WHAT THEY SAY — VS — WHAT THEY REALLY MEAN:
Melanie Kahn, senior director of The HSUS [to stop commercial kennels they call PMs] issued the following statement:
“Today the city of Chicago is taking a step forward for the humane economy and a stand against pet overpopulation and puppy mills. This rule will help end the euthanasia of thousands of dogs and cats every year in Chicago. Eliminating the sale of puppy mill dogs in Chicago will help drive the market toward adoptions of homeless animals from shelters and rescue groups, and increased sales for small, responsible dog breeders who meet standards of animal care.”
WHAT HSUS REALLY MEANS: (in our opinion)
“Today the city of Chicago is taking a step forward for the
humane NON PROFIT economy and a stand against pet overpopulation and puppy mills sales in general, including rehomed animals NOT from a shelter or rescue, but from breeders and private owners…. This rule will help end the euthanasia SALES of thousands of dogs and cats every year in Chicago.
Eliminating the SALES of
puppy mill dogs in Chicago will PUSH help drive the market toward adoptions of homeless animals from shelters and rescue groups, and increased sales for small, responsible dog breeders who meet standards of animal care.” …. while making it much more difficult to obtain a dog or cat that is NOT from a “shelter” or “rescue” while driving up the price of same, at the same time. It will also put pet stores out of business, and boy are we glad….
AND………………HSUS IS ADVERTISING FOR THEIR TOP GUN LAW CLERK JOB…….UNPAID— “This clerkship is unpaid, however, course credit can be arranged (law clerk is responsible for arranging credit through their law school). Law clerks must pass a criminal background check and sign a waiver and release of liability. The position is located in our Washington, D.C., office.”
What HSUS should have said:
Although clerks must pass a background check, it is true that our top lobbyist has been arrested more than several times, and in general HSUS : [just a very very small list, since there are so many things to list we could not possibly do it all on a page]
1. does not shy away from working with groups who are later accused of RICO charge violations,civil, to the tune of $9.5m to $15.75 million being paid out by HSUS, ASPCA and other Animal Rights Groups, who violated various laws. YES the AR groups kept the case in Federal Court for 14 damn years!!
2. does not shy away from promoting animal abusers, even dog torturers perhaps like Michael Vick, as someone that would make a fine pet owner, despite Vick going to federal prison for related criminal charges; and despite HSUS saying all of Vick’s dogs should be killed immediately.
3. published a euthanasia book using a vet, on how to kill nearly every species of animal alive;
4. has lost in the United States Supreme Court, at least 2 of the biggest animal law cases related to first amendment speech issues (U.S. v Stevens) HSUS had that statute drafted also, pertaining to crush films… http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/08-769P.ZO
5. and the violent video law out of California… which HSUS had drafted http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-27/violent-video-game-limits-struck-down-by-supreme-court-in-california-case.html The Court found the law both overinclusive and underinclusive is our recollection.
6. .. and its cronies, including the ASPCA, paid out at least $9.5million and then later, HSUS/more AR groups, paid $15.75 million on RICO charges alleged against them, in order to make the case go away, but only after 14 years into the case involving the Barnum and Bailey Circus in federal court? Yes we did repeat that again on purpose. 14 years of a Court’s time and government money shows the Jihad-nature of HSUS/AR mentality. They will stop at NOTHING. HAD HSUS and cronies NOT paid out, they would have suffered even more money damages at trial, and they knew it. Thus they paid the high amount because they faced a worse fate at trial.
7. Last but not least, HSUS does NOT run any animal shelters that we know of.
Oh, we forget. That would be too ethical to tell the truth.
Title IX of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970 is known as the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act or RICO Act. The purpose of the RICO Act is to curb the menace of organized crime and to prevent it from financial infiltration of legitimate business operations affecting interstate commerce. However, the scope of the statute is not strictly limited to these two goals and has a far-reaching civil enforcement scheme covering a wide spectrum of objectives including insuring integrity in the marketplace.
“Racketeering activity” for purposes of the RICO Act means any act “chargeable” under several generically described state criminal laws, any act “indictable” under numerous specific federal criminal provisions, including mail and wire fraud, and any “offense” involving bankruptcy or securities fraud or drug-related activities that is “punishable” under federal law.
The RICO Act prohibits the use of income derived from a “pattern of racketeering activity” to acquire an interest in or establish an enterprise engaged in or affecting interstate commerce; the acquisition or maintenance of any interest in an enterprise “through” a pattern of racketeering activity; conducting or participating in the conduct of an enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity; and conspiring to violate any of these provisions[i]. The gravamen of the offense under RICO Act is the illegal derivation of the funds.
The offenses considered as racketeering activity include bribery, counterfeiting, embezzlement from pension and welfare funds, fraud relating to identification documents and access devices, extortionate credit transactions, transmission of gambling information, mail fraud, wire fraud, witness tampering, retaliation against witness, obstruction of state or local law enforcement, interference with commerce, bribery, or extortion, interstate transportation in aid of racketeering, unlawful welfare fund payments, money laundering, monetary transactions in property derived from unlawful activities, sexual exploitation of children, interstate transportation of stolen property, sale of stolen goods, embezzlement from union funds, etc.
In addition, 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 indictable under the Currency and Foreign Transactions Reporting Act are considered to be racketeering activity. Also, violations of state law which constitute “racketeering activity” under the federal RICO Act must be punishable by imprisonment for more than one year.
The offenses falling under this category include murder, kidnapping, gambling, arson, robbery, bribery, extortion, dealing in obscene matter, and dealing in narcotic or other dangerous drugs[ii]. Courts have held that the list of state law crimes that can constitute “racketeering activity” under RICO is exclusive[iii].
Thus, in order to establish a RICO violation, a plaintiff must prove 1) the existence of an enterprise, 2) the defendant’s derivation of income from a pattern of racketeering activity, and 3) the use of any part of that income in acquiring an interest in or operating the enterprise[iv]. In addition, there must be a nexus between the claimed violation and the plaintiff’s injury, which must flow from the use or investment of racketeering income[v]. The term “enterprise,” as defined in the Act, 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. RICO applies to both illegitimate and legitimate enterprises[vi]. The term “racketeering activity” has been defined broadly under the Act in order to embrace any act indictable under a host of federal statutes, in both civil and criminal cases.
Courts have held that the RICO Act’s applicability is not limited to members of organized crime and hence no connection with organized crime need be shown. The RICO Act provides for criminal penalties of imprisonment, fines, and forfeiture for violation of its provisions[vii]. A RICO violation requires proof of a “pattern of racketeering activity,” through “at least two acts of racketeering activity, the last of which occurred within ten years[viii].” Courts generally construe RICO liberally in order to effectuate its remedial purposes[ix]. In order to establish a pattern, the plaintiff should prove a relationship between the acts of racketeering activity charged and a threat of continuing activity, or continuity of such activity. In other words, “continuity plus relationship” produces a pattern of racketeering activity[x].
The term “pattern” thus requires at least two acts of racketeering activity within a 10-year period[xi]. An alternative to showing a pattern of racketeering activity is to show the collection of an unlawful debt. While there should be at least two wrongful acts to establish a pattern, only one collection is necessary to establish a violation[xii]. The collection of an unlawful debt can be shown either by showing gambling activity violating federal, state, or local law, or a debt incurred in connection with that gambling activity and collection of the debt.
This method of proving the collection of an unlawful debt applies even in a state that has no specific statutory proscription of the business of gambling. “While enterprise and pattern of racketeering activity are separate elements of RICO offense, proof of these two elements need not be separate or distinct, but may in fact coalesce[xiii].” RICO creates three substantive offences which prohibit the acquisition, establishment, or operation of an enterprise with illegally derived income.
Therefore, it is illegal to acquire control of an enterprise through extortion or a scheme to defraud, or may maintain an interest in an enterprise through bribery[xiv]. It is a substantive offense under the RICO Act to use an enterprise to commit illegal acts.
In this connection, the plaintiffs must prove (1) the existence of an enterprise that affects interstate or foreign commerce, (2) that the defendant was employed by or associated with the enterprise, (3) that the defendant participated in the conduct of the enterprise’s affairs, and (4) that such participation was through a pattern of racketeering activity[xv]. However, the plaintiff need not prove defendant’s actual employment or association with the enterprise independent of racketeering activity.
The RICO Act only requires proof of the defendant’s association with illegal activities of the enterprise and associated outsiders who participate in a racketeering enterprise’s affairs may also be held liable for a RICO violation[xvi]. In addition to the substantive offenses, the RICO Act also creates a conspiracy offense, which requires proof of violation of a substantive RICO provision.
In order to be made liable, a member of an enterprise conspiracy, by his/her words or actions, must have objectively manifested an agreement to participate, directly or indirectly, in the affairs of an enterprise through the commission of two or more predicate crimes. A defendant need not have to actually carry out the predicate acts; a defendant may be convicted as long as he/she agreed to commit such acts[xvii].
Aiding and abetting the commission of two predicate acts is also punishable if all of RICO’s other requirements are satisfied. In a criminal action, a sufficient indictment must contain the elements of the offense and apprise the defendant of the nature of the charge. In a RICO prosecution, the indictment must sufficiently allege that the enterprise at issue had an effect upon or was engaged in interstate commerce so as to form a jurisdictional basis for the violation under the Act[xviii].
Thus, the government has to particularize its indictment by identifying the type of interests subject to forfeiture under the RICO Act. Also, acts which are seemingly unrelated can be jointed through a RICO substantive count, which will provide an overall connection to the indictment. A RICO conspiracy count can provide the connection between two otherwise unrelated conspiracies necessary to satisfy the requirements of joinder[xix]. The RICO Act does not prohibit serving of subpoenas in a different judicial district[xx]. Prosecutions for both substantive violations of RICO and RICO conspiracies are governed by a five-year federal statute of limitations[xxi].
In the matter of substantive RICO violations, the limitations period begins to run at the time of the last substantive violation committed by the defendant. Where as in the case of RICO conspiracies, the limitation period begins to run at the time the objectives of the conspiracy are either accomplished or abandoned by the conspirators, or at the time of the commission of the last overt act in furtherance of such conspiracy[xxii].
It is to be noted that prosecutions for both substantive violations of RICO and RICO conspiracies are governed by the above mentioned five-year federal statute of limitations and state law statute of limitations are inapplicable in this regard. RICO violations are proven by both direct and circumstantial evidence. In the matter of predicate offenses, the court has no obligation to read the elements of the state offense and tell the jury whether the commission of the offense constitutes a felony[xxiii].
Also, courts have held that “the prosecution of a defendant for both a RICO substantive offense and a RICO conspiracy offense is not improper, even though the charges may involve a considerable overlap in evidence, especially where the enterprise succeeds as a consequence of the persons associating and committing acts making up a pattern of racketeering activity[xxiv].”
Moreover, consecutive sentences may be imposed for both a substantive RICO offense and a conspiracy to commit a RICO offense. 18 U.S.C.A. § 1962 lists the prohibited activities under the RICO Act and states that persons violating the Act are subject to a fine, or imprisonment, or both in addition to the penalty of forfeiture of property. The penalty of forfeiture is intended to destroy the economic base through which individuals constitute a serious threat. A court may order forfeiture in the case of both RICO conspiracies as well as substantive RICO offenses[xxv].
However, if a defendant is convicted of conspiracy to violate RICO, when he/she has not in fact received any proceeds from the illegal venture, then forfeiture would be inappropriate since law only permits forfeiture of interests acquired or maintained as a result of a RICO violation[xxvi]. Property subject to criminal forfeiture includes “real property, including things growing on, affixed to, and found in land, and tangible and intangible personal property, including rights, privileges, interests, claims, and securities[xxvii].”
Thus, an office held in an enterprise is an interest in an enterprise subject to forfeiture. So is the defendant’s employment if such employment offered an opportunity to the defendant to engage in a pattern of racketeering activity. Once the property is forfeited, the Attorney General will direct the disposition of the property by sale or any other commercially feasible means. The defendant or any person acting on behalf of the defendant shall not be eligible to purchase forfeited property at any sale held by the United States[xxviii].
The proceeds of the sale can be used to pay all proper expenses for the forfeiture and the sale, including expenses of seizure, maintenance and custody of the property pending its disposition, advertising and court costs. Third parties are prohibited from intervening in the trial or appeal of a criminal case involving forfeiture and are allowed to assert their interests only in post conviction proceedings. However, as a means to safeguard third party interests, such party is provided a right to a hearing to adjudicate the validity of his/ her alleged interest in the property.
The civil enforcement scheme provides a private right of action for damages against RICO violators. Civil remedies are broader in nature and are not limited to suits against persons connected with organized crime. However, civil RICO provisions are inapplicable to claims for damages or economic losses arising from personal injuries such as physical injury, emotional distress, loss of consortium, and wrongful death.
To establish a RICO claim, a plaintiff must show a violation of the RICO statute, an injury to business or property and that the injury was caused by the violation of the statute[xxix]. A plaintiff need not establish a racketeering injury distinct from that occurring as a result of the predicate acts themselves. A showing that the injury resulted from any of the predicate acts would suffice. Similarly, a private civil action does not require the defendant’s prior conviction of a RICO violation, or of the underlying predicate offenses. The limitation period for civil enforcement actions is four years.
A RICO cause of action will accrue only if the damages or injury are clear and definite and when a plaintiff can prove multiple RICO injuries, a separate cause of action will accrue and a new four-year statute of limitations will begin to run for each injury[xxx]. The RICO Act provides for treble damages and an injured person can recover threefold the damage he/she sustains. The general presumption is that punitive damages are inappropriate in a civil RICO action. However, there is contrary authority in this regard.
For instance, in the District of Columbia, an award of punitive damages is permissible when there is a valid basis for an award of compensatory damages. “Where a plaintiff has sustained actual damages, he may obtain punitive damages by showing that the defendants acted with gross fraud, wantonness, maliciousness, or willful disregard for the rights of others[xxxi].” The injured person is also entitled to costs and a reasonable attorney’s fee.
[i] 18 U.S.C.S. § 1962. [ii] 18 U.S.C.A. § 1961(1)(A). [iii] Overnite Transp. Co. v. International Broth. of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, AFL-CIO, 168 F. Supp. 2d 826 (W.D. Tenn. 2001). [iv] United States v. Cauble, 706 F.2d 1322, 1331 (5th Cir. 1983). [v] Crowe v. Henry, 43 F.3d 198, 205 (5th Cir. 1995), St. Paul Mercury Ins. Co. v. Williamson, 224 F.3d 425, 441 (5th Cir. La. 2000). [vi] United States v. Thevis, 665 F.2d 616 (5th Cir. Ga. 1982). [vii] 18 U.S.C.S. § 1963. [viii] 18 U.S.C. § 1961(5), Blue Cross & Blue Shield of N.J., Inc. v. Philip Morris, Inc., 36 F. Supp. 2d 560, 567 (E.D.N.Y. 1999). [ix] Sedima v. Imrex Co., 473 U.S. 479 (U.S. 1985). [x] H. J. Inc. v. Northwestern Bell Tel. Co., 492 U.S. 229 (U.S. 1989). [xi] 18 U.S.C.S. § 1961(5).
[xii] 18 U.S.C.A. § 1961(6). [xiii] United States v. Patrick, 248 F.3d 11 (1st Cir. Mass. 2001). [xiv] United States v. Parness, 503 F.2d 430 (2d Cir. N.Y. 1974). [xv] A-Valey Eng’rs, Inc. v. Board of Chosen Freeholders, 106 F. Supp. 2d 711 (D.N.J. 2000). [xvi] United States v. Tille, 729 F.2d 615 (9th Cir. Wash. 1984). [xvii] United States v. Teitler, 802 F.2d 606 (2d Cir. N.Y. 1986). [xviii] United States v. Hooker, 841 F.2d 1225 (4th Cir. Va. 1988). [xix] United States v. Welch, 656 F.2d 1039 (5th Cir. Tex. 1981). [xx] 18 U.S.C.A. § 1965(c).
[xxi] 18 U.S.C.A. § 3282. [xxii] United States v. Persico, 832 F.2d 705 (2d Cir. N.Y. 1987). [xxiii] United States v. Anderson, 782 F.2d 908 (11th Cir. Ga. 1986). [xxiv] United States v. Callanan, 810 F.2d 544 (6th Cir. Mich. 1987). [xxv] United States v. Caporale, 806 F.2d 1487 (11th Cir. Fla. 1986). [xxvi] 18 U.S.C.S. § 1963(a)(1). [xxvii] 18 U.S.C.A. § 1963(b). [xxviii] 18 U.S.C.A. § 1963(f). [xxix] De Falco v. Bernas, 244 F.3d 286 (2d Cir. N.Y. 2001). [xxx] Rodriguez v. Banco Cent., 917 F.2d 664 (1st Cir. P.R. 1990). [xxxi] Al-Kazemi v. General Acceptance & Inv. Corp., 633 F. Supp. 540 (D.D.C. 1986). – See more at: http://extortion.uslegal.com/racketeer-influenced-and-corrupt-organizations-rico-act/#sthash.6YIPZE95.dpuf
Search Results for HSUS RICO
May 15, 2014 – The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) shows TV commercials of … the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act—a law that’s been … Posted on 05/15/2014 at 10:45 am by Humane Watch Team.
May 15, 2014 – May 15, 2014 – The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), along with … $15.75 million to settle cases stemming from a lawsuit they brought … and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) case that Feld Entertainment filed …
http://www.gunssavelife.com/?p=12207Guns Save Life
WHACK! Humane Society of the US and co-conspirators pay $15.75M in RICO suit. May 15, 2014. The HSUS Logo. Clearly they discriminate against ferrets.
May 16, 2014 – The Humane Society of the U.S. and codefendants have paid Feld Entertainment, Inc., owner of Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus, $15.75 million. … care of its Asian elephants,” Feld Entertainment announced on May 15, 2014. … The Feld Entertainment RICO case against HSUS, the ASPCA, and …
blogs.wsj.com/…/2014/…/animal-rights-groups-p…The Wall Street Journal
May 15, 2014 … The Humane Society of the United States and other animal-rights groups have paid Feld Entertainment a combined $15.75 million to settle allegations by the … another co-defendant in the RICO suit, had already paid Feld $9.3 …
HSUS and Co-Defendants Pay $15.75 Million in Racketeering Lawsuit From Humanewatch.org … This entry was posted on May 17, 2014, in Uncategorized.
beefmagazine.com › BusinessBeef
The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), along with their … $15.75 million to settle cases stemming from a lawsuit they brought against Ringling … May 17, 2014 PR News Wires … The settlement also covers the related Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) case that Feld Entertainment filed …
Feld Entertainment May 15, 2014 9:52 AM … Circus, $15.75 million to settle cases stemming from a lawsuit they brought against Ringling Bros. … HSUS and animal rights groups the Fund for Animals, Animal … Today’s settlement also covers the related Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) case that …Page 3 of about 17,700 results (0.55 seconds)
The organization’s policy statements make clear that The HSUS does not ….. In January2014, in response to a long-running HSUS campaign to end the use …. (RICO) Act. Feld asserted HSUS wrongdoing in relation to litigation brought … and parties unaffiliated withHSUS) agreed to pay $15.75 million to settle the litigation.
stromlawfederaldefense.com › Federal Criminal Defense Blog
After the Humane Society of the US agreed to settle a lawsuit with Feld Entertainment, … May 22, 2014 By Pete Strom Leave a Comment … of Ringling Brothers Barnum & Bailey Circus, for $15.75 million. … The federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and similar state racketeering laws give the …
Official Page of The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) – the nation’s … Yesterday came the tragic news that HSUS and others will pay Ringling Brothers $15.75million to settle ….. Attached is the USDA March 2014 Inspection Report. ….. donations does it take to pay the 15 million dollar fine from the RICO lawsuit.
Posted May 15, 2014 … the Humane Society of the United States and other animal welfare groups have agreed to pay Feld Entertainment $15.75 million, according to an article by the … In 2000, the Humane Society and co-defendants including a former … which triggered the RICO suit, and found that Rider lied under oath.”.
6 days ago – Feld Entertainment Recibe Pago de $15.75 Millones de Dólares al … Lunes, 19 de mayo de 2014 – La Humane Society de Estados Unidos (HSUS por sus … Rico and across the Caribbean, Central America, South America, …
http://www.bgdailynews.com/…/article_3fd768b4-a1bc-5d21-91…The Daily News
2 days ago – HSUS will be paying Feld Inc. (Ringling Bros) $15.75 million for their … /wp-content/uploads/2014/05/PSHA-Packet-Contents-from-report.pdf.
Thursday, 22 May 2014 12:13 | PDF Print E-mail. 1.8 million pounds of …. HSUS & co-defendants to pay $15.75 million in RICO lawsuit… On May 15, news broke …
legalpronews.findlaw.com › Legal Professional News
… Entertainment ended Thursday with the Humane Society of the United States and others paying a $15.75 million settlement. … A judge denied a request in 2012 to throw out the RICO suit. … (c)2014 The Bradenton Herald (Bradenton, Fla.).
Thursday, May 15, 2014. Humane Society of U.S. Nailed for Direct Mail Lies. Back in August of 2012, I noted that the Humane Society of the U.S. was … gun at a civil racketeering and organized crime (RICO) lawsuit and a $20 million liability, and … that they should settle by paying $15.75 million to Feld Entertainment, Inc., …
May 16, 2014 – Humane Society to pay Feld Entertainment $15.75 million. TheHumane Society of the United States and others have agreed to pay Feld Entertainment $15.75 … Herald Tribune 2014-05-15 …… We asked recent participants from the San Jose State University’s Costa Rican Field Experience program to …
tooldtowork.com › Everything Else
May 24, 2014 by EMS Artifact Leave a Comment … which owns Ringling Brothers circus a whopping $15.75 Million dollars to settle a suit brought … RICO has both criminal and civil sections and Feld used the civil portion to file the suit … Briefly, the case started about a decade ago when HSUS and ASPCA sued Feld over …
May 21, 2014 – This month, the Humane Society of the Unites States identified the Haags’ … the “humane society,” but the Humane Society of theUnited States has had … other animal rights organizations that paid a $15.75million settlement to … countersuits under the RICO statute, the groups were found to have paid a …
Despite the best efforts of the HSUS to spin why it settled the Lawsuit, the … cost them over $46 Million rather that the $15.75 Million it paid to escape the stigma and an extra … What was the evidence that gave credence to the RICO allegation? …. On March 10,2014, the Justice Department filed its “Reply” to our Opposition …
Saturday, May 17, 2014 … which it received $15.75 million from the Humane Society of the United States and … The U.S. District Court ruled that the Humane Society’s case was “frivolous,” … The settlement also covered a Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) case that Feld Entertainment had filed …
May 27, 2014 – HSUS and Co-Defendants pay $15.75 Million to Feld Entertainment! … May 15, 2014 – The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), along with … related Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) case …
http://www.lucianne.com/thread/?artnum=784431Lucianne Goldberg9 posts – 4 authors
Posted By:StormCnter, 5/16/2014 12:47:54 PM … Thursday with the Humane Societyof the United States and others paying a $15.75 million settlement. …. Feld turned it back on them and sued them under RICO because it turns out that Tom …
May 5, 2014—The animal rights organizations charged under RICO law … and now the H$U$ and its co-defendants have settled for $15.75 MILLION. … [HSUS’s rebuttal to the now missing Ellis article, with comments hammering H$U$]
syndication.washingtonpost.com/?q=aggregator/…The Washington Post
IBTimes – Sat, 05/17/2014 – 12:27 … Now the groups will have to pay a combined $15.75million to Feld Entertainment, Ringling’s … A spokeswoman for HSUS, which was part of the original lawsuit, only acknowledged that its …
May 15, 2014 – Free Online Library: Humane Society Of The United States And … VIENNA, Va., May 15, 2014 /PRNewswire/ — The Humane Society of the United States The Humane … Circus, $15.75 million to settle cases stemming from a lawsuit they …. related Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) …
May 21, 2014 – 51 posts – 33 authors
Now, NSSF has obtained the HSUS playbook to ban hunting with traditional … AB711 was the first key step in HSUS’s campaign to effectively ban all …… Hell, you wantHSUS exposed, they just got popped for $15.75 million to be … nailed for RICO, bribing witnesses to commit perjury, and some other stuff.
http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/…/article_728e02dc-e2e…East Valley Tribune
Posted: Friday, May 30, 2014 6:00 pm … HSUS has recently settled a racketeering lawsuit with Ringling Bros. paying out $15.75 million, in addition the ASPCA has paid $9.3 million in the same suit. There is no credibility … Whitfield’s (introduced the HSUSwritten PAST ACT) wife works for that same RICO convicted HSUS.
First reported May 31 2014 – Updated May 31 2014 – 1 reports … HSUS, others pay$15.75 million settlement to Feld Entertainment. The Humane Society of the …
doberman-chat.com › … › Canine News/Informative Articles
HSUS and Co-Defendants Pay $15.75 Million in Racketeering Lawsuit From Humanewatch.org… … Last edited by a moderator: May 18, 2014 at 10:16 AM.
HSUS to pay $15.75 million to settle racketeering lawsuit. Released 2014-05-19 08:39:57 GMT: 6 days ago. … Post: Actually not just civil racketeering claims — as in the Racketeer Influence and Corrupt Organizations statute, or “RICO.” At the …
Alltop – Fri, 05/30/2014 – 10:56pm … But unfortunately, there are outliers in our society — people who know few or no …. Animal Protection Groups Pay $15.75 Million to Ringling Bros. to Settle … According to the Washington Post, “Wayne Pacelle, president and chief executive of the Humane Society of the United States, said …
Dec 30, 2012 – 46 posts – 23 authors
Twelve other defendants including The Humane Society of the United States, the Animal …. What I didn’t realize was that this civil suit was filed under the RICO ….. On May 15, 2014 the Humane Society of the United States paid $15.75 MILLION dollars to Feld Entertainment to settle a civil RICO lawsuit.
Thursday, May 15, 2014. RSS … circus elephants ended Thursday with the Humane Society of the United States and others paying a $15.75 million settlement.
May 15, 2014 – Breaking news: The Humane Society of the United States and others … the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act—a law …
May 15, 2014 – 15 posts – 11 authors
May 15, 2014 – The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), along with …$15.75 million to settle cases stemming from a lawsuit they brought … related Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) case …
Jul 30, 2012 – 8 posts – 6 authors
The Humane Society of the United States, an organization that does next to nothing for animal … RICO lawsuit against HSUS for misrepresenting itself in its fundraising … 05-23-2014, 10:10 AM … tHEY PAID 15.75 MILLION
May 15, 2014 – Animal Rights Groups Pay $15.75M to Settle Circus Litigation. … a nearly $16 million settlement from the Humane Society of the United States and …. FILE – This March 11, 2014 file photo shows Mickey, a pit bull, …. Filed Under: Civil Procedure , Settlement , Environmental Law , White Collar Crime , RICO.
blawgsearch.justia.com › BlawgSearch
Results 1 – 20 of 2666 – 20 May 2014, 5:00 am by Mintzer Law … Humane Society, other groups to pay > $15 million over Ringling litigation … including the Humane Society of the U.S., have declined to settle [with Feld … The indictment alleged violations of the Racketeering Influenced Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, which …
May 16, 2014 – Animal groups agree to pay circus millions … settlement from animal–rights groups, including the Humane Society of the United States, … The $15.75 million from Thursday’s settlement is in addition to a $9 million settlement …
May 18, 2014 – The Humane Society of the United States and other animal–rightsgroups have paid Feld Entertainment a combined $15.75 million to settle …
May 17, 2014 – The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), along with their …$15.75 million to settle cases stemming from a lawsuit they brought against Ringling Bros. … Never mind that these were all legal, profit-making, tax-paying …
May 17, 2014 – Animal rights groups to pay Feld, Ringling Bros. … Society of the United States and others paying a $15.75 million … The lawsuit was filed by a company the Humane Society acquired, along with other animal rights groups, …
May 15, 2014 – Humane Society of the United States to pay Feld Entertainment$15.75 million over a lawsuit accusing Feld of inhumane treatment of its Asian elephants, … Animal Rights Groups Pay Circus Producer Millions to Settle Suit
6 days ago – The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and its co-defendants … Bailey Circus, $15.75 million to settle cases stemming from a lawsuit they brought … HSUS and animal rights groups the Fund for Animals, Animal Welfare … settled its share of the lawsuits by paying Feld Entertainment $9.3 million.
protecttheharvest.com/…ociety-united-states-pays… Feld Entertainment: Humane Society of the United States Pays $15.75 Million Settlement to Feld … The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) is a radical animal rights group that …
May 17, 2014 – the Animal Rights & Abuse Channel topic is : Humane Society Of The United States And Co-Defendants Pay $15.75 Million Settlement To Fel.