[skip navigation]
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."