News article:

SHARE THIS ARTICLE Share Tweet Post Email

 Veterinarian John Robb steers his Chrysler out of the parking lot, gliding past the Dunkin’ Donuts and the boarded-up furniture store, and leaves behind another Saturday shift at Catzablanca, the clinic where he’s been reduced to working since losing his own hospital. There’s a big cardboard box stuffed with court papers in the back seat, the air conditioning is up against Connecticut’s July heat, and an audiobook of the Bible is playing loud. “When I get into the car,” Robb tells me, “I’m like, ‘Lord I need to hear from you.’ ”

 It wasn’t a day harder than most, but he’d had to put a little girl’s cat to sleep while she sobbed in the reception area. Later, exam rooms got backed up while Robb investigated why another feline was vomiting. A cell phone picture of a flowerpot knocked over in the owner’s backyard suggested the cause: poisonous hydrangea blossoms. By the time Robb locked up for the night, the cat was resting in a cage, hooked up to an IV and meowing.

 “I’ve probably listened to the Bible 500 times in the last eight years,” he says as we pull onto the highway, leaving the Hartford suburb of Rockville. “That’s when God decided to give me jobs at least an hour away from home.”

 “It was like, ‘Yeah, we lost his dog. We took care of his cremation, that’s enough’ ”

 Eight years ago is also when he made what he thought of even then as a deal with the devil. Robb is a born-again Christian who believes he’s been called to protect pets, because, he says, they can’t speak for themselves. But concern for animals wasn’t foremost in his mind in 2008, when he decided to buy a franchise of Banfield Pet Hospital, America’s biggest chain of veterinary clinics. He was thinking about money.

 Many veterinarians scoffed that Banfield dumbed down its medicine by using a software program, PetWare, to standardize care. The company also put its hospitals inside the big-box retail stores of PetSmart, turning medical care into a product to be purchased along with dog food and chew toys—just another item on a one-stop shopping list. A former chief medical officer at Banfield once compared the business to the no-frills carrier Southwest Airlines. “If you want first class,” he said, “you can buy it from a different airline.” Some animal doctors called Banfield “vet in a box,” but it was a gibe that betrayed anxiety. Veterinarians feared Banfield just as mom and pop grocery stores once feared Walmart.

 Robb knew all of this. He also knew that a lot of doctors thought Banfield overvaccinated pets. But he had a wife and two kids to support, and he knew he could make a very good living with a pet hospital inside a shopping center.

 Robb at a New Haven clinic. Photographer: Simone Lueck for Bloomberg Businessweek

 A 57-year-old with thinning hair, Robb walks with a slight limp, the result of a high school football injury. He’s an excitable man, a freight train of a talker. Near midnight, he’s pacing in his New Fairfield farmhouse, still in the green surgical scrubs he wore to work, having talked nonstop from the minute we left Catzablanca. If his wife, Aldona, hadn’t touched him on the shoulder to remind him of the time, he might have ranted until morning about how Banfield stole his hospital and is turning animal medicine into an exploitative, even dangerous business. “It’s peticide,” Robb says, pausing before offering a definition. “The systematic destruction of pets by corporations for profit.”

 Pet care is undergoing the same sort of consolidation that transformed human health care in the 1990s, and Robb has worked for both of the industry’s biggest players. In 1999 he sold his first practice for $1 million to VCA—then called Veterinary Centers of America—a consolidator that’s bought hundreds of animal hospitals and trades on the Nasdaq exchange under the ticker WOOF. He worked six years for VCA. Then, in 2008, he paid $400,000 for his Banfield franchise in prosperous Stamford. Banfield had itself traded hands just a few months before, when the veterinarian who founded the company sold it to Mars, the giant candy and pet-food manufacturer. The change had dire consequences for Robb and, he says, for millions of pets.

 In December 2012, Banfield seized Robb’s franchise for violating its vaccine protocols and breaking Connecticut law. Robb doesn’t dispute that he started giving half-doses to little dogs after several almost died of vaccine reactions, but he says Banfield used that as an excuse to take his hospital—just as it came up with pretexts for taking hospitals from other veterinarians. Banfield sued Robb over his medical practices. Robb countersued, claiming breach of contract, and has turned his case, still playing out in court, into a crusade against Banfield, which he says pushes vets to put profit ahead of the health and safety of animals.

 Banfield says its medicine is compassionate and sound. In a letter responding to this story and Robb’s accusations, the company writes: “We strive to understand the needs of pets and clients and provide safe, high-quality care to every pet, every time.” It’s Robb’s practices, Banfield says, that demand scrutiny.

 The fight has gotten messy. Robb has picketed and been arrested. Once he was handcuffed to a stretcher in the aisles of PetSmart and carried to a psych ward; lawyers for Banfield and PetSmart accused him of “walking around the store in an erratic manner with Bible in hand.” Later, after failing to have the case thrown out, they tried another tactic: accusing Robb of witness tampering. The judge rejected that. Robb has made outrageous moves of his own. He turned down a 2013 settlement offer by asking for $20 million, triple what even he thinks he’s owed. If that wasn’t folly enough, Robb demanded that Banfield be renamed Protect the Pets and that he be made chief medical officer.

 Now, as he waits for a trial, Robb seeks justice by social media. His “Boycott Banfield” page on Facebook draws a steady stream of bereaved pet owners and former Banfield doctors and nurses, few of whom seem to care or even know about Robb’s religious views or his commercial dispute. They’ve simply come to rage about Banfield and the corporatization of pet care.

 When Robb was growing up in the 1960s in Long Branch, N.J., most of his neighbors kept their dogs chained up in the backyard. On the rare occasions when people took their pets to a veterinarian, it was for the basics: to have them spayed or neutered or put down.

 By 1985, when Robb finished veterinary school at the University of California at Davis, animal medicine was changing. More technology came into play as hospitals started selling their old MRI machines and CAT scanners to veterinary clinics. And, as human birthrates fell, pets took the place of children in some families. In 2014 there were 179 million cats and dogs in the U.S., up from 98 million in 1980. Today, according to the American Animal Hospital Association (AAHA), more than 80 percent of pet owners think of themselves as their pets’ moms and dads. Americans love their pets so much, they spent $35 billion on veterinary care in 2015.

 This outpouring of sentiment and money represents an amazing opportunity for businesses such as Banfield and VCA. Tom Fuller, VCA’s chief financial officer, has started investor presentations with a story about a man who drowns in a frozen lake trying to rescue his dog from a hole in the ice. “It’s horrible,” he says. It’s also one big reason, he continues, investors should love the pet-care industry. “We’re all kind of crazy about our pets. It’s why the business is so resilient.”

 It’s not the only reason, though. In contrast to human medicine, in which everything from the nurse-patient ratio to the caloric count of injections is mandated and overseen by a web of government agencies, veterinary medicine is largely unregulated. And pet owners pay cash: Vets don’t deal with insurers haggling for better prices or questioning whether that vaccine or ultrasound or blood panel is really necessary. (A small percentage of pet owners carry insurance, but they pay vets upfront, like anyone else, and then take on their insurers for reimbursement.) What’s more, when veterinarians make fatal mistakes, they face no real financial consequences. The law hasn’t changed to reflect the attitudes of the average pet owner; courts still treat pets as property. Damages paid to owners whose pets have been killed or injured are so low that a typical medical malpractice insurance policy for a veterinarian costs less than $20 a month. Damages are so low, in fact, that few pet owners can find a lawyer willing to take even the most egregious case of veterinary malpractice.

 When Bobby Hanners’s shar-pei, Charlie, died at a Banfield hospital in Hagerstown, Md., during a neutering in 2015, the company offered to do little more than pay for the dog’s disposal. “It was like, ‘Yeah, we lost his dog. We took care of his cremation, that’s enough,’ ” says Hanners, a manager at a Hagerstown McDonald’s and one of the pet owners who posted on Robb’s Facebook page.

 Asked about the accident, Banfield responded, “There was no evidence of intent to harm or malice—this was a situation when a doctor was performing in a manner they believed was best for the pet.”

 Hanners says Banfield’s veterinarian used the wrong sedatives and then tried to cover up the error. Even so, no lawyer would have taken the case if a Banfield employee hadn’t violated privacy laws by posting details of Hanners’s billing history on Facebook in an attempt to paint him as someone looking to exploit his pet’s death for money. “Quit looking for a check,” the employee wrote. Hanners sued for invasion of privacy and settled with Banfield.

 “There would have been nothing, absolutely nothing that I could have done, and that was straight from my lawyer’s mouth,” he says. “They would have got away with it.”

 West Los Angeles Animal Hospital may be the apotheosis of corporate veterinary care. When it became VCA’s first purchase, in 1986, it was already the biggest pet hospital west of the Mississippi River. Today it occupies a three-story building with an attached parking garage and is staffed by 60 doctors, including cardiologists, neurologists, oncologists, even a psychologist. There are underwater treadmills for overweight cats and gimpy dogs and a sterile isolation room for pets recovering from bone marrow transplants, a cancer treatment that can easily cost $16,000. “All the advancements that you hear about in veterinary medicine? None of that would be possible if it was just your neighbor working by himself like it used to be,” says VCA Chief Executive Officer Bob Antin.

 Corporations now own 15 percent to 20 percent of America’s 26,000 pet hospitals, and consolidators, copying the model pioneered by VCA, are buying them fast. (Banfield is one of the few big businesses building its own clinics; the rest are rolling them up.) In 2014 a chain of 250 hospitals called National Veterinary Associates was purchased by Ares Management for $920 million. In 2015 the Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan spent $440 million to buy a pet hospital group. Last May, VCA spent $344 million for a group of 56 hospitals pooled together by a smaller consolidator for the express purpose of flipping them. In the past 15 months, Mars has bought two hospital groups for undisclosed amounts, adding more than 100 clinics to a portfolio that already includes 950 Banfield locations. “The individual ownership of veterinary hospitals in America? It’s got one more generation,” says Bill Folger, a former board member of the American Association of Feline Practitioners. “Maybe two.”

 This is all happening despite laws in most states banning corporations from owning veterinary practices. As old-fashioned as it may sound, the idea behind the laws was that doctors employed by corporations might have a harder time exercising independent judgment on behalf of patients; commercial interests could intrude. Nonetheless, there’s a reason states allow complicated ownership structures—called management service agreements—that get around these laws: It’s what the doctors want. When it’s time to retire, vets expect to be able to sell their practices at the highest possible price, and these days that typically means selling to a corporation. “Just remember,” Antin says, “in every state we’re in, even the person who runs the state association, they’re a practicing doctor, and they want the freedom to be able to get value for their practice.”

 Antin says he and his brother Art didn’t know anything about veterinary medicine when they started VCA in 1986 with a friend, Neil Tauber. But they did know how to run a health-care business. They’d made a small fortune with an outpatient surgery chain in the early 1980s. In pet care, they saw an opportunity to apply modern management techniques to poorly run, undercapitalized hospitals that could benefit from economies of scale. Today, VCA employs 3,000 veterinarians and owns 750 hospitals. Robb Animal Care Center was somewhere around the 200th purchased by the chain.

 VCA’s most important acquisitions, though, have been labs; the company combined about a dozen testing facilities to create Antech Diagnostics, the industry’s biggest laboratory. Antech does bloodwork and other tests for more than half the country’s animal hospitals and accounts for 41 percent of VCA’s operating profit, according to the company’s financial statements. Fuller puts it this way when he speaks to investors: “Diagnostics is what grows the industry.”

 More testing can sometimes provide more certainty; it almost always makes medicine more expensive. The cost of veterinary care has risen even faster than the cost of human health care, more than doubling since 2000, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

 Independent vets have to balance the cost of covering every possibility against the risk of using more restraint. The corporations lean toward a maximalist approach. Diane Petrillo, a registered nurse from New Haven and a former client of Robb’s, tells a story about how this was taken to absurd lengths last May when her VCA vet wouldn’t renew a prescription for her cat’s lifesaving blood thinners unless she paid $450 to repeat an echocardiogram that 12 months earlier had shown a deadly heart defect. “You already told me he’s never going to come off the meds, so why not just give it to him?” Petrillo asks.

 The answer to that question may lie in VCA’s annual financial reports, which say the company’s business strategy is “to leverage our existing customer base by increasing the number and intensity of the services received during each visit.” When I ask Bob Antin what he thinks about that language and Fuller’s statements to investors, he waves it off. Those communications, he says, are meant for a financial audience and don’t affect VCA’s veterinarians. “A veterinarian? The last thing they think of is, ‘I’ve done five of these today. Can I do six of them tomorrow?’ That is the single last thing a veterinarian thinks, and if that kind of person exists, I don’t see them.”

 But those people do exist, precisely because of the pressure VCA puts on its doctors, according to Wendy Beers, a veterinarian who resigned in 2014 from a VCA hospital in Albany, Calif. “Every month they would print out things to say how many packages you sold, how many procedures you did,” she says. “And if they came out and said, ‘This month we want everyone to do 20 heartworm tests,’ and you only did eight, well, next month you have to do better. I don’t feel when they’re lecturing us that their chief interest is to make sure animals get the best care.”

 An annual postcard reminding you that your dog or cat is due for its shots—“it’s time for the tough love”—is the main way veterinarians get pets in the door each year. That’s why many animal doctors, at every kind of practice, have chosen to ignore guidelines from the AAHA, which since 2003 has recommended dogs not be given what are called the core vaccines—for distemper, parvovirus, and adenovirus—more often than every three years. Indeed, the guidelines say a single series of these shots is probably enough to provide a lifetime of immunity.

 “Some folks don’t like me to emphasize that,” says Ronald Schultz, a retired immunologist at the University of Wisconsin School of Veterinary Medicine and one of the guidelines’ main authors. He spent a career being rebuffed by veterinarians unwilling to accept the results of studies he’d been publishing since the 1970s on the long-term effectiveness of vaccines. Schultz’s former laboratory in Madison is one of the deadliest places on earth for any dog that hasn’t been immunized. Some dogs are locked in viral gas chambers. Others are injected with disease or have viral aerosols sprayed directly into their snouts. Decades of these tests have shown that a single series of shots is enough to protect dogs from the main canine diseases for seven or more years. “I could drown them in virus,” Schultz says, “and I couldn’t reinfect them.”

 Still, asking veterinarians to forgo seven years of vaccine income would have caused a revolt, so Schultz and the others on the AAHA Canine Vaccination Task Force compromised at three years. “We split the difference,” Schultz says. “The idea was, let’s see if we can get them to walk before asking them to run.”

 The standard for vaccine dosages has its own unscientific provenance. At some point in the 1960s, pharmaceutical companies simply settled on a round number that worked: 1 milliliter. Today, vaccines are the only pet medications that aren’t scaled to body weight. Whether it’s a 120-pound Great Dane or a 3-pound Chihuahua, one size fits all. Some doctors have wondered whether it would be safer to cut doses for smaller dogs or whether shots could be given less frequently, but those are expensive questions to answer, and when the numbers were first finding their way onto drug labels, hardening into dogma, pets weren’t that far from being considered livestock. They were just cats and dogs. It’s a telling anachronism that the U.S. Department of Agriculture is responsible for the safety of pet vaccines.

 A pet may receive dozens of shots in a lifetime, at a cost of hundreds of dollars, but surprisingly little research has been done to find out how safe they are, and there is wide disagreement among experts. A 2005 study by Purdue University using Banfield data from more than 1 million medical records found 38 adverse reactions for every 10,000 shots, a rate of about 0.4 percent. Schultz and a research partner, Jean Dodds, argue the numbers are much higher, more like 3 percent or 4 percent, with about 1 in 200 dogs experiencing life-threatening reactions such as anaphylactic shock. “Vaccines can kill,” Schultz says. “If you don’t need to vaccinate annually and you do, you’re taking unnecessary risks.”

 Whatever the real risk of an adverse reaction, it isn’t zero. The value of repeated shots, though, has pretty well been debunked. (Robb likes to point out that he himself has had exactly one rabies vaccine, in 1983, at veterinary school; he confirms his immunity through regular titer tests, something that can also be done for dogs and cats.) Nevertheless, more than a decade after the AAHA adopted its guidelines, Banfield still recommends on its website that dogs “be boostered yearly for most vaccines.”

 Karen Faunt, Banfield’s vice president for medical quality advancement, says despite that language, the company’s vaccine protocols have been aligned with industry guidelines since 2010. “This is something that has evolved greatly in my time here,” she says. “I’m very pleased with that.” It’s true that Banfield has reduced the frequency with which it administers the core vaccines. Still, it routinely pushes annual boosters for others the guidelines say should be given “only in special circumstances.” Shots for leptospirosis and Bordetella, or kennel cough, are two examples of vaccines the AAHA says most dogs don’t need, but which Banfield regularly recommends.

 Vaccines are at the center of Banfield’s main product, a selection of preventive-care packages called wellness plans. For a monthly fee of $30 to $60, a wellness plan covers exams, office visits, diagnostic tests, and shots for dogs and cats. Call any Banfield hospital, and you’ll be told it’s the vaccines that make the plans such a good value, because à la carte, they are as much as $40 each, along with $50 for each doctor visit.

 Schultz says he contacted Banfield several times a year for many years to urge it to heed the full intent of the AAHA guidelines. “They’ve paid some lip service to it,” he says, “but they’re not listening.”

 Banfield traces its origins to 1955, when a vet named Warren Wegert started a small animal hospital in Portland, Ore. On the company website, Wegert is shown in a photo as a balding, kind-looking man in a white doctor’s coat. But to call him Banfield’s founder wouldn’t be accurate. That distinction belongs to the younger man standing slightly behind Wegert in the picture: Scott Campbell, the veterinarian who purchased Wegert’s single hospital in 1987 and created an empire. Campbell forged the partnership with PetSmart in 1994 and created Banfield’s wellness plans. The son of a small-town physician who warned him not to go into human medicine because he thought “one day all the doctors would be working for the government,” Campbell is probably the world’s richest veterinarian. Since selling to Mars in 2007, he spends most of his time on his ranch, a spread in northeast Oregon that’s bigger than many national parks.

 When Campbell started Banfield, the average veterinary clinic was an insular fiefdom run by a doctor who was on his own and accountable to no one. Maybe he was skilled and conscientious—and maybe not. To standardize care at his hospitals, Campbell computerized the records and developed rigorous treatment protocols, ideas he says he borrowed from his wife, Sandy, who worked in quality assurance at Kaiser Permanente, the giant network of human hospitals. “The whole profession got better because of what we did,” Campbell says.

 To educate veterinarians in his methods, Campbell built a training program called Banfield Doctor Academy at company headquarters in Portland. Robb spent a few days there in the summer of 2008. He was surrounded by young doctors, he says, most of them fresh out of veterinary school. All the vets were taught to use PetWare, a proprietary software package with touchscreen menus that guide veterinarians through the process of diagnosing medical problems and prescribing care. Robb was sent home with a 116-page New Hire Doctor Workbook describing how to operate version 3.7 of the system.

 That old PetWare manual makes for interesting reading. In one example, explaining how the software is used to prescribe treatment, the book shows a checklist of therapies for a dog with atopic dermatitis, or itchy skin. Doctors are encouraged to recommend a biopsy, analgesics, topical medications, antibiotics, a therapeutic dietary supplement, an allergy diet, and a flea control package. They’re required to recommend antihistamines, shampoos, serum allergy testing, lab work, a skin diagnostic package, and anti-inflammatories. It’s a treatment course that might run $900 for symptoms that, in a best-case scenario, indicate something as prosaic as fleas. In bold print, the manual reminds doctors: “You cannot change items that were initially marked Required. They must remain required.”

 “They stole my hospital, and I think they’re sons of bitches”

 Faunt says since Mars took control, Banfield has distanced itself from Campbell. The academy is gone—the company’s vets now have to get outside the bubble for their continuing education. PetWare, too, has become less of a straitjacket. Faunt declined to show an updated version of the software, but she says the system is now an optional tool. “My understanding with Dr. Campbell was that he had a sincere belief that consistency was one of the hallmarks of quality,” she says. “We’ve transitioned to understanding how to provide individualized care for each pet. We learn every single year.”

 One thing that hasn’t changed, though, is the wellness plan. Last year more than 2 million pets were covered by a Banfield wellness plan, and every dog on one still gets basically the same treatment, regardless of whether it’s a 10-year-old miniature poodle living in a high rise or a 2-year-old Labrador retriever that runs free on a farm.

 The one-size-fits-all approach infuriated James Robinson, a vet who owned Banfield franchises in Tennessee until the end of 2014. “My two that I owned? I hated working at them, because it wasn’t real medicine. It just really wasn’t,” he says. “Like you got a 3-year-old dog, a completely normal dog with a good physical exam, and we’re going to run bloodwork on him. Umm, that’s kind of like doing bloodwork on your 8-year-old child.”

 If the wellness plans make medicine into a standardized product, Banfield’s pet drop-off policy is what allows a hospital to hum at maximum efficiency. Pet owners are required to leave their dogs and cats all day when taking advantage of the plan’s twice-yearly comprehensive exam. For some people this is exactly why Banfield is so appealing—no more interrupting your work schedule for a vet appointment. For Banfield it’s a way to squeeze exams into the gaps between surgeries, walk-ins, and other appointments.

 While pets wait for treatment, they’re warehoused in a wall of kennels at the back of the hospital—sometimes without water, because animals that drink need to urinate. Donna Smith, a licensed technician at a Banfield facility in Waterbury, Conn., who was fired in 2014, says staff at her hospital worked like a “pit crew,’’ with all the hurry and commotion that connotes. But instead of changing tires and refilling tanks, they were pulling dogs out of cages, giving vaccines, taking blood and fecal samples, and rushing through physical exams that might take no more than 90 seconds. “I once saw a doctor vaccinate the wrong dog because we had paperwork everywhere and so many dogs lined up,” Smith says.

 Vince Giordano, one of the pet owners who contacted Robb through his Boycott Banfield page, says one-size-fits-all medicine is the reason his dog Max is dead. A worrying, protective owner, Giordano took Max to a Banfield hospital in March 2013 for some antibiotics after the dog sniffed a dead opossum during a walk in Giordano’s suburban neighborhood on Long Island, N.Y. Max was a 3-year-old Labrador mutt with a long list of unusual health problems, all of which were detailed in lengthy medical records from Banfield’s Suffolk County hospital, where the dog was a patient for most of his life.

 About a year before the March visit to Banfield, Max had undergone chemotherapy to treat a malignant tumor found in his tail, half of which had to be amputated. Even before that, Max had exhibited allergies to vaccines, and Banfield had prescribed Benadryl to reduce his reactions.

 When Giordano brought Max in after the opossum encounter, Banfield’s vet didn’t seem to consult the dog’s records or hear him explain the history. Instead, he says, she focused on her computer screen and began reading off a list of treatments that were due according to Max’s wellness plan. “She turned it into a vaccine session,” Giordano says. “She kind of twisted my arm and made me feel like an irresponsible dog owner.”

 After Giordano resisted, the veterinarian suggested a compromise: just one shot, for leptospirosis. Giordano agreed. Thirty minutes later Max dropped dead at home. No Benadryl was administered, and the veterinarian didn’t take the precaution of keeping Max at the hospital for observation.

 In a settlement letter offering $1,000 as a goodwill gesture in exchange for a promise not to discuss Max’s death publicly, Banfield said the decision to vaccinate “was made very carefully and deliberately.” Giordano rejected the money. Later he learned that leptospirosis is easily treated with antibiotics, and that, according to the AAHA, lepto vaccines “are much more likely to cause adverse reactions” than others. “There was no reason to give him that vaccine, especially after he got cancer,” Giordano says. “But we were on the program where they push the vaccines.”

 Just a few months after Robb opened the doors of his new Banfield hospital in 2008, Mars began remaking the company. By the following January, an exodus of doctors was under way. A former McKinsey consultant who’d come up through the ranks at Office Depot was hired to run operations. Campbell was replaced as chairman by Pamela Mars-Wright. A granddaughter of Forrest Mars, the company’s founder, she’d run a dog-food factory for the family.

 Mars is one of the world’s biggest family businesses, with annual revenue of more than $33 billion. Its corporate culture is infused with the personality of its founder, a perfectionist known for setting strict profit targets and berating employees who didn’t meet his standards. According to Joël Glenn Brenner’s 1999 book The Emperors of Chocolate, Forrest once ordered his youngest son, John, to get down on his knees and pray for the company for an hour in front of other executives.

 Along with inheriting their father’s business in the 1970s, brothers Forrest Jr. and John also inherited his temperament and his ideas about profit. In the middle of the second floor of Mars’s corporate offices in McLean, Va., the brothers once placed a large butcher block adorned with a plaque that read: “head on the block responsibility.” The founder’s management philosophy, spelled out in a set of precepts called the Five Principles, still governs the family empire. When Robb bought his Banfield franchise, he was given a money clip embossed with the text of the fifth, crowning principle: freedom. “We need freedom to shape our future,” it said. “We need profit to remain free.”

 The Banfield management shake-up soon filtered down to Robb. The veterinarian who’d sold him his franchise was fired. Pam Hale, the medical director to whom he reported, quit. “More people were making decisions that weren’t veterinarians,” she says. “That’s the reason I left.”

 Leticia German, chief of staff at a Banfield hospital in Colorado from 2010 through April 2013, remembers the most disagreeable part of her job was making sure doctors hit sales targets. She answered to two field managers who’d come from Starbucks and treated medical care, she says, as if it were any other retail business. Under Campbell, Banfield had been obsessed with standardizing care; now there was an obsession with the numbers, especially the average patient charge, or APC. Doctors who fell short were made to attend workshops “to school them into how to better meet their numbers,” German says. “It was definitely intimidating.”

 Pushing doctors hard was one way to make more money. Ending the franchise business was another. Under Mars, Banfield has winnowed the number of charters from 205 to fewer than 10 today, leaving behind a lot of angry veterinarians.

 In December 2011, Robb received a registered letter from headquarters threatening to revoke his charter if he didn’t “cure” a long list of medical infractions, mostly having to do with record keeping. There was no mention of the thing that would eventually cost Robb his hospital: He’d been reducing vaccine doses for small dogs, a violation of Banfield protocol and, in the case of rabies vaccines, Connecticut law.

 A few months later, Banfield made what Robb considered a lowball offer to buy his practice: $600,000. A veterinary hospital is worth, as a rule of thumb, about one year’s gross sales. Robb’s revenue in 2011 came to $1.6 million.

 According to several other franchise owners and a former company executive who asked not to be named for fear of being sued, Banfield used similar tactics elsewhere: making below-market offers to vets who’d been softened up with the threat of having their charters revoked or not renewed. Robb’s wasn’t the only charter that got pulled. Robinson, the Tennessee veterinarian, says Banfield refused to renew both his charters and paid him nothing. Dale Lonsford, a Texas vet, says he lost his hospital the same way. When Banfield recruited the doctors, it hadn’t been a problem that they also operated their own independent clinics. Later, Banfield claimed they were in violation of noncompete clauses. In the case of Robinson’s Knoxville franchise, which Banfield seized in 2014, the offending clinic was 100 miles away. “They stole my hospital, and I think they’re sons of bitches,” Robinson says.

 Banfield says it made fair offers for both men’s practices, and CEO Vincent Bradley says the company treated all its charter owners more than fairly. “We’ve provided in my mind a fantastic exit for franchise owners that have decided to retire or exit or do something different,” he says. “Many of them, obviously, have taken advantage of it.”

 After Robb refused Banfield’s offer, more threatening letters arrived. Field managers made unannounced inspections of the practice. Finally, in December 2012, he received a phone call from his regional director: His charter had been revoked, and he had 10 minutes to get out.

 Litigants whose motivations aren’t strictly economic make for nettlesome adversaries. Ever since one of Robb’s former nurses set up the Boycott Banfield page for him in late 2012, people have been writing and calling to commiserate, ask for advice, and just plain vent. The numbers have never been huge—Robb once planned a picket of Mars headquarters, and only one person showed, a woman who flew from Canada—but the traffic has been sufficient to irritate Banfield. Last January, a doctor e-mailed Robb to tell him she’d quit a Banfield practice that morning. He posted her letter, and within hours, the doctor says, the company threatened to sue her if the letter didn’t come down. “They reprimand me for actually educating clients about over vaccinating,” the now-deleted letter said. “I was writing vaccine exemption letters which is allowed under state law and got reprimanded for that too. Isn’t it MY discretion to withhold vaccines if I feel it in the best interest of my patient? So angry!”

 Robb has won, and lost, battles along the way. He scored some points in his legal case when the judge ordered Banfield to disclose how many deaths had occurred at its hospitals during dental work, which for a pet requires the same general anesthesia as any surgery. Banfield claimed that Robb hadn’t been monitoring anesthesia properly—that was another reason for seizing his practice—and this was a way to test that assertion.

 When the data was divulged in 2015, it showed Robb hadn’t lost a dog during 2,241 dental procedures. (He says he’s never lost one during dental work in his 30 years as a vet.) Banfield, on the other hand, had lost 747 dogs in five years, about one death for every 2,000 dental procedures. Kim Van Syoc, Banfield’s head of public relations, says the loss rate at the company’s hospitals is no worse than it is anyplace else, but—as with so many other things in veterinary medicine—there appear to be no good statistics on the subject. Consider this, however: Many wellness plans include an annual cleaning, so some animals will go under anesthesia 10 or more times in a lifetime, for an entirely elective procedure.

 Meanwhile, the giant drugmaker Boehringer Ingelheim did something that suggests Robb’s vaccine practices aren’t so crazy. In 2014 it began marketing the industry’s first half-millimeter doses, basically squeezing the viral load of a traditional shot into half the liquid volume by stripping out protein debris. It’s not the same thing as simply giving a half-dose, as Robb was doing in his own unscientific way, but the goal is the same: to reduce reactions. “It’s definitely beneficial for smaller animals,” says Mark Kimsey, the veterinarian who designed the product.

 In that same year, the veterinarian appointed by the state health department to review Robb’s medical practices appeared to side with him. “I did not question Dr. Robb's passionate concern for his patients nor his integrity, nor that his protocol decreased the incidence of observed vaccine reactions,” Koen Loeven wrote in a letter to the health department's lead investigator.

 Loeven went on to criticize Banfield directly. “I have been very distressed by the rise of corporate veterinary medicine and the pure profit motive being instilled in the medical process,” he wrote. “I have seen many clients from Banfield in my practice and fully agree with you in your disgust that they promote unnecessary vaccinations, over-vaccinate during a given office visit and generally push clients into excess expenditure at the cost of pet health and safety.”

 Outside of the movies and the Bible, though, Davids rarely beat Goliaths. In November the Connecticut State Board of Veterinary Medicine recommended that Robb be put on probation and prohibited from ever giving a rabies shot again—a heavy blow to his economic prospects, no matter what he says about having broken a bad law in order to protect his patients. The state’s attorney general’s office is reviewing the board’s decision. In Robb’s case, a different judge is weighing a final appeal from Banfield to block the trial—and Robb’s standing could be much diminished.

 If there is a trial, Banfield will have to contend with Robb in front of a jury and defend medical practices that have received little public scrutiny. And if the jury is representative of the country at large, more than half its members will have pets they think of as family. ||||| A pending merger will put a number of the nation’s biggest veterinary care chains — VCA Inc., Banfield Pet Hospital, and BluePearl Veterinary Partners — under the ownership umbrella of candy and packaged foods giant Mars Inc. This deal will add VCA’s nearly 800 hospitals into what some critics say is a one-size-fits-all medical assembly line.

 Why does Mars––a company more associated with Snickers and Twix than with veterinary care––want to be so heavily involved in animal hospitals? Pet care is becoming a big business, as pet owners increasingly treat their dogs and cats like family members, paying top dollar to keep them healthy and extend their lives. At the same time, chain clinics are replacing smaller, independently owned clinics.

 Mars Inc. bought the Banfield chain in 2007. The clinics, conveniently connected to Petsmart stores, sell their wellness plans as something that isn’t quite health insurance, but that spreads a pet’s medical costs throughout the year. Since 2008, we’ve shared consumers’ problems with these plans.

 Pet owners are often shocked to learn that they have to keep paying for the plan for the rest of the year after their pet dies, since the plans sound like health insurance to the average consumer. Hospital employees have told consumers that they can “cancel at any time,” leaving owners on the hook for another year of payments when they don’t want to continue the plans.

 In a recent, lengthy piece that every pet owner should read about the rise of Banfield, Bloomberg Businessweek heard from former Banfield vets and patients that the wellness plans include services that a pet might not necessarily need and that could put it at risk, like an annual teeth cleaning under general anesthesia, and annual doses of vaccines that animals don’t need every year to maintain immunity.

 Now Mars will be adding nearly 800 VCA hospitals to its existing 900 or so Banfield clinics, raising concerns that these problematic plans will be the norm for thousands of additional pets and their owners.

 At the same time, the sheer size of the Mars Inc. animal care business raises questions about the future about the veterinary care industry. This same sort of rapid consolidation has already occurred in certain niche care businesses, like funeral homes, where bereavement Voltrons like Service Corporation International are allowed to gobble up independent, traditionally family owned funeral homes as the owners of these smaller businesses retire or sell out. |||||
What is a shorter version of the above article?

– Under a pending merger, VCA Animal Hospitals will come under the ownership of Mars, Inc. Not only is it a bit strange for a chain of veterinary care facilities to be owned by a candy and packaged foods company—it's more than a bit concerning for pet owners, the Consumerist reports. Mars already bought the Banfield Pet Hospital chain back in 2007, and big problems have been reported with those veterinary offices, which are connected to PetSmart stores. Most troubling is Banfield's practice of selling pet owners pricey "pet wellness plans," which sound like pet health insurance but aren't. Owners are charged a monthly fee in exchange for receiving discounts on veterinary services, and are often told by Banfield representatives that they can cancel at any time after the first year without incurring a fee. The problem? That's not exactly true. Once the plan renews, members are on the hook for another full year of monthly payments—or, yes, a fee if they cancel, as one angry plan owner once explained to the Consumerist. Other pet owners have been distressed to learn that, should their pet die mid-plan year, they're also still on the hook for the rest of that year's monthly payments. There's also the fact that, as Bloomberg BusinessWeek recently revealed, those same wellness plans include services that not all animals need—and even some that could put them at risk, like annual teeth cleanings under general anesthesia. Mars will be adding 800 VCA hospitals to its 900 or so Banfield locations, and will also be merging with another large veterinary chain, BluePearl Veterinary Partners, meaning a huge number of veterinary facilities could soon be adopting similar practices. As for why Mars is getting into the vet care industry? It's becoming a huge moneymaker, with pet owners willing to put out big bucks for their animals.


1 of 6. U.S. President Barack Obama pauses while speaking about the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, during a press briefing at the White House in Washington December 14, 2012.

 WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama urged Americans on Saturday to join in solidarity as they mourn the victims of a shooting rampage at a Connecticut elementary school, saying the hearts of parents across the country were "heavy with hurt" for the lives lost.

 In his weekly radio and Internet speech, Obama also repeated a message he put forth on Friday, just hours after one of the worst mass shootings in U.S. history, on the need to set aside politics and "take meaningful action to prevent more tragedies like this."

 But Obama went no further than that, and again stopped short of specifically calling for tighter gun-control laws.

 Twenty children were killed by a heavily armed gunman who opened fire at a school in Newtown, Connecticut, on Friday. He killed at least 26 people there before turning his gun on himself.

 "We grieve for the families of those we lost. And we keep in our prayers the parents of those who survived," Obama said.

 The shooting spree reignited a debate over gun-control in a country with a flourishing gun culture and a strong gun lobby, which has discouraged most politicians from any major efforts to address the easy availability of firearms.

 Obama mostly steered clear of the issue during his successful re-election campaign this year, and it remains unclear whether he might be willing to take a more assertive approach now that he has secured a second term.

 OBAMA URGED TO ACT

 New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who runs a coalition of mayors on gun policy, said on Friday the Democratic president should press ahead despite likely opposition from Republicans who control the U.S. House of Representatives.

 "We have heard all the rhetoric before. What we have not seen is leadership - not from the White House and not from Congress. That must end today," Bloomberg said in a statement.

 Ticking off some of the recent shooting incidents, Obama said in his Saturday address: "As a nation, we have endured far too many of these tragedies in the last few years."

 His response to previous high-profile shootings was to call for a national conversation on how to curb gun violence.

 "This weekend, Michelle and I are doing what I know every parent is doing - holding our children as close as we can and reminding them how much we love them," he said.

 "There are families in Connecticut who can't do that today. And they need all of us now," he said. "All of us can extend a hand to those in need - to remind them that we are there for them, that we are praying for them."

 The 20-year-old gunman, who law enforcement sources identified as Adam Lanza, opened fire on a classroom at Sandy Hook Elementary School, which serves children from ages 5 to 10.

 Authorities found 18 children and seven adults, including the gunman, dead at the school, and two children were pronounced dead later after being taken to a hospital.

 "Most of those who died were just young children with their whole lives ahead of them. And every parent in America has a heart heavy with hurt," Obama said.

 Obama had to struggle to control his emotions during his televised statement on Friday in the White House briefing where his voice cracked and he wiped away tears.

 Partisan bickering in Washington, divided by a battle over a looming "fiscal cliff" of tax hikes and spending cuts, was put on hold amid mourning for the Connecticut dead.

 House Speaker John Boehner, the top Republican in Congress, said he had canceled the Republican weekly address for Saturday "so that President Obama can speak for the entire nation at this time of mourning."

 (Reporting By Matt Spetalnick; Editing by David Brunnstrom) ||||| President Obama devotes his weekly radio address to the elementary school shooting in Newtown, Conn., urging "meaningful action" to combat gun violence. The Republicans cancel their address in deference to the tragedy.

 President Obama wipes tears as he makes a statement at the White House in response to the elementary school shooting in Connecticut on Friday. (Photo: Alex Wong, Getty Images) Story Highlights President Obama urges 'action' to prevent gun violence

 President grieves for the fallen in Connecticut

 Boehner joins president in 'sending prayers and condolences'

 As "we grieve for the families of those we lost," President Obama said Saturday the nation must act to prevent the kind of gun attack that claimed 26 lives Friday at an elementary school in Connecticut -- including 20 children.

 "Any of these neighborhoods could be our own," Obama said in his weekly radio address. "So we have to come together and take meaningful action to prevent more tragedies like this, regardless of the politics."

 Obama did not specify any proposed action, but a string of lawmakers have called for tighter gun control laws in the wake of the mass shooting in Newtown, Conn.

 "Calling for 'meaningful action' is not enough," said New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg after Obama made a similar statement on Friday. "We need immediate action. We have heard all the rhetoric before. What we have not seen is leadership -- not from the White House and not from Congress."

 In his radio address, Obama echoed many of the comments he made just hours after the shooting, a White House appearance in which he had to pause at times and fight back tears.

 Skip Ad Ad Loading... x Embed x Share President Barack Obama makes remarks about the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary school in Connecticut. WhiteHouse.gov

 "Most of those who died were just young children with their whole lives ahead of them," Obama told the broadcast audience. "And every parent in America has a heart heavy with hurt."

 The president said that families affected by the shooting "need all of us now. Because while nothing can take the place of a lost child or loved one, all of us can extend a hand to those in need -- to remind them that we are there for them; that we are praying for them."

 The Republicans canceled their Saturday radio address in deference to the shooting, and "so that President Obama can speak for the entire nation at this time of mourning," said House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio.

 Boehner added: "I join the president -- and all Americans -- in sending prayers and condolences to the victims' loved ones."

 The president's radio address:

 "On Friday, we learned that more than two dozen people were killed when a gunman opened fire in an elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut.

 "Most of those who died were just young children with their whole lives ahead of them. And every parent in America has a heart heavy with hurt.

 "Among the fallen were also teachers -- men and women who devoted their lives to helping our children fulfill their dreams.

 "So our hearts are broken today. We grieve for the families of those we lost. And we keep in our prayers the parents of those who survived. Because as blessed as they are to have their children home, they know that their child's innocence has been torn away far too early.

 "As a nation, we have endured far too many of these tragedies in the last few years. An elementary school in Newtown. A shopping mall in Oregon. A house of worship in Wisconsin. A movie theater in Colorado. Countless street corners in places like Chicago and Philadelphia.

 "Any of these neighborhoods could be our own. So we have to come together and take meaningful action to prevent more tragedies like this. Regardless of the politics.

 "This weekend, Michelle and I are doing what I know every parent is doing -- holding our children as close as we can and reminding them how much we love them.

 "There are families in Connecticut who can't do that today. And they need all of us now. Because while nothing can take the place of a lost child or loved one, all of us can extend a hand to those in need -- to remind them that we are there for them; that we are praying for them; and that the love they felt for those they lost endures not just in their own memories, but also in their community, and their country.

 "Thank you."

 Read or Share this story: http://usat.ly/Ukoa3E |||||
What is a one-paragraph summary of the above article?

– President Obama devoted his weekly radio address today to the Connecticut school shooting, asking Americans to pray for the victims and their families. "Most of those who died were just young children with their whole lives ahead of them," he said, echoing yesterday's news conference. "And every parent in America has a heart heavy with hurt." Obama reiterated that it's time to "come together to take meaningful action" to prevent future shootings, thought he stopped short of specifics, reports Reuters. (USA Today has the full transcript here.) Advocates of stricter gun control already have begun to step up pressure, including New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg. "We have heard all the rhetoric before," he said yesterday. "What we have not seen is leadership—not from the White House and not from Congress. That must end today."


Article:

Christina Anderson and her two children lived in Lakeside and had been lured to DiMaggio's home in Boulevard by his assertion that he was moving from the area and wanted to say goodbye, according to interviews given by Hannah Anderson after her rescue. |||||  The Medical Examiner’s Office on Monday released the autopsy reports on Christina “Tina” Anderson of Lakeside, and her 8-year-old son, Ethan, whose bodies were found last month on the burning Boulevard property of family friend James DiMaggio.

 Sheriff’s officials have said DiMaggio killed both of them and kidnapped Anderson’s daughter, Hannah, 16, then remotely set incendiary devices in his house and detached garage.

 Authorities have said Christina Anderson, 44, died of blunt-force trauma to the head and that a crowbar was found near her body.

 The autopsy report said at least 12 impact sites were on her head, and that her ankles were bound by plastic cable tie. Duct tape was wrapped around her neck and mouth. She had abrasions and lacerations on her right arm and left leg, and her right arm was fractured. She had an incision wound on her neck that the report said was likely inflicted after she died.

 Her body was found in the garage, along with that of the Anderson family dog, which had been shot. Firefighters were able to extinguish the blaze in the garage when they arrived the night of Aug. 4.

 Ethan’s body was found in the charred remains of the separate two-story house, which was fully engulfed when firefighters arrived. The autopsy said Ethan most likely died due to the fire, but that he also had skeletal fractures, and trauma could not be ruled out as a possible cause of the fractures.

 Ethan’s body had been so badly burned that authorities earlier said he had to be identified through DNA. His father, Brett Anderson, said earlier that his DNA was used.

 DiMaggio, 40, was shot and killed by FBI agents in an Idaho wilderness on Aug. 10, six days after Hannah was abducted. She was rescued by the agents and returned to her family.

 Sheriff’s homicide Lt. Glenn Giannantonio said Monday that sheriff’s officials had no comment on the autopsy reports and would not be releasing further information about their investigation. |||||
What is a summary?

– Christina Anderson, mother of kidnapped teen Hannah Anderson, was bound and gagged before she was killed by at least a dozen blows to the face and head, according to newly released autopsy results. Her mouth and neck bore "multiple layers" of duct tape. The 44-year-old also had a broken arm and a slashed throat, although the latter apparently occurred post-mortem, the Los Angeles Times reports. A crowbar was found near her body. An autopsy on the badly burned body of her 8-year-old son, Ethan, was unable to pinpoint an exact cause of death. According to the report, "It is possible that he died of thermal burns without smoke inhalation in the house fire" that consumed the home of family friend James DiMaggio, though there were fractures to his skull that could have been caused by either the fire or DiMaggio. Police believe DiMaggio carried out both murders before kidnapping 16-year-old Hannah. He was shot and killed by FBI agents six days later. A police spokesman had no comment on the autopsy results and said they would not be releasing further information on their investigation, reports the San Diego Union-Tribune.


Write an article based on this summary:

– Liberals have been accusing recent GOP-led voter ID laws of aiming to disenfranchise minorities, who tend to vote Democrat. Now former Florida GOP chairman Jim Greer is saying on record that, yes, those laws are actually about stopping black people from voting, reports Salon, picking up on a story in the Tampa Bay Times. “I was upset because the political consultants and staff were talking about voter suppression and keeping blacks from voting,” Greer said, recalling a 2009 meeting with party officials. Greer also said the party's budget committee had been taken over by "whack-a-do, right-wing crazies." Greer is hardly without an axe to grind, though. His statements came from a 630-page deposition made in May as part of his trial on corruption charges. Greer paid a company he owned nearly $200,000 from GOP coffers while he was the chairman, although he contends it was authorized and made for services rendered. Florida state Sen. John Thrasher, who succeeded Greer as party chairman, called Greer's comments about voter suppression "baseless accusations on other people in an effort to divert attention from himself.''

By Lucy Morgan, Times Senior Correspondent

 In Print: Thursday, July 26, 2012

 TALLAHASSEE — In a wide-ranging deposition that spanned two days in late May, former Florida Republican Party chairman Jim Greer denounced some party officials as liars and "whack-a-do, right-wing crazies'' as he described turmoil in the months before his resignation.

 Greer said some GOP leaders were meeting to discuss ways they could suppress black votes while others were constantly scheming against each other.

 He blamed criminal fraud charges filed against him in 2010 on legislative leaders and other party officials who he says orchestrated an investigation by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement and the statewide grand jury to avoid paying him money he was due.

 His statements were in response to questions from lawyers for the party, Senate President Mike Haridopolos and Sen. John Thrasher. Greer has filed a lawsuit against the party and the two officials in an attempt to collect $130,000 he was promised in a written agreement shortly before he resigned. The lawsuit, pending in Leon County, is unlikely to be resolved until after a criminal trial scheduled for mid November.

 Copies of the 630-page deposition and other documents were released by statewide prosecutors Wednesday.

 Greer's testimony offers a window into the level of animosity that exists between Greer and the party he once ran.

 • Greer said "the party was in turmoil" as officials wanted to get rid of him and former Gov. Charlie Crist because they disagreed with some of Crist's decisions, including the appointment of a liberal African-American judge to the Florida Supreme Court, Crist's endorsement of John McCain for president in 2008 and the hug Crist gave President Barack Obama in 2009. "My phone lit up with people wanting me to censure the governor,'' Greer said. "The tea party came into existence. There was a feeling within the party that the tea party was just a bunch of whack-a-dos."

 • After the party's budget and audit committee started asking questions about House and Senate spending, including legislators who used party credit cards for personal expenses, Greer said he wanted to open the books and credit card records, but party officials and legislative leaders vetoed the idea.

 • Greer said he warned others at the party that the budget committee was made up of "whack-a-do, right-wing crazies'' who were trying to take over because of continuing disagreements with Crist and legislative leaders. House and Senate leaders insisted that no one at the party could control their campaign finances. "We eat what we kill,'' Greer said the leaders told him. "Legislative leaders were using their party credit cards like drunken sailors and they made it clear to me I was not to interfere with their spending,'' Greer said.

 Thrasher, who succeeded Greer as party chairman, called Greer's suggestion of voter suppression and other accusations "absurd, absolutely absurd'' and said Greer is making "baseless accusations on other people in an effort to divert attention from himself.''

 Thrasher said party officials had no choice but to get rid of Greer once they discovered he had secretly created a company that was getting money from the party.

 Many of the questions posed to Greer were about his creation of Victory Strategies LLC, a company that collected almost $200,000 from the party while he was running it. The criminal charges stem from that contract.

 Greer's animosity was evident on almost every page of the deposition as he described the inner workings of a party that has controlled Florida since 1998.

 On voter suppression, Greer said he had just completed a December 2009 meeting with party general counsel Jason Gonzalez, political consultant Jim Rimes and Eric Eikenberg, Crist's chief of staff, when questions arose about fundraising.

 "I was upset because the political consultants and staff were talking about voter suppression and keeping blacks from voting. It had been one of those days,'' he said.

 Rimes said he recalls no discussion of suppressing votes at any meeting. Eikenberg did not return phone calls.

 Greer said party officials were questioning spending on fundraising trips to New York, Yankees games, limos, expensive cigars and other items when Gonzalez asked him if he had any ownership in Victory Strategies. Greer said he initially denied owning any interest in the company but later admitted it when he and Gonzalez were alone. Gonzalez told state investigators that Greer did not own up to his involvement in the business and threatened to sue anyone who made the accusation. A number of other party officials told state investigators they were unaware of Greer's involvement in the company. Contacted this week, Gonzalez said he could not publicly discuss the case.

 Asked about his failure to tell other officials, Greer said they didn't ask.

 Asked if he told party finance chairman John Rood, a Jacksonville businessman, Greer said Rood was "basically useless as finance chairman.''

 By late December 2009, Greer found himself under pressure to resign. He said he agreed to leave for the "betterment of the party'' and in January 2010 signed a severance agreement that was to pay him the rest of his $130,000 for the year.

 Greer said he got concerned when Haridopolos and Thrasher, who had both signed the agreement, began to publicly deny knowledge of it. Haridopolos later admitted signing it, insisting he had not read it.

 "Around the party most people considered President Haridopolos to be not the brightest person, but I would assume he would have read the agreement before he signed it,'' Greer said.

 Greer had good words only for House Speaker Dean Cannon, saying the Orlando Republican tried to get others to live up to the severance agreement and promised to help him find a lobbying job and clients.

 After others at the party refused to honor the severance agreement, Greer said Cannon and Haridopolos contacted his friend Jim Stelling to say that political consultants Pat Bainter and Marc Reicheldfer were going to pay Greer $200,000.

 Despite promises of payment and a request from Bainter for information on where to wire the money, none was ever paid, Greer said. After he left the party, Greer said he heard that Thrasher was telling people they were going to have him arrested. A short time later, Greer was indicted by a statewide grand jury on charges of money laundering and fraud.

 The charges and the party's failure to pay him have ruined his life, Greer said.

 "They took everything I worked for my whole life,'' he added. Now his family is on food stamps, some of his possessions have been repossessed and his children watched their father being arrested.

 "Any good thing I did at the Republican Party has been destroyed by these people,'' he said. "I want my life back. I want them to say they are sorry for what they did to me.'' ||||| In the debate over new laws meant to curb voter fraud in places like Florida, Democrats always charge that Republicans are trying to suppress the vote of liberal voting blocs like blacks and young people, while Republicans just laugh at such ludicrous and offensive accusations. That is, every Republican except for Florida’s former Republican Party chairman Jim Greer, who, scorned by his party and in deep legal trouble, blew the lid off what he claims was a systemic effort to suppress the black vote. In a 630-page deposition recorded over two days in late May, Greer, who is on trial for corruption charges, unloaded a litany of charges against the "whack-a-do, right-wing crazies'' in his party, including the effort to suppress the black vote.

 In the deposition, released to the press yesterday, Greer mentioned a December 2009 meeting with party officials. "I was upset because the political consultants and staff were talking about voter suppression and keeping blacks from voting,'' he said, according to the Tampa Bay Times. He also said party officials discussed how “minority outreach programs were not fit for the Republican Party," according to the AP. |||||


Summarize this article:

Justin Timberlake: 'I Haven't Spoken to Britney Spears in a Decade'

 Email This Talk about love 'em and leave 'em,

 "We were two birds of the same feather -- small-town kids, doing the same thing," Timberlake told Vanity Fair. "But then you become adults, and the way you were as kids doesn't make any sense. I won't speak on her, but at least for me, I was a totally different person. I just don't think we were normal; there was nothing normal about our existence. We spent way too much time being the biggest thing for teenyboppers."

 As part of the Mouseketeers -- which also included Spears, Talk about love 'em and leave 'em, Justin Timberlake told Vanity Fair that he hasn't spoken to ex, Britney Spears , in "nine or 10 years." Why the stalemate? Timberlake believes that their status as arguably the most famous couple of a generation was fueled by just that, but then they both grew up."We were two birds of the same feather -- small-town kids, doing the same thing," Timberlake told Vanity Fair. "But then you become adults, and the way you were as kids doesn't make any sense. I won't speak on her, but at least for me, I was a totally different person. I just don't think we were normal; there was nothing normal about our existence. We spent way too much time being the biggest thing for teenyboppers."As part of the Mouseketeers -- which also included Spears, Christina Aguilera and Ryan Gosling -- Timberlake's world was larger than life. But unlike today's generation of young Hollywood, who outgrow their adolescence by the time they're 15, Timberlake and the gang were "little kids with big toys. You do the math -- that's not going to last."

 http://xml.channel.aol.com/xmlpublisher/fetch.v2.xml?option=expand_relative_urls&dataUrlNodes=uiConfig,feedConfig,entry&id=691977&pid=691976&uts=1273167996 http://www.popeater.com/mm_track/popeater/music/?s_channel=us.musicpop&s_account=aolpopeater,aolsvc&omni=1&ke=1 http://cdn.channel.aol.com/cs_feed_v1_6/csfeedwrapper.swf PopScene: Week's Hottest Pics Gabourey Sidibe attends The American Cancer Society's Choose You luncheon on May 5th in New York City. Amy Sussman, Getty Images Amy Sussman, Getty Images PopScene: Weeks Hottest Pics

 But Timberlake did eventually grow up and with his maturity came a more mature love along with it's ugly stepsister, heartbreak."She is the single-handedly most significant person in my life," Timberlake said of his ex-girlfriend, Jessica Biel . "In my 30 years, she is the most special person, O.K.? ... I don't want to say much more, because I have to protect things that are dear to me -- for instance, her."We are all too familiar with the headlines of Hollywood heartbreak, so why double the media scrutiny by dating a fellow celebrity? As Timberlake puts it, a partner who is familiar with fame is the only option."Why do you think we wind up dating each other, and feeling more comfortable around each other?" Timberlake pontificates. "We understand what it's like. 'Oh, thank God -- finally, somebody who knows how I feel. It's refuge."And Timberlake is looking for that refuge now more than ever -- the actor, singer and newfound comedian wants to have a family someday. But happily ever after seems further away than someday for the singer who brought 'Sexy Back.'"I think the mistake is that people commit to who that person is right then and not the person they're going to become. That's the art of staying together, is changing together. When you say it like that, it seems damn near impossible, right?Impossible? Maybe. But not for a lack of trying, Timberlake has recently been linked to Hollywood beauties like 'Friends with Benefits' co-star, Mila Kunis , and the similarly newly single, Olivia Wilde ||||| Photo by Norman Jean Roy. Styled by Jessica Diehl.

 “She is the single-handedly most significant person in my life,” Justin Timberlake tells Vanity Fair contributing editor Vanessa Grigoriadis of recent ex-girlfriend Jessica Biel. “In my 30 years, she is the most special person, O.K.? I don’t want to say much more, because I have to protect things that are dear to me—for instance, her.”

 Timberlake reveals that he wants a family some day, but that “as little as six months ago I wouldn’t have even thought about that, but now it feels like a closer planet orbiting around.” Of marriage, the musician turned actor explains what he feels is an uphill battle: “I think the mistake is that people commit to who that person is right then and not the person they’re going to become. That’s the art of staying together, is changing together,” he says. “When you say it like that, it seems damn near impossible, right?”

 “Why do you think we all like each other?” Timberlake asks of why celebrities—him included—so often date other celebrities. “Why do you think we wind up dating each other, and feeling more comfortable around each other? We understand what it’s like. ‘Oh, thank God—finally, somebody who knows how I feel.’ It’s refuge.”

 Of his arguably most famous ex-girlfriend, Britney Spears, Timberlake tells Grigoriadis, “I wish her the best—that goes without saying. We haven’t spoken in 9 or 10 years.” The former child star says that most of his and Spears’s relationship was based on circumstance, but had no chance for the long term. “We were two birds of the same feather—small-town kids, doing the same thing. But then you become adults, and the way you were as kids doesn’t make any sense. I won’t speak on her, but at least for me, I was a totally different person,” he says. “I just don’t think we were normal; there was nothing normal about our existence. We spent way too much time being the biggest thing for teenyboppers.”

 “It was exciting that we were having so much success and we could do whatever we wanted. And I mean that about everybody: Backstreet Boys, ’NSync, Britney, Christina,” Timberlake says of his early years as a pop idol. “At that time, we could literally go, ‘Oh, man, let’s go to Bali,’ and we’d be on a plane to Bali. We were little kids with big toys. You do the math—that’s not going to last.” Some very big toys, indeed, as Timberlake recalls that on the set of The All-New Mickey Mouse Club, “Ryan [Gosling] and I used to steal golf carts and go driving in the middle of the park to get milk shakes, and we never got in trouble for it. We thought we were big shit.”

 Timberlake says that while he has no new plans for music on the horizon (“I wouldn’t say I’m not going to put out another [album]. I would say that would be a bad bet, if you were betting. But I could see myself only doing one more big tour”), he does have a spate of new movies coming out, including Friends with Benefits with co-star Mila Kunis.

 As for the sex scene in the film, Kunis says when given the choice, she and Timberlake decided to film it at the last possible moment. “We figured that by then we’d really, hopefully, be friends, which is what happened,” says Kunis. “It’s always uncomfortable to do those scenes You have to be in these crazy positions for 12 to 16 hours. I’ll never forget when Justin had to be on top of me with his right hand on my left pasty and his left hand on my right pasty—my feet were getting numb, and I think his hands were giving out on him. It was a workout.”

 Of her co-star’s nudity in Benefits, Kunis says, “The men never have to do anything, and we’re always seeing the boobies of the ladies. So for this one, [director] Will [Gluck] said, ‘O.K., Justin can show himself off,’ which I thought was great.” “It was fun,” Timberlake agrees, “but I can’t say I’m going to be butt-naked in a movie again. I only did it because I’m young now, and everything’s where it’s supposed to be. I figured this is the time, before gravity gets the best of me.”

 The July issue of Vanity Fair hits newsstands in New York and L.A. on Thursday, June 2, and nationally and on the iPad on Tuesday, June 7.

 RELATED: “Mad About the Boys” (November 2007) |||||

– Justin Timberlake's recent Vanity Fair article was a downright ex-girlfriend bonanza. Of recent ex Jessica Biel, he says, “She is the single-handedly most significant person in my life. In my 30 years, she is the most special person, OK? … I don’t want to say much more, because I have to protect things that are dear to me—for instance, her.” But, you say, what of childhood sweetheart Britney Spears? Oh, he talks about her, too: “I wish her the best—that goes without saying. We haven’t spoken in nine or 10 years. ... We were two birds of the same feather—small-town kids, doing the same thing. But then you become adults, and the way you were as kids doesn’t make any sense. I won’t speak on her, but at least for me, I was a totally different person." Click for much more from the interview, including his thoughts on other fellow Mouseketeers, whether he wants a family, and why celebrities always date other celebrities.


Story highlights Britain's Prince William and Kate have released the third official portrait of Prince George

 The photo shows George with his parents at their London residence, Kensington Palace

 The 8-month-old is traveling with his parents to New Zealand and Australia in April

 It is unclear which of their engagements he will be present at during their tour

 Britain's Duke and Duchess of Cambridge have released a family photo with their son Prince George, a week ahead of their official visit to New Zealand and Australia.

 It is just the third official official release of photos of Prince George and shows him with his parents aged eight months at their home in Kensington Palace, London.

 The Duke of Cambridge, the second in line to the throne, is pictured with his wife and son looking out of an open window. The smiling duchess, 32, is holding Prince George on her knee as he focuses his attention on the family pet Lupo, a black cocker spaniel pictured sitting on the duke's lap.

 Catherine is wearing white, while William, 31, looks relaxed in a shirt with the sleeves rolled up. George sports a light blue jumper with his name written on it, over a white collar.

 The picture was taken by photographer Jason Bell, who also took the official photos for Prince George's christening, last October.

 The family will be in New Zealand and Australia from April 7 to 25 but it's unclear what opportunities the public in both countries will have to glimpse the youngest royal in person.

 "George being just a little over eight-months-old by the time they travel, I'm sure you will appreciate that the couple will have to make a final decision on those moments much closer to the time."

 Prince George's first official photo was taken by his maternal grandfather, Michael Middleton . It showed Prince William and Catherine -- the latter holding Prince George swaddled in a white blanket -- on the lawn of her parents' home in Berkshire.

 JUST WATCHED Prince George's big day out Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Prince George's big day out 00:50

 JUST WATCHED Royal couple's 1st appearance since baby Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Royal couple's 1st appearance since baby 01:22

 JUST WATCHED Royal family portrait Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Royal family portrait 03:02

 JUST WATCHED Prince William talks fatherhood Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Prince William talks fatherhood 04:01

 New Zealanders may be hoping their country provides the backdrop for an updated version of that photo during the royal tour, after all, Prince William was recorded taking his first steps on the lawn of Government House in Auckland on his first visit, in 1983.

 Royal itinerary

 The Duke last visited New Zealand after the devastating 2011 earthquake in Christchurch. On this trip, the royal couple will visit the city together and stop to remember the 185 people killed.

 As well as being Prince George's first visit Down Under, his mother Catherine will be making her debut.

 "There's no hiding the enthusiasm for the visit by both the Duke and the Duchess. The Duke, because he has been before; and the Duchess because she has never been to either country but has wanted to do so as long as she can remember," Kensington Palace said in its earlier announcement.

 The pair may not always be in complete agreement on their trip, however.

 Kensington Palace said the Duke and Duchess were "just a little competitive" and some of the events on the itinerary will pit husband against wife.

 The royal couple will board separate Team NZ America's Cup yachts for some informal racing in Auckland and coach rival teams in "rippa" rugby, a non-contact version of Rugby Union, in the South Island city of Dunedin.

 A century after the outbreak of World War I, the tour will also see William and Kate paying tribute to both countries' war dead and visiting military bases.

 Their last day will be April 25 -- ANZAC [Australian and New Zealand Army Corps] Day, which originally marked the landing of soldiers from both nations at Gallipoli, Turkey, in 1915. In the eight-month campaign fought there, 2,721 New Zealanders and 8,709 Australians died, before the allied forces withdrew. The day is now a tribute to those who have died in all conflicts.

 The Duke and Duchess will plant a seed from a pine tree at the site of the battle at the Australian War Memorial in Australia's capital city, Canberra, before returning to London. ||||| Image copyright Jason Bell/Camera Press Image caption The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and Prince George will begin the tour in New Zealand

 An official photograph of Prince George with the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge has been released ahead of their tour of Australia and New Zealand.

 The eight-month-old is pictured in his mother's arms while Prince William holds their dog, Lupo.

 In the image, taken by royal christening photographer Jason Bell, the family is looking through an open window at their Kensington Palace home.

 The Cambridges are due to arrive in New Zealand on 7 April.

 They then fly to Australia on 16 April and their three-week tour ends on 25 April.

 First tour

 In the new image, the blond baby prince is wearing a pale blue jumper bearing his name, while his mother wears a cream-coloured blouse and his father a shirt with rolled-up sleeves.

 Prince George, who is third in line to the throne, is not looking directly at the camera like his parents - instead, he is smiling at the black cocker spaniel next to him.

 Other than a glimpse of the curtains, little of the Cambridges' renovated Kensington Palace home can be seen in the photograph.

 It is the first official picture of Prince George to be released since his christening last October.

 The visit to Australia and New Zealand will be his first official overseas tour. The trip echoes the Prince and Princess of Wales's visit to Australia and New Zealand in 1983 when the couple took William, then aged nine months, with them.

 Image copyright PA Image caption Prince George was christened at the Chapel Royal in St James's Palace, London, in October

 The tour will begin in Wellington, where the Cambridges will be greeted with a ceremonial welcome to New Zealand, called a Powhiri in Maori.

 They will see a yacht race, visit a rugby stadium and a vineyard, and there will also be Maori engagements in Christchurch and Dunedin.

 During their time in New Zealand, they will attend a ceremony in Blenheim to recognise the sacrifice of members of the Australian and New Zealand armed forces in the First World War.

 There will be a similar commemorative ceremony in Canberra, Australia.

 Their Australian itinerary includes visits to Uluru in the Northern Territory, as well as Sydney and Adelaide.

 The duke and duchess will also visit an area of the Blue Mountains, New South Wales, that was hit by bushfires last October.

 Their 11-strong entourage includes Prince George's new nanny, Maria Teresa Turrion Borrallo, and a hairdresser.

 Celebrity photographer

 Prince William has made a number of official trips to Australia and New Zealand in the past, but Catherine is yet to pay an official visit to either country.

 The couple passed through Brisbane airport on their way back to the UK at the end of their South Pacific tour in September 2012, however.

 The duke had paid an official visit to New Zealand and Australia in March 2011. He went to Christchurch shortly after it suffered an earthquake and also visited Queensland and Victoria, which had been hit by floods.

 It is the third joint official trip abroad for the duke and duchess, following a visit to Canada and the US in July 2011, shortly after they were married, and their South Pacific tour.

 Before taking official photographs following Prince George's christening at St James's Palace, Bell was known for his celebrity subjects.

 His images from the christening included one of the young prince with his father, grandfather Prince Charles and great-grandmother, the Queen. |||||
What is a one-paragraph summary of the above article?

– Ahead of their Australia-New Zealand tour next week, Prince William and Kate Middleton have released an official family photo that includes their now 8-month-old bouncing baby boy, reports the BBC. Prince George, who will accompany the royal couple on their trip beginning next Monday, is pictured being held by his mother in an open window at the royals' residence in Kensington Palace; William and the family pooch, Lupo, are at right in the image the palace says was taken by George's christening photographer, Jason Bell. As for the youngest royal's official duties on the Australia-New Zealand trek, well, it's up in the air, as per a palace statement via CNN: "George being just a little over eight months old by the time they travel, I'm sure you will appreciate that the couple will have to make a final decision on those moments much closer to the time." They will head out with an entourage of 11, notes the BBC, including a nanny and hairdresser.


Write an article based on this summary:

– How many black forest lattes can the Chinese drink? Starbucks is hoping the answer is a lot. CEO Howard Schultz tells CNNMoney the coffee giant is planning to open more than one new store each day in China over the next five years. The projection to have almost 5,000 stores across the country by 2021 comes despite the fact that growth in China has slowed to its lowest levels in a quarter-century. Unphased by that economic forecast, Schultz says Starbucks is looking far into the future. "I think if you look at the 45-year history of our company ... one of the things that we've done really well is that we've always played the long game," Schultz says. He adds that tourists and expats made up the majority of Starbucks customers in China only five years ago. "Today," he says, "it's mostly Chinese. " China is the chain's second-largest market, after the US. Schultz says he expects that standing to flip as more Chinese discover menu items like cranberry white chocolate mochas. When the first Starbucks opened 17 years ago in China, the locals had no idea the addictive value of a cup of Joe—or how much better one could be topped with whipped cream and chocolate sauce. "We had to educate and teach many Chinese about what coffee was—the coffee ritual, what a latte was," Schultz said. "So in the early years, we did not make money." Other businesses like KFC and McDonald's haven't fared as well in recent times in the world's second-largest economy, and both have sought outside investors, per CNNMoney. (A class-action lawsuit says Starbucks lattes lack milk.)

Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz is unfazed by China's slowing economy.

 Even with China growing at its slowest pace in 25 years, Starbucks is planning to open more than one new store a day for the next five years in the world's second largest economy.

 "I think if you look at the 45 year history of our company ... one of the things that we've done really well is that we've always played the long game," Schultz told CNN in an interview in Shanghai on Wednesday.

 By 2021, Starbucks (SBUX) aims to have nearly 5,000 stores across China.

 Related: China's economy holds steady -- but for how long?

 It's been a long road already for the coffee giant in the world's most populous nation, where it opened its first store 17 years ago.

 "We had to educate and teach many Chinese about what coffee was -- the coffee ritual, what a latte was," Schultz said. "So in the early years, we did not make money."

 His critics on Wall Street and elsewhere said Starbucks "was never going to succeed in China," he recalled.

 But his patience paid off.

 "If you look five years ago, most of our business, believe it or not, was expats and tourists in China," he said. "Today, it's mostly Chinese."

 Related: Hillary Clinton will win U.S. election, says Starbucks CEO

 Schultz expects China to eventually overtake the U.S. as the company's largest market, although he hasn't said exactly when. (It's already No. 2.)

 "One of things I think we've done very well is we've invested significantly ahead of the growth curve -- in people, in systems," he told CNN. "We just finished a fantastic year in China where the results are as strong as they've ever been."

 Such talk is enviable for huge U.S. firms that have failed to get into China -- like Facebook (FB) and Netflix (NFLX) -- or been pushed out -- like Uber and Google (GOOG).

 Schultz says it helps that Starbucks is selling coffee, and not active in a more sensitive market.

 "We're not in a high tech business, so we're not trying to change behavior in terms of technology," he said.

 Related: Billionaire says Chinese real estate is 'biggest bubble in history'

 Other big American brands that had enjoyed years of success selling food and drink in China are now faring less well.

 KFC, which is owned by Yum Brands (YUM), is spinning off its China business and bringing in outside investors. McDonalds (MCD) is also looking for a partner to take over the franchise of its China stores.

 "They have other challenges ... I can't speak for them," Schultz said, ruling out the possibility of Starbucks following a similar path.

 "Whether we're in a small city or a large city, we think that the way in which we can be successful is if the stores are operated by Starbucks people," he said. "We believe that the future of Starbucks in China is still very early."

 -- Reed Alexander contributed to this report. ||||| These crawls are part of an effort to archive pages as they are created and archive the pages that they refer to. That way, as the pages that are referenced are changed or taken from the web, a link to the version that was live when the page was written will be preserved.Then the Internet Archive hopes that references to these archived pages will be put in place of a link that would be otherwise be broken, or a companion link to allow people to see what was originally intended by a page's authors.The goal is to fix all broken links on the web . Crawls of supported "No More 404" sites. |||||