Tag: Jacques Ferber Furs

CAFT, Terrorism and Leniency for Peter Schnell

As I’ve reported before, the Coalition to Abolish the Fur Trade has in the passed faced a lawsuit from Jacques Ferber Furs which accused CAFT of violating the civil provisions of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization.

CAFT, of course, denies that it is engaged in anything illegal but in May 2000, CAFT member Joseph Bateman was sentenced to jail time for felony criminal mischief and possession of an “instrument of crime.”

Now, it turns out, that Peter Schnell — who was sentenced in January 20 two years in prison for planning to blow up dairy trucks — also is has been affiliated with CAFT and the Animal Defense League (which was also named in Ferber’s RICO lawsuit).

New Jersey’s Asbury Park Press reported on January 30 that,

For Schnell, a 1998 graduate of Ocean Township HIgh School, the California arrest was not his first. In October 1998, Schnell was one of nine anti-fur protesters arrested after they chained themselves to security scanners and blocked entrance into Macy’s at Freehold Raceway Mall, Freehold Township, during the store’s grand opening.

Although sentenced to serve time in jail, Schnell was released on house arrest after several days.

“After I completely my house arrest, I am going to be back out there fighting for the animals,” Schnell said at the time.

He was also a regular at protests organized by the Coalition to Abolish the Fur Trade and the Animal Defense League. In his high school yearbook for his senior year he is quoted a saying, “Animal Liberation has to come soon and we have to fight as hard as we possibly can to make sure this is accomplished. Please Go Vegan.”

Along with providing additional ammunition to existing and possible future lawsuits against CAFT and the Animal Defense League, this also seriously undermines the judge’s decision in Schnell’s case to give him the minimum possible sentence. Given Schnell’s previous record, the judge’s decision not to give Schnell a longer sentence is mystifying.

Source:

Dairy terror plotter gets jail. Naomi Meuller, Asbury Park Press, January 30, 2002.

Another RICO Lawsuit Filed

In the first week of August,
a group of New Jersey furriers filed a lawsuit accusing the Animal Defense League of Jersey, the Animal Liberation Front and others of violating
federal racketeering laws. The lawsuit alleges that the ADL was part of
a conspiracy to illegally impair the operation of a legitimate business.

For its part, the ADL took
the odd tactic of putting itself on record in support of some acts of
violence against animal enterprises. ADL spokesman Darius Fuller told
the New Jersey Star-Ledger that although his group is distinct from the
ALF, physical destruction of property is sometimes a necessary act. “It’s
just a simple question of which is more important, life or property,”
Fuller said. Fuller also told the Star-Ledger that his group has regular
contact with the ALF.

Somebody give Fuller a little
more rope — he is on a roll.

Meanwhile, the Animal Defense
League of Pennsylvania and the Coalition to Abolish the Fur Trade announced
a conference in Philadelphia on legal challenges against animal rights
groups and how to respond to them. In a joint press release the two groups,
who were named as defendants in another Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization lawsuit filed by Jacques Ferber, claimed “Jacques Ferber Furs is abusing this RICO suit in an attempt
to achieve an injunction against CAFT and ADL. Yet another step
taken to drive off those fighting to end oppression. Who will be next?”

One of the interesting things
to note about the press releases issued from the various animal rights
groups about these RICO lawsuits is that although lawsuits against pro-life
activists and groups really set the precedent for going after protesters
who express support for illegal actions, none of the animal rights groups
has referenced this precedent much less given an opinion on the application
of the law in those cases. I, for one, would like to know if CAFT and
others believe anti-abortion protesters were also the targets of “oppression.”

More Details on Jacques Ferber Inc.'s RICO Lawsuit Against Animal Rights Organization

Fur Commission USA, which represents over 400 fur farms, recently issued a press release on the Jacques Ferber Inc. lawsuit against the Coalition to Abolish the Fur Trade, the Animal Defense League, and Vegan Resistance for Liberation. Under the civil provisions of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), Ferber alleges that these three groups as well as four named individuals engaged in a series of acts that amounted to a criminal conspiracy to interfere with a legitimate business enterprise.

As I’ve mentioned before, RICO was originally meant to help prosecutors go after legitimate businesses that were used as fronts by organized crime, but it is the civil provision of the act that has gained the most notoriety. Pro-choice groups recently won big victories in two separate civil cases against pro-life groups and individuals that advocated or approved of illegal acts against abortion clinics, but did not actually participate in such illegal acts. Juries in those cases agreed with the plaintiffs that even though the defendants did not commit illegal acts, by their advocacy of illegal acts they were part of a conspiracy that did commit such acts and as such could be held liable for the illegal acts.

The Fur Commission USA release noted that since 1995 Ferber was subjected to almost weekly protests by animal rights groups and on April 24, 1999, “vandals wearing hoods smashed the store window.” Ferber argues that the three animal rights groups and the four individuals named in the suit engaged in a pattern of harassment intended to intimidate the company and ultimately force it out of business. The Supreme Court ruled in 1994 that juries should be allowed to decide whether or not this sort of activity constitutes extortion.

Ferber might have an even stronger case than did the pro-choice groups if Fur Commission USA’s information is accurate. It quotes one of the activists named in the suit, Brett Wyker, but in a footnote at the end of its release claimed:

In January [1999], Wyker e-mailed FCUSA’s Terry Platt: “hey, what did oyu [sic] think of the Fur Farmers convention in WI? FUR IS DEAD AND YOU’LL BE SOON!”

The convention in question was the International Mink Show in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, where several masked animal rights activists tried to gain entrance to the show. According to Fur Commission USA, among those activists was Gary Yourofsky, an activist recently jailed in Michigan for releasing mink from a farm there, and CAFT’s John Paul Goodwin.

These sort of links between those who commit illegal acts and nominally nonviolent groups and individuals is exactly the sort of evidence that led to the pro-choice plaintiffs to win their cases. Lawyers in those cases produced evidence showing all sorts of connections between the allegedly nonviolent activists pro-life activists who did commit crimes and told the jury that it was absurd to claim that the two were not part of an organized, illegal attempt to shut down a legitimate business.

Ferber’s lawsuit is apparently at a standstill while lawyers try to find and serve the four individuals named in the lawsuit, but once that is taken care of this will be an interesting test case of the RICO statute. If it can prevail it could be the beginning of the end of common practices used by groups such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and others (in much the same way that pro-life groups have had to radically alter their tactics in the last decade). On the other hand, since animal rights issues have a far lower profile than abortion issues, this case might not receive nearly the same treatment as the case against the pro-life groups did, and could potentially lead to another round of judicial review of the RICO statute.

Jacques Ferber, Inc., Files RICO Lawsuit Against Animal Rights Groups

Jacques Ferber, Inc., a Philadelphia
furrier, recently filed a civil racketeering lawsuit against the Coalition to Abolish the Fur Trade, the Animal Defense League, and Vegan Resistance for Liberation charging the groups with illegally conspiring to shut down
the furrier.

In its lawsuit, Jacques Ferber,
Inc., maintains that the furrier has been the subject of weekly protests
since 1995 by the three groups. Ferber maintains the protests have escalated
to a campaign of vandalism including incidents where windows have been
smashed, the store’s doors glued shut, and its customers and employees
threatened and harassed.

Ferber’s lawyer, Bruce E.
Rodger, also outlined several other actionable incidents including the
printing of “wanted” posters that depicted a Ferber principal with the
text “Wanted for Murder” and “Considered Extremely Violent.”

John Paul Goodwin, executive
director of the Coalition to Abolish the Fur Trade, told the Philadelphia
Intelligence that the suit under the |Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization| statute was a threat to
civil liberties. Goodwin also predicted Ferber would be unable to prove
the charges saying, “The fact is they don’t know who’s doing that. Any
lawsuit that says the (the individuals named in the suit) did is grossly
inaccurate.”

Whether or not RICO lawsuits
threaten fundamental civil liberties is still a hotly debated question,
although the Supreme Court so far has upheld civil lawsuits under RICO
(for the record, I think at a minimum the RICO statute needs some additional
clarification or it could just as easily snag anti-animal rights groups
as it will pro-animal rights groups).

As for the factual requirements
under RICO, however, they are rather minimal. Goodwin is mistaken if he believes
that in order for Ferber to win it must show that the defendants committed
specific illegal acts. In fact, if the precedents from the recent RICO
suits against pro-life groups apply here, all Ferber will need to show
is that the groups named in the lawsuit engaged in an organized way in
advocating or aiding the harassment or vandalism.

The recent verdict against
a pro-life web site that displayed “wanted” posters of doctors who performed
abortions, for example, found that the mere online posting or physical
distribution of such a poster could constitute an actionable act under
RICO. So could speech that merely suggested or described the creation
of such posters.

Similarly, even if none of
the three groups had members who participated in the vandalism, if it
can be shown that any of the three groups held strategy meetings at which
any of the vandals did attend, the groups might be liable.

Realistically a lot depends
on how the animal rights activists and the furrier are perceived by a
jury. Clearly, for whatever reason, the pro-life activists were seen as
very unsympathetic by juries, especially in light of the spate of physical
violence up to and including murder perpetrated by some fanatical pro-lifers.
Whether a jury will see animal rights activists as more like the pro-life
movement or more like the civil rights movement (albeit misguided) remains
to be seen.

Clearly a suit like this has
the best chance of winning if it were filed by a research institute against
groups that advocate or condone acts of violence against important medical
research. Unlike furriers, which many Americans seem ambivalent toward,
medical research still continues to enjoy a lot of support. Besides which
almost all Americans, and certainly every member of any conceivable jury,
would have benefited directly from medical research. It is hard to imagine
those who would condone or advocate for “direct action” against medical
facilities would be the receive much sympathy from a jury considering
a RICO charge.