-
Even the Europeans Rethink the Welfare State
April 21, 2013 | 4 comments
-
ObamaCare for Everyone Except Obama’s Appointees
March 8, 2013 | 3 comments
-
The Sensitive Saudis: They Want Democracy for Everyone Else
March 5, 2013 | 3 comments
-
Remember, There Is No Spending Problem!
February 26, 2013 | 1 comment
-
Another Useful Reminder that Communism was Loathsome
February 24, 2013 | 16 comments
The Spectacle Blog
I like elephants. I’ve viewed them in the wild in Africa and ridden them inThailand. I’ve also seen them in a circus and a zoo. Forced to choose, I prefer the first two experiences. But most Americans don’t get those opportunities. So it’s circus/zoo or nothing.
Twelve years ago the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals filed suit against Feld Entertainment, which produces Ringling Brothers and Barnum & Bailey circus, charging animal cruelty. I have no independent information on the truth of the allegations, but ASPCA just put out a curious press release on the suit: “this litigation stopped being about the elephants a long time ago. After more than a decade of litigating with Feld Entertainment, the ASPCA concluded that it is in the best interests of the organization to resolve this expensive, protected litigation.”
All well and good. But ASPCA doesn’t explain how a lawsuit about elephants stopped being about elephants. And the group doesn’t detail the resolution. You have to go to Feld Entertainment’s press release for that: “Under the settlement, ASPCA has paid Feld Entertainment $9.3 million to settle all claims related to its part in more than a decade of manufactured litigation that attempted to outlaw elephants in the company’s Ringling Bros. Circus.”
Normally the plaintiff doesn’t pay the defendant in a settlement. In the usual compromise you’d expect ASPCA to drop the suit in return for Feld agreeing to change its treatment of the elephants, toss some cash at the ASPCA, support an African game reserve, that sort of thing. But no. Something obviously went very wrong with ASPCA’s claim. The group surrendered, paying a ransom to get out of the mess. It looks like the Society was caught abusing the legal process.
And the saga is not over. Explained the company: “Feld Entertainment’s legal proceedings, including its claims for litigation abuse and racketeering, will continue against the remaining defendants, Humane Society of the United States, the Fund for Animals, Animal Welfare Institute, Animal Protection Institute United with Born Free USA, Tom Rider and the attorneys involved.” Now that the ASPCA has paid up, some of these other groups might follow suit. Which would undermine their credibility in promoting an eminently worthy cause, the humane treatment of animals.
I like elephants. I don’t like abuse of the legal system. It appears that both causes triumphed with the ASPCA settlement.
View all comments (10) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Doug Bandow
http://spectator.org/blog/2012/12/29/elephants-defeat-animal-activi
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- The Continuing Crisis
- Consternated Conferences
- The (Real) Great Divide
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Bob K| 12.29.12 @ 12:18PM
The suits involved both the named defendants AND their lawyers and anytime law firms sue other law firms it is good news!
And when a huge, well respected law firm like Fulbright and Jaworski does it, it sends a signal that it is no longer a "NO, NO!,"
CJW| 12.29.12 @ 1:00PM
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, and similar state rules, allow a defendant to ask for counsel fees and costs against the plaintiff and their attorneys if the Court finds there was no basis for the suit. It is raised more and more frequently as a litigation tactic. I read the opinion and there seems to be no legal basis for the suit, only to harass a business to comply with plaintiffs' views on animal rights.
SaveAllElephants | 12.29.12 @ 1:47PM
No basis for the suit? Not true. Those elephants suffer mightily, & w/all due respect if you don't believe that, I have a bridge to sell you. The suit never tried the merits of documented elephant abuse. It was sidetracked by a phony racketeering charge which all good lawyers love to do with any loophole. After 12 years the judge got tired of it & the ASPCA too
However if you take yourself & your children to see elephants, be sure to wear a mask as most have TB exposure for which the USDA>APHIS>AnimalCare does not require treatment, only euthanasia. Ringling would rather spend $ on lawyers than to treat prophylactically. TB loves being transported 11 months/yr in those fetid train cars where elephants breath the spores & have to stand in urine & feces on railroad sidings sometimes for days on end. We can be sure the elephants do not love such confinement nor the threat of bullhooks at any time they can't figure out
The circus is everything that is against an elephant's genetically programmed nature. It is Ringling that harasses their elephants, the plaintiffs were a humane voice for those who could not speak for themselves, just as the abolitionists did in the 1850s for negro slaves - we know how that turned out after much protest from stubborn people saying they had "no legal basis" & were out "only to harass a business to comply with abolitionists' views on slaves' rights." As w/slavery, future generations will look back & say, "What were they thinking to be so cruel?"
CJW| 12.29.12 @ 1:52PM
So you believe that the rights of elephants are the same as the rights of the black slaves... What about the rights of the unborn children, are you "pro choice" to allow abortion?
Bob K| 12.29.12 @ 2:17PM
I wonder if you remember SLAPP?
Those were Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation which were popular as a tactic to intimidate public criticism of "whatever" by burdening the defendants with costs to defend themselves.
These suits by the numerous Animal Rights groups against Ringling Brothers clearly were modeled after these lawsuits and if the Plaintiffs were stupid enough to proceed with them after it became apparent that they were going to lose then they have nothing to complain about from this ruling.
SaveAllElephants | 12.29.12 @ 2:13PM
Thank you for your correct conclusion, Mr. Bandow. Feld's PR dept. are snake oil masters of spin, so reading any press release from them must be taken with the view it is only out to aggrandize itself with spin (to put it nicely) and to degrade those who have the truth so it won't come out . Feld uncleverly side tracks your attention from the truth that the suit never tried all the valid documentation the plantiff's had of abuse.
With Kenneth Feld's home town being DC and Feld Entertainment being in the Fortune 400, rich influence reigns. That and a bottomless pocket of cash flow for lawyers who in my opinion do not operate from a perspective of ethics. Yes, I know law is not about ethics, but about legality. However as you concluded, abuse prevailed.
In addition so that you understand how terrible it is for elephants to have to carry around tourists (an elephant's strength is in its neck, not its spine and the platforms ruin their backs, not to mention gangs of fat tourists) in trekking camps that barely feed them, you should have my Facebook page listed w/my Am Spect. acct. for all news elephant (I don't know if I am allowed to post it).
Occam's Tool| 12.29.12 @ 5:22PM
The ASPCA (Plaintiff) had to pay the Feld Entertainment Company to drop the suit the ASPCA was the Plaintiff on?
The Libtards getting Poned! Excellent! It's just unfortunate that the Plaintiff attorneys aren't doing hard time in an Alabama State Prison where they get chained to a post if they don't go out and work. Actually, I tend to favor the whipping post and lead weight tipped cat-o-nine tails for use on Plaintiff attorneys who lose cases, but I'm a bit extreme, I know.
John Navratil| 12.29.12 @ 6:44PM
Anyone wishing to learn about this case may wish to read: http://www.ringlingbrostrialin.....iles/ASPCA Memorandum Opinion.pdf
Mr. Rider was the plaintiff in this case alleging abuse of elephants. The reasons this case stopped becoming about elephants is because it became a case of Mr. Rider lying to the court and being paid by the other plaintiffs. This is called "maintenance" and is illegal. The effect is that no one had standing to sue. Beginning at page 20 in this document you will find that Mr. Rider quit a job with elephants prior to taking employment with FEI - he says it was because of mistreatment of elephants. He then continued to work for FEI for years without complaint to ANYONE about abuse before becoming a paid plaintiff for the other parties. The courts determined this was an abusive use of the courts.
John Navratil| 12.29.12 @ 6:46PM
Anyone trying that link will have to cut the link and add, with spaces, the string " Memorandum Opinion.pdf". Only bad people put blanks in file names ;)
johnny reb| 12.30.12 @ 7:23PM
I like elephants too, also donkeys and mules. Jackasses on the left, not so much. Molon Labe!