Tag: Ingrid Newkirk

Supreme Court Agrees to Hear RICO Lawsuit Appeal

In a decision that will have implications for the animal rights movement and its opponents, the Supreme Court today agreed to consider the appeal of anti-abortion advocates who have been hit with multi-million dollar judgments in racketeering lawsuits brought by the National Organization for Women.

The issue at hand is at what point legitimate protests become racketeering. Under the civil provisions of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, NOW was able to win judgments against individuals such as Joseph Scheidler who did not personally engage in acts of violence but whom publicly approved of such violence and/or engaged in a long pattern of other harassment such as staging sit-ins outside of abortion clinics where they would prevent access to and from the clinic, often by chaining themselves in the doorways of clinics.

Juries hearing these cases have tended to agree with NOW’s claim that taken together, the persistent use of these tactics by an individual or group fits the description of racketeering and extortion under the RICO statute.

Of course, these are the same sorts of tactics commonly used by animal rights activists and groups against restaurants, fur stores and other animal enterprises. According to the Associated Press, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals was one of the groups that asked the Supreme Court to accept the anti-abortionist appeal in order to clarify the rule.

PETA has been the target of at least one RICO lawsuit. After undercover activist Michelle Rokke infiltrated Huntingdon Life Sciences and came back with video tapes, pictures and other documents that PETA claimed showed abuse, HLS hit PETA up with a RICO lawsuit asking for $10 million in damages and legal fees.

PETA counsel Jeff Kerr testified before the House Subcommittee on Crime. According to Kerr,

The RICO counts in our case allege that PETA’s earlier animal cruelty investigations dating back as far as 1989 constituted a pattern of racketeering activity, including extortion through a climate of violence against Huntingdon and the other subjects of our investigation. All told, Huntingdon sought damages and legal fees exceeding $10 million. Early in the case we were slapped with a gag order which precluded us from further disseminating our findings to the public. The gag order prohibited us from cooperating with the USDA investigation of our own complaint, and this despite USDA requests for our cooperation.

PETA eventually released a settlement agreement with HLS.

One thing about PETA, by the way, is that they do not practice what they preach. According to Kerr,

PETA officers, directors and employees have repeatedly been the targets of death threats. We receive photographs of ourselves with our eyes poked out, explicit details of our own sexual torture and bloody packages of animal remains. These threats have often contained references to information disseminated by our opponents, including vivisection industry trade groups and animal abusers whom we have exposed. We do not sue our opponents under civil RICO claiming extortion or mail or wire fraud as a result of these activities. Rather, we fight those opponents in open public debates, in the media, in panel discussions, on radio and television talk shows, through letters to the editor, and by aggressively publicizing our views to rebut their positions. That is how it is meant to be in America.

Of course this is the same PETA that turned around and sued Rosie O’Donnell for $350,000 for saying that “the GAP uses only leather that is approved from PETA…” This despite the fact, that PETA had successfully lobbied for The Gap to switch its leather supplier from the Indian and Chinese suppliers it had been using.

PETA is notorious for threatening litigation over hair splitting stuff like this. PETA would have surely lost its case, but who has time to face off with these folks in court?

It will be interesting to see what the Supreme Court eventually decides. Using the standards that operated in the lawsuit against Scheidler and others, PETA itself would be wide open to RICO lawsuits given the numerous statements in support of violence and terrorism that Ingrid Newkirk, Bruce Friedrich and others have made over the years, especially in combination with their various acts of non-violent civil disobedience over the years.

If the Supreme Court upholds the Scheidler verdicts, look for serious repercussions against PETA and other animal rights groups. If the Court should overturn the verdicts, however, expect an even more emboldened crowd on the Internet and elsewhere in support of animal rights terrorism.

Source:

Supreme Court to review use of RICO laws against abortion protesters. Associated Press, April 22, 2002.

Statement of Jeff Kerr, Esq., General Counsel, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. Hearing Before the Subcommittee On Crime of the Committee on the Judiciary, House Of Representatives, One Hundred Fifth Congress, Second Session, July 17, 1998.

Center for Consumer Freedom on PETA's Evolving Explanation for ELF Donation

A couple weeks ago I noted that People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals’ staff members had been telling mutually contradictory stories about why exactly they donated $1,500 to the Earth Liberation Front (see Surprise — Someone at PETA Is Lying about That ELF Donation). The Center for Consumer Freedom not only beat me to the punch, but they also found several additional incidents which show a twisting, turning pattern of PETA apparently trying to figure out exactly how best to sell the donation in the media.

On March 22, 2002, the Center for Consumer Freedom sent a long letter to the House subcommittee investigating ecoterrorism. Here is an excerpt from that letter detailing PETA’s constantly evolving position about its ELF donation,

Understandably, PETA was (and still is) subjected to increased public scrutiny following my February 12, 2002, revelation of this donation. In the weeks that followed, however, PETAÂ’s various spokespersons have told at least seven different stories about that grant:

  • “[Ingrid Newkirk] said she did not remember the check to ELF, which was reported on the organization’s 2000 tax return.” (ABC News, February 26)
  • “She [Newkirk] also said the money PETA gave to the North American Earth Liberation Front was in response to a request for funds for educational materials.” (Associated Press, March 4)
  • “Newkirk also confirms that it donated money to the ELF for, ‘habitat protection.Â’” (KOMO television, Seattle, March 5)
  • “PETA [said they] contributed $1,500 during the 2000 fiscal year to ELF for education and habitat protection.” (The Denver Post, March 6)
  • “The only reason we did it is because it was a program that we supported. And it was about vegetarianism.” (PETA director of policy and communications Lisa Lange, on “The OÂ’Reilly Factor,” Fox News Channel, March 7)
  • “When we gave $1,500 to the Earth Liberation Front press office, it was for help with legal bills for one good animal protectionist who we felt was being harassed.” (“Open letter” e-mail to animal-rights activists, written by PETA correspondent Bridgett Cherry, March 13)
  • “In April 2001, PETA sent a check in the amount of $1,500.00 to the North American Earth Liberation Front Press Office to assist Craig Rosebraugh with legal expenses related to free speech issues regarding animal protection issues.” (PETA general counsel Jeff Kerr, letter of March 14)

While PETA may now claim to have earmarked the grant in question for any number of lawful purposes (depending on what day you ask them), I urge you to recognize that such grants are “fungible.” If PETA had used its tax-exempt donations from the public to make a sizable gift to Al Quaeda, Hamas, or the Irish Republican Army, we would not be having a discussion about whether or not it is technically possible to make a donation to terrorists without intending that the funds be used to conduct terrorism. The Earth Liberation Front should be treated no differently, especially considering its status with the FBI.

Of course PETA’s main reply to the Center for Consumer Freedom has been ad hominem attacks on the CCF.

One interesting thing that seems apparent reading between the lines of PETA’s evolving story as well as discussions I’ve had with reporters and others who have looked into this story is that it appears almost no one at PETA was aware of the ELF donation other than Newkirk. One person told me flat out that Lisa Lange seemed to be completely out of the loop on this. The clear implication of this is that donating to ELF was something deemed sufficiently controversial even within PETA that Newkirk didn’t bother to discuss it or inform other PETA staffers about the donation.

Well, what did they expect? That an organization that hides its activities from donors (I’ve never seen an donation pitch from PETA mentioning their donations to animal rights terrorists) would necessarily share them with staffers? Ha.

Source:

Letter to House Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health. Center for Consumer Freedom, March 22, 2002.

Surprise — Someone at PETA Is Lying about That ELF Donation

The revelation that People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals donated $1,500 to the Earth Liberation Front seems to have done quite a bit of damage to PETA’s reputation and (hopefully) may even jeopardize its tax exempt status. But what exactly did that money go for? Oddly enough, PETA seems to be trying to tell two contradictory stories about this.

As I mentioned before, PETA’s lawyer, Jeffrey Kerr, formally responded to an inquiry from Rep. Scott McInnis. Robert Gehrke of the Associated Press summed up Kerr’s response this way,

But Kerr said that in April [2001] the group [PETA] did write a $1,500 check to the North American ELF media office to assist in the legal defense for the group’s spokesman, Craig Rosebraugh, in free speech matters.

Not what I think their donors had in mind … and apparently not what PETA’s Lisa Lange had in mind. Because Lange told a completely different story to CNSNews.Com,

PETA spokesperson Lisa Lange acknowledged a $1,500 donation to ELF for a “project of habitat protection,” which concluded, “meat eating is a huge problem for the environment.”

“This is one of our focuses of our vegetarian campaign reaching to environmentalists, basically saying you can’t be an environmentalist and eat meat, and the ELF was going to be doing some publicity on that very thing,” Lange said. “We saw it as an opportunity to get our message out.

“None of our money goes toward illegal activities,” Lange insisted. “This specific project we funded was a quality project.”

This article appeared on March 8, 2002. On March 13, 2002, Ingrid Newkirk sent a letter in response to the article which acknowledged that the money had in fact gone to defend Craig Rosebraugh, but offered no explanation at all as to why Lange was telling people that it was for a “project about habitat protection.” Newkirk wrote,

What we do, say, and how we spend our money is always legal and open to scrutiny.

When we gave $1,500 to the Earth Liberation Front press office, it was for help with legal bills for one good animal protectionist who we felt was being harassed and has never been charged with anything at all.

Then why was Lange trying to spin this as just some basic anti-meat habitat protection project?

Imagine that — a PETA activist making up facts and distorting the truth!

Source:

PETA Under Attack for Funding Alleged Eco-Terrorists. Jason Pierce, CNSNews.Com, March 8, 2002.

PETA President Responds to Critics. Ingrid Newkirk, Letter to the editor, CNSNews.Com, March 13, 2002.

Group accuses Congressman with a ‘New McCarthyism.’ Robert Gehrke, Associated Press, March 16, 2002.

Ingrid Newkirk Is a Liar and Bill Press Is an Idiot

Ingrid Newkirk appeared on CNN’s Crossfire last week, and she was in a neck-and-neck competition with cohost Bill Press to see who could make the most outlandish statement.

Newkirk outright lied about People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals’ tactics. Here’s a partial transcript of an exchange between Newkirk and cohost Tucker Carlson,

CARLSON: Actually, I don’t. I’ll save that for later. You call meat-eaters bullies. The rest of us are bullies. You say you’re pro- animal. It strikes me that you are anti-human. Let me give you an example and I want an explanation and I want an apology for this.

Last spring, I took my children to the circus here in Washington. I had my four-year-old son, very nice boy, in my arms walking up to go into the circus. And some monster from PETA leans forward and shoves in his face a photograph of a wounded elephant, and says, “This is what the circus is,” to my four-year-old son.

NEWKIRK: I doubt it very much.

CARLSON: I watched it. He was in my arms. And I want you to apologize for that.

NEWKIRK: If anyone did that, I absolutely apologize.

CARLSON: Well, good.

NEWKIRK: Because everything we do is based at adults. We’re asking adults be responsible. You were telling me about giving your children meat and milk. They’re going to be to grow up to be tubs of lard. They’re getting heart attacks.

This is an outright lie. PETA has had an open practice of targeting children with their message, including numerous demonstrations outside of schools. In fact, PETA has in the past sued schools that tried to limit their ability to protest.

Newkirk is apparently so used to habitually lying, she cannot even tell the truth about PETA’s own practices.

But Press managed to make a statement about animal rights so idiotic that it almost upstaged Newkirk’s lie. Explaining to Newkirk that he sympathizes with her cause, Press said,

Let me get to the American Meat-out. Okay? And what bothers me about it is that you connect animal rights to the American Meat-out.

I am an animal lover. I’ve received awards from animal rights groups for my commentaries on animal rights. I really believe in it. I wouldn’t go duck hunting. I wouldn’t go deer hunting. I’m against animal testing unless somebody tells me it’s absolutely necessary to save a life. I think I qualify as an animal rights person, but I eat steak and I’ll eat chicken.

He wouldn’t go duck hunting or deer hunting but he eats steak and chicken. Does Press think that chickens and cows just show up outside of supermarkets and volunteer for the opportunity to become sandwich meat and steak? What a maroon!

Source:

Is It Time to Investigate Investigator?; PETA Celebrates American Meat-Out Day. Crossfire, Transcript, March 21, 2002.

Rep. Scott McInnis Wants to Know What PETA's Doing with Its Money

When the Center for Consumer Freedom revealed that it found evidence that People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals had donated money to the Earth Liberation Front it dropped a bombshell whose effects are still reverberating. Unless PETA is able to pull some rabbit out of its hat to explain away the donation, this appears likely to do serious damage to PETA.

This week, Rep. Scott McCinnis (R-Colorado) sent a letter to Ingrid Newkirk asking for information about PETA’s role in funding animal rights and environmental terrorists. The letter is reproduced in full below.

March 4, 2002

Ms. Ingrid Newkirk
President
PETA
501 Front Street
Norfolk, Virginia 23510

Dear Ms. Newkirk:

When the House Resources Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health held an oversight hearing probing the increasing threat of ecoterrorism on National Forest lands last month, evidence was submitted by one of the Subcommittee’s witnesses showing that the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) contributed to the Earth Liberation Front, the public face of an organization described by the FBI as America’s single largest domestic terrorism threat. The purpose of the contribution to ELF is listed on PETA’s Form 990 tax return as to “support their program activities.” Subsequent reporting in the media appears to substantiate these allegations.

As a non-profit organization with tax-exempt privileges and the incumbent public policy obligations that status entails, PETA has a responsibility to explain the full extent of its involvement with and contributions to environmental terror groups like ELF and ALF. With that in mind, I respectfully request that you respond to the following questions, the answers to which will be made part of the hearing’s public record.

  • Since 1993, how much and on how many occasions has PETA made financial contributions to either the Earth Liberation Front and/or its press office, the Animal Liberation Front and/or its press office, and suspected or convicted persons associated with ELF and ALF?
  • Does PETA have any internal policies or guidelines either encouraging or discouraging financial support of unlawful groups like ELF and ALF? If so, what are they?
  • Under what rational did PETA make a contribution(s) to ELF?
  • What steps did PETA take to ensure that these funds would not be used for unlawful purposes?
  • Whose signature appeared on the returned check that PETA gave ELF?
  • Does PETA condone the violent activities of organizations like ELF? Should PETA’s contribution to ELF be seen as an endorsement?
  • Does PETA have any intention of contributing to ELF, ALF or other similarly motivated groups in the future?

    • As local, state and federal law enforcement officials grapple with this formidable threat, careful scrutiny must be applied to any and all persons or organizations that lend financial aid and comfort to this radical band of extremists. In the future, I hope that PETA will cut-off its financial ties with ELF and ALF, and join America’s largest mainstream environmental groups in publicly condemning these and other eco-terrorist groups.

    I look forward to your response.

    Sincerely,
    Scott McInnis
    Chairman
    House Resources Subcommittee on
    Forests and Forest Health

    cc: Internal Revenue Service, Federal Bureau of Investigation

I can’t wait to see what sort of response PETA comes up with to these questions.

PETA and Animal Rights Violence

In a recent op-ed article, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals president Ingrid Newkirk defended her organization by claiming that “PETA does not condone . . . violent acts.”

But in fact, PETA or its representatives have often rationalized or celebrated violence. Consider just a few examples:

* In the December/January 2000 issue of ‘Genre’, PETA’s Dan Mathews was asked to name men of the 20th century he admired. Mathews told the magazine he admired serial killer Andrew Cunanan, “because he got Versace to stop doing fur.”

* In 1999, an animal rights terrorist group calling itself the Justice Department sent letters booby-trapped with razor blades to medical researchers and fur farms in the United States and Canada. When asked about the letters, Newkirk said, “I hope it frightens them [the researchers] out of their careers. If experimenters feel afraid now, that’s nothing compared with the fear, harm and death they have inflicted on their victims.”

* In a new author’s note in her book about the Animal Liberation Front, ‘Free the Animals’, Newkirk writes, “Determined to cause economic injury to the exploiters, ALF members burn down their emptied buildings and smash their vehicles to smithereens. Perhaps, after reading this book, you will find that you cannot blame them.”

* In 1994, PETA donated $42,500 to the Rodney Coronado Support Committee. Coronado is an animal rights terrorist who in 1995 pleaded guilty to firebombing a medical research facility at Michigan State University.

* In fact, Newkirk herself has expressed a wish to carry out arson. At a 1997 animal rights convention she said, “I wish we all would get up and go into the labs and take the animals out or burn them down.” In 1999 she expanded on that sentiment, telling the ‘Chronicle of Higher Education’, “I find it small wonder that the laboratories aren’t all burning to the ground. If I had more guts, I’d light a match.”

When Newkirk claims that PETA does not condone violent acts, what she really means is that it is more convenient at the moment to pretend that PETA doesn’t condone criminal acts. This is a pretty common animal rights tactic – never let principles or the truth get in the way.

But why do PETA and other groups sympathize with and celebrate violence? Because they’re losing their war against animal use, and they know it.

Don’t take my word for it. That’s the conclusion of PETA’s Bruce Friedrich. In 1998 animal rights activist Freeman Wicklund wrote an article for ‘Animal’s Agenda’ arguing that the animal rights movement should adopt a non-violent approach modeled on Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr.

Friedrich responded with an essay calling Wicklund’s views “obscene.” According to Friedrich, there are so few animal rights activists and such concerted opposition to the movement’s goals that a nonviolent strategy will never work.

Instead, “Direct action which utilizes a broader range of tactics, including secrecy and sabotage, is far more challenging, and, consequently, more effective… Considering the power of our opposition, can you imagine where we would be without surprise direct actions and the secrecy required for so much of what we do?”

When it first arrived on the scene, PETA and other animal rights groups were new and exotic and received press coverage far disproportionate to their numbers and usually very sympathetic.

As the 1990s wore on, however, the protests started receiving less attention and reporters began to view the animal rights movement more critically.

At the same time, it became apparent that while many Americans were rightly concerned about issues related to animal welfare, for the most part, people were unwilling to take that concern to the extremes demanded by some in the animal rights movement.

Even PETA’s own celebrity spokespeople can’t stay on message. Mary Tyler Moore shows up to oppose fur but then turns around and lobbies Congress for money to fund research on juvenile diabetes – research which will inevitably include animal experiments.

Like many political movements that have seen their progress thwarted, many in the animal rights movement now see violent acts as a legitimate and necessary tactic to further their agenda.

Even relatively successful groups such as PETA feel the need to rationalize, if not support or defend, such violence. And it matters not whether people suffer physical injury in such assaults. To debate the meaning of violence is akin to debating the meaning of ‘is.’

Newkirk may have devoted much time and money to saving pets in the wake of the World Trade Center attack, but she seems to have little, if any, regard for the medical researchers, farmers and others whose lives and livelihood are threatened by animal rights violence.