Restraining Order Denied In HISA Lawsuit

A federal judge has denied a motion for a temporary restraining order in a lawsuit designed to keep the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act (HISA) rules from going into effect.

The order, dated June 30 but posted to the court docket on the morning of July 1, the effective date for HISA's implementation, was handed down in the aftermath of a 35-minute Thursday afternoon conference call that was hastily arranged at the urgent request of lead plaintiffs from the states of Louisiana and West Virginia in their suit against HISA and Federal Trade Commission (FTC) representatives.

“Participants discussed the Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction pending before the Court,” wrote Judge Terry Doughty of U.S. District Court (Western District of Louisiana). “Plaintiffs and Defendants both expressed their views on the pending motion. The Court also expressed its view, which is that issuing a temporary restraining order regarding an Act of Congress would be inappropriate.”

The plaintiffs had argued in court filings that a restraining order was needed to stave off the “irreparable harm” from “illegal rules” and the resulting “chaos created by HISA.”

The Department of Justice, representing the FTC, responded with its own court filing that stated the plaintiffs' “eleventh-hour challenge” to a set of HISA rules that have been publicly known to be going into effect for at least three months is “an emergency of their own making.”

The judge also wrote that the two-week briefing schedule set by the court on Thursday will “remain in effect with regard to the Motion for Preliminary Injunction. The Court will decide the Motion on briefs. If the Court determines that oral arguments are necessary in order to make its decision, oral arguments will be set.”

The post Restraining Order Denied In HISA Lawsuit appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

Feds: Last-Minute HISA Suit An ‘Emergency of Plantiffs’ Own Making’

A federal judge on Thursday opted not to immediately grant the “expedited consideration” restraining order or injunction that opponents of the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act (HISA) alleged was needed to stave off the “irreparable harm” from “illegal rules” that are set to go into effect at midnight Friday.

But within several hours of learning June 30 that Judge Terry Doughty of U.S. District Court (Western District of Louisiana) had given HISA and other defendants two weeks to file a response to the restraining order motion, the lead plaintiffs from the states of Louisiana and West Virginia made a separate plea to the court, asking for an “immediate” status conference to address “the chaos created by HISA.”

The judge granted that request, and according to the court docket, a telephone conference was to have happened at 5:30 p.m. Eastern, some 6 1/2 hours before the first set of HISA rules was to go into effect. As of 7:30 p.m. Thursday, there were no notations within the docket that the court made any new orders as the result of that status conference.

For details on the new federal lawsuit filed June 29 that seeks to block the HISA rules from going into effect, click here.

“[T]hese issues are extremely urgent,” the plaintiffs stated in the motion requesting the urgent conference. “Plaintiffs face severe and irreparable harm if not granted a temporary restraining order before the legally deficient rules purportedly take effect tomorrow, July 1.”

The Department of Justice, which represents the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), one of the defendants in the case, stated in a June 30 filing that “The FTC Defendants oppose Plaintiffs' requests. The three rules Plaintiffs challenge were approved on [Mar. 3, Mar. 25, and Apr. 1], All three were stipulated to take effect on July 1 by statute. Plaintiffs' eleventh-hour challenge to those rules on the eve of the statutory deadline is therefore an emergency of their own making. Having waited three months to come to Court, Plaintiffs are not entitled to abrogate the two-weeks that the Court has already allotted Defendants for their response briefs.”

The post Feds: Last-Minute HISA Suit An ‘Emergency of Plantiffs’ Own Making’ appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

Think You’re a Navarro Victim? Get In Line

Now that the barred Thoroughbred trainer Jorge Navarro has admitted in open court that he doped racehorses and procured performance-enhancing drugs [PEDs] for others between 2016 and 2020, the industry has a $25,860,514 question to kick around between now and when “The Juice Man” gets sentenced Dec. 17.

Beyond Navarro's potential five-year prison term and possible deportation back to his native Panama, the 46-year-old conditioner also must pay restitution to victims in that astronomical amount as per the stipulations of his plea bargain.

Although it is unclear exactly how federal prosecutors arrived at that precise figure, a press release from the United States Attorney's Office (Southern District of New York) states that it reflects “winnings obtained through his fraudulent doping scheme.”

Most likely, the calculation is based on the purse earnings of Navarro's trainees in races that prosecutors deemed he ran doped horses.

As part of the deal he cut with the feds (Navarro pled guilty to one felony count of conspiring to administer misbranded and adulterated drugs in exchange for having a similar second count dropped), Navarro had to affirm to Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil that the government was citing a proper amount of restitution.

For perspective, that massive dollar figure equates to nearly 75% of all the purse winnings Navarro's horses amassed during his 15-year training career.

Whether or not Navarro will ever be able to pay such a daunting amount of restitution based on gross purse winnings (and not the actual net profits from his crimes) is the obvious question.

Equally important–but perhaps more of an exercise in theoretical justice–is who exactly qualifies as a victim of Navarro's crimes to be eligible for restitution?

Let's tackle the “ability to pay” aspect first.

According to a U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) explanation of the restitution process, “In federal cases, restitution in the hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars is not unusual. While defendants may make partial payments toward the full restitution owed, it is rare that defendants are able to fully pay the entire restitution amount owed. If and when the defendant pays, you most likely will receive a number of small payments over a long period of time…”

“Realistically…the chance of full recovery is very low. Many defendants will not have sufficient assets to repay their victims. Many defendants owe very large amounts of restitution to a large number of victims.”

A separate 2019 explanation from the Congressional Research Service (CRS) states that “Federal prosecutors collect roughly $1 billion a year for the victims of federal crimes. Yet prosecutors will likely never secure more than $1 out every $10 owed.”

As for who qualifies for restitution, that CRS publication offers only broad clues: “As a general rule, a victim is a person [or a business or some other entity] who is physically injured, or who suffers a property loss, as the proximate result of a qualifying offense. A victim may also be someone named as a beneficiary in a plea bargain.”

The logical leap for many racing industry participants is that the people who suffered purse losses by getting beaten by Navarro's hopped-up horses should be at the top of the list for qualifying as victims.

But just think of what a formidable task it would be for federal officials to try and account for each and every racing entity (owners, trainers, jockeys) who is owed some sort of payback for their losses. The effort would span years of races across multiple jurisdictions, and would take on an additional layer of difficulty because some horse ownerships are comprised of multiple individual partners.

And what about bettors who otherwise would have hit winning tickets if Navarro's doped runners didn't taint the outcomes of potentially thousands of races? (This also presumes that they could properly document any pari-mutuel losses to Navarro's juiced horses.)

The good news is that according to the DOJ, there is actually a provision for large numbers of unknown victims to come forward and ask to be included in restitution when authorities don't know the names of each and every individual.

Instead of listing specific victims, the restitution order could say something broad like, “Anyone who owned, trained or rode a horse that finished behind a Navarro trainee in the following list of races.” It would then be the victims' responsibility to come forward and make themselves known.

But the bad news for potential claimants is that federal prosecutors–and the judge–could decide that trying to process such a humongous volume of claims is just too cumbersome a task at a time when the legal system is already overburdened.

In that instance, the DOJ states that, “A court may decline to order restitution if it finds that determining restitution in a case is too complex.”

TDN attempted to contact the U.S. Attorney's office in New York several times last week to try and get a general idea of who might be identified as victims in Navarro's case and what the restitution process might look like.

We're still waiting for a call back from the feds.

It's important to note that Navarro's nearly $26 million in restitution is different and separate from the $70,000 forfeiture that he must pay the government before his sentencing date. That amount represents the value of adulterated drugs that prosecutors deemed Navarro transacted via interstate commerce.

Since the actual drugs themselves cannot be located to be forfeited–presumably, those PEDs long ago coursed through the systems of X Y Jet, War Story, Shancelot, Sharp Azteca, and numerous other Thoroughbreds that Navarro has admitted to drugging–he must forfeit the monetary value of those drugs to the government instead.

Back on Aug. 3, Kristian Rhein, a now-suspended veterinarian formerly based at Belmont Park, changed his plea to guilty on one felony count of drug adulteration and misbranding for use in the covert doping of racehorses. At that hearing it was revealed that the working number the feds are alleging co-defendant Jason Servis won illegally with his purportedly doped trainees is also roughly $26 million.

That's half the $52 million in purses that Servis's trainees bankrolled during his entire two-decade training career between 2001 and 2020.

If Servis ends up getting convicted at a trial (or changes his “not guilty” plea like six other defendants have already done), it's expected that he will be on the hook for that amount in restitution.

Let's assume that Servis, like Navarro, will be unlikely to meet that obligation.

What then, is the purpose of mandating such a large financial penalty if the DOJ is well aware most victims only end up collecting 10 cents on the dollar?

Part of the answer has to do with federal sentencing guidelines.

All sorts of aspects of a crime affect sentencing levels. For example, if a defendant is deemed to have abused a position of public trust, or used a special skill in a manner that facilitated the commission or concealment of the offense (which both Navarro and Rhein admitted to as part of their plea bargains), the penalties increase by two sentencing levels.

But another part of the guidelines states that if a conspiracy causes a financial loss to victims in the range of $25 million to $65 million, the severity of the crime gets bumped up by a much more serious factor of 22 levels.

So even if victims never see any of the money that is due to them via restitution, the fact that both Navarro and Rhein affirmed in their plea bargains that roughly $26 million was the amount of the losses they caused others to incur, it can have significant bearing on how long they'll be sentenced to prison. Hitting that lofty $25-million-loss mark is a key component to stricter sentencing.

If it's any solace to potential victims, remember that federal restitution orders are enforceable for 20 years. So even if Navarro serves his maximum sentence of five years and walks out of jail a free man, victims can still hound him for money 15 years beyond that by securing liens against any property he might have or by suing him in civil court based on his criminal conduct that led to the conviction and issuance of the restitution order.

And here's one last thought: Although it's unlikely to happen, wouldn't it be amazing if Judge Vyskocil declared in the restitution order that the true victims in this case are not people, but all of the Thoroughbreds known to be doped by Navarro?

And in lieu of awarding payments to those individual equine victims, how about if the court instead assigned the restitution benefits to accredited Thoroughbred aftercare and welfare organizations?

Those organizations would probably never get all $25,860,514. But even if Navarro was made to pay as much as he possibly could over the next two decades to help horses, it would seem like fitting retribution as well as worthwhile restitution.

The post Think You’re a Navarro Victim? Get In Line appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

New Legislation Creates Animal Crimes Section To Crackdown On Animal Cruelty

In a major federal legislative initiative, Congressmen Joe Neguse (D-CO-02), David Joyce (R-OH-14) and Steve Cohen (D-TN-09) introduced the Animal Cruelty Enforcement (ACE) Act, H.R. 1016, a bill they forged in cooperation with Animal Wellness Action, the Animal Wellness Foundation, the Horses for Life Foundation, American Horse Protection Society, and the Center for a Humane Economy to step up federal action against perpetrators of malicious cruelty. The measure would create a new Animal Cruelty Crimes section within the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), housed within the Environment and Natural Resources Division.

Within the last three years, Congress and the White House fortified the legal framework against animal abuse, enacting the Preventing Animal Cruelty and Torture (PACT) Act and other federal statutes criminalizing malicious acts of cruelty. The new DOJ section would concentrate on enforcing those laws and other previously enacted animal welfare criminal statutes such as the Horse Protection Act (HPA) of 1970 that was designed to stamp out the cruel practice of soring Tennessee Walking Horses. The ACE Act was conceived in part to help better enforce the HPA after nearly a decade of failed attempts to pass the Prevent All Soring Tactics (PAST) Act, and U.S. Dept. of Agriculture (USDA) regulations that would have eliminated the use of large-stacked shoes and ankle chains in the showring and revamped the industry's corrupt self-policing program.

“We applaud Congressmen Neguse, Joyce, and Cohen for the introduction of the ACE Act that would enable DOJ to ramp up enforcement of the HPA and stamp out soring, a task the USDA has failed miserably for more than half a century,” said Marty Irby, executive director at Animal Wellness Action, and a past president of the Tennessee Walking Horse Breeders' & Exhibitors' Association. “Until meaningful penalties are meted out against blatant violators of the law, the cruelty practice of soring will persist. There must be a penalty to fit the crime.”

“U.S. laws are in place to protect animals from torture and abuse, but too often they aren't being enforced—including federal statutes such as the Horse Protection Act,” said Allondra Stevens, founder of Horses For Life Foundation. “Establishing a dedicated Animal Cruelty Crimes Division within the Department of Justice is an essential step towards fully investigating and prosecuting individuals that prey on animals. We fully support the Animal Cruelty Enforcement (ACE) Act and hope to see its swift passage into law this Congressional session.”

“Proper enforcement of animal cruelty laws will protect animal welfare and help keep our communities safe from the violence so often linked to these crimes,” said Congressman Joe Neguse (D-CO-02). “The Animal Cruelty Enforcement Act, which I am proud to have introduced with my bipartisan co-leads, seeks to bolster the prosecution of these crimes by providing the necessary resources and staffing for efficient enforcement.”

“As a life-long pet owner and a member of the Congressional Horse Caucus, I am proud to introduce the Animal Cruelty Enforcement Act alongside Congressman Neguse, to ensure that there is proper enforcement for crimes against animals,” said Congressman Dave Joyce (R-OH-14). “As a former prosecutor, I know we can do more to crack down on criminals who abuse animals, and as a Member of Congress, I feel obligated to provide the tools necessary to do just that. The ACE Act will improve the federal government's ability to investigate and prosecute animal cruelty crimes by creating a dedicated Animal Cruelty Crimes section within the Department of Justice, so that perpetrators of these heinous crimes will be held accountable in a timely, efficient manner.”

“Enforcement of laws already on the books, including those banning dog fighting and other cruel practices, is critical to ending these barbaric practices, which is what this measure aims to do,” said Congressman Steve Cohen (D-TN-09), a member of the Congressional Animal Protection Caucus. “I'm proud to support the Animal Cruelty Enforcement Act because inflicting harm on defenseless animals has no place in a civilized society.”

“Despite the unique role that horses occupy in our nation's history, and culture, they are still subjected to terrible mistreatment and deliberate cruelty,” said Scott Beckstead, director of campaigns at the Center for a Humane Economy, and a lifelong horseman. “The Animal Cruelty Enforcement Act will fortify existing protections and elevate the mission of the Department of Justice in protecting American horses and all animals from the most cruel and depraved elements in our society.”

A dedicated Animal Cruelty Crimes section at DOJ would allow for robust and effective enforcement of these crimes by designating personnel focused on these issues. DOJ already has dedicated sections on other important societal concerns, such as environmental protection, wildlife, and organized crime. Identical bipartisan, bicameral, companion legislation was introduced in 2020 by U.S. Sens. Mike Braun, R-Ind., John Kennedy, R-La., Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., and Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., and will be reintroduced in the coming months.

Read more at EQUUS magazine.

The post New Legislation Creates Animal Crimes Section To Crackdown On Animal Cruelty appeared first on Horse Racing News | Paulick Report.

Source of original post

Verified by MonsterInsights