Laura Clark deposition transcript



TIME: 2:30 PM
DATE TAKEN: September 23, 2013
LOCATION: 300 North Commercial Street
Bellingham, Washington
REPORTED BY: Debra L. Rietfort, CSR No. 2286


Attorney at Law
[contact info redacted]

Attorney at Law
[contact info redacted]

Attorney at Law
[contact info redacted]

WITNESS: Laura Clark

(No exhibits marked.)

BE IT REMEMBERED that the interview of LAURA CLARK was held on Monday, September 23, 2013, at the hour of 2:30 PM at 300 North Commercial Street, Bellingham, Washington, before Debra L. Rietfort, C.S.R., and Notary Public in and for the State of Washington.

WHEREUPON, the following proceedings were had and testimony given, to-wit;

Q. Okay. You know I represent Douglas Spink.

A. I do.

Q. And so if I could — first just give me a little bit about what your title is, how long you have worked for this particular agency or organization and maybe somewhat just a general idea or a biography of what led you to that shop there.

A. I’m Laura Clark. I’m the executive director of the Whatcom Humane Society. I have been in my current position approximately four years. Prior to that I worked for the organization as a director for approximately eight years. Prior to that I worked for a shelter in the San Francisco Bay area, and prior to that I worked for a variety of other agencies including a large nonprofit in the bay area as well.

Q. Okay. I also lived in San Francisco for a while. That was actually a fun period. What part of the bay area?

A. San Francisco.

Q. So you said you’re executive director now and have been for four years. And you were director for eight years or a director?

A. Yeah. I was the community outreach director.

Q. Okay. And what was your job there? It’s self-explanatory but if you could just summarize what a community outreach director was?

A. We are a small agency so that encompassed everything from development to outreach, to humane education, volunteer management and at times I was also the shelter manager.

Q. Okay. And what are your duties as executive director?

A. To operate the organization, everything from daily operations, interact with the board of directors, community members, elected officials, etc.

Q. Okay. In terms of elected officials what kind of involvement does — what’s the name of the organization?

A. Whatcom Humane Society.

Q. Okay. So there is no county in there, just Whatcom?

A. Yes. Correct.

Q. So what kind of involvement do you have with — I forget the term you used, but elected officials or with government, Whatcom County government.

A. Our agency contracts with various municipalities in
the county to provide animal control services. So in those duties I interact with various elected officials.

Q. Okay. And you had a contract in 2010 with Whatcom County?

A. Correct.

Q. And do you have most of the other small jurisdictions?

A. I do.

Q. Are there any that you don’t have?

A. The city limits of Lynden.

Q. Do they have their own or —

A. They do, although we house the animals for them. Q. Okay. Do you know if it’s like a Lynden city employee that does it or is there a humane — A. I don’t know.

Q. You don’t know. Okay. All right. And do you work with prosecutors offices?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you work with law enforcement offices?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, do you and/or the people that work for Whatcom Humane Society have law enforcement authorization as animal control officers?

A. Our animal control officers have a limited commission through the police department.

Q. Okay. Can you help explain that to me, what the limits of that commission are or what they’re authorized to do?

A. They are authorized to enforce any laws or ordinances related specifically to animals.

Q. Okay. Do they have arrest powers?

A. They do not have arrest powers. They have citation powers.

Q. I saw some article recently but basically at this point the state law doesn’t include them under the coverage of assault three versus assault four?

A. Unfortunately, no, it does not.

Q. Okay. Is that partly because they are limited commission maybe they don’t follow under that?

A. I don’t know.

Q. Okay. Now, so in your role in contracting with Whatcom County, for instance, do you consider yourself covered by the Public Records Act of Washington? I mean do you maintain records or are you supposed to maintain records in accordance with the Public Records Act?

A. We are a nonprofit agency so we don’t keep the same type of work record keeping as say a municipality or government organization.

Q. Do you maintain — in terms of e-mails do you
maintain all your e-mails?

A. No.

Q. Okay. Is there a particular choice about which ones you keep and which ones you don’t?

A. It would depend on the situation.

Q. Okay. With regard to the Doug Spink case, have you received e-mail communication from either US Probation, US Prosecutors, county probation, county law enforcement with regard to Mr. Spink?

A. Yes.

Q. Have you maintained those records?

A. Some of the records might have been maintained. Others, no.

Q. Okay. Do you have an idea here about what type of
records you would not have maintained and what types you would, like what that decision criteria might have been?

A. General correspondence isn’t something I necessarily would keep.

Q. Now, there was a, as has been explained to me, a probation search of the residence where Mr. Spink was living back in April of 2010. And it’s also my understanding there were maybe it’s as many as three members of the Whatcom Humane Society who joined various members of federal law enforcement, probation, US Marshals,
as part of the people who went out there for that search.
Are you familiar with that?

A. Yes, I am.

Q. And were there, in fact, persons from the Whatcom Humane Society that joined in that?

A. There were members of our animal control department who responded per the request of the United States government to assist in that situation.

Q. Now, do you know why —

MS. BARRON: I’m sorry. Are you trying to ask her the role of the humane society in that? Is that what you’re trying to get at?

MR. TURNER: I’m getting there. I justI asked if they participated in some role.

MR. BRODSKY: I don’t think you’re saying they participated in the search.


Q. They were there. They were asked to be there. Do you know which government agency, and I’ll list some, US Probation, US Marshal Service, FBI. I think that was all the people I knew that were involved from the US government. Do you know which particular branch or agency had contacted Whatcom Humane Society?

A. I believe it was US Probation but I can’t speak to that a hundred percent. I don’t remember exactly.

Q. Do you know the name Jeff Robson?

A. Yes.

Q. Have you had communication with him?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you have communication with him prior to that search?

A. I did not, no.

Q. Somebody in your office did?

A. I believe so.

Q. Do you know who the members were from the Whatcom Humane Society who went out there with the people who went out there that day?

A. I don’t recall exactly which staff members responded to that call.

Q. Do you know how many went?

A. Not off the top

Q. More than one?

A. Probably.

Q. Okay. Were there more than three working at the time as animal control officers?

A. On that day?

Q. In general, just on staff?

A. Yes.

Q. Roughly how many were on staff?

A. We have seven point five officers employed at the Whatcom Humane Society. On that day I don’t know how many were on duty. Not all that were on duty would have responded to that call.

Q. Sure. And — okay. Who decided who would go?

A. It would have been myself and the manager of the department.

Q. And who was the manager at that time?

A. Paul Evans.

Q. Does he still work there?

A. Yes.

Q. All right. And what did the US government officials, what did they state in terms of why they felt they wanted members there?

A. As I recall they requested assistance from the Whatcom Humane Society to possibly handle animals that were on the property at [location redacted].

Q. Okay. Did they share any information about whether they thought they expected to arrest Mr. Spink or anyone there at the time?

A. I don’t believe they shared that information with our staff.

Q. Okay. Have you ever been contacted by US Probation before or after this in regard to a search like this?

A. I don’t understand the question.

Q. Has US Probation ever contacted your agency to assist or to come along when they have been doing a search like this.

MS. BARRON: Like on another matter?


THE WITNESS: You know, I don’t know off the top of my head. We are contacted constantly by law enforcement agencies for assistance with a variety of calls so it’s quite possible we have been. I don’t know off the top of my head if US Probation themselves have contacted us.


Q. What about the US government in general?

A. It’s quite possible but I don’t know off the top of my head.

Q. Do you have any specific memory of, other than this case, the US government ever asking for assistance or participation?

A. We are regularly contacted by Border Patrol.

Q. Okay. All right. Other than Border Patrol?

A. We answer a lot of calls. Off the top of my head I don’t know.

Q. Okay. And do you know if Paul had contact with Jeff Robson or anyone else from US Probation about that search beforehand?

A. I believe that US Probation notified Captain Evans about the situation prior to make sure that our staff were available.

Q. Okay. And were you aware that the search had been rescheduled at one point?

A. I was not aware of that.

Q. Okay. When in relation to the timing of the search did you first become aware that Mr. Spink had been arrested?

A. Arrested for what? I don’t understand.

Q. For probation violations. He was taken into custody at the time of that search. When were you made aware that he was taken into custody?

A. Probably that day.

Q. Okay. Did they tell you why or were you told why?

A. I don’t — I’m not sure I understand your question.

Q. What was your understanding about why he was taken into custody at the first time you heard that he was taken into custody?

A. I believe it was our understanding it was some type of probation violation and there were animals on the property and we were asked to assist with the animals.

Q. And animals were taken into custody?

A. Correct.

Q. And I understand there were horses, correct?

A. There were four stallions, seven large intact male dogs and several mice.

Q. When you say intact what do you mean by that?

A. With testicles.

Q. Okay. And there were mice?

A. Correct.

Q. Did you ever see the mice?

A. I did.

Q. And what was — was there anything notable about the mice?

A. Yes.

Q. Explain?

A. When the mice arrived at the Whatcom Humane Society — prior to the mice arriving at the Whatcom Humane Society I received a call from a staff member who was assisting our animal control officers. She informed me that the mice were in poor physical condition, that they were covered in some type of fluid that appeared to be a petroleum jelly type lubricant and had strings or twine tied to their tails. When they arrived at the Whatcom Humane Society I examined them along with another member of my staff and confirmed that that was their physical condition.

Q. And when you viewed it did it appear to be something like a petroleum jelly?

A. Correct.

Q. And can you tell me anything distinctive about it such that that was the conclusion you drew? Did it have a particular odor or texture?

A. In handling the mice it felt like they were covered in Vaseline.

Q. Okay. Did anyone take samples of the lubricant?

A. Not to my knowledge.

Q. Is there anything else — I hate to ask an obvious
question. Was there fecal matter that appeared to be present?

A. I don’t recall if there were fecal — if there was fecal matter present. I do recall that some of the mice were dying and it was my decision at the request of my staff that we try and clean the lubricant off of the mice and save them, clean them, feed them, get them water, so that was what we immediately started working on.

Q. Now, it was the subject of your testimony, some of your testimony in the interpleader action.

A. Correct.

Q. You used the term felching, I believe, in that?

A. Uh-huh. Yes.

Q. That’s not the right term, is it.

A. I don’t know.

Q. What does the term felching mean as far as you know?

A. As far as I understand that term felching is a slang word used when people use small animals in bestiality.

Q. Do you know where you would have heard that term?

A. I believe the first time I heard that slang term was working in the San Francisco Bay area.

Q. Okay. In the context of animal control or humane societies or just in general society?

A. I think both.

Q. Okay. Have you ever heard the term gerbiling?

A. I have.

Q. Have you ever heard — and that’s — I always feel uncomfortable talking about stuff like this but that’s basically a term derived as I understand it from the story about Richard Gere allegedly putting the gerbils in his rectum for sexual pleasure for some reason. Does that sound like sort of what you’ve heard about this?

A. That’s in the context of the word felching. That is the description that I have heard.

Q. Okay. Have you ever heard of any documented case of that actually happening?

A. I don’t recall.

Q. Okay. Is there any conclusion that anyone reached or about why these mice had things tied to their tail or strings and had Vaseline on them or what appeared to be Vaseline?

A. I’m sorry. Could you repeat the question.

Q. Was there any conclusion drawn by you or anyone around you, law enforcement, members of your staff about why these mice had Vaseline on them, what appeared to be Vaseline?

A. I can’t speak to what law enforcement concluded. Q. Did you hear anyone theorizing?

MS. BARRON: Do you just mean like anecdotal conversations she may have heard as opposed to some agency conclusion and/or conversations.

Q. Absolutely. And/or conversations.

A. Sure.

Q. And is that consistent with the idea of putting them up someone’s rectum?

A. I think that was probably one of the theories. Would have just been a theory.

Q. Were there any other theories proposed?

A. I don’t recall.

Q. Okay. At the interpleader action did you testify in relation to that and maybe the theory that they had been used for something like that?

A. I believe I did.

Q. Okay. Have you done any research into that particular activity? Had you done any research prior to your testimony in the interpleader action?

A. I don’t remember.

Q. Okay. And did — what happened to those mice?

A. I euthanized them.

Q. All right. And as far as you know no samples weretaken or were the strings kept?

A. The organization, Whatcom Humane Society, kept the mice along with everything that came with them for quite some time until we were told that they were no longer needed as any type of evidence in the case.

Q. Who told you that?

A. I believe both the United States Government and the Whatcom County Sheriffs office.

Q. Did you ever have a discussion with regard to that by either of the prosecuter’s office, the US Attorneys Office or the Whatcom County Prosecutor in regards to it’s okay to euthanize them or dispense with them?

A. I had a discussion with Whatcom County Sheriffs Office about euthanizing them. I don’t believe I had that discussion with any other agency.

Q. Do you know if that was before the interpleader action or after?

A. That was — it was the day after we received the mice.

Q. Okay. Real quickly?

A. They were dying.

Q. Right. And were the dogs castrated, the seven dogs you referred to?

A. After the interpleader action was completed and the Whatcom Humane Society was given custody of the dogs they were castrated.

Q. Okay. And why?

A. We were transferring them to private rescue groups and as part of our policy we spay or neuter every animal before they leave our building if they are going to be adopted or transferred to an outside rescue organization.

Q. Okay. The dogs, you know, you kept them from the time of the search basically up until the time after the interpleader where they were?

A. Correct.

Q. All right. And when they were received they were in good physical health?

A. As far as I can recall.

Q. Okay. In the interpleader I believe in some of the documents there were pictures of the dogs. I believe these are like exhibits that were attached to the declaration you had filed?

A. Uh-huh.

Q. But these appear to be the dogs that you recall?

A. Correct.

Q. And they look basically the condition they were in in these pictures?

A. Yes.

Q. Were they a problem in terms of, I don’t know if discipline is the right word, but —

MS. BARRON: Behavior maybe.

Q. Behavioral problems?

A. Yes.

Q. In what way?

A. They had significant behavior problems. A variety of problems. They were extremely strong. Very reactive. The German Shepherds were extremely reactive. Very difficult to handle.

Q. Strong, they are big powerful dogs, right? So that’s not behavioral problems, it just means because of their size it created more of a challenge, would that be fair to say? I mean being strong is not a behavioral problem in and of itself, is that a correct statement?

A. I wasn’t sure if you were asking a question.

Q. Yeah.

A. Can you repeat the question.

Q. Yes. Is being strong in and of itself a behavioral problem?

A. It’s a challenge.

Q. Okay. Thank you. And when you mean reactive what does that mean?

A. In this regard the dogs, especially the German Shepherds, were extremely reactive when they saw other dogs and some people. Some people. They would lunge, bark, growl, snarl, snap, jump, etc.

Q. Did the German Shepherds do that with the other five dogs that they had been with at the Spink residence?

A. I don’t know. They weren’t with the dogs. They were all kenneled separately while they were in our custody.

Q. Why is that?

A. Due to their size and some of their behavior.

Q. Okay.

A. It’s a safety issue.

MR. BRODSKY: I just want to clarify. That happens pretty much to every dog that comes in.

MR. BRODSKY: It wasn’t special. Every dog has their own kennel.

THE WITNESS: Correct. Thank you.


Q. Were they housed near each other?

A. I don’t recall.

Q. Would that be if you had a group of dogs that lived with each other for a significant period of time would it be necessarily normal to house them near each other for this so they would have the comfort of —

A. It would depend on how many other animals were in our custody at the time.

Q. Okay. But if you were able to would that be something you would try to do?

A. Depends on the animal.

Q. Okay. And so do you have any knowledge about these animals sort of how they did being separated? Did they show any behavioral signs of missing their pack or the other animals around?

A. Not to my knowledge.

Q. Okay. Did you have any active participation with those dogs in the kennel at the time?

A. I did. I saw each dog on a daily basis. Monitored their behavior and their care.

Q. You said the German Shepherd’s reacted and you said their strength of these big dogs was as I understand it a challenge. Were there any other behaviors you can note?

A. Not at this time.

Q. Okay. Did their coats seem to have the appropriate luster for a well fed dog?

A. I don’t recall what their coats looked like.

Q. Did you notice anything out of the ordinary that indicated that they hadn’t been properly fed in terms of right kind of food or the amount of food?

A. I don’t know what kind of food they were being fed. They seemed of decent body weight when we received them.

Q. Okay. So you noticed nothing that suggested the luster of their coat or any other factors were negative?

A. Not that I can recall.

Q. Okay. So what did happen to the dogs after the interpleader action?

A. When the interpleader was finished we neutered, as I stated earlier, all of the dogs and they were placed with private breed specific rescue groups.

Q. Do you know if those dogs are still alive?

A. I don’t have any idea where the dogs are now.

Q. Do you have records of where they were sent to?

A. I do.

Q. Okay. I have a copy that is unsigned but a letter purporting to be from David McEachran from June 15th, 2010. And which would have, I believe, been technically it would have been before the end of the interpleader action but I think maybe after it was filed. But did you ever see a copy of this letter essentially Mr. McEachran explaining that he was not going to be pursuing state charges or did you ever have any conversations with him or the prosecutor’s office?

MS. BARRON: Do you know who Ms. Reed is?

MR. TURNER: Karen Reed. I think she’s — is it Karen Reed?

THE WITNESS: I think she is a private citizen. Maybe somebody from a horse rescue.

MS. BARRON: She is not like from the US Marshal’s office or something.

MR. TURNER: No, no, no. This is somebody I think animal interested or does breeding of animals or rescue, something like that. It’s my understanding a number of people received copies of this letter explaining his decision.

THE WITNESS: I’m sorry, what’s the question?

Q. The question was the letter basically is saying we are not going to charge him in state court because he’s getting three years. He’s getting a lot of time. If he gets the time we expect him to in federal court we are not going to expend our resources in prosecuting him here.

MS. BARRON: You’re talking about the sentence, if he receives a sentence from federal court I will not be prosecuting him in Whatcom County for the same offense. The penalty we achieve here would be minimal compared — did you know about this before?

THE WITNESS: I believe I — I believe I saw this letter at some point.

Q. Okay. And is that your understanding of what was — of basically the prosecutor’s position on that case?

A. I have never had a discussion with Dave McEachran about this situation.

Q. Any other members of the prosecutor’s office?

A. I talk to members of the prosecutor’s office often so I’m sure I have discussed this case with them.

Q. Did anyone I guess other than McEachran basically explain to you that if he gets that time or after he got the three years in federal court we are not going to
prosecute him, it would be a waste of resources?

A. I don’t recall that conversation.

Q. What’s your understanding of why he’s being charged now?

A. I don’t know. I don’t work for the prosecutor’s office.

Q. Okay. All right. I thought I saw a reference that attributed to you that you were instrumental in having him charged?

A. I wish I had that kind of power in Whatcom County. I don’t work for the prosecutor’s office.

Q. But you do refer cases to them and then suggest that people be arrested or your office does?

A. Our office works closely with the prosecutor’s office on animal cruelty cases.

Q. Okay. Now, is there anything — this is — let me stick to my order here. Because I went to a seminar this weekend and it turns out I’m totally random in the way my
thoughts work.

MS. BARRON: There is a lot in this caseto be random about.

Q. That is more — I have done everything trying to keep it focused and just to what you might know and be relevant otherwise I would be bouncing all over. I actually had a discussion with Pam Roche who sponsored this bill. And, you know, and I asked her, I get that it’s, you know, distasteful nature of, you know, interspecies sex, humans and animals, whatever. But in what way is this activity of a male dog having sex with a human in whatever orifice is that cruel to the male dog. Do you have an opinion about that? Do you think that it’s cruel?

A. I’m not going to share my opinion on that with you. Sex abuse is sex abuse.

Q. Okay. Now, I grew up in Tennessee in the ’60s in a rural area and I don’t know of anyone who had a neutered dog. I mean some spay female dogs but male don’t get neutered. And it was my experience that it was very common to be at somebody’s house and if you’re on the floor playing or the dog would grab your leg, but the dog would grab your leg or jump on you and hump on you, the male dogs. Do you think it’s unusual for a male dog to essentially be fairly, I guess what’s the word, do you think that’s uncommon for an un-neutered male dog to hump on people whether it’s a female dog or not or the hump which is a better way of describing that, but since I’m reverting back to my childhood, maybe other dogs, other male dogs and other animals.

A. No.

MR. BRODSKY: You know, I don’t think I have to tell a lawyer this, but nobody here including counsel is interested in having you speculate if you don’t know, if you don’t have the experience and background to know the answer to those questions.

Q. And the reason I’m asking you because you have been working in this field with animals for a long time and somebody who is in charge of an organization who enforces animal control and I guess the ultimate question is it seems like it’s improperly placed in the animal cruelty part in this context where it’s a male dog humping on other people. And I guess I’ll ask you. It’s my understanding the judge in the interpleader action suggested in his findings of fact that maybe these dogs needed to be put someplace because they needed retraining. That may result in an acceptably dangerous situation. Let me ask you this in terms of that. Do you know what the judge meant having testified in that trial and participated in it in terms of filing interpleader, what the judge meant when he said in the finding of fact number eighteen to place the animals as suggested by Clare Spink in an environment that is not specialized in the retraining of the animals at issue or in any environment with children or persons lacking the special training would result in unacceptably dangerous situation. Do you know what he meant by that?

A. I don’t want to speculate what the judge meant by that.

Q. Did you testify to that effect that you couldn’t just let the animals go anywhere because they might be dangerous to children or people who weren’t prepared to deal with them?

A. We did have concerns about proper placement of these animals.

Q. And what was the nature of your concern?

A. The animals as I stated earlier had some behavior problems that we were concerned about and they weren’t appropriate for any type of home. They needed to go to a specialized breed specific organization that could handle their issues.

Q. So far what I heard was that their strength created a challenge and that the German Shepherds were reactive. jumping, lunging.

MS. BARRON: Snapping, snarling,

MR. TURNER: Sure. So the other five dogs.

MS. BARRON: That’s all the dogs I think she said.

THE WITNESS: Well, the Shepherds were the worst of the dogs.

MS. BARRON: I think that’s what she said earlier.

Q. So was there any issue about their sexual behavior that was discussed at trial or testified to by you?

A. I believe — I don’t recall exactly, that was a long time ago, what I stated in that testimony, but neutering the dogs certainly would have helped with any sexual behavior problems they were exhibiting.

Q. Okay. And do you think these dogs were different than any other un-neutered male dog in that regard?

MS. BARRON: Are you asking, Jim, if they like, to use your words, humped more than other dogs.


MS. BARRON: Okay. Did you observe them hump people, not that you were around them all the time, but did you observe them hump more than other dogs.

THE WITNESS: In our custody they weren’t given the opportunity to act in that manner.

Q. So the behavior issues that you would have been talking about wouldn’t have included their sexual tendencies?

A. The behavior issues that they exhibited were of concern. Neutering the dogs would have taken care of other concerns that we had based on the information that we were given about them.

Q. And did the information you were giving about them create a concern in your mind that their sexual behavior might be problematic in a new setting?

A. It did create a concern.

Q. Why?

A. Based on the information that we were given about them we were concerned that if left intact they may have exhibited behaviors that were not safe.

MS. BARRON: Or that people wouldn’t like. I’m just thinking I don’t want a dog humping me.

MR. TURNER: Try not to suggest answers, please.

MS. BARRON: Sorry. I’m so sorry.

Q. So what would be the problem created by the dog like expressing itself sexually on something other than a female dog? What kind of problem would that create. Why would that be a particular issue for placement?

A. I’m not sure I’m comfortable answering that question. I’m not a certified animal behaviorist. I think a behaviorist would be better suited to answer that question for you.

Q. Okay. But you were testifying about their behavior in that interpleader action?

A. I did, yes.

Q. And essentially asking the court or suggesting to the court that they need a special placement?

A. They did and I stand by that.

Q. Because of their behaviors?

A. Correct.

Q. So you obviously felt comfortable about testifying to the court about their behaviors. Did it include in that testimony the concern about the sexual behavior?

A. It did.

Q. And what was that based on?

A. As I stated to you earlier based on the information that we knew about the animals.

Q. What did you know about the animals in regard to their sexual behavior?

A. It was our understanding that they had been used in bestiality.

Q. By whom?

A. By whom did we know that information.

Q. No. That used them?

A. I don’t understand the question.

Q. By who used the animals in bestiality. You talking about Steven Clark the gentleman from Britain who took the video?

A. It was our understanding the animals had been used in bestiality.

Q. More than by Steven Clark?

A. I don’t know.

Q. From whom did you receive the information, let’s go back?

A. I believe the US Attorneys Office and the Whatcom County Sheriffs Office.

Q. Did they ever suggest knowledge or supposition that someone other than Steven Clark who appeared on these tapes in which they have Mr. Spinks had used the dogs for

A. I don’t recall the exact discussion I had with them.

Q. Did they ever suggest that Mr. Spinks had?

A. I don’t recall.

Q. Did you ever receive any information that led you to believe that he had?

A. I don’t recall.

Q. Did you testify to anything about anyone using the dogs for bestiality other than Steven Clark, the gentleman who was visiting from Britain?

A. Did I testify? I’m sorry, can you repeat that.

Q. In the interpleader action.

A. I’d have to look at the transcripts. My memory is not that good.

Q. Okay. Now, I was at a hearing with Caleb Hutton and I offered various bits of information I thought might be useful and he didn’t write anything down. But I saw him go talk to you and he wrote a number of pages and I believe you’re quoted in an article about the new charges being filed?

A. Uh-huh.

THE REPORTER: What was his name?

MR. TURNER: Caleb Hutton.

MS. BARRON: Is that a reporter?

MR. TURNER: For the Bellingham Herald.

MR. BRODSKY: So called.

MR. TURNER: Sort of fits with the Bellingham Herald.

Q. You apparently seem to have a lot to say to Mr. Hutton about the Doug Spink case and you had shown up at a hearing about the Doug Spink case. Why are you interested?

A. I’m interested in anybody whose animals we have in our custody or had in our custody. So it’s a case that our organization spent a lot of time and a lot of money helping those animals. So, yeah, I’m always interested in cases like that.

Q. Okay. Do you have any experience with or what’s involved with the breeding of horses?

A. I’m not a horse breeder nor do I have much experience in information regarding the breeding of horses.

Q. Do you think there is an appropriate distinction in issues of cruelty between sexual stimulation of animals and breeding versus sexual stimulation for purposes of human enjoyment?

A. I don’t have any idea. I don’t even understand that question.

Q. Okay. Do you think it’s cruel to put a bit in a horses mouth and reins and make them carry you around and hit them with a crop to get them to do what you want to do?

A. I think hitting them with a crop is certainly not a humane way to get a horse to do what you want them to do. In terms of bit it would depend on the situation. I’m not a horse trainer.

Q. Okay. Tigers riding horses in the circus?

A. Is that a question.

Q. Yeah.

A. Can you repeat the question.

Q. Do you believe that’s cruel?

A. I’m not a fan of circuses that involve animals.

Q. Would that be a yes?

A. I’m not understanding.

Q. Do you think that’s cruel to the horse to carry a tiger on his back in a circus?

A. I think it’s probably cruel to both the horse and the tiger.

Q. Okay. Just give me a second here. Actually this may have gone more quickly than I expected. Would you have recommended charging for the mice, someone for animal cruelty?

A. Charging what animal cruelty.

Q. Charging someone with a crime of animal cruelty for what happened to the mice?

A. I don’t know. I would have to know more evidence.

Q. Do you believe the condition they were found in would justify charges for animal cruelty.

MS. BARRON: You’re talking about this specific incident with these specific mice, not in general.

Q. Yes. With the coating with lubricant, the tails tied.

A. Based on the condition that I received the mice in they had suffered.

Q. Okay. You know, and it appears to me they suffered more than the dogs did. Am I out to lunch on that sort of belief?

A. It depends on your definition.

Q. You indicated at least that Mr. Hutton quoted you as saying, well it may be a bit overdue. We want justice to be served for these animals. Did you not think that justice was served when Mr. Spink went to federal prison for close to three years and Mr. Clark was convicted of animal cruelty?

A. Mr. Spink as far as I know was not sent to prison for animal cruelty.

Q. Well, he was. He was. He violated probation by committing animal cruelty under Washington law. That was what the judge concluded on affidavit.

A. But he was not convicted in a state court of animal cruelty.

Q. So that was something important in terms of the animals receive justice?

A. In my opinion, yes.

Q. And you say this case boils down to good versus evil. What does that mean?

A. It means just that.

Q. So who is the good and who is the evil?

A. I think that is up to speculation depending on who’s reading the article.

Q. Well, you’re the one who said it though so I’m asking you.

A. I think animal abusers certainly are not good people.

Q. Okay.

A. Those that protect animals are.

Q. Is there a good case like castrating them was worse to the dogs than what they were allegedly engaged in with Mr. Clark?

A. I don’t believe neutering an animal is cruel in any way whatsoever.

Q. Do you think it would be to a person?

A. I don’t know. I’m not a medical doctor.

Q. If I needed to send a subpoena duces tecum how should I do that. To whom should I do that.

MS. BARRON: You send it to me. I’m kind of their corporate lawyer and Michael is helping just because he has the expertise in the criminal piece that I don’t have. But you’re welcome to send that to me.

MR. TURNER: That would be an okay process to send it directly to you instead of having to send it to Ms. Clark?

MS. BARRON: Yeah, that would be just fine.
Q. Do you still have photos of the mice somewhere in your records?

THE WITNESS: I think you might have those.

MS. BARRON: They may be in the court file and I will review my file. I have to tell you, I don’t ever recall seeing a picture of the mice.


MS. BARRON: They may be there. I do not recall seeing it just to be very clear. I’m just telling you.

MR. TURNER: No. I appreciate that. And I actually saw them but now I can’t seem to figure out where they are in the discovery.

Q. Would it be normal practice for the officers to generate reports about going to collect the animals at the residence on that day?

A. Yes.

Q. And would those reports still be maintained by them?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you ever submit a bill to US Probation for the cost of housing the animals?

A. I believe I did, yes.

Q. Did they pay that?

A. I don’t believe so.

Q. Okay. Did Whatcom County pursuant to contract reimburse you for maintaining them?

A. No, they did not.

Q. Would they normally do so if you are holding animals as part of evidence in a case?

A. No.

Q. You need to fix that contract. It seems like that would be a normal thing.

MS. BARRON: Where should I start.

MR. TURNER: It’s almost like impounding a car.

MS. BARRON: Well, if the owner comes to get the dog or the animals there is provisions for that but not the county. The same provisions do not apply to the county.

MR. TURNER: It’s ironic because often they would say we don’t want the owner to have them but they don’t have anyone else to pay for them.

Q. I have been told that there is a summary of animal abuse case Doug Spink [location redacted] that was submitted to Whatcom County Council. Does that ring a bell?

A. I’m sorry, there was a what?

Q. There is a document entitled summary of animal abuse case Doug Spink — [location redacted] that was submitted to Whatcom County Council about June 21st of 2010.

A. I don’t recall — from my agency?

Q. That is my understanding.

A. I don’t recall that. It doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.

Q. Okay.

A. There are times I will e-mail various municipalities and update them on a high profile case if I feel that they need to know something.

Q. Would that be something you would have maintained in your records had you created such a document?

A. Possibly, but possibly not. It wasn’t part of any case file.

Q. Okay.

A. I don’t keep copies of e-mails that I send.

MR. TURNER: That’s all that I have.


MR. TURNER: Thank you very much for coming in.
(Interview concluded 3:35 PM.)

making contact

A funny thing about being “internet famous” is that, for some reason, people assume direct contact is difficult. That’s sort of strange. Also, in my case anyhow, it’s certainly not true.

Yes hello, here I am. If you want to contact me, go right ahead. Lots of channels, too:

❦ validated
bitmessage: BM-NBQFsiE513gJHEE3dKeERMq5NzF7km8m
❦ twitter: @LeConteSpink
Pond: contact out-of-band
❦ Facebook: nope
❦ Ello: soon

❦ Hyperboria, Jabber, GitHub, IRC, telnet, Mumble, OTR’d XMPP, Hidden Service, DHT, Open Bazaar, AIM, Ethereum, blockchain embed, {whateverforum} DM, i2p, Diaspora, smoke signals, etc: contact out-of-band

The book written by an investigative reporter on my decade-long “unwavering defiance” in the face of hysterical persecution is set to be published any day now. If you want to contact the author of Uniquely Dangerous, her site has details.

I live in a very remote area of Washington State, on the tip of the Olympic Peninsula abutting the Pacific Ocean. If you find your way there, perhaps we’ll chat. My packets get out and about, in the aether. Perhaps we’ll run into each other there.

So it goes.

2312 – wolves & humans, an unprecedented symbiosis

“She knew that humans had made wolves more human, and thus dogs, and in that same time period wolves had made humans more wolfish, by teaching them pack behaviors. None of the other primates had friends that were not kin, for instance; humans had learned that from watching wolves. The two species had at different times scavenged each other’s food; they had learned each other’s hunting methods; they had, in short, coevolved.”

~ Kim Stanley Robinson, 2312, p. 456

On Aporia

“An aporia in some rhetorics is a pretended dubitation before coming back to the attack, as in Gilbert on Joyce. But Aristotle has it as an insoluble problem in an inquiry, arising from equally plausible but inconsistent premises. He writes that Socrates liked to reduce people to aporia to show them they didn’t really know what they thought they knew. The plural that Aristotle uses in his book on metaphysics is ‘aporiai.’ ‘We should first review the things about which we need from the outset to be puzzled,’ he writes. The word aporia was later adapted by Derrida to mean something like the blank spots in our understanding that we don’t even know are there, with the idea we should try to see these. It is not quite the same idea, but joins a constellation of meanings for the word.”

~ Kim Stanley Robinson, 2312, p. 91

Vice Interview

During the past couple of weeks, Mark Hay (contributing writer for Vice Magazine) and I have been having some quite interesting discussions. Through a mutual colleague in the world of radio, we got in touch after I was made aware that (rumour has it) Vice might have got caught up in some of this year’s edition of black propaganda targeting me. Mark was kind enough to reach out to me to get my perspective on things, and our discussions carried forward from there.

Which, in a very real sense, is revolutionary: Mark – and Vice – is the first mainstream reporter, writer, or print publication to actually talk with me about my “case” (and my work, more broadly) as part of their reporting and stories about me, in any meaningful sense (I’ve been misquoted – intentionally – by Mike Carter of the Seattle Wiki… err Times – which doesn’t count as “meaningful” by any stretch of the word). That’s not to take anything away from Carreen Maloney’s monograph, Uniquely Dangerous, which I understand is getting closer and closer to final publication; her work, spanning years and digging deep in the the core facts and larger questions, is by far unmatched in terms of both breadth and depth.

Anyway, the final replies to a series of questions asked of me by Mark ended up topping 20,000 words – obviously, more than a bit too long for a conventional interview in a magazine. Mark winnowed down those replies to about 2,500 words to get it publication-ready, and in doing so really impressed me both with his editorial decisions on what matters most, and in his fairness in coordinating with me to ensure I felt the abridged version accurately reflects the deeper layers of my work and activism. Of course, taking a larger interview down by an order of magnitude is going to drop quite a bit of content in the process; some of the more insightful questions asked by Mark have been largely lost in the abridged version. Still and all, I think the resulting piece is both fair and largely reflective of what I had to say in the unabridged discussions we’ve had.

(I’ve asked Mark about the possibility of us publishing the full, unabridged interview replies here on and I do think that will happen within a week or three; I’ve deferred to Vice’s desire to have their version as sole published version in the meantime, out of respect for their interest in my work and willingness to engage with me in a respectful and professional manner; once we’re in agreement that the unabridged/uncensored interview can be fairly shared here, we’ll put it into production.)

One interesting last-minute decision Vice made is the choice of title. After Mark and I talked quite a bit about the discredited/debunked “Vaseline mice” smear targeting me in 2010, the chosen title hops right on another counter-factual smear from back during Witchunt 2010: the “bestiality brothel.”

Of course, there was no “bestiality brothel” back then; it’s a smear dreamed up by certain corrupt law enforcement officers in Whatcom County (that’d be Laura Clark, David McEachern, and “Vaseline” Bill Elfo). The smear was then mindlessly (and without any fact-checking) repeated ad nauseum by the usual hit-job journalists acting as demagougic amplifiers for zoophobic hate. From there, it took on a life of its own and was reported as ersatz “fact” repeatedly. Indeed, it’s managed to survive – despite any shred of factual support – long enough for Vice to echo it in the title of an interview debunking the underlying claims of Witchunt 2010 itself.

Ironic… in Alanis Morrisette sort of way. Sorta.

The reality is this: there was no “bestiality brothel.” In fact, as I discussed last year, there’s never been a recorded and verified instance of a “bestiality brothel” existing anywhere in history. That’s what we refer to as an urban legend: a counter-factual story that, for various cultural reasons, manages to grow roots and establish itself as faux-fact despite its discongruence with objective reality. This is the kind of thing that Snopes routinely debunks (just as Snopes debunked the “Vaseline mice” urban legend, long ago). Despite the non-existence of “bestiality brothels” anywhere in the world, in recorded history, zoophobes routinely cite them as a putative reason justifying their bigotry and hatred.

Which is sort of telling, isn’t it? When a bigotry finds itself referring to discredited, dishonest, debunked urban legends in order to justify itself, then we know we’re dealing with a Platonic form of bigotry. Shorn of any factual basis, such hatreds become things unto themselves: they fill some sort of role, in cultural terms, but they aren’t based on any kind of reality-based foundation. This is something Mark and I discussed in the unabridged version of our interview, and as such I’ll defer on digging into the question further in this article today.

What I will say is this: the imaginary existence of the “bestiality brothel” in the homospecies/Normal imagination says a great deal about how that world, the non-zoophile world, views sexuality, and gender relationships, and human/nonhuman equality, and reciprocity, and all sorts of other core topics… and what it says isn’t good. Like the anti-gay bigot who can’t shut up about how “the gays” do this and “the gays” do that, we know more about the bigot than about the targets of his hatred based on his strange attachment to counter-factual myths, than we’ll ever learn about his targets themselves. So it goes…

The reality is vastly more tragic, in the current circumstances.

In 2010, a heavily-armed gang of zoophobic, hate-driven bigots invaded my home. Not a “bestiality brothel,” but my home. I was asleep in bed when the arrived. They came after their bought-and-paid-for snitch/informant, Stephen Clarke, tried without success to entrap me in wrongdoing after inviting himself to my house under false pretenses – using a fake name – opened the locked gate to our property and let them in. The abducted four horses from our home, and seven dogs. Their names were Capone, Cantour, LJ, and Sigi for the horses and Buji, Wando, Wiskey, Jaxon, Rugi, Ruben, and Lazarus for the dogs. The victims of zoophobic hatred. They have names. They are not “animals.” They are people… or they were before Laura Clark got her hands on them.

Those abductions were done at gunpoint.

All of those dogs and horses (with two fortunate exceptions) abducted from my home and held hostage by authorities in an attempt to get me to “plead guilty” (to something), were then mutilated – suffering genital mutilation that, if done to human victims, would be categorised as the most horrific of crimes.

Several of the dogs were subsequently murdered by Laura Clark, despite the vehement and untiring efforts on the part of my family & I to save them from execution. The exact count of those murdered is still being kept secret by Laura Clark; we know the number is not zero. She won’t admit how many she killed. Not yet, anyway.

There was no “bestiality brothel.” There were much-loved members of our family, who were abducted at gunpoint and murdered. That is reality – not some urban legend.

It is tragic, and it is inexcusable, and it is unforgivable. And it is real. That is reality: death, mutilation, abduction, hate. That is zoophobia, that is what bigotry looks like. It’s not “protecting animals” or uncovering imaginary “bestiality brothels.” It’s horror, and it’s a disgrace for all those involved: the armed SWAT team members, the “ride-alongs” who vandalised my home and stole anything they could pawn or sell, the murderous monster Laura Clark, the sexually obsessed Jeff Robson… all of them. A disgrace.

To this day, I wake up routinely screaming and in tears: I relive the experience of having those people – canine people – murdered while I was held in solitary confinement in a federal prison, unable to help or protect them. Those scars will never, ever go away. I will remember what was done to them until the day I die. They are the desparecidos of the zoophobic genocide: Jaxon, and Ruben, and Wiskey, and Wando, and everyone else… murdered by bigots intent on hatred and destruction. They are “disappeared” by the bigots – but they are never, ever forgotten.

I will also hold accountable each and every bigot involved in their deaths. In court, via the rule of law: they will (and are) all be held fully accountable. No exceptions, no excuses, no compromise.

Every April 14th, to remember that horrific violent assault on our home and the abduction of our loved ones, a celebration of rememberance in honour of the victims of zoophobic hatred is now held. We call it kwibuka, the Rwandan word for “remember.” We remember. Always. We remember what hate does, and what it means. We remember the victims of hatred, and how “the rule of law” can be perverted into a tool of bigotry and destruction by corrupt officials and those who profit from their crimes. We remember that we must stand against lies, and hatred, and bigotry, and death.

We remember that life transcends, that love transcends, and that compassion & diversity are the path to a healthy future. We remember that, no matter if hatred spawns idiotic lies like “bestiality brothels” that are echoed mindlessly by yellow-journalistic media voices, we reject hatred and we reject the politics of discrimination.

We embrace a better world, for humans and nonhumans alike. To move past discredited, debunked models of human/nonhuman relationships is to move forward into a future that brings us all together and celebrates our diversity and our common roots in the vast, wondrous vistas of our living planet.

Urban legends rarely reflect the best in our species. Enough of that claptrap. Better to embrace reality, and all it has to offer.


~ D.B. ‘unwavering defiance’ LeConte-Spink

Contributor & Co-Founder
Cross Species Alliance | @CrossSpecies

Lead Conflict Strategist
DeepJustice Network | @DeepJustice

Researcher in Residence
Baneki Privacy Labs | @Baneki

systems topologist & founding team member
HideMyAss VPN | @HideMyAss

Be Trustworthy

“I think humanity’s main downfall has been that they had just over-civilized themselves, and as a result surrendered themselves to isolation. Lonely, solitary creatures trapped in the darkness of their own frightened minds, and cruel because they feared the dark. They forgot how to trust, be trustworthy and how to see beyond the mundane…”

~ Storm Constantine, Wraeththu (p. 129)

First, Be Kind


If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you;
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting;
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or being lied about, don’t deal in lies,
Or being hated, don’t give way to hating,
And yet don’t look too good, nor talk too wise;

If you can dream – and not make dreams your master;
If you can think – and not make thoughts your aim;
If you can meet with triumph and disaster
And treat those two imposters just the same;
If you can bear to hear the truth you’ve spoken
Twisted by naves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,
And stoop and build ‘em up with worn-out tools;

If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
And never breathe a word about your loss;

If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the will which says to them “Hold on”;

If you can talk with the crowds and keep your virtue,
Or walk with the kings – nor lose the common touch;
If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you;
If all men count with you, but none too much;
If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds’ worth of distance run –
Yours is the Earth and everything that’s in it,
And – which is more – you’ll be a Man, my son!

~ Rudyard Kipling

Welcome, & Synopsis

Well, thanks to some generous coverage by our friends over at the Seattle Times (nicely done, Mike Carter!), we’ve seen an exponential jump in new visitors to this humble little collection of essays and ephemera in the last few days. Actually, a bit more than an exponential jump if we’re going to be mathematically precise – but in any case, it’s big :-)

Since that’s happened, I thought it might be useful for new visitors to have a short overview of what this site is about. Honestly, when I look over all the articles that are published here, it’s a bit disorganized – there’s lots of interesting information, but it’s somewhat stacked on top of itself and the organizational structure is not really keeping up with the publication schedule. We’ll do our best to rectify that, but in the meantime an intro is in order.

Let’s get started!

“Segui il tuo corso et lascia dir le genti!”
{“Follow your own path, and let people talk!”}
~ Dante

First off, if you’re here because Mike Carter promised you this is a “bestiality website,” you’ll likely be quite disappointed. Sorry, but you’ll have to use google (or ask Mike for his own bookmarks list on the subject "Twitt" ) if that’s what you’re looking for. Rather, what you’ll find here is (mostly) a collection of essays on the topics of minority rights, abuse of governmental power, diversity activism, and zoophobic hate-laws as they relate to genuine efforts to improve the wellbeing of nonhuman people on this planet. I’ve written some, perhaps most, of these essays… but not all of them, as you’ll note if you dig into the archives. A small panel of editors decides on what gets published here, and a small group of contributors provide most of the materials. Also, some of the articles here are also crossposted over at the cultureghost ‘free speech’ forums along with alot of other materials, ranging from “direct action capitalism” to computational complexity and theories of quantum cryptography.

If there’s a common theme to the articles posted here at (which is a stretch to claim), I’d say they relate to taking a broader, more deeply-informed view on questions of cross-species intimacy and on the ways in which western culture in recent decades has developed a brittle, schizophrenic panic about inter-species miscegenation. We also talk a bit about what that pathological fear of cross-species intimacy indicates about deeper problems in our culture’s ability to think about the rest of the nonhuman people who share our planet… and about how that bigotry towards heterospecies relationships manifests in violent, hateful attacks on minority populations.

Too, there’s quite a bit of whistleblowing work here relating to malfeasance on the part of various branches of the United States federal government. Most of that writing reflects my own firsthand experience as the target of such Fed abuses, over a period of more than five years; if you’re curious to learn more, those articles will provide ample detail. There’s certainly additional writing soon to be published here on that subject, as a wave of Freedom of Information Act demand letters – as well as some leaked “secret” internal materials from the U.S. Probation Office – make their way into future articles. Some folks find these articles a bit tedious and boring; others are gladdened to see someone “naming names” and holding gun-toting bureaucrats accountable for wrongdoing & criminal activities. For me, since the Feds have tried every trick in the book for years and years in failed efforts to censor these articles, I know that publishing them is indeed very important: if they weren’t having a strong impact (and readership stats here show that they’re always popular), they wouldn’t be so panicked in their efforts to censor this content.

Finally, there’s some announcements for activist programmes & organizations that stand in support of a respect for diversity and against bigoted hate-campaigns against minority populations. This topic is near & dear to my heart, and I’ve been in and out of prison for years as a result of my own defiant stance against bigots & thugs who seek to target vulnerable minority groups. I’m quite proud of that stance, despite extensive (and often flagrantly illegal) persecution I’ve faced. In fact, I received a tacit apology from the judge (Ricardo Martinez) who enabled much of that persecution, several years ago… so I suppose that’s as direct a vindication as one could ask for.

Lots of new folks visiting here, our stats show, are coming after reading Mike Carter’s latest “journalistic” piece in the Seattle Times. So far, the questions & comments we’re receiving via email show a pretty strong trend: folks are wondering “what’s up with that strange, angry, erratic ‘article’ they wrote about you?” Funny you should ask! :-) You see, the last time Mike wrote a black disinfo piece about me (in May of 2013), I called him to demand corrections for the multiple inaccuracies he published. He refused, although he acknowledged he’d lied in print repeatedly… and then he threatened that he’s publish additional hit-job smears in the future if I kept putting pressure on him. Poor Mike :-P

So, yes, his latest piece is strangely erratic and contains the usual RDA of Fed disinfo & bigoted smears… that’s to be expected. What’s really fascinating about it is that it seems to have catalyzed a broad recognition that these sorts of hate-driven hit-jobs represent the dying gasp of zoophobic bigotry as a default position in “conventional” society. I’ve had dozens and dozens of interactions & discussions in the last few days, with folks asking me exactly how it is that these bigots try to justify their hatreds. Sadly, I can answer those questions in formal, academic terms (and I answer them in much more detail in the upcoming book-length monograph – currently in post-production editing – The Deep Symbiosis Manifesto)… but I really can’t provide a personal answer to them that is satisfying. Hatred and bigotry and violent, aggressive attitudes just don’t make sense to me, no matter how hard I try. Sorry.

But this pattern of angry attacks from the press hardly begins – or ends – with me, and with my academic work. For example:

“They [Wilde’s trials under Englands anti-gay hate laws] captivated the London press, much of which was only too happy to see Wilde, of whom it had long been jealously suspicious, debased and finally punished for his alleged crimes and for daring to live outside Victorial social convention.”
~ Introduction to Wilde’s The Picture of Dorian Gray, by Camille Cauti (2003 edition, p. xxxi)

“Jealously suspicious,” indeed.

As to my own work in this subject area, I summarise it as such: the recent (2-3 decades) turn within western culture towards a bigotry against heterospecies relationships & sexual orientations (what used to be called “zoophilia” or, even earlier, “bestiality”) reflects a breakdown in reciprocal understanding between humans & nonhumans. Concomitant with the rise of “torture-farming” techniques of producing meat for commercial human consumption (“factory farming”), and the ecocidal destruction of vast swaths of this planet’s biosphere, this zoophobic bigotry is a harbinger of failed models of understanding how humans and nonhumans relate to each other. In fact, heterospecies relationships between humans & nonhumans have taken place throughout human history, in every recorded human culture, and are a healthy expression of our species’ deep interconnection with the nonhuman world. Research suggests that approximately 1% of the human population has a heterospecies sexual orientation – this tail-end of human genetic diversity has been a crucial component in catalysing the development of “domestication” & the reciprocal bonds between humans and our nonhuman companion species (primarily canines & equines).

Phew. That’s not so much of a good summary, is it? As you can see, it doesn’t quite equate to being an “animal sex advocate” (as Mike Carter wrote, bizarrely, last year: do “animals” really need someone to advocate for them to have sex with each other… really?) – nor even a “bestiality advocate.” Apologies if that’s what you’re looking for. What I might be described as, rather, is an advocate of healthy human diversity & an advocate for genuinely reciprocal, respectful, loyal relationships between all types of people: human & nonhuman alike. I think panicked obsession with inter-species miscegenation is about as logically or morally justifiable as was the old race-based miscegenation bigotry of 100 years ago… or anti-gay homophobia from 30 years ago. Hating folks because they’re different is always wrong, period. Diversity is healthy, not just for humans but for all biological systems.

Finally, pointing out that bigotry – against women, against Jews, against gays, or against “zoos” (i.e. heterospecies / zoophiles) – is wrong is hardly a controversial position, is it? I mean, we now have laws banning discrimination against folks based on their sexual orientation – given that heterospecies bonding is now recognised (via a “growing consensus,” as observed by Dr. Jesse Bering) as a “legitimate” sexual orientation, it’s hard to see how bigotry targeting this minority sexual orientation can be justified in any meaningful sense. That’s because, simply put, it cannot be justified. Bigotry is wrong.

To conclude – finally! :-) – it is really nice to see Mike Carter & his “friends” who reprinted his weirdly-rambling fantasies directing so many new folks to dig deeper & find out the truth when it comes to the work I do. Indeed, I can’t imagine how we’d have been able to spread this sort of awareness without his help – perhaps an ironic turn of events, but so life goes. This campaign against bigotry & hatred has clearly evolved into something with its own momentum and trajectory – far beyond my own small efforts to call attention to the damage caused by this modern-form bigotry, in all its forms.

For decades, I’ve worked to understand the deeper cultural, social, biological, evolutionary, and systems-theoretic components of intimate cross-species relationships. As that work progressed, I became more and more skeptical of hatred targeted at heterospecies pairings – and began to speak out more and more against this new form of bigotry. I’ve been attacked, threatened, imprisoned, and persecuted as a result of my research and writing on this subject – but, now, I’ve seen things turn sharply in a new direction.

Now, it’s the bigots who are on the defensive. Now, it’s the hateful, violent, unhealthy people who target others based on bigotry that are finding it increasingly difficult to defend their ugly attitudes. Now, at long last, we’re seeing the light coming forth… and we’re seeing the work we’ve all done for so many years is coming to slow but steady fruition.

So, thank you to everyone – new visitors, occasional readers, and longtime supporters alike. Thank you for taking the time to read, to explore, to think, and to question the angry attitudes of sadly-conflicted people like Mike Carter. Thank you for being part of an historical transformation: a recognition that bigotry and contempt for the nonhuman world has no legitimate role in our healthy society today or in the future.

Thank you, in sum, for being part of the “compassionate majority” who care enough about our planet & all the people who call it home that you’ve chosen to embrace a vision of the human species that keeps us connected to all the nonhumans who share our daily lives. Thank you for seeing that bigotry is always a sign of something that’s gone wrong, and that the only healthy reaction to bigotry is… love.


~ D.B. ‘unwavering defiance’ LeConte-Spink

ps: Mike, here’s one for you, my friend….

“There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about.”
~ Oscar Wilde, The Picture of Dorian Grey


Seattle (WA, United States): At the conclusion of today’s hearing in front of Judge Ricardo Martinez, noted counter-surveillance technologist & heterospecies activist Douglas Spink responded with a declaration of “final round victory.” After years of persecution, harassment, and threats of violence by the U.S. Probation Office, he is now officially free of all future USPO oversight. Efforts to continue such oversight have failed, once and for all.

“As my legal team prepared for today’s hearing, it became crystal clear that the USPO had lost the will to continue this fight,” observes Spink. “Their repeated, flagrant lies and constant efforts to derail my work, censor my writing, and attack my family and loved ones have finally collapsed under their own bloated weight. It is over. We won. They lost. Next.”

In addition to the final and complete termination of all oversight or supervision by U.S. Probation or any other federal agencies, today’s hearing saw a nominal sentence of nine months issued. Spink notes that “the USPO has hounded my friends and colleagues for months, as part of Steve Gregoryk’s attempts to cover up for his botched SWAT assault on my home in early March. Rather than have that targeting of my friends continue, I made the tactical choice to accept a resolution of this entire fiasco, one brokered by the AUSA’s office. My preference was of course to fight, and in doing so to forcefully demonstrate how fundamentally corrupt the USPO’s actions have been throughout their ‘supervision’ of me… but the well-being and interests of my friends and loved ones are my paramount concern. This resolution met that objective, whilst still showing the USPO’s hysterical effort to imprison me for years to be an outright fraud. I thank my attorneys for their work in coming to this resolution, and embrace the finality it – at long last – provides.”

Continues Spink: “During nearly ten years of harassment, repeated imprisonment, and extra-legal persecution by the United States government, I have never kneeled down in the face of their illegitimate exercise of power. I have never betrayed my community, my colleagues, or my ideals. This, despite black propaganda spread by Susan Roe and other corrupt federal officials that I ‘cooperated’ with their persecution campaigns. I did not, as all available evidence clearly demonstrates. Those lies, like so many other Fed lies, are now exposed to the full light of truth. I reject the fascistic, authoritarian behaviour of the ‘United Police States of America,’ and I continue to work towards a future where our democracy once again functions properly, and where it respects the crucial role of minorities in forming a vibrant, healthy social world.”

“With the Fed persecution campaign vanquished entirely,” Spink explains,” I am able to concentrate 100% of my energies on achieving a parallel victory in the ‘Enumclaw Witchunt’ case brought against me by Laura Clark in Whatcom County. That case – fraught with perjury, tampered evidence, unexplained delays, and brazenly vindictive motives throughout – stands already on the verge of collapse. My legal team – lead by James Turner – is attacking the statute face-first on multiple constitutional grounds. As a direct result, we fully expect that flagrantly discriminatory law to be shorn from this state’s books… that is, of course, if the tampered-with parody of ‘evidence’ presented by prosecutors thus far doesn’t collapse outright.”

According to Spink: “I proudly face down that hate-driven, bigotry-motivated Whatcom case directly and with my full attention. Hidden behind that disgraceful case can be seen Laura Clark’s scandalous misbehaviour during her years of back-room cheerleading and thuggish arm-twisting of legitimate law enforcement officials. Whatcom County deserves better from a ‘humane’ society leader than Laura Clark; the state’s citizens, and its nonhuman residents, deserve to see an end of her unprofessional, psychologically-erratic reign of terror. Emblematic of that failed regime, I ask: what legitimate small-town animal shelter requires body armour for its frontline agents – as Laura Clark’s failed leadership has recently required Whatcom to purchase? None. Indeed, no better symbol of her failed leadership can be imagined than this requirement to deploy military-grade munitions in what should be a peaceful, compassionate, constructive social role.”

Spink continues: “It is long past time for her to stop wasting taxpayer – and donor – resources on bizarre, counter-factual personal vendettas and on purchases of militaristic armaments. We can do better than her. We must do better than her. It is time for her to be shown the exit doors by those who oversee her employment. Her poor management is a blot on Whatcom County, and on all its residents.

In conclusion, he observes that “Laura Clark has stylised her years-long harassment campaign against me as one of ‘good versus evil’ – ironically, in this she finally speaks truth. However, it is she herself who has mutated into a force for evil, rather than an agent of genuine good works. She has no place in a professionally-administered animal control agency. The ugly era of her regime now must conclude, and new leadership brought in to clean up the disaster she has left behind.”

Noted for his “unwavering defiance” (in the words of the U.S. Attorney’s office) in the face of years of federal efforts to compel censorship of his published writings, to punish him for his activism in defence of persecuted minorities, and to hinder his work in the field of counter-surveillance technology, Spink never caved in to those censorship pressures. Instead, a full, uncensored archive of his writings has been collected at

Additionally, with his federal ‘supervision’ now at a close, he prepares to return formally to his leadership role in the counter-surveillance & network security field. His position as Researcher in Residence with Baneki Privacy Labs ( is expected to expand into additional roles in related projects & technologies. Further announcements will be published shortly.

“My own activism is simple to explain: I recognise humanity as an inextricable part of the full sweep of sentient existence on our living planet. The solipsistic view of humans as ‘unique’ from other nonhuman people is facile, inaccurate, and long since discredited by well-established scientific inquiry. Our deep, reciprocal bond with other species – and in particular with our companion/partner species – sits at the core of what it means to be human. Those who reject those bonds, instead imagining walls between us and everyone else, fly in the face of our species’ true history of deep interconnection with our nonhuman peers. In contrast, ‘people like me’ – those who embrace our reciprocal, heterospecies bonds with the nonhuman world – embody what it means to be a complete human being.”

Spink concludes by quoting philosopher Daniel Quinn:

“We belong to the world. We belong to the community of life on this planet – it doesn’t belong to us… no species can set itself apart from all the rest or make itself the ruler of all the rest. That won’t work. All must belong. We’ve got to find our way back into the community. We’ve got to stop living like outlaws. When we begin to do that – when we begin to acknolwedge that the world needs us and that we belong to it, not it to us – I think our feelings of desperate loneliness and neediness will begin to evaporate, all by themselves…”

# # #

Douglas Bryan LeConte-Spink | | twitter: @LeConteSpink

559.382.6911 | 360.969.9079

Howard Phillips
Phillips Law LLC |


James Turner
Attorney At Law


Co-Founder, Researcher In Residence
systems topologist
Baneki Privacy Labs | | twitter: @baneki

Project Contributor
Cross Species Alliance | | twitter: @CrossSpecies

Chief Conflict Strategist
DeepJustice Network | | twitter: @DeepJustice

Project Researcher
Deep Symbiosis Institute | | twitter: @DeepSymbiosis

Managing Director / Lead Equine Mentor
Exitpoint Stallions Limitee | | twitter: @exitpoint

“unwavering defiance” of bigotry, cruelty, & police state thuggery