New Mexico Attorney General Patricia Madrid's attempt to enforce a Civil Investigative Demand against The Coulston Foundation relating to the ex-primate testing lab's use of millions of dollars in federal taxpayer-funded chimpanzee "endowments" will be the focus of oral arguments before the New Mexico Court of Appeals today, Animal Protection of New Mexico (APNM) and In Defense of Animals (IDA) announced today.

The oral arguments in appeals case number A-0001-CA-2003-24000 (for civil suit number D-1215-CV-200200402), The Coulston Foundation v. Patricia Madrid, will be held on Thursday, October 23, 2003 at 3:30 p.m. in the Ceremonial Courtroom at the Third Judicial District Court, 201 West Picacho, Las Cruces.

Last year, APNM provided the Attorney General's office with evidence that Coulston may have misused the endowment funds, which were meant for the lifetime care of specific chimpanzees who had been used in federally funded experiments, and asked her office to launch an investigation. Misuse of such funds would violate New Mexico's law governing charitable organizations. The evidence provided to the Attorney General was based in large part on internal documents from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) that had been obtained by IDA through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

Coulston initially cooperated with the Attorney General's investigation. However, when her office requested audited financial statements - which are also required by federal regulations - to confirm the lab's explanations of how it spent the funds, Coulston refused, despite its earlier claims that the statements existed and would be turned over, and instead sued the Attorney General. Coulston lost the suit, and was ordered by the court to provide the statements; the lab's appeal of that decision is the subject of the oral arguments on Thursday.

"We applaud the Attorney General for her vigorous prosecution of this case,"

said APNM Executive Director Lisa Jennings. "Coulston stonewalling will not

work against Patricia Madrid."

Jennings said that Coulston's decision to sue rather than disclose records required by federal law raises even more questions in light of Coulston's refusal during the lawsuit to provide the records despite a proposal from the Attorney General that was described by Jennings as "beyond reasonable." In this offer, flatly rejected by Coulston, Ms. Madrid guaranteed that her office would possess the records for only 15 days, would not make any copies, and would only allow authorized employees of her office to see them.

"Coulston's attempted obstruction of law enforcement is nothing new," said IDA Research Director Eric Kleiman. "The ex-lab was so uncooperative during

official investigations of Animal Welfare Act violations that the U.S. Department of Agriculture was repeatedly forced to draw up subpoenas, and Coulston even refused agency inspectors access to the facility."

However, Kleiman noted that Coulston's repeated violations of federal law relating to animal care, data integrity and workplace safety were enabled by

the NIH, which illegally funneled millions of tax dollars to the lab while lying to Congress and the public about its actions. He said that the agency's malfeasance continues to this day. "Why has the NIH utterly and willfully failed to hold Coulston accountable for how the lab spent these millions of dollars in federal funds?"

Kleiman noted that the NIH has long known of questions regarding Coulston's finances, including those relating to the ex-lab's accounting of how it spent federal money. An internal May 9, 2001 NIH email obtained through FOIA (available at http://www.idausa.org/newmexicoag/coulstonaudit.jpg) shows that the University of Tennessee-Memphis refused to provide Coulston with money mandated by a $1.7 million NIH grant because Coulston refused to provide audit records of how it spent money during the first year of the grant. This resulted in the taxpayer-funded research being "seriously impeded" and the University's termination of its relationship with Coulston.

"Why didn't the NIH act as the University did and end its Coulston subsidy?"

asked Jennings, who noted that UT-Memphis's concern about proper accounting of federal money was not shared by the agency responsible for oversight of the research, which was crippled by Coulston's refusal to provide required records. Indeed, she said, the NIH continued to illegally funnel millions to the lab for years despite having evidence of Coulston malfeasance far greater than that which prompted UT-Memphis's action.

"How could the NIH possibly not hold a facility accountable for its refusal to provide mandatory financial records that would prove if federal taxpayer money was spent properly, whether on the $1.7 million University of Tennessee-Memphis grant, the millions of dollars in chimpanzee endowments, or who knows what else?" continued Jennings.

Kleiman noted that the NIH has known for over four years that Coulston had "expended" the endowments, after an April 1999 audit showed the ex-lab on the verge of bankruptcy (available at http://www.vivisectioninfo.org/vivcampaigns/NIHtestimony/tcf_financial.pdf).

This revelation resulted in numerous emails worrying about the "very explosive" situation, with one staffer of the NIH's Office of Director writing, "This one has the potential to be a nasty oversight issue, particularly with the endowment funds apparently having been spent for other

purposes. This could be another NIH management problem if they think that we have not been diligent in our oversight of contracts" (available at http://www.vivisectioninfo.org/vivcampaigns/NIHtestimony/nih_internal_2.pdf).

After IDA testified before Congress in March 2000 about the NIH's continuing

duplicity and violations of law regarding Coulston (available at http://www.vivisectioninfo.org/vivcampaigns/NIHtestimony/), the House Committee on Energy and Commerce reviewed the situation and initiated an investigation of the NIH's actions regarding the lab. According to its "Oversight Plan" for the 108th Congress (available at http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/pubs/108oversight.pdf), the Committee's findings that the NIH had continued to fund Coulston despite its animal care

and data integrity violations "raises the question whether NIH oversight ensures that its grant funds are properly managed, and that grantee institutions are not in violation of federal regulations."

On March 13, 2003, the Committee initiated a full-scale investigation of the

NIH, focusing on the agency's management and oversight of all of its grants -as outlined in the Committee's "Oversight Plan" - while mentioning just one specific instance of NIH malfeasance: Coulston. The Committee's letter to the NIH is available at http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/Letters/03132003_834.htm.

"Thank goodness Attorney General Patricia Madrid is willing to exercise her authority to ensure that our tax dollars are not squandered and that our law

is enforced," concluded Jennings. "It is clear that, despite its federally mandated oversight duties, the National Institutes of Health has no interest

whatsoever in such issues, and will never hold the likes of The Coulston Foundation accountable for anything."

APNM is a statewide animal protection organization based in Albuquerque. IDA is an international animal advocacy and rescue organization based in Mill Valley, CA. Last year, after an unprecedented eight-year campaign that was spearheaded by IDA and would not have succeeded without APNM, The Coulston Foundation was forced to close, and the Florida-based Center for Captive Chimpanzee Care permanently retired hundreds of chimpanzees and monkeys formerly imprisoned at the lab.