PETA's Civil Conspiracy Complaint
The Alleged Subpoena
On August 30, 2018, Nathan Winograd published two blogs alleging he had received a subpoena from PETA, demanding he "turn over confidential informants" for "Why PETA Kills," the latest of several books he's written attacking the animal rights organization. Framing the matter as primarily an attack on free speech, Winograd posted a link providing his supporters an opportunity to "pay First Amendment Attorneys representing the No Kill Advocacy Center" through a designated "legal defense fund" PayPal account.
Curiously absent from Winograd's August 2018 blogs is the alleged subpoena itself. Continuing to frame his legal troubles as though he's under fire for "exposing the truth" about PETA, he did publish a hyperlink to a lawsuit filed by PETA in the Circuit Court of Fairfax, Virginia, on January 25, 2018, that strongly indicates otherwise. The lawsuit, which Winograd dismisses as a "grand, paranoid scheme," and a ruse to prevent him from proving his allegations about PETA, names Winograd as a participant, or a "co-conspirator," in "a conspiracy to interfere with and harm PETA in its business of seeking to improve treatment of all animals." Meaning, Nathan Winograd's legal troubles are considerably more extensive than fighting a subpoena to "turn over confidential informants."
Curiously absent from Winograd's August 2018 blogs is the alleged subpoena itself. Continuing to frame his legal troubles as though he's under fire for "exposing the truth" about PETA, he did publish a hyperlink to a lawsuit filed by PETA in the Circuit Court of Fairfax, Virginia, on January 25, 2018, that strongly indicates otherwise. The lawsuit, which Winograd dismisses as a "grand, paranoid scheme," and a ruse to prevent him from proving his allegations about PETA, names Winograd as a participant, or a "co-conspirator," in "a conspiracy to interfere with and harm PETA in its business of seeking to improve treatment of all animals." Meaning, Nathan Winograd's legal troubles are considerably more extensive than fighting a subpoena to "turn over confidential informants."
Read the Complaint for Yourself Here
Why It's Probably Not About "Free Speech," as Winograd Alleges
PETA's conspiracy complaint is extremely detailed, and refers to a number of alleged emails between the various defendants and "co-conspirators" which allegedly indicate the following occurred:
PETA alleges a "conspiracy to interfere with and harm PETA in its business of seeking to improve treatment of all animals" began after the October 18, 2014 incident involving Maya, an Eastern Shore dog who was misidentified by a PETA contractor and mistakenly taken into custody as a legally surrendered dog of the same description. After PETA representatives met with Maya's owner, Wilbur Zarate, to explain the terrible mistake and apologize, PETA claims Wilbur Zarate and defendants Edward and Juliana Armstrong entered into a scheme to benefit from the mistake, providing false evidence, including a "edited" video, to the police, falsely indicating a crime, rather than a mistake, had been committed. PETA alleges Mr. Zarate was ultimately paid "tens of thousands of dollars" by the Armstrongs to move forward with this scheme to harm PETA, using the incident involving Maya as a catalyst.
PETA alleges the publicity the Armstrongs and Zarate were generating in their attempts to forward the scheme brought alleged defendants Heidi Meinzer and William Gomaa, and alleged "co-conspirator" Debra Griggs to the table, providing them an attractive vehicle with which to undermine PETA's influence in Hampton Roads and beyond, and forward what PETA describes as "dangerous" "No Kill" initiatives, both within Virginia and elsewhere. From there, PETA alleges that "co-conspirator" Debra Griggs contacted "co-conspirators" Robin Starr, Tamsen Kingry, Tabitha Haynes-Treloar, and Nathan Winograd, to apprise them of the scheme to harm PETA, and to provide them an opportunity to participate in, and expand upon, the scheme to undermine PETA's influence and forward "no kill" initiatives.
PETA alleges the defendants and several "organizational co-conspirators" lured Wilbur Zarate into a fraudulent lawsuit for the purpose of deriving personal and financial benefit, as well as generating harmful press coverage targeting PETA, which would in turn undermine PETA's influence in the community, and elsewhere, and provide an opportunity to forward "no kill" initiatives.
PETA alleges "co-conspirator" Heather Harper-Troje, a "disgruntled former employee," was contacted and invited into the scheme to undermine PETA's influence and forward "no kill" initiatives by Debra Griggs, after Griggs and other "co-conspirators" and defendants learned Harper-Troje had written blogs containing "grossly false accusations" about PETA. PETA alleges the blogs containing false accusations were written some fifteen years after Harper-Troje's employ and were motivated by the recent "doctored" surveillance footage of the incident involving Maya, and negative press the defendants and co-conspirators were intentionally and maliciously generating to forward their scheme to harm PETA.
PETA alleges "the conspirators used Harper-Troje, with her knowledge and acquaintance, to tweet and blog false information regarding PETA," and assist with undermining PETA's influence within the community and use her "former employee/whistleblower" status to forward "no kill" initiatives legislatively. PETA alleges "Harper-Troje, at Griggs' request and later that of Winograd, continued to supply false, concocted information about PETA" both to the public and lawmakers, "concerning alleged events that were over fifteen years old and falsely pretending that she had current knowledge of PETA's operations and activities."
PETA alleges all the aforementioned actors viewed and or publically published an edited version of the video surveillance footage of the incident involving Maya while being fully aware that an "hours long" unedited version existed. PETA alleges the extended version of the video demonstrated Maya had been roaming at large elsewhere in the trailer park that day. PETA alleges each and every actor participated in a scheme to edit the footage by recording over the aspects which were unsupportive of their conspiracy to harm PETA.
In the "statement of facts" section of the conspiracy complaint, PETA references a series of emails between the alleged defendants and coconspirators which allegedly provide evidence as to the timeline of the scheme to harm PETA, as well as details of their individual and concerted contributions. PETA alleges the emails contain statements, which may indicate strife among the alleged actors, such as "co-conspirator" Robin Starr saying she found Nathan Winograd to be "repugnant" and "untrustworthy."
PETA alleges a "conspiracy to interfere with and harm PETA in its business of seeking to improve treatment of all animals" began after the October 18, 2014 incident involving Maya, an Eastern Shore dog who was misidentified by a PETA contractor and mistakenly taken into custody as a legally surrendered dog of the same description. After PETA representatives met with Maya's owner, Wilbur Zarate, to explain the terrible mistake and apologize, PETA claims Wilbur Zarate and defendants Edward and Juliana Armstrong entered into a scheme to benefit from the mistake, providing false evidence, including a "edited" video, to the police, falsely indicating a crime, rather than a mistake, had been committed. PETA alleges Mr. Zarate was ultimately paid "tens of thousands of dollars" by the Armstrongs to move forward with this scheme to harm PETA, using the incident involving Maya as a catalyst.
PETA alleges the publicity the Armstrongs and Zarate were generating in their attempts to forward the scheme brought alleged defendants Heidi Meinzer and William Gomaa, and alleged "co-conspirator" Debra Griggs to the table, providing them an attractive vehicle with which to undermine PETA's influence in Hampton Roads and beyond, and forward what PETA describes as "dangerous" "No Kill" initiatives, both within Virginia and elsewhere. From there, PETA alleges that "co-conspirator" Debra Griggs contacted "co-conspirators" Robin Starr, Tamsen Kingry, Tabitha Haynes-Treloar, and Nathan Winograd, to apprise them of the scheme to harm PETA, and to provide them an opportunity to participate in, and expand upon, the scheme to undermine PETA's influence and forward "no kill" initiatives.
PETA alleges the defendants and several "organizational co-conspirators" lured Wilbur Zarate into a fraudulent lawsuit for the purpose of deriving personal and financial benefit, as well as generating harmful press coverage targeting PETA, which would in turn undermine PETA's influence in the community, and elsewhere, and provide an opportunity to forward "no kill" initiatives.
PETA alleges "co-conspirator" Heather Harper-Troje, a "disgruntled former employee," was contacted and invited into the scheme to undermine PETA's influence and forward "no kill" initiatives by Debra Griggs, after Griggs and other "co-conspirators" and defendants learned Harper-Troje had written blogs containing "grossly false accusations" about PETA. PETA alleges the blogs containing false accusations were written some fifteen years after Harper-Troje's employ and were motivated by the recent "doctored" surveillance footage of the incident involving Maya, and negative press the defendants and co-conspirators were intentionally and maliciously generating to forward their scheme to harm PETA.
PETA alleges "the conspirators used Harper-Troje, with her knowledge and acquaintance, to tweet and blog false information regarding PETA," and assist with undermining PETA's influence within the community and use her "former employee/whistleblower" status to forward "no kill" initiatives legislatively. PETA alleges "Harper-Troje, at Griggs' request and later that of Winograd, continued to supply false, concocted information about PETA" both to the public and lawmakers, "concerning alleged events that were over fifteen years old and falsely pretending that she had current knowledge of PETA's operations and activities."
PETA alleges all the aforementioned actors viewed and or publically published an edited version of the video surveillance footage of the incident involving Maya while being fully aware that an "hours long" unedited version existed. PETA alleges the extended version of the video demonstrated Maya had been roaming at large elsewhere in the trailer park that day. PETA alleges each and every actor participated in a scheme to edit the footage by recording over the aspects which were unsupportive of their conspiracy to harm PETA.
In the "statement of facts" section of the conspiracy complaint, PETA references a series of emails between the alleged defendants and coconspirators which allegedly provide evidence as to the timeline of the scheme to harm PETA, as well as details of their individual and concerted contributions. PETA alleges the emails contain statements, which may indicate strife among the alleged actors, such as "co-conspirator" Robin Starr saying she found Nathan Winograd to be "repugnant" and "untrustworthy."
There Were Hints Prior to PETA's Conspiracy Lawsuit, that Something Was Amiss
In July of 2015, during a routine FOIA request, PETA learned that alleged "co-conspirators" and defendants Debra Griggs, Robin Starr, and William Gomaa had been meeting with legislators and VDACS officials, out of the view of other stakeholders, to draft and push through a "guidance document" pertaining to SB1381 which would specifically target PETA's shelter, and, according to other stakeholders, impose a "false metric" by which private animal shelters would be measured going forth. In actuality, the metric would ultimately only impact PETA. When the clandestine meetings were brought to light, the secret group, as far as the VDACS was concerned, was disbanded, with the VDACS stating that going forth, all stakeholders would be involved in the creation of the guidance document, should one become necessary.
