There is an interesting decision out of Washington this month where U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan has ruled that Ringling Brothers and Barnum & Bailey Circus can proceed with a racketeering lawsuit against a coalition of animal rights groups. The lawsuit was brought by corporate parent Feld Entertainment Inc., under the Racketeer Influence and Corrupt Organizations Act based on the alleged payment of a former Ringling Brothers trainer Tom Rider by the animal right groups. The trainer later became a plaintiff in an action against the Circus for animal cruelty. The case is Feld Entertainment Inc. v. American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, 07-1532 EGS, D.D.C.
Rider is described in the opinion below:
Tom Rider was a former elephant “barn helper” and “barn man” for FEI from June 1997 until November 1999. First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) ¶¶ 4, 37. He alleged that he had suffered aesthetic and emotional injury based on his exposure to mistreated elephants while working for FEI. Specifically, Rider alleged that he “has a personal and emotional attachment to these elephants,” Complaint, ASPCA v. Feld Entm’t, Case 03-2006, ECF No. 1 at ¶ 20, that he “stopped working in the circus community because he could no longer tolerate the way the elephants were treated by defendants,” id. ¶ 21, and that he “continues to visit” the elephants he knows, even though “each time he does so, he suffers more aesthetic injury,” id. ¶ 23.
However, while previously finding error in the claims by the Circus, the court was equally skeptical as to Rider’s claims:
The Court found serious problems with the substance of Rider’s allegations. It noted that Rider had never complained to management, veterinarian, or government officials about the treatment of the elephants during the two and a half years he worked at Ringling Brothers Id. at 68. The Court also found incredible Rider’s claim that he left Ringling Brothers because he could not bear to witness further mistreatment of the elephants, noting that after he left FEI’s employment he went to work for another circus which allegedly mistreated its elephants in the same way. Id. 70. The Court also found that since his employment with FEI ceased, Rider continued to see the elephants who were allegedly still suffering mistreatment, thus undermining his claim that “he would like to again visit or observe” these elephants but “was refraining from doing so in order to avoid subjecting himself to further aesthetic injury.” Id. at 83. At the same time, Rider made little to no effort to see the elephants who were no longer performing in the circus and therefore no longer allegedly mistreated, thus undermining his claim that he “had formed a personal attachment” to the elephants and, if “they were no longer allegedly mistreated, he would visit these animals as often as possible and would seek a position to work with them again.” Id. Indeed, the Court found that when presented with videotapes of the elephants practicing for the circus, Rider could not identify the elephants to whom he was allegedly personally and emotionally attached. Id. at 84.
As to the payments themselves, the Court found that Rider had received at least $190,000 from the ESA plaintiffs since the lawsuit began. Id. at 78. The Court further found that the ESA plaintiffs had been “less than forthcoming about the extent of the payments to Mr. Rider.”
Feld alleged the animal rights activists’ payments to Rider violated federal anti-racketeering law and the Virginia Conspiracy Act. It also included a relatively rare claim of a “champertous” relationship or “a bargain to divide the proceeds of litigation between the owner of the litigated claim and the party supporting or enforcing the litigation.” Sullivan ruled that since the action sought injunctive, rather than monetary relief,”there are no ‘proceeds’ at stake to share and champerty does not lie.” He also dismissed some of the RICO claims on standing grounds as well as claims against some of the attorneys. Also dismissed as a malicious prosecution claim. However, the activists will face claims including the violation of the Virginia Conspiracy Act and abuse of process and maintenance.
The lawsuit is likely to create a chilling effect on efforts by animal rights organizations in seeking videotapes and witnesses against large corporations in the alleged mistreatment of animals. The lawsuit is clearly design in part for its deterrence value in getting such organizations to think twice about such operations.
The complaint alleged violations of RICO (Counts I and II) and the Virginia Conspiracy Act (Count III), as well as common law claims of Abuse of Process (Count IV), Malicious Prosecution (Count V), Maintenance (Count VI) and Champerty (Count VII). Counts III, IV, and VI will go forward. Count VII is now dismissed. Counts I and II are partially dismissed. (Note, at the end of the opinion, the court states that Count VI is the Champerty count and survives dismissal while Count VII is the Maintenance count and is dismissed. My reading is the Count VII is the champerty claim and is dismissed).
Here is the opinion: Circus opinion
Source: Courthouse News
Shelley, Wayne Pacelle does have a long arrest record, mainly for British-style hunt sabotages, which he introduced in this country during his college years. He has admitted this in many interviews, speaking about his early direct action tactics and why he switched to politics, litigation and legislation to advance his goals. I do not believe Pacelle was ever convicted of any crimes stemming from those activities. There were no deliberate falsehoods in my comments about him.
J.P. Goodwin’s antics are well known. Mr. Turley should google “J.P. Goodwin No Compromise” for Goodwin’s own articles about his illegal raids and threats against farmers. Goodwin was the founder of the Coalition to Abolish the Fur Trade and a spokesman for the Animal Liberation Front. He has denounced his past, but does not deny it, as Shelley is trying to do. Goodwin has one criminal conviction – in 1993 – for “economic sabotage” of fur retailers. For more on Goodwin, who is less scary to me than Pacelle, check out the “Conflict Gypsy” website. There you can also research former HSUS New York Director Patrick Kwan, who was arrested many times during his work with the now defunct (NY based) Animal Defense League. Kwan seems like a decent person, but facts are facts.
Shelley, if you have information contradicting these statements, please share. Otherwise, stop using deliberate falsehoods in an effort to convince Mr. Turley that the HSUS is something that it is not.
Adam, as far as I know, Pacelle has been arrested a few times for disrupting hunts–and in all cases, charges were dropped. You have made him sound like he’s just this side of being the FBI’s most wanted.
And who cares? The fact that Pacelle disrupted a hunt has nothing to do with Feld Entertainments treatment of elephants, this current lawsuit, or the one before it (I should say “ones” before it, since Feld has been in court cases, as far as I can see, about twenty years, straight).
And what do Goodwin and Kwan have to do with anything? The men are employees of HSUS, but not involved in this absurd civil trial…in any way. Your bringing them up is nothing more than a duplicitous attempt to undermine the integrity of HSUS–most likely as a way of undermining all of the defendants in this case.
It’s dishonest. It’s Center for Consumer Freedom dishonest — both nasty and underhanded.
The connection of this case to HSUS is remote, at best. In the answer to the Feld Amended Complaint, you’ll notice that all the defendants denied that HSUS and the Fund for Animals are a single entity.
Heck, the entire premise behind Feld’s Rico complaint is that people who donated to the fight to free the Ringling Brothers elephant are co-victims with Feld. No, no, I don’t think I have heard anything more ridiculous.
No wonder the defendants filed an interlocutory appeal. Frankly, I am astonished the judge did not toss this complaint out.
Now, do you have anything even remotely connected to the case to comment on? Or are you going to continue to dig up past activism by other members of the animal welfare community who also aren’t involved in this case?
At least he won the Five Wives vodka fight.
Complete nonsense.
There is no bribery, racketeering, and money laundering. There is only Feld using its considerable legal team in order to drag a court case out for years, and do untold damage to many animal welfare groups in the process.
Mr. Feld is nothing if not vindictive, which can be affirmed by his sister, and a writer by the name of Pottker.
http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-18560_162-551924.html
And I don’t think Mr. Turley is going to be happy about commenters who write deliberate falsehoods in comments. Comments such as “HSUS CEO Wayne Pacelle, Director of Animal Cruelty Policy J.P. Goodwin and NY State Director Patrick Kwan all have long arrest records for direct action/economic sabotage arrests”
In addition, the animal welfare groups have fought back.
Mr. Turley, did you see the recent filings? The ones from this past week?
Shelley, the ends do not justify the means. Bribery, racketeering and money laundering give honest animal organizations a bad name. So does raising money under false pretenses (hey there, HSUS) and lying to Congress (“A Case of Abuse, Heightened” – NYTimes and “Internet Hunting Has Got To Stop – If It Ever Starts.”
HSUS CEO Wayne Pacelle, Director of Animal Cruelty Policy J.P. Goodwin and NY State Director Patrick Kwan all have long arrest records for direct action/economic sabotage arrests; Goodwin raided fur farms and retailers, with a conviction for “economic sabotage.” The Fund’s Heidi Prescott did jail time for hunt sabotage. Now these “mainstream” organizations are using legislation and litigation to sabotage industries and individuals they disapprove of. The tactics, however, remain unethical and possibly illegal. HSUS is also being sued for illegal raids of dog breeders and horse owners. The entire Emergency Response team resigned in 2009, warning that these tactics would result in legal problems down the road.
Shelley,
Don’t think we ever did. But we still eat them. Are you a vegan?
Catching up with the case. I can see that the corporate front group commenters are here, maligning the animal welfare groups.
As you wrote, this could have a chilling effect on undercover investigations–especially when paired with the ag-gag laws gaining in popularity throughout the country.
When did the US decide to, as a whole, decide to condone and celebrate abuse of animals?
Woosty,
The jackal females have false penises. And they laugh a lot.
http://www.africapoint.com/newsletters/africa-predators.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BepgNl14dVc
Matt,
Woof
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSMCRD35ch4
Woosty,
Meow.
Dredd, most of the judges practice selective procedural entanglement.
“… the Court [sua sponte?] takes judicial notice of the record in the ESA Action in considering the motion to dismiss. The Court may do so without converting the motion to dismiss into one for summary judgment. Covad Commc’ns Co. v. Bell Atlantic Corp., 407 F.3d 1220, 1222 (D.C. Cir. 2005); Dupree v. Jefferson, 666 F.2d 606, 608 n.1 (D.C. Cir. 1981); United States ex rel. New v. Rumsfeld, 350 F. Supp. 2d 80, 88-89 (D.D.C. 2004) (citations
omitted). However, the Court emphasizes that it did not pore over the entire record in that action, which contains nearly 600 docket entries and is extremely voluminous. The Court considers such an exercise outside the purview of a motion to dismiss.” (Memorandum Opinion, fn. 2, p. 3)
Interesting dynamics.
The current motion being litigated is a Rule 12 Motion To Dismiss.
Generally the allegations of a complaint are considered to be true for the purposes of such a motion, and the motion court (the trier of fact in the previous years-long litigation the court is taking judicial notice of) ought not become a finder of fact.
Then there is res judicata on some facts, some law.
I find it curious that the Court would take judicial notice, but then in effect say “not too much notice” by using statements the court only looked appropriately deep into those facts.
Strange procedural law entanglements it would seem.
I have always been a supporter of treating animals humanely, but the antics of PETA and similar groups are a turn off for anyone who is sane about simply treating animals well.
I am now ready to see similar actions against the conspirators who murder doctors, harass patients and try to shut down clinics that do breast cancer screenings and provide birth control services to poor women–all in the name of protecting fetuses. Then promptly forget and vilify them once they are born.
Extremists of any stripe are all too often domestic terrorists under another guise. And too many lawmakers are their enablers.
It is obvious that animals rights activists are filing bogus claims to shut down the use of ANY animal act. if they have a problem with such things, the proper place for redress is in the legislature and the court of public opinion.
I am all for Ringling Bros. suit since it has shown the claim is bogus, and the ASPCA should be held liable for this stunt.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary(dotcom)
Racketeering
‘A person who uses an enterprise to engage in a pattern of racketeering may be convicted under the RICO criminal statute (18 U.S.C.A. § 1963). ……….
Racketeering activity under federal law includes a number of criminal offenses, including: Bribery; sports bribery; counterfeiting; felony theft from interstate shipment; Embezzlement from Pension and Welfare funds; extortionate credit transactions; Fraud relating to identification documents; fraud relating to access devices; transmission of gambling information; Mail Fraud; wire fraud; financial institution fraud; citizenship or naturalization fraud; obscene matter; Obstruction of Justice; obstruction of criminal investigation; obstruction of state or local law enforcement; witness tampering; retaliation against witness; interference with commerce, bribery, or extortion; interstate transportation in aid of racketeering; interstate transportation of wagering paraphernalia; unlawful welfare fund payments; prohibition of illegal gambling business; Money Laundering; monetary transactions in property derived from unlawful activities; murder for hire; sexual exploitation of children; interstate transportation of stolen motor vehicles; interstate transportation of stolen property; sale of stolen goods; trafficking in motor vehicles and parts; trafficking in contraband cigarettes; white slave traffic; restrictions of payments and loans to labor organizations; embezzlement from union funds; Bankruptcy fraud; fraud in the sale of Securities; felonious manufacture, importation, receiving, concealment, buying, selling, or otherwise dealing in narcotic or other dangerous drugs; and any act that is indictable under the Currency and Foreign Transactions Reporting Act.’
———————
Barnum & Bailey must have some loose change hanging about….and obviously they DO care about the animals…they are feeding the sharks with it.
(i don’t see the pattern….the dictionary says ‘pattern’…)…..
AY,
Throw buckets of water on them.
Matt,
I’m just waiting for the wicked witches to show up…… Oh my…..
Wait until the lions and tigers finally get pis*ed off.
I am under the impression that Barnum treats its animals the best in the business….. I am pleased that some of these subterfuge groups are being held liable……
Mespo, what’s your take on the Virginia claims….
Another effort to squealch dissent.
It looks like the corporations are getting their way in the courts. How about a RICO lawsuit on behalf of all citizens harmed by the Banksters theft of billions?