Criminalizing Rights to Peaceably Assemble? Militia Now Viewed as "Gangs"

Originally posted by boondock-saint
it will be a sad sad day
if this passes

before u know it, I'm gonna have
to fill out a request to go take a cr@p
and then my toilet paper is limited
cuz I'm harming trees.

what a crock !!!

here's a hint big brother
u cannot micromanage
300 Million people

Originally posted by orangetom1999


Name calling and labeling is the bailiwick of left and socialist type thinkers.

Originally posted by kozmo
They've been demonizing patriot groups for the past 2 years. Remember the SPLC's list of "Hate groups" and "Domestic terrorists"? Under the Patriot Act one could only be arrested for violating a standing law. This attempts to codify that even being in a militia is illegal.

The Brown Shirts aren't coming, they are already here - we call them "Progressives"!

sorry but that happened in the early 90's, more than 4 people in a group considered a gang, gives the police the right to detain.

The Civil RICO Action Against PETA
The RICO suit levelled against PETA resulted from PETA's eight-month undercover investigation of the Huntingdon Life Sciences contract research laboratory. Our investigation revealed evidence of sickening cruelty to animals in tests conducted for leading makers of household products and pharmaceuticals. Workers routinely slammed monkeys into cages, suspended monkeys in mid-air while pumping test substances into their stomachs, and screamed and shook their fists in frightened monkeys' faces when they were strapped down for electrocardiograms. One technician stuffed a lotion bottle into a monkey's mouth as a "joke."

Upon completion of the investigation, PETA filed a 36-page complaint with the U.S. Department of Agriculture and went public. We gave the USDA our investigator's videotape of the conditions and procedures at the lab. Because of the settlement, I cannot show you that videotape. Fortunately, it was widely disseminated before the lawsuit ensued. We turned over photographs of lab conditions. I cannot show you those photographs, but they too were distributed before the lawsuit was filed. But I can tell you that conditions were deplorable and the animals suffered greatly. One Huntingdon supervisor's internal memo, dated January 30, 1997, tells technicians to look at the injuries they caused the animals and adds: "Just think how YOU would feel to be put into a cage and physically abused?" One of the lab's customers to whom we submitted our investigation results immediately suspended all testing with Huntingdon and conducted its own investigation, saying: "The attitudes and behavior shown by lab technicians on the tape are unacceptable to us."

At approximately the same time as PETA's investigation, a British television station was conducting its own undercover investigation of Huntingdon's British parent company. Huntingdon's British employees were filmed punching a beagle dog in the face and simulating a sex act during test procedures. Members of Parliament and British citizens were outraged. Not only did the company not sue the television station, it fired two employees who plead guilty to charges of animal cruelty. It then scrambled to keep its business license by complying with sixteen stringent requirements under Home Office scrutiny. We find it ironic and distressing that a similar investigation of animal cruelty against the American subsidiary was met with an onerous RICO suit rather than immediate and sweeping corrective action.

Despite the compelling facts, the lawsuit threatened our ability to hold Huntingdon accountable for its actions. The suit was filed by the largest law firm in Boston, with 360 attorneys. It was 80 pages long and contained 20 separate counts. These included three RICO counts which alleged that PETA's earlier animal cruelty investigations dating back to 1989 constituted a pattern of racketeering activity, including mail and wire fraud, transportation of stolen property, and extortion through the creation of a climate of violence against Huntingdon and the other subjects of our investigations. 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, and which even prohibited us from cooperating with the USDA investigation of our own complaint, despite USDA requests for our cooperation. Therefore, from the outset of the lawsuit, we faced the dilemma of fighting vigorously at great expense and great risk to our financial security, or knuckling under to Huntingdon's strongarm tactics. We chose to fight at every turn during the ensuing six months of intense litigation.

Ultimately we were vindicated when, as a result of our complaint and its own subsequent investigation, the USDA charged Huntingdon with 23 counts of violating the Animal Welfare Act, including:

o failure to maintain a program of adequate veterinary care;

o failure to ensure that animals used in toxicology tests received pain killers and anesthesia during procedures that caused pain and distress;

o failure to notify a veterinarian when animals needed medical care;

o failure to explain why dogs used in painful procedures were not provided with any relief from pain; and

o failure to construct and maintain cages that protect animals from injury.

Even though we fought hard, did not back down and obtained a satisfactory result in the end, some of the realities of civil RICO actions against nonviolent social advocacy became all too apparent. First, opponents of advocacy groups are permitted to make sweeping allegations of criminal conduct "upon information and belief" with no evidence to support such charges. Second, those broad allegations may permit those plaintiffs to engage in a discovery "fishing expedition" into virtually every aspect of every prior investigation or advocacy campaign. And third, the cost to properly defend against such charges and discovery, and the risks inherent in any litigation create profound impediments to aggressive advocacy work which is so vital to social activism. Thus, the civil RICO plaintiffs are able to extort silence concerning or termination of aggressive activism and research into allegations of misconduct by manipulating and misusing civil RICO actions. The impact of these effects is increased as the size and financial resources of the targeted advocacy group decrease so that the smallest and often the most active groups are most seriously imperiled.

Have you EVER turned on your tv or watched the news? Being petty is a universal thing, all political parties are guilty of it, the right in particular.