Bill Lueders
Petitioners Wayne Hsiung and Rebekah Robinson, and attorneys Kristin Schrank and Steffen Seitz (from left).
Petitioners Wayne Hsiung and Rebekah Robinson, from left, and attorneys Kristin Schrank and Steffen Seitz at a Dane County Circuit Court hearing on April 18.
“Anything could happen,” Rebekah Robinson said outside the courtroom before the hearing began. The judge could reject her petition outright, schedule further proceedings, or even right then and there agree to appoint a special prosecutor to look into whether Ridglan Farms, a dog research and breeding facility in southwestern Dane County, is in violation of animal cruelty laws.
Dane County Circuit Court Judge Rhonda Lanford ended up taking the middle option on Thursday, setting a hearing for evidence to be presented in support of a petition from Robinson, the founder of the local nonprofit group Dane4Dogs, and Wayne Hsiung, a California-based animal-rights activist who until recently was facing criminal charges over his role in a 2017 break-in at the Ridglan Farms facility in the town of Blue Mounds that resulted in the theft — or release — of three dogs.
The charges were dismissed on March 8, 10 days before Hsiung and two co-defendants were slated to go on trial on felony burglary and theft charges that carried a potential maximum sentence of 16 years in prison. Hsiung and another defendant, Paul Picklesimer, opposed the dismissal of charges against them, while the third defendant, Eva Hamer, took no position on the dismissal but noted through her attorney, Payal Khandhar, that the three defendants had rung up nearly $100,000 in expenses in preparation for trial.
In seeking dismissal of the charges, Assistant District Attorney Alexandra Keyes said “the victims in this case,” Ridglan Farms, had “indicated a desire to no longer have this case proceed to trial” due to “concerns for their physical safety.” In court, Keyes said the facility had received “death threats.” No evidence of these threats was provided but Dane County District Attorney Ismael Ozanne told Isthmus he had no reason to doubt that they occurred, saying he believed the Dane County Sheriff’s Office “will be looking into those matters.”
A police report obtained in response to an open records request from Isthmus for records regarding these alleged threats show that Dane County Sheriff’s Deputy K. Schneider was on Feb. 27 dispatched to Ridglan Farms in response to an alleged “threat call.” Schneider spoke to a Ridglan Farms employee, Pamela Burke, who reported receiving a call the day before from a young man who was “rambling on about how upset he was about what goes on at Ridglan Farms.” She hung up on him, and when he called back let it go to voicemail. According to the report, the caller “stated something to the effect of, ‘I’m going to fucking kill you and you should just kill yourself.’” Burke said she at first wasn’t going to contact law enforcement but was convinced by coworkers to do so.
Schneider said Burke played him the voicemail, which “goes on to more of the same.” Schneider dialed the number that was recorded for this incoming call but “was unable to make contact and the call went straight to voicemail.” Apparently no further action was taken.
Ridglan Farms, in its filing in opposition to the petition, stated that it had “received multiple death threats.”
Hsiung and his co-defendants had hoped to use the trial to call attention to the conditions at Ridglan Farms, home to more than 3,000 beagles, making it one of the nation’s top providers of dogs used for research. After the case was dismissed, they urged the Dane County DA’s office to prosecute Ridglan Farms for criminal violations of animal cruelty laws. On March 20, they filed a petition seeking the appointment of a special prosecutor, as the law allows.
In 2023 Dane County Circuit Court Judge Nia Trammell found probable cause that a primate research center at UW-Madison broke animal cruelty laws, but declined to appoint a special prosecutor to pursue charges. “It would be difficult for any prosecutor to meet their burden of proof and obtain a conviction,” she said at the time.
In 2010, Judge Amy Smith also found probable cause that nine researchers and officials at UW-Madison had violated animal cruelty laws and appointed a special prosecutor to investigate. David Geier, the prosecutor, ultimately did not find that those employees broke the law.
The petition from Hsiung and Dane4Dogs, later amended to include more supporting testimonials from veterinarians and animal welfare groups, argues that the appointment of a special prosecutor is warranted “because of Ridglan Farms’ ongoing, flagrant criminal conduct; because the welfare of thousands of beagle victims depends upon it; and because the interests of justice and the rule of law require that no one, even a corporation in a powerful industry, is above the law.”
Judge Lanford, in her ruling, set a evidentiary hearing for Wednesday, July 10, and gave the petitioners until June 28 to file a pretrial brief. The brief, she said, should set forth the statutes violated, a summary of the evidence, and the names of witnesses at what is expected to be a one-day hearing. Lanford also said she had received but not read a filing from Ridglan Farms in opposition to the petition, as well as a response to this filing that was submitted by the petitioners.
“I’m not going to consider it, because it’s not appropriate,” Lanford said at the start of the hearing, which was attended by an attorney for Ridglan Farms as well as by Ozanne. “The case law is clear [and] does not confer upon a person who is the subject of a proposed prosecution the right to participate in any way or to obtain reconsideration of the ultimate decision.”
About 20 supporters of the petitioners also attended the 13-minute hearing. Afterward they gathered in a courtroom hallway, where Hsiung and attorneys representing Dane4Dogs and the local Alliance for Animals praised the ruling. Hsiung said Lanford, known for being “fair” and “smart,” made the right call in disallowing the opposition from Ridglan Farms.
“It’s concerning that Ridglan Farms filed it in the first place,” he said. “I think it’s pretty clear that they do not have standing.” Attorney Steffen Seitz, a litigation fellow at the University of Denver, said he found the fact that Ridglan submitted this filing “clarifying” because it showed that “they believe the laws don’t apply to them.”
The rejected nine-page filing from Ridglan Farms argued that the facility was “statutorily exempt from prosecution” for the alleged crimes, and that even if it weren’t it could still not be prosecuted because it “is already subject to federal and state inspections” by government agencies. The filing concludes:
“Respectfully, Petitioners’ quarrel is with existing laws that allow for the use of animals in research. Petitioners are free to advocate for changes in the law that they believe are appropriate. But Ridglan Farms, which plays an important role in research designed to advance medical and veterinary science, operates in compliance with existing laws and Petitioners should not be allowed to seek criminal enforcement against conduct that the law allows.”
In his comments after the hearing, Hsiung debunked these arguments, saying that the conditions under which dogs are kept at Ridglan Farms, as documented by state and federal inspectors, violate existing laws against animal cruelty. He said Ridglan Farms has subjected dogs to conditions that cause stereotypical abnormal behavior like pacing and spinning in circles, as well as “surgical mutilation.” The facility, Hsiung alleged, is now partnering with a pharmaceutical company to “inject rabies into dozens of dozens of dogs.”
“We have overwhelming evidence of very serious violations of the law,” he said, arguing that the Dane County DA’s office should be prosecuting these violations but has thus far failed to do so. He told supporters that he had approached Ozanne as they both exited the courtroom and asked, “Can I have a moment of your time?” to which Ozanne replied “No.” He said this was “pretty consistent” with the office’s overall response.
Hsiung said “the fundamental question of this proceeding” is whether laws matter, even for those with money, power, and political influence. He added, “We’ll get an answer in the next couple of months.”
[Isthmus editor Judith Davidoff, Judge Lanford's spouse, had no involvement in editing this article.]
