[skip navigation]
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.