After I posted this a bit ago, I did a bit more research and found where this lawsuit happened in 2010!!! I will look further into it to see if perhaps it is just now getting into a courtroom.


HSUS getting taste of its own medicine in court
By JIM MATTHEWS
www.OutdoorNewsService.com

The Humane Society of the United States, an organization that does little to nothing for animal shelters, but sues, badgers and lobbies politicians and businesses into adopting its radical animals rights agenda, is getting a taste of its own medicine.

In a little-reported ruling by a judge in the District of Columbia earlier this month, the HSUS is going to court to face charges under RICO statues on racketeering, obstruction of justice, malicious prosecution and other charges for a lawsuit it brought and lost against Ringling Brothers Circus’ parent company Feld Entertainment, Inc.

After winning the case alleging mistreatment of elephants in its circuses brought by Friends of Animals (later merged into HSUS), the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) and the Animal Welfare Institute (AWI), lawyers at Feld filed a countersuit with a litany of charges ranging from bribery to money laundering to racketeering. The attorneys for the animal rights groups asked the judge to dismiss all charges, but most stuck because the evidence was overwhelming. So in early August, HSUS will be facing the music in a case that should attract the attention of hunters, ranchers and farmers, and anyone impacted by HSUS radical animal rights agenda.

While district judge Emmet G. Sullivan did dismiss allegations of mail and wire fraud, but he only did so because Feld didn’t have standing to file this charge. His ruling all but set the stage for a class-action RICO lawsuit against HSUS for misrepresenting itself in its fundraising campaigns across the nation. This future lawsuit could easily bankrupt HSUS and put it out of business – and send some of its top executives to prison.

For the first time, a group has fought back against the animal rights and environmental extremists who have been setting policy in this country for the past 20 years or more. Now, instead of getting rich off their lawsuits and fund-raising schemes that misrepresent their efforts and accomplishments, they could be driven out of business when they start getting larger doses of their own medicine. These animal rights groups have cost the farming and ranching industry jobs and raised the price of products we all buy every day. They are behind the efforts to ban sport hunting across the nation. They have forced state wildlife and fishery agencies to waste countless millions of dollars on lawsuits, and they have spearheaded policies and legislation like the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA), which has ruined livelihoods in recreational and commercial fishing without helping marine resources.

These groups operate with surly arrogance, and they believe they are above the law. Thankfully, that is not the case. Stay tuned. I'm sure there will be more to talk about in the near future….

This is the actual lawsuit paper filing:

http://humanewatch.org/images/...-02-16_Feld_RICO.pdf

Okay, found where the suit is still ongoing and current:

Racketeering Lawsuit Names the Humane Society of the United States and Two of its Attorneys


Background: After years of being on defense in a lawsuit filed by several animal rights groups, Feld Entertainment (owner of Ringling Bros.) went on offense, filing a lawsuit against animal rights activists under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act in 2007. Feld amended its complaint in early 2010 to include HSUS and two of its lawyers, Senior VP Jonathan R. Lovvorn and Kimberly Ockene.

The Facts: A decade ago, animal-rights groups sued Feld Entertainment (parent company of the Ringling Brothers circus) alleging elephant abuse in violation of the Endangered Species Act. That lawsuit was dismissed by a US District Court in late 2009, and a US Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal. In dismissing the lawsuit, federal judge Emmet G. Sullivan ruled that the animal-rights plaintiffs had essentially engaged in a pay-to-play scheme by paying the lead witness Tom Rider more than $190,000—his sole source of income during the litigation. The court found him to be “not a credible witness” and “essentially a paid plaintiff and fact witness,” adding that he “often gave conflicting answers and was repeatedly impeached on the witness stand.”

While HSUS was not an original party to the suit against Feld, it merged with one of the original parties, the Fund for Animals (FFA), in 2004 while the suit was ongoing. HSUS has tried to separate itself from FFA, but as Feld told the court during its RICO suit, HSUS acted as an “independent racketeer”:

HSUS is in it as an independent racketeer.…They sent six payments to WAP [Wildlife Advocacy Project] that were earmarked for [plaintiffs’ witness] Tom Rider, and those payments were made, as we showed, out of a HSUS bank account, on HSUS stationary, a HSUS check sent by a HSUS employee, Jonathan Lovvorn, who had been a partner in that firm before he came over there [to HSUS]. So the idea that they didn’t know about this, that they were innocent, that they were duped, it’s ridiculous. They were in the middle of this.

According to the court, the alleged scheme revolved around a nonprofit group set up by some plaintiffs’ lawyers:

Beginning in December 2001 and continuing until at least the beginning of 2008, the organizational plaintiffs made payments to [the Wildlife Advocacy Project] for the purpose of funding Mr. Rider. While FFA/HSUS (Mr. Markarian) testified that it was not certain whether WAP used its “donations” for other purposes as well, this testimony is undermined by the documents underlying FFA/HSUS’s “donations,” which indicate that the money was specifically for use in connection with this litigation. FFA/HSUS’s testimony also is questionable given that in 2003, plaintiffs’ counsel, Ms. Meyer, specifically sent an email to the representatives of the organizational plaintiffs, including Mr. Markarian, requesting funds to support Mr. Rider’s advocacy efforts regarding the elephants and the lawsuit, and expressly suggesting that the funds for Mr. Rider could be contributed to WAP so that they would be tax deductible.

In plain English: the plaintiffs allegedly conspired to funnel money to a witness. Feld believes the alleged racket operated in violation of state and federal laws, such as RICO and the Virginia Conspiracy Act. In all, Feld alleges numerous torts and actions, including bribery, illegal witness payments, obstruction of justice, mail fraud, wire fraud, money laundering, malicious prosecution, abuse of process, andconspiracy to harm a business.

Bottom Line: The animal rights groups fought for years to get the RICO suit dismissed but in July 2012 a judge threw out their request and has allowed the suit to move forward. We don’t know how many thousands (or millions) this legal defense has cost HSUS, but we doubt that the donors giving $19 a month thought their money was going to pay lawyers to defend corruption charges. It’s another reason to make sure donations to animal groups stay local.

MORE:

RICO Update: Lawsuit Against HSUS Moves Forward
We have another update in the decade-plus-long litigation drama involving several animal rights groups, including the Humane Society of the United States, involving their alleged racketeering scheme against Feld Entertainment, owner of the Ringling Brothers and Barnum & Bailey Circus.

You may recall that in late 2009, animal rights groups saw their legal offensive against the circus tossed out of federal court by United States District Judge Emmet Sullivan of the District of Columbia. Meanwhile, Feld filed a suit against the animal rights groups alleging injuries under the Racketeer Influence and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), the same law that’s been used to bust mobsters. Very saucy. On July 9, Sullivan denied most of the requests for a motion to dismiss brought by the defendants. Feld’s RICO suit will move forward.

Feld first took on the animal rights bullies when they found a plaintiff to sue Feld back in 2000. Tom Rider, a former Feld trainer, alleged elephant abuse by Feld in violation of the Endangered Species Act (ESA).

The basis of Feld’s RICO suit is that the plaintiffs in the ESA lawsuit, the animal rights groups that are now defendants, were aware that Rider wasn’t telling the truth. Feld also alleges that improper payments were made to Rider, the star witness and named plaintiff in the ESA action. The payments of $1,000 every two weeks added up to $190,000 in Rider’s pocket, which was, as the court later found, Rider’s “sole source of income.”

Feld’s other RICO allegations involve violations of the federal mail and wire fraud statutes and false testimony by Rider.

In 2009, almost a decade after the initial filing, Judge Sullivan threw out the ESA lawsuit, finding that the animal rights plaintiffs lacked legal standing to sue, and further finding that that Rider was “essentially a paid plaintiff and fact witness who is not credible” whose testimony was given no weight by the court. Again, Rider received a whopping $190,000 from the animal rights groups. All the while, Rider made claims that he had a “personal attachment” to the elephants and that he suffered “aesthetic injury” from the way they were abused—claims that a judge found to be totally lacking credibility. The Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal. (The full opinion is here.)

What’s been alleged here is an incredibly elaborate scheme, one that constitutes racketeering under federal law.

So where does HSUS stand in this legal mess?

First, you need to know that the Fund for Animals (FFA) was one of the original plaintiffs in the suit against Feld back in 2000. FFA has been accused of concealing payments to Rider and working with the other activist organizations to do so.

So why do FFA’s actions matter? Feld alleges that HSUS and FFA acted as the same group after HSUS obtained most of FFA’s assets in 2005, which, as the judge found here, could make HSUS liable for FFA’s actions under a theory of de facto merger that gives the successor company liability. On top of that, Feld also alleges that the FFA/HSUS merged entity still participated in the improper payments to Rider. Because of this, Judge Sullivan denied the HSUS motion to dismiss the RICO lawsuit.

But let’s not forget about two other defendants in this lawsuit: Jonathan Lovvorn and Kimberly Ockene. At the time of the original suit against Feld, Lovvorn and Ockene were partners at Meyer Glitzenstein and Crystal, the law firm that helped funnel money to Rider, according to Feld’s suit. Today, Lovvorn and Ockene are attorneys for HSUS. The court found that both might be held jointly and severally liable for the actions of the partners and the firm.

Feld also claims that Lovvorn is directly liable for his alleged knowledge and discussion of payments to Rider and that he participated in at least some of the payments that FFA/HSUS made to Rider. Feld also claims that as a partner leading the ESA litigation, he may be liable as a controlling member of the RICO scheme. As for Ockene, Feld alleges that she might be indirectly liable for racketeering based on her “provid[ing] misleading and/or false interrogatory answers in order to cover up the payments to Rider, and defend[ing] a deposition in which the deponent gave false testimony about the Rider payments.” On all of these allegations, the court refused to dismiss these charges against them.

Legally speaking, this ruling merely clears the way for the case to move forward. A motion to dismiss is a typical action of any defendant. The standard of review for this motion is to assume that everything that the plaintiff alleges is correct, so there is a high bar that defendants must meet in order to stop the suit. Feld only missed that mark in a few instances, so the majority of the suit can still go forward.

As for the original suit that we updated you about in April: A quick look at PACER shows that Feld is still hoping to recover $20 million in attorney’s fees, while the attorneys from both sides snipe at each other over their claims.

The RICO defendants now have until August 7 to respond to Feld’s complaint, and so, barring an extension, we’ll be able to give you an update next month.

When you really consider the assault on circuses, whether it’s from Congress or from animal rights lawyers, it’s a wonder that any group can survive. Thanks to Feld, others can now see that it is worthwhile to fight back and defend yourself. Unfortunately, it may be donors to HSUS—who probably thought their money was going to help dogs and cats—who end up paying Feld’s legal bills or treble damages under RICO.

Go here and post a comment. I already left: "Good to see the RICO lawsuit against HSUS is moving forward."

http://www.facebook.com/humanesociety

Thanks for posting that information Tony. I went on FaceBook and left a comment. I am quite sure our comments will not be viewable on that page for long.

Maybe ALL of us that have a FaceBook account should start leaning comments on our individual pages concerning this matter.

You know, for many years there's been something fishy here.

There doesn't seem to be much spent on "helping" animals. And they pander with pleas of cash to those who are known for being emotionally vunerable.

Many of those targeted are impressionable children.

There must be tens or even hundreds of millions received.

So, where exactly is the loot going? Off-shore bank accounts? Big homes? Into families' names? Is some converted to cash? Like in safe deposit boxes scattered among lots of banks?? And what brand of politician do they donate to and in what amounts??

Has the IRS EVER really looked into this, the way they have with unions and tele-evangelists and narcos???

Or has the animal rights militant vegetarian agenda now become too big a part of the Democrat Party to peal back the cover and take a peak. And make no mistake, they do consider them at this point one of their major voting blocs.

We need to know.

Tony, don't know if this is just a blanket response but here is what I got.

Hi Randall,

The Humane Society of the United States commented on their Wall post.

The Humane Society of the United States wrote: "The circus’ retaliatory countersuit, which dates back to 2007, is a civil action, and there are no “charges” and no law enforcement involvement at all. It’s simply one disgruntled corporation suing to silence its critics -- which is hardly a new or unexpected tactic. Feld Entertainment filed a grudge suit, and some very sloppy or ideologically slanted reporters have misstated the facts.

We at The HSUS are proud of our work to end the abuse of animals wherever it occurs – whether on a puppy mill, a slaughter plant, a dogfighting operation, or anywhere else. Guidestar’s Philanthropedia experts have ranked The HSUS as the highest impact animal protection organization and we receive high ratings for charitable accountability from Charity Navigator and the Better Business Bureau."

I could be wrong here or just a tad vindictive, but I really feel this is an opportunity for hunters/ranchers/farmers/pet owners to get on FaceBook and any other internet avenue possible and go on the offensive. The HSUS has no more business being in bed with our elected representatives than the various unions. JMO.

quote:

You know, for many years there's been something fishy here.

There doesn't seem to be much spent on "helping" animals. And they pander with pleas of cash to those who are known for being emotionally vunerable.

Here's my story on that:

About 20 years ago my brother-in-law was killed in a head-on crash involving a drunk driver. Being a state employee he had great benefits including a substantial life insurance policy. It wasn't too long after the settlement that everyone from the Bosnian Relief Fund to Elizabeth Taylor's AIDS foundation to PETA and HSUS were begging my sister for $$$.

The PETA brochure had a "stop medical experiments on animals" theme and showed a picture of a baby bunny rabbit strapped to a sadistic looking apparatus that resembled a prop from "Frankenstein." They were supposedly pouring some kind of acid in the rabbit's eyes. (I'm sure medical science knew a long time ago what happens when you pour acid in the eyes but I digress..) Of course PETA didn't know it but my sister has a "thing" about rabbits so I'm sure she sent them a couple of $, maybe a couple of K$.

I'll never know how those slimeball charities found out about the insurance settlement. Taking advantage of a widow in a time of grief, how much lower can it get?

quote:

I'll never know how those slimeball charities found out about the insurance settlement. Taking advantage of a widow in a time of grief, how much lower can it get?

They find out because they have folks working for them that do nothing but check out obituaries around the country.

My wife worked for the social security Afdministration for 25+ years. Every year Federal employees are asked if they want to particpate in a program, called the Combined Federal Campaign. The program allows Federal employees to allot a certain amount of money from their paycheck to up to 4 or 5 Public Charities.

The curious thing was, to be able to participate, there was a limit on the amount any organization wanting to participate and receive funds from the program, could spend on Administrative related matters. If I remember correctly it was 20% or LESS. Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation was able to participate. Trout Unlimited and DU I believe were able to participate.

HSUS was not, because they spend something like 50% or more of the funds they take in on Administrative personnel. It is time that the Amereican Public hear the real story about HSUS, how it came to power and what their real agenda is and where the $$$$$ they take in, that does not go into the pockets of the organizations administrators, really goes.

Damn the HSUS!!!!

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:
Tony, don't know if this is just a blanket response but here is what I got.

I received the same one. Of course, it was not unexpected since HSUS needs to pacify its FB followers with rosy news. I certainly didn't expect it to admit to any wrongdoing.

The topic is also being discssed on other hunting sites I visit. It's too bad more anti-HSUS folks haven't commented there to keep this at the forefront of activity on that page.

This link is to the actual legal opinion by the judge, given on July 9, 2012.


http://legaltimes.typepad.com/...llivan-opinion-2.pdf

Incredible. They are an enemy akin to the religious nuts eager to die in the name of their savior......lonely, misguided folks looking to give meaning to their lives. The tactics employed by these groups to raise funds are despicable (not unlike those used by dishonest veteran charities). There's a special place in hell for these bastards.

Where do I sign up to donate to Feld?

Good stuff, it is well past time that the truth was revealed to the idiots who pander to their BS. A similar but less subtle activity here is the amount of collecting on behalf of the rhino. Some folk are doing well.

So far, I have managed to not get shut down on the HSUS FaceBook page and some HSUS supporters are beginninmg to respond with the rhetoric and hyperbole. If you get a chance go to their page and make a comment. It is time this war was taken to them. The internet can be a real useful tool as far as getting people to understand that HSUS is playing on base human emotions and is doing so strictly to line a few key individuals pockets.

They actually care nothing about animals, their concern is making money and gaining control over other peoples lives.

We cannot change what is happening in this countries political arena, but we can expose the HSUS and its objectives to the American Public and it might get some or many of them to shut off their contributions to this cancer that is eating away at anything concerning humans and their interactions with animals.

>>Whether criminal or civil, charges under RICO statutes are serious. The suit will show how corrupt HSUS really is. For those who would like to read the judge's 7/9/12 opinion, here's the link:
http://legaltimes.typepad.com/...pinion-2.pdf<<

I'm surprisesd the above is still there. I posted it yesterday as a response to the canned reply we got but as a new comment so it didn't get buried.

A gal named Amy posted her comment as a reply to mine:

Amy Smith "So are you saying you did not bribe a man to lie during his testimony?"

If enough folks will take the time to go to HSUS's FaceBook page, it might get some of the folks that have just been blindly donating money to re-think why they are donating to this group.

I just posted a comment directly on their Facebook homepage.

I hope they shut down this sleazy organization. My wife would also be very happy because every time one of their commercials comes on the TV that IMPLIES that they actually run animal shelters, I start going nuts and yelling at the TV.

Many Thanks to everyone willing to get involved. HSUS got where it is at today by using negative/mis-leading and often factless propaganda to play on peoples emotions. The internet has given all of us a chance to expose HSUS for what it is. All we have to do is remain civil, do not get into pissing matches, present factual information and above all else hammer on what really happens with all that money that is donated to them.

The HSUS is not just the enemy of hunters, it is the enemy of ANYONE doing or interacting in any way with any animals. As I have said seversl times HSUS's goal has nothing to do with helping animals, it has to do with controlling other people.

You guys all need to get on there and post. They replied to my post and I gave it right back to them. Please, go on there and post about the lawsuit. You'll see my posts on there where I addressed the lawsuit and they came back and stated that it is simply a civil suit and that it was a 'grudge' lawsuit. My reply asked them how they thought their donors would feel when they realize that HSUS faces TWENTY MILLION in fines, damages and penalties as well as a couple of their lawyers for paying a witness $190,000 to testify the way they wanted.

There is strength in numbers, so come on, lets all get on there and pile on them now. At least some of their members have to wonder WTF?

DLS is correct. It does not take but just a few minutes to post a response and if people will look at the page you will see how one of the HSUS supporters is responding to people.

Please do not get into a pissing match, the discussion will be shut down. People are reading this topic from all over the country and from all aspects of opinion.

If the discussion is shut down, it needs to be because of one of HSUS's supporters not any of u that really care about hunting/fishing/ranching/farming/pet ownership. We all have a common enemy, HSUS and we have a powerful tool to get the word out, the internet, that HSUS is not carrying out the programs they claim to and are merely using the donations to generate more donations that a select few individuals use for personal gain.

It appears it doesn't matter if you're polite or not. They deleted the messages I posted with the link to the judge's opinion and then apparently removed my ability to "comment" on the page.

Under Dan's "post"

"The Humane Society of the United States We've removed a few comments that violate our commenting policy."

That is okay Tony I have a FaceBook page and i know a lot of other folks that have FB pages and they all have reasons not to be enamored with HSUS.

Plus there are Bloggers out there that are nopt intimidated by the HSUS. They can silence us on their site, but they can't silence us on the web.

Got myself booted already.

What I like is that everyone has already given up. We claim we want to fight these people to preserve hunting, yet when HSUS shuts down the discussion, everyone throws their hands up and says, Oh Well they don't want to deal in facts anyway, why bother.

It might be nice to bother, to get folks to start questioning HSUS where all the donations they arer receiving goes to.

Maybe it is time for hunting to end. Maybe it is time for folks to admit that hunting is not as important to them as they have acted like it was.

HSUS might silence us on their FB page, but they cannot silence us on our own individual FB pages. We all know people that while they may not be hunters, they have an open mind on the issue, and they might not buy into HSUS's tactics and rhetoric.

How many on here feel that trying to fight HSUS is a waste of time and not worth the effort?

Tis is a good place to check in every now and then.

http://humanewatch.org/

If you cant take the heat, ban the truth from the kitchen..

Nice job with the info Tony.

What are these people, the official Government branch of PETA?

quote:

What are these people, the official Government branch of PETA?

From what I have gathetred, HSUS and PETA do not claim to have any ties with each other.

HSUS has been around longer and in its early years did do some good things. then as with lots of organizations, new people got involved and gained positions of power.

My suspicion is HSUS encourages PETA's activities but does not overtly support them, or ALF (Animal Liberation Front) or any of the other more militant animal rights groups.

There are still many hunters and fishermen and pet owners/ranchers/farmers that donate to HSUS, and because they are more rational/civil and low key in their manner of getting their message across, people do listen to them. They offer rational, less confrontational optyions on animal issues so are better accepted than the more radical factions.

This demonstrates the tactics that well-funded entities use to squash a defendant without deep pockets everyday in our country. It's a travesty of justice and an indictment of our system. If there truly were justice, the settlement would have been large enough to cripple both of those terrorist organizations.

Bravo to the judge.....but he didn't go far enough.