's right. Beyond the violence already done to restaurants (foie gras seems to make some animal-rights folks a little smashy), activists are more than willing to use the precedent set in Chicago to do violence to our liberties in the name of their pet projects (including restrictions on pet ownership). It's already happening in Ottawa, Canada. Right now groups like Farm Sanctuary are working to have the same kinds of laws levied against veal. The more laws passed in the name of "humane" farming, the better, they seem to think.

Of course, when the Center for Consumer Freedom debated Farm Sanctuary president Bauston on the BBC in January 2004, the anti-meat activist had literally nothing to say when asked to describe what "humane" livestock agriculture would look like. One particularly astute Chicago Tribune reader had to ask how far these laws are supposed to go:

Do you want to send the pig to kindergarten and teach it to read and write? Maybe take it to the park and push it on a swing? ... If a person's goal is the abolition of people eating animals, I don't agree with that.