Nov 10 2011
RICO Update: Was HSUS Involved in a Pay-to-Play Racket?
When we formally launched HumaneWatch in February 2010, one of the first things we reported on was that the Humane Society of the United States and two of its lawyers were defendants in a federal racketeering lawsuit. There are some key updates that you should be aware of.
First, some background: 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, and a US Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal the other week.
The key witness in that case was a former circus employee named Tom Rider. The case dragged through the court system for years before a federal judge ruled in December 2009 that the animal-rights plaintiffs, which included the Fund for Animals (which merged with HSUS in 2004/2005), had engaged in essentially a pay-to-play scheme with Rider, who received at least $190,000 as the lawsuit made its way through the courts (his “sole source of income,” according to the ruling). Here’s part of the ruling (Markarian is an HSUS executive who used to run the Fund for Animals):
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.
Meanwhile, in 2007, Feld filed a countersuit under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act, better known as RICO, using this scheme as the key allegation. That case is still in pre-discovery wrangling (a good lawyer is paid to delay, after all), but named among the defendants are HSUS and two of its lawyers, Kimberly Ockene and Senior VP Jonathan Lovvorn (both of whom came to HSUS a few years ago after being employed at a DC law firm named as a separate defendant).
A key question in the case is whether HSUS is liable—after all, it wasn’t a party in the original suit and didn’t merge with the Fund until 2004.
In a June hearing on various motions from the animal-rights defendants in the RICO case, we saw that Feld’s counsel made some interesting allegations on this point (accessible through PACER):
HSUS is in it as an independent racketeer.…They sent six payments to WAP that were earmarked for 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.
They are also clearly a conspirator, as is Lovvorn and Ockene. In United States v. Salinas…you just have to further the object of the endeavor, intend to further the object of the endeavor. How is that not satisfied by HSUS making six of the payments? How is that not satisfied by Lovvorn and Ockene being counsel of record in a fraudulent case, and proceeding in a fraudulent case, which is what we’ve alleged; but in addition to what we already know, participating in the obstructions themselves, and also participating in any payments.
The other interesting part of Feld’s allegations is that the animal-rights plaintiffs used the lawsuit to promote a legislative agenda across the US, and that they were able to use the case to raise money in the years during which it was in the courts. We can explore that at a later time.
In the end, Feld claims that the animal-rights lawsuit it defended cost $20 million in legal defenses, and they can be awarded treble damages--$60 million--under RICO. (Defending a frivolous case for so many years tends to rack up the billable hours.) It certainly appears that HSUS could be on the hook for a good chunk of that.
However the case turns out, it’s one more reason to keep your money local. Pet shelters—the ones primarily doing hands-on work—can’t engage in legal shenanigans. They’re too busy spending their money to care for animals. But when you’re a $200-million behemoth with 30 lawyers on staff that donates very little to help these shelters, that’s a different situation.
Comments
HSUS is involved in many things. They are also involved in The Global Federation of Animal Sanctuaries, a sanctuary accreditation group only for those following their agenda!!
HSUS wants NO ONE, not Ringling, not private owners to possess and care for non-native wildlife. Because of their money, people are going to be bankrupted fighting to keep their animals. 99.9% of the people who own non-native wildlife are responsible owners. What should be the focus of everyone is ANIMAL WELFARE, not ANIMAL RIGHTS.
@CB - Yes, they should. But the AR organizations, HSUS front and center among them have successfully hijacked the term ‘animal welfare’ (among others), and people no longer recognize any difference.
In many threads on many forums you will hear people say adamantly ‘but animals DO have *rights*’ ... without understanding either the legal ramifications of the term nor the political agenda of these organizations.
It’s a mess. And we’ve waited too long to start the clean up 
From ALDF: One of the Animal Rights ideas posted to Ideas for Change in America is an Animal Bill of Rights, writen by the Animal Legal Defense Fund.
It calls for a few simple rights for all animals:
The Right of animals to be free from exploitation, cruelty, neglect and abuse.
The Right of laboratory animals not to be used in cruel or unnecessary experiments.
The Right of farm animals to an environment that satisfies their basic physical and psychological needs.
The Right of companion animals to a healthy diet, protective shelter, and adequate medical care.
The Right of wildlife to a natural habitat, ecologically sufficient to a normal existence and self-sustaining species population.
The Right of animals to have their interests represented in court and safeguarded by the law of the land.
ex·ploi·ta·tion
1. use or utilization, especially for profit:
2. selfish utilization:
Another definition of Exploitated:
Developed or used to greatest advantage
Similar:employed; made use of (put to use)
So this seems to mean that animals should not be “used” to their greatest advantage or to be a source of profit, even thought it is OK when sold through ASPCA or other animal rights group, and has become quite a big business. Seems this first “right” states that no animals should be used for lifesaving research, a reminder that 90 percent are rats, and we could do with a few less rats, or for food/protein, dogs, “made” to hunt, though we know that hunting dogs do not have to be made to hunt. Dogs and cats as pets I would presumed if bred and sold could be considered exploitation. Animals should not be been seen on TV, in the movies, in animal “races” or circus, or anywhere where animals are “employed”. I had two head angus that loved to kick and nudge a basketball around the pasture, guess that is not acting naturally. I was thinking of taking them on the road! Is pulling a sled, exploitation, certainly seems to be, or guarding soldiers in war exploitation?. Are the many types of working dogs, are they considered “employed” and used to make a profit when Cayotes and other animals eat the haunches out of livestock. Seems like animal cruelty to me. How many animals are “used” for the greatest advantage of humans. I guess the vegan animal rights movement feels that animals should just be left alone and never used in any way and perhaps humans “should just fall from the face of the earth! I must say tat the last “right” is the most revealing. My interpretation of what laws should be to protect humans from disease, vitamin deficiencies from lack of protein from animal rights activist bankrupting Americans. Just do not see where humans stand in the Vegan animal rights movement. So is the meaning is that if an animal is used, this should be a law to make them not exploited, that no animals can be used for anything? One can see how the first “right” of the Animal Legal Defense Fund makes the rest of the rights unecessary. Maybe instead of a list of rights it should be a list of “final rites” for all animal “use”.
K.T. - You got that right. It all looks pretty good - until you realize it can be read in more than one way, and that the way the AR activists will read it is not the way animal lovers will read it. It’s just more smoke and mirrors.
Definitions are slippery things, and I have posted a list of AR definitions in several other places, discussing these things. People know what *they* think the AR activists mean when they use these terms, but don’t realize that the activists mean something else - and are writing laws based on *their* interpretation of the definitions. Here’s the list:
Factory Farm - any enterprise raising animals for meat, eggs, dairy or fiber
Puppy Mill - anyone producing puppies for any purpose whatever (exhibition, field competition, service use etc) who owns a kennel
Backyard Breeder - anyone who produces puppies in their home
[n.b. - the two above definitions are to some extent interchangeable]
Dog Fighter - anyone having the temerity to breed any ‘bully’ breed for any purpose, particularly if he owns a treadmill
Hoarder - anyone owning more than an arbitrarily selected number of pets - the last definition I saw was ‘4’, any combination of species.
Animal abuser - anyone who owns an animal, for any purpose whatever
One way or another, if you take these interpretations seriously, all animal lovers are abusers. Since these are the way the laws they lobby for are written, we MUST take them seriously. It’s only a matter of time before we are all targeted, unless we can put an end to AR influence in animal matters.
Comments are moderated, and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive. Extremely lengthy comments and those that contain obscenities may be edited before they are posted.
Add a comment:
Thank you HumaneWatch, for keeping an eye on HSUS. HSUS’ dishonesty is amazing.