Wednesday, January 2, 2013

Ringling Bros. and Kenneth Feld Are Exonerated In This Case. No One Else. There Seem's To Be Some Confusion Over This Fact......

 Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act(RICO)

Rico- “racketeering activity” means (A) any act or threat involving murder, kidnapping, gambling, arson, robbery, bribery, extortion, dealing in obscene matter, or dealing in a controlled substance or listed chemical (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act), which is chargeable under State law and punishable by imprisonment for more than one year; (B) any act which is indictable under any of the following provisions of title 18, United States Code: Section 201 (relating to bribery), section 224 (relating to sports bribery), sections 471, 472, and 473 (relating to counterfeiting), section 659 (relating to theft from interstate shipment) if the act indictable under section 659 is felonious, section 664 (relating to embezzlement from pension and welfare funds), sections 891–894 (relating to extortionate credit transactions), section 1028 (relating to fraud and related activity in connection with identification documents), section 1029 (relating to fraud and related activity in connection with access devices), section 1084 (relating to the transmission of gambling information), section 1341 (relating to mail fraud), section 1343 (relating to wire fraud), section 1344 (relating to financial institution fraud), section 1425 (relating to the procurement of citizenship or nationalization unlawfully), section 1426 (relating to the reproduction of naturalization or citizenship papers), section 1427 (relating to the sale of naturalization or citizenship papers), sections 1461–1465 (relating to obscene matter), section 1503 (relating to obstruction of justice), section 1510 (relating to obstruction of criminal investigations), section 1511 (relating to the obstruction of State or local law enforcement), section 1512 (relating to tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant), section 1513 (relating to retaliating against a witness, victim, or an informant), section 1542 (relating to false statement in application and use of passport), section 1543 (relating to forgery or false use of passport), section 1544 (relating to misuse of passport), section 1546 (relating to fraud and misuse of visas, permits, and other documents), sections 1581–1592 (relating to peonage, slavery, and trafficking in persons)., [1] section 1951 (relating to interference with commerce, robbery, or extortion), section 1952 (relating to racketeering), section 1953 (relating to interstate transportation of wagering paraphernalia), section 1954 (relating to unlawful welfare fund payments), section 1955 (relating to the prohibition of illegal gambling businesses), section 1956 (relating to the laundering of monetary instruments), section 1957 (relating to engaging in monetary transactions in property derived from specified unlawful activity), section 1958 (relating to use of interstate commerce facilities in the commission of murder-for-hire), section 1960 (relating to illegal money transmitters), sections 2251, 2251A, 2252, and 2260 (relating to sexual exploitation of children), sections 2312 and 2313 (relating to interstate transportation of stolen motor vehicles), sections 2314 and 2315 (relating to interstate transportation of stolen property), section 2318 (relating to trafficking in counterfeit labels for phonorecords, computer programs or computer program documentation or packaging and copies of motion pictures or other audiovisual works), section 2319 (relating to criminal infringement of a copyright), section 2319A (relating to unauthorized fixation of and trafficking in sound recordings and music videos of live musical performances), section 2320 (relating to trafficking in goods or services bearing counterfeit marks), section 2321 (relating to trafficking in certain motor vehicles or motor vehicle parts), sections 2341–2346 (relating to trafficking in contraband cigarettes), sections 2421–24 (relating to white slave traffic), sections 175–178 (relating to biological weapons), sections 229–229F (relating to chemical weapons), section 831 (relating to nuclear materials), (C) any act which is indictable under title 29, United States Code, section 186 (dealing with restrictions on payments and loans to labor organizations) or section 501 (c) (relating to embezzlement from union funds), (D) any offense involving fraud connected with a case under title 11 (except a case under section 157 of this title), fraud in the sale of securities, or the felonious manufacture, importation, receiving, concealment, buying, selling, or otherwise dealing in a controlled substance or listed chemical (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act), punishable under any law of the United States, (E) any act which is indictable under the Currency and Foreign Transactions Reporting Act, (F) any act which is indictable under the Immigration and Nationality Act, section 274 (relating to bringing in and harboring certain aliens), section 277 (relating to aiding or assisting certain aliens to enter the United States), or section 278 (relating to importation of alien for immoral purpose) if the act indictable under such section of such Act was committed for the purpose of financial gain, or (G) any act that is indictable under any provision listed in section 2332b (g)(5)(B);

(2) “State” means any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, any territory or possession of the United States, any political subdivision, or any department, agency, or instrumentality thereof;
(3) “person” includes any individual or entity capable of holding a legal or beneficial interest in property;
(4) “enterprise” includes any individual, partnership, corporation, association, or other legal entity, and any union or group of individuals associated in fact although not a legal entity;
(5) “pattern of racketeering activity” requires at least two acts of racketeering activity, one of which occurred after the effective date of this chapter and the last of which occurred within ten years (excluding any period of imprisonment) after the commission of a prior act of racketeering activity;
(6) “unlawful debt” means a debt
(A) incurred or contracted in gambling activity which was in violation of the law of the United States, a State or political subdivision thereof, or which is unenforceable under State or Federal law in whole or in part as to principal or interest because of the laws relating to usury, and
(B) which was incurred in connection with the business of gambling in violation of the law of the United States, a State or political subdivision thereof, or the business of lending money or a thing of value at a rate usurious under State or Federal law, where the usurious rate is at least twice the enforceable rate;
(7) “racketeering investigator” means any attorney or investigator so designated by the Attorney General and charged with the duty of enforcing or carrying into effect this chapter;
(8) “racketeering investigation” means any inquiry conducted by any racketeering investigator for the purpose of ascertaining whether any person has been involved in any violation of this chapter or of any final order, judgment, or decree of any court of the United States, duly entered in any case or proceeding arising under this chapter;
(9) “documentary material” includes any book, paper, document, record, recording, or other material; and
(10) “Attorney General” includes the Attorney General of the United States, the Deputy Attorney General of the United States, the Associate Attorney General of the United States, any Assistant Attorney General of the United States, or any employee of the Department of Justice or any employee of any department or agency of the United States so designated by the Attorney General to carry out the powers conferred on the Attorney General by this chapter. Any department or agency so designated may use in investigations authorized by this chapter either the investigative provisions of this chapter or the investigative power of such department or agency otherwise conferred by law. 

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.  Humane Watch Org.  July 12,  2012

The Center For Consumer Freedom  Dec. 31, 2012  HSUS Still Faces Racketeering Suit While Another Animal Rights Group Folds ‘Em

Big news broke on Friday, and it’s good news for circus fans. An animal rights group that was accused of taking part in a mob-like racket to attack Ringling Brothers circus promoters Feld Entertainment agreed to pay Feld nearly $10 million in a settlement to get Feld to drop the lawsuit. As any poker player will tell you, you’ve got to “know when to fold ‘em.” However, the so-called Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) still stands accused, and that organization and two of its staff attorneys are still facing millions of dollars in possible damages.
The case was supposed to be all about pachyderm training, but a key animal-rights witness soon became the elephant in the courtroom. A group later absorbed into the HSUS corporate empire, along with other animal rights groups, sued Feld for breaking environmental and animal treatment laws. But a district court found that that the lead witness for the animal rights groups was essentially paid for his testimony and was therefore not credible. The district judge and tossed the complaint against Feld and a court of appeals upheld the decision.
Based on the district court’s findings, Feld counter-sued. In July, a judge allowed the complaint to go forward and largely rejected defendants’ attempts to dismiss. So last week, one animal rights group settled to make the allegations go away. HSUS is still on the hook, and Feld has vowed to go forward to recover damages from the group and two of its attorneys who are named as defendants.

Since animal rights groups want elephants out of the circus (and bacon off your plate, and leather shoes off your feet, and dairy creamer out of your coffee), it’s reasonable to think these groups would abuse the legal system in pursuit of their fringe ideology. Remember PETA’s absurd contention that whales were slaves?
As our Executive Director told the media, this story shows just how far from the sad puppies and mewling kittens image HSUS and the animal rights movement actually are. HSUS doesn’t run any local pet shelters, but its legal team is embroiled in what looks like “something out of a mob drama.” Don’t want to support wannabe bacon-banners and alleged racketeersGive to your local pet shelters, not HSUS.

The Wall Street Journal  Dec. 31, 2012 

The Big Top beats an abusive lawsuit by the ASPCA

Don't worry, kids. Elephants are staying in the circus. And the animal-rights activists who tried to drive them out are paying a price for their abusive litigation. On Friday Feld Entertainment, producer of the Ringling Brothers and Barnum & Bailey Circus, announced a legal settlement under which the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) has paid $9.3 million to the company.
Yes, you read that correctly. A special-interest group sued a corporation and in the resulting settlement it was not the business but the activist group that had to write a check. The case is an example of how the ASPCA has become increasingly politicized and much different from the nice outfit that looks out for the well-being of homeless and lovable dogs and cats.
Twelve years ago the ASPCA and other activist outfits joined with a former Ringling employee to sue the company under the Endangered Species Act. The claim was that Ringling was abusing Asian elephants. Perhaps the activists figured the circus would fold up its big top and write a check.
Not on Chairman and CEO Kenneth Feld's watch. He's been working in the family business since 1970 and tells us that he's "proud of our animal care and I'll put it up against anyone in the world."
After nine years of litigation, a federal court found that the plaintiffs had no standing to sue under the Endangered Species Act and that the former Ringling employee was "not credible" and "essentially a paid plaintiff and fact witness" whose only source of income during the litigation was the animal-rights groups that were his co-plaintiffs.
Mr. Feld says the $9.3 million payment from the ASPCA represents less than half of what his company has had to spend defending itself against the "manufactured litigation" from the activists. But he seems likely to recover more. His company is continuing its litigation against the Humane Society of the United States, the Fund for Animals, the Animal Welfare Institute, the Animal Protection Institute United with Born Free USA, the former employee and the lawyers who prosecuted the bogus case.
"This goes way beyond economics," says Mr. Feld. He adds that the "level of harassment" that his elephant trainers undergo from activists is almost "unbearable" and that "the activists are trying to bring down an American institution." The longtime Ringling boss argues that he is the trustee of a tradition "older than baseball" that offers a vanishing commodity for American families: affordable G-rated entertainment.
Mr. Feld's legal victories ensure that the Ringling tradition will continue, but the larger winner is the cause of justice.

'Note the editor's of the Wall Street Journal have properly defined "abusive" by labeling the lawsuit against Ringling as such.......'

No comments: