No Compromise Swiss Animal Protection furisdead.com Coalition to Abolish the Fur Trade furkills.org Anti-Fur Society vegan.com DawnWatch EVANA
shumacherfurs.com
Live Cruelty-Free
The Constitution, Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

QuickTime player required
download here
You are about to watch a film by Mark Rissi. Mr. Rissi has kindly offered links to this video and the accompanying printed report, updated January 25, 2007. Credit for this video goes 100% to Mark Rissi.
Fun Fur? A Report On the Fur Industry in China
Dying for fur - A Report On the Fur Industry in China
Illinois Fur Farm - Part 1
Illinois Fur Farm - Part 2
Global mink and fox fur farm kill numbers (1981-2005) compiled by Oslo Fur Auctions...check out China's numbers
The Lawsuit Revisited
Part 1
From dictionary.com:
Allegation
Main Entry: al·le·ga·tion
Pronunciation: "a-l&-'gA-sh&n
Function: noun
1 : the act of alleging
2 a : a statement not yet proven b : a statement by a party to a lawsuit of what the party will attempt to prove :
AVERMENT —compare ACCUSATION, INDICTMENT, INFORMATION, PROOF
Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.
Cite This Source

It's was Saturday, April 21, 2007 when the initial complaint papers were served to a couple of activists in front of the Schumacher's store. A few of the Schumacher employees hovered, obviously pleased as local TV media recorded our statements. I suppose whatever joy they felt that day didn't last too long. Regardless of what Gregg and Linda Schumacher say the outreach was always about the animals. I think the Schumachers thought the suit would scare the activists away. There is no doubt that the suit had a chilling effect on the free speech taking place there, but the truth had always been on our side, and on the side of the animals, the real victims. The commentary in 'Part 1' is not a re-arguing of the case. There is no reason to do that. The arguments were made brilliantly by Jami Pannell and Shauna Curphey on my behalf and are available for your reading pleasure in the documents, links in 'Part 3', and I am forever grateful to them. I (Kevin M.) am not a lawyer. We the activists and animals rights groups were dragged into federal court for no good reason and I have some thoughts about that. I can't comment on everything that was wrong with what the Schumachers did (I could write and write and write more about that) but I felt compelled to share at least a slice of the court proceedings with anyone who might be interested. The documents (Part 3) actually have quite a bit of interesting reading. I'm only commenting on the stuff that involved me, and not the IDA, PETA, Rossell, Durkee or City
of Portland elements of the case. Some introductions...Gregg and Linda Schumacher of course, Jami Pannell and Shauna Curphey (super lawyers), Danny Garner (Schumacher security), Scott Castleman (Schumacher security) and Herbert Grey (lead lawyer for the Schumachers). These photos of Gregg and Linda Schumacher, taken by a friend and added to the site August 4, 2010 (didn't know she, my friend, was there until last week), were taken in the courthouse the day of the June hearing. Gregg and Linda look so happy, don't they? Can't help but think about all of the animals slaughtered for the coat she was wearing that day. Did it make you feel pretty Linda?
The first hearing (May 17, 2007) focused on the Motion for Preliminary Injunction. During that hearing the Schumachers communicated to/with the court by phone (they were somewhere out of the Portland area). The restrictions the Schumachers were seeking are specified in the 4/20/07 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. The IDA, Rossell, Durkee, Mieras response is found in the 5/11/07 Response to Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Regarding the injunction placed on me (that was removed during the June hearing)...it was at least partly based this...in the 4/18/07 Gregg Schumacher Declaration Mr. Schumacher states on page 6, "When my wife Linda Schumacher and I returned home one night in approximately February, 2006, a voice called out from about a half a block away, "Hey Gregg! Hey Gregg!" I could not see anyone on the street. It sounded to me like the voice of one of one of the animal rights extremists who comes to our store regularly as leader and participant in the demonstrations. I know him as Kevin Bluejay, and he is identified in this lawsuit as Kevin Meiras." First point is that I started participating in the outreach in mid-February 2006. It was highly unlikely that Gregg and Linda Schumacher knew my voice in February 2006 and it was highly unlikely they knew my name at that time. Someone might have addressed Gregg Schumacher in that manner, in his neighborhood....or Gregg Schumacher could have made the story up (wouldn't surprise me). I don't know. The allegation was/is not true. I have never known where the Schumachers live. See 6/13/07 Reply to Plaintiff's Response to Motion for Reconsideration of Injunctive Order, p. 6. I had never spoken to Mr. or Mrs. Schumacher outside of the immediate vicinity of the store (now former store). The alleged event did not happen. However during the May hearing Judge Mosman ruled in favor (text here and in the Minutes in Part 3) of the Schumachers (regarding me only). The judge's order did not prohibit me from participating in future outreach, just set some rules. Fairly soon after a Motion for Reconsideration (5/25/07 Memo, 5/25/07 Motion) was submitted to the court by Jami and Shauna on my behalf.
So the Saturday outreach continued and we as a group, instead of setting up in front of the Schumacher's store, set up near Binyon's EyeWorld, down the block a little. The mood of the activists was subdued but we carried on with our purpose for being there. I was very mindful of the judge's order and proceeded according to the judge's instructions. In the time between the first and second hearing, I found myself accused of violating the Judge's order. In the 6/8/07 Declaration of Danny Garner, p. 2 Mr. Garner states...regarding May 19..."Between 2:30 and 3:00 Meiras was videotaping people in a much more aggressive manner than usual. On numerous occasions he stood approximately five feet from the entrance from the store videotaping SFO customers and employees. He also stood to the side of the store approximately two to three feet from the property to obtain video/still footage." Amongst my picture and video files I have only two files where the video was recorded (and/or a picture was taken) on May 19, 2007 between 2:30 and 3:00 according to the time stamps. The first was recorded at 2:47 pm and the second at 2:50 pm. In the 2:47 pm clip (length 17 seconds) I am standing stationary near the road, by the IDA sign and the food tables, in the vicinity of the Binyon's storefront, not anywhere close to the Schumacher entrance and much more than 2 or 3 feet from the building. In the clip I am recording in the direction of the Schumacher's entrance most of the 17 seconds and I am amongst other activists and not near any Schumacher employees or customers. The clip also shows a police car. In the 2:50 pm clip (length 55 seconds) I am standing on the south side of SW Morrison, across the street from the Schumacher's store. I am shooting/recording in a panning manner in order to get a relatively complete picture of the circumstances at the time. In the clips I am speaking to no one. Recording in a "much more aggressive manner than usual" Mr. Garner? The clips and I say no Mr. Garner but others can watch and decide. In addition to the allegations in the quotation above Mr. Garner also alleged that I communicated directly with Schumacher employees. I did not Mr. Garner. In his Declaration Mr. Garner also states that his understanding was that I was to remain at least 15 feet from the store. No Mr. Garner...the order was to remain at least 15 feet from any entrance to the store. The Schumachers and their security people recorded hundreds of hours of video of the activists and took lots of pictures during the many months of outreach. Check out these pictures from May 19 (1, 2, 3) and May 26 (1, 2, 3, 4) 2007. Is that you Mr. Garner holding the video camera? Pictures from those two days show 1) the set up spot for the outreach each of those days and 2) that Schumacher's security people recorded video of the activists and me specifically. Yet Mr. Garner (and the Schumachers and Mr. Grey) provided zero video or other evidence to back up their allegation(s) that I had violated the judge's order. Where was your video Mr. Garner? What about some pictures? Something, you know....evidence. Danny Garner was wrong about me violating the judge's order. It didn't happen. In the Declaration Mr. Garner also states that he contacted the Portland police about the alleged violation. I was never contacted by the Portland police about the issue. Perhaps they desired some real evidence. Mr. Grey, since Mr. Garner submitted his Declaration in support of your clients Gregg and Linda Schumacher, did you ask Mr. Garner if he had video or pictures of the alleged violations of the judge's order? Did you, Mr. Garner, not feel that video and/or picture (or some other) evidence was essential in order to validate the allegation? And, Mr. Grey, since there was no video, picture or other evidence to back up the allegation did you not think it unwise for Mr. Garner to make the allegations in the form of written testimony to the court? See 6/13/07 Reply to Plaintiff's Response to Motion for Reconsideration of Injunctive Order, p. 12,13.
Let's take a look at the 6/8/07 Plaintiff's Response to Defendant Mieras' Motion for Reconsideration of Preliminary Injunction, p. 3 & 4. Herbert Grey states, starting on page 3, that "The record is clear, and the court has accepted as sufficient, evidence of Mr. Mieras' presence at or near Gregg and Linda Schumacher's home, as well as oral, written and internet threats to the Schumachers personally, their family, their employees and their property. See Gregg Schumacher Declaration pp. 5-7; Linda Schumacher Declaration, p. 2, 3-4; Scott Castleman Declaration, p. 6." Let's start with the 4/18/07 Castleman Declaration. There is no reference to me on page 6 of the 4/18/07 Castleman Declaration. The 6/8/07 Castleman Declaration is 2 pages and refers to me and website stuff but there is no mention of threats. Let's now look at the Linda Schumacher Declaration(s). The 4/18/07 Declaration of Linda Schumacher is 5 pages. On the referred to pages Linda Schumacher refers to "mobs" but not me (not my name). One other item of interest concerning Linda Schumacher's 4/18 Declaration, take a look at Exhibit 2-b. In an email exchange from Portland police Commander Dave Benson to Portland Commissioner Randy Leonard, Mr. Benson says "Greg Schumacher has responded by hiring security and camera folks to film the protests and to even follow some of the protestors to their cars jotting down license plate numbers and on one occasion following a protestor to their residence and recording their address. He offered all this information to me but I refused to receive it because it was not evidence of a crime". So I wonder, how many other times did the Schumachers and/or their security people follow activists home? The 6/8/07 Declaration of Linda Schumacher is 2 pages and no where states that I had threatened her, her family or the employees. OK, let's now look at Gregg Schumacher's Declaration(s). The 4/18/07 Gregg Schumacher Declaration is 10 pages plus exhibits. Let's look at pages 5 thru 7. The only reference to me by name is the "Hey Gregg! Hey Gregg!" allegation on page 6 which did not happen and which I refuted in the June hearing (and where my live testimony was accepted by Judge Mosman as evidence and the injunction was removed). On page 7 of the Gregg Schumacher Declaration Mr. Schumacher refers to this internet domain/website and in a different sentence "some activists posted internet references to someone putting a "rod down my throat" or to me being "anally electrocuted". Not once, ever, were threats against the Schumachers, their family, or their employees posted on this website. Gregg Schumacher does not make that assertion. He makes a vague assertion of "internet references" made by "some activists". I never made threats against the Schumachers, not on any websites, not in chalk, not anywhere at any time. The sources cited by Mr. Grey don't even support Mr. Grey's allegation of me being associated with "oral, written and internet threats" unless he were to buy into the false notion (which Mr. Grey of course did) that I had addressed Gregg Schumacher in a "Hey Gregg! Hey Gregg!" manner and somehow interpreted that to be a threat, a stretch a mile wide. Mr. Grey's allegation/argument did not hold up in court since it was not supported with evidence. See 6/13/07 Reply to Plaintiff's Response to Motion for Reconsideration of Injunctive Order, p. 5, 7, 8.
This one is very amusing. From the 6/8/07 Plaintiff's Response to Defendant Mieras' Motion for Reconsideration of Preliminary Injunction, p. 5. Herbert Grey states, "The truth is the record does contain evidence to show plaintiffs are likely to prevail on the merits of their claims. As to the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim, the intent to cause severe emotional distress can be be inferred from 18 months of at least weekly protests, the purposeful anonymity of many of the protestors, the documented behavior of many of the protestors and the court's determination Mr. Mieras' appearance at night near the Schumacher's home. The record already contains evidence Gregg Schumacher has experienced difficulty sleeping due to the stress of the protests and the detrimental effect on his business." Mr. Grey's statement continues on page 3 as he talks about Linda Schumacher's anxiety and stress and in the next paragraph...he talks about the protestors allegedly exceeding socially tolerable conduct by shouting obscenities, blocking the sidewalk and the doorway, pursuing members of the public down the street in varying stages of undress, and doing other stuff. These allegations are in a document that is a response to a Motion that is specific to me (reconsideration of the injunction) and other than the alleged appearance near the Schumacher's home (which didn't happen) none of the other stuff mentioned was even alleged to have been done by me. Clearly Mr. Grey tried to make me responsible for much of the alleged bad behavior that happened during the outreach at Schumacher Furs. Mr. Grey mentions "18 months" in his statement so I'm not sure if he's lumping me in with what happened before I starting participating or not. My participation in the outreach/protests was for 15+ months, not 18 months. I can only reflect on the events/moments at Schumacher Furs that I had experienced...from mid-February 2006 forward (and I did miss a couple of weeks in the middle of it all). My reason for being there had nothing to do with Gregg and Linda Schumacher personally. It was about what they were selling. It was about educating the public about the cruelty of the fur industry and hoping the public would make compassionate shopping choices. What I did was constitutionally protected speech. I did not violate the law, not once. I never hid my identity. Gregg and Linda Schumacher (and now Herbert Grey) had inappropriately blamed the Schumacher's stress on me and obviously they failed completely on the merits of their claims. See 6/13/07 Reply to Plaintiff's Response to Motion for Reconsideration of Injunctive Order, p. 6.
The Schumachers and Herbert Grey most certainly had a strategy to link me to the alleged bad behavior of the Jane and John Does. The 6/28/07 Supplemental Briefing Regarding Evidence and Defenses in Defendant Mieras' Motion to Strike, p. 5 & 6 leaves no doubt. In that document Herbert Grey states, "This evidence clearly indicates that the intent of the protestors is not dialogue on a matter of public interest. Their intent, and their improper means, was to generate fear. Defendant Meiras seems to be one of the leaders of the protests and the protestors. Decl of Gregg Schumacher in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, Para. 3. The other Declarations all contain evidence of improper means-harassment, intimidation, violation of noise ordinances, public nudity and blocking sidewalks. See Decl. of Scott Castleman, Decl of Gregg Schumacher, Decl of Linda Schumacher." and "The damage being done is so clearly before the court. Schumacher Furs has closed as a result of the intimidation and harassment by protestors organized and led by Defendant Meiras. Decl. of Gregg Schumacher in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for a Prelminary Injunction, Paragraph 3." The Schumachers and Herbert Grey presented zero evidence that I had been involved in intimidation, harassment, public nudity and the other alleged behavior stated above. The Schumachers and Herbert Grey presented zero evidence that I had control over other activists or that I directed other activists to do anything. They presented zero evidece that I was a "leader" of the protestors/activists. Herbert Grey even qualified his remarks before getting more specific, using the phrase "seems to be". "Seems to be", it seems to me, is legally speaking, meaningless...doing justice is about facts and evidence...isn't that correct Herbert Grey? Perhaps Mr. Grey and the Schumachers forgot. In the 9/20/07 Opinion and Order, p. 6, 7, 8, 9, Judge Mosman states, "Instead, Plaintiffs claim that Mieras is vicariously liable for the improper means employed by protestors, such as "harassment, intimidation, violation of noise ordinances, public nudity, and blocking sidewalks," because he "seems to be one of the leaders of the protests and protestors."" and "Similarly, in this case, Plaintiffs have not made any showing that Mieras authorized, ratified, or directed protestors to harass, intimidate, disrobe, block sidewalks, or violate noise ordinances, or that Mieras incited immediate violence or widespread panic. At most the Court could find from Plaintiffs' pleadings and exhibits that Mieras had conversations with other protestors, and videotaped some of the protest activity." and "Thus, in the absence of any authority to support imposing vicarious liability on an individual for the acts of others on the basis that he "seems to be one of the leaders" of the others, this Court finds that Plaintiffs have failed to show substantial evidence that Mieras employed improper means or an improper purpose to interfere with Plaintiffs' business relationship with their customers. Accordingly, the Court finds Plaintiffs have not demonstrated a likelihood of prevailing against Mieras on the claim of intentional interference with business relations." Mr. Grey once again made a false statement when he said I led an effort of intimidation and harassment (and the rest of what was alleged). I did not participate in nor lead others to do what was alleged by Mr. Grey. Facts and evidence Mr. Grey...did you not feel they were essential to support your allegations? In addition, the Schumachers and Herbert Grey never provided any evidence that anything related to the Saturday outreach/protests had caused Schumacher Furs to go out of business. No financial records were presented to the court as evidence to support that allegation.
Next let's take a look at the 6/8/07 Plaintiff's Response to Defendant Mieras' Motion for Reconsideration of Preliminary Injunction, p. 9 & 10. Herbert Grey states, starting on page 9, "Finally it should be noted that the injunction has done nothing to dissuade Mr. Mieras from his involvement in the protests at the SFO store. He was present at the store on the following two Saturdays after the court's injunction ruling, as he had been before. Danny Garner Declaration pp. 2-3. His conduct on those occasions was sufficient to motivate SFO employees to contact Gregg Schumacher by phone to say they were afraid of what was going on outside and they wanted to close the store early. Gregg Schumacher Supplemental Declaration p. 2". And from the 6/8/07 Declaration of Gregg Schumacher Gregg Schumcher states "I was out of town during the first Saturday following the Court's partial granting of Plaintiff's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. My staff called me. What I heard caused me to be fearful about returning to Portland, to my home, and to my business, SFO. They reported to me that the injunction had no effect on Mr. Meiras, who, in violation of it was coming up to store windows. Part of the reason I was fearful of returning, was that the protests, following the injunction were bad enough that my employees were requesting permission to leave early." and "This was one of our last two Saturdays in business at our current location". Mr. Schumacher mentions being out of town for the first Saturday after the injunction hearing and doesn't mention where he was on the the second Saturday (May 26). I did not see him in the store on the 26th. The judge's order did not prohibit me from participating in outreach/protests that would occur after the injunction hearing. Mr. Grey seems to imply me being there was in violation of the judge's order. I did not violate the judge's order by being there on May 19 and 26 nor did I violate the rules set by Judge Mosman. The truth is that the atmosphere those days was very calm. Pictures taken by me, some of which are referred to (links) in an earlier paragraph show that Schumacher security recorded video of the activists, me included, those two days. Surely if there was video showing the alleged behavior (pertaining to me; and the other activists) it would have been submitted to the court as evidence. The lack of it says something too, that Mr. Grey's allegation was just more empty rhetoric and it was dishonest...same thing for the statement by Mr. Schumacher. Seems your employees lied to you Gregg Schumacher, or you just made it up. The conditions at the Schumacher's store on May 19 and May 26 were not as described above by Mr. Grey. I've got some other pictures (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9) too, from May 26. They show employee Ryan (in a black t-shirt) hanging out outside in front of the store. If the atmosphere was so scary why was Ryan out amongst the bad scary people? Picture number 9 was taken at 4:40 pm according to the time stamp on the file. I've got video too (all of the video files have been converted from the native .avi format to .mpg to make them smaller so they will play faster). First, introductions from Ryan (recorded 11/25/06 during Linda Schumacher's counter-protest). Second, video from May 19...2:47 pm, 2:50 pm, 3:19 pm, 3:27 pm, and 3:31 pm are the recording times according to the time stamp on the original files. You will see calm and the Schumacher security recording video. In the 3:27 pm clip you will see the gate coming down at the entrance indicating the closing of the store. A police car is visible in the 2:47 pm clip but is not present in the 3:19 pm clip. Employees afraid of what was going on outside the store?...how ridiculous. They probably wanted to close the store early because they were extremely bored...or Gregg Schumacher might have just made up the "fear" thing. OK, let's take a look at some video from May 26...1:57 pm, 2:22 pm, 2:23 pm, 2:38 pm, 3:14 pm, 3:19 pm, 3:25 pm, 3:39 pm, 3:41 pm, 4:09 pm, 4:20 pm, 4:37 pm, 4:40 pm, 4:43 pm, and 4:46 pm are the recording times according to the time stamp on the original files. As you will see (or saw) in the 4:09 pm clip Schumacher employee Ryan spends some time outside of the store, in front, in the vicinity of the Radical cheerleaders. He is obviously quite comfortable being there, just hanging out (behind the foliage for most of the clip where he appears). In the 4:40 pm clip a female Schumacher employee is peacefully escorted to the parking garage. In the 4:43 pm clip Ryan has left the store and he walks unescorted past the Radical Cheerleaders (south side of SW Morrison) during a cheer. He is obviously not fearing any of us as he leaves the store for wherever his destination was. All of the clips lack drama. The activists in no way behaved badly. The Radical Cheerleaders were awesome as usual in doing what they do...cheer for the animals. Some clips also show Schumacher security video recording us. The 26th was the last day of outreach at Schumacher Furs. No video, pictures or other evidence was presented to the court by Herbert Grey to support his (and Gregg Schumacher's) allegations regarding my conduct on those two days...and/or showing the behavior of other activists. Video pertaining to the 19th and 26th was submitted to the court by Jami Pannell on my behalf. There's a lack of honesty on the plaintiff's side of things here. Once again an allegation made by Herbert Grey (and Gregg Schumacher) is not supported/validated with evidence and is not true. I must point out also that none of Gregg and Linda Schumacher's employees (not counting the outside security as his employees) submitted affidavits or declarations in support of the Schumachers nor did any of them provide live testimony. See 6/13/07 Reply to Plaintiff's Response to Motion for Reconsideration of Injunctive Order, p. 12,13.
And this is one of my favorites, a real gem. From the Plaintiff's 6/8/07 Response to Defendant Mieras' Motion for Reconsideration of Preliminary Injunction, p. 7 Mr. Herbert Grey writes...."Plaintiff's trespass claim is based on hitherto uncontroverted evidence of someone surreptitiously placing anti-fur information in the pockets of coats for sale inside the SFO store. Gregg Schumacher Declaration, p. 4. There can be no doubt of unauthorized entry or the accomplishment of such a purpose contrary to the business interests of the store. While there may be doubt about Mr. Mieras' personal involvement in the trespass, the other evidence adduced above reflects he may well have had knowledge or complicity in it as a leader of the protests". And from the 4/18/07 Gregg Schumacher Declaration, Mr. Schumacher states "Individuals have also entered the store and put brochures into the pockets of items I am trying to sell". That's it from the Gregg Schumacher Declaration, one sentence about "individuals" entering the store and putting brochures in coats. No mention of exhibits or other supporting evidence. OK kids, let's play...what is the essential piece of evidence you would have expected Mr. Schumacher and Mr. Grey to provide to the court to support the allegation...starts with a "b"...yes, a brochure....an actual brochure, at least a copy of one, something. Where was the brochure Mr. Grey? Mr. Grey's allegation, which expands on Gregg Schumacher's allegation, is completely absurd. "Uncontroverted evidence"? What evidence did you and Gregg Schumacher provide Mr. Grey? If a brochure had actually been placed in a coat surely Gregg or Linda Schumacher would have had it in their possession back in 2006 or 2007. Mr. Grey and Mr. Schumacher, you could even have faked the brochure in a coat thing...could have gotten literature from an animal rights group and claimed an intruder placed it in a coat...you would have at least had a brochure to show...but possession of a brochure alone doesn't prove anything. Mr. Grey and Mr. Schumacher provided no video or picture evidence of the alleged trespass (and the Schumachers recorded video from inside their store). In the written testimony there is no statement by Mr. or Mrs. Schumacher, or store employees (who didn't submit any written testimony) that they witnessed someone placing brochures in coats. Mr. Grey, you provided absolutely no evidence that anyone had entered the store and placed brouchures in coats much less that I had anything to do with it. The reality is that if I had tried to enter the Schumacher's store I would have been seen immediately and the police would have been called. Same with any other activist who participated in the Saturday outreach. There is no way we could have entered the store to do what you allege. "there may be doubt about Mr. Mieras' personal involvement"...said Mr. Grey. Duh. "the other evidence adduced above reflects he may well have had knowledge or complicity in it as a leader of the protests". One more time....I was not a "leader of the protests"...the plaintiffs tried to place that tag/label on both Matt Rossell and I...it seems for the purpose of trying to hold us accountable for the alleged bad behavior of the Jane and John Does (see two paragraphs back here in Part 1). There were no leaders...everyone who participated was there as an individual of equal status. "may well have had knowledge or complicity" in what Mr. Grey? As I've already stated, you and Gregg Schumacher have provided zero evidence of anything trespass-related. Let's also take a look at the "other evidence adduced above" part of that quotation. What Mr. Grey seemed to be saying was that earlier allegations, claimed to be true (by the Schumachers, Mr. Grey; but unproven) were the basis for the believed (by Schumacher and Grey) truthfulness of the trespass allegation...and not real evidence actually related to the alleged trespass. Hearsay is evidence of the validity of an unrelated allegation? As I said earlier Mr. Grey, I'm not a lawyer but that defies logic. A suggestion can be made, that the alleged role of a person in one event is related to the alleged role of the same person in another event but that's all it is, a suggestion/speculation. It's not evidence. Each allegation/claim, it seems, must be validated with its own evidence. If inferences were accepted as "evidence" then there is no limit to what one person could accuse another of. Mr. Grey, did you not think that at the very least providing evidence of an anti-fur brochure found in the Schumacher's store would be essential (though not adequate) to validate your allegation? Mr. Grey, your argument was very weak to start ("may be doubt" and "may well have had knowledge or complicity" in referring to me). You accused me of criminal behavior (the trespass) with absolutely no evidence. See 6/13/07 Reply to Plaintiff's Response to Motion for Reconsideration of Injunctive Order, p. 9, 10. Mr. Grey, do you think that was proper and ethical lawyering? And one more little nugget of amusement regarding alleged trespassing inside the store...Linda Schumacher, in her Declaration p. 3, states "Based on what I have heard from other witnesses, I believe one of the people who has been part of the protests came in the store and stole my purse". Once again, no evidence was presented to the court to validate that allegation. And I repeat, if an activist had entered the store he or she would have been seen immediately and the police would have been called. There is no way an activist could have entered the store without being seen.
This section is dedicated to the Gregg Schumacher and Herbert Grey allegation that I had "known ties to", was "affiliated with" the Animal Liberation Front. This is probably the one that upset me the most for numerous reasons. It shows how pathetically low Gregg Schumacher and Herbert Grey were willing to go to try to score legal points with Judge Mosman. See 6/13/07 Reply to Plaintiff's Response to Motion for Reconsideration of Injunctive Order, p. 5. I ask you once again Mr. Grey, do you think that was proper and ethical lawyering?
Regarding the 4/20/07 Complaint, p. 3 & 4, Herbert Grey states "Defendant KEVIN MEIRAS, aka "BLUEJAY", is a resident of the state of Oregon with known ties to defendant ANIMAL LIBERATION FRONT and a regular leader and participant in the protests and demonstrations at or near plantiffs' retail store". And regarding the ALF, Herbert Grey states "ALF has been identified as a terrorist organization by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) due to its well-documented history of violence against persons and property". It was clear that from the beginning the Schumachers and Herbert Grey were intent on planting the seed in Judge Mosman's head that I was a "terrorist" or at the very least affiliated with "terrorists", and by doing so were certainly trying to create a bias against me and possibly the other defendants.
The reference to me and the ALF also appears in the 5/16/07 Plaintiff's Reply to IDA, Rossell, Durkee & Mieras' Response to Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction, p. 3, 4 & 6. Mr. Grey states "Of all the defendants plaintiffs can identify Kevin Mieras and his conduct most specifically. He is believed to be connected with ALF, which has no members (Complaint, para. 10, 13; Ex. 3 to Declaration of Herbert G. Grey), yet he claims not to belong to any animal rights group named in the lawsuit, including ALF. Aff. of Kevin Mieras, pp. 2,3. He denies having control over any other protestors, yet the allegations against ALF show they are the most vociferous protestors present. Gregg Schumacher Declaration, p. 6 and Ex. 1 attached thereto" and "Kevin Mieras' protestation that he is not a member of ALF is meaningless because ALF does not have membership or any overt form of corporate organization". This one has a bunch of nonsense worthy of comment. Regarding the "He is believed to be connected with ALF..." part of that...I can say I believe in unicorns but that doesn't make them real. If I were to tell a friend I believe in unicorns he or she would likely ask me for some evidence that unicorns exist. Beliefs aren't evidence. Regarding the "He denies having control over any other protestors...", yes I denied having control over others because that's the way it was. I did not tell other activists how to conduct themselves and I was not responsible for the behavior of others. Regarding the "...yet the allegations against the ALF show..." part of the statement, allegations don't show anything Mr. Grey, evidence does. Allegations are just allegations. Anyone can accuse another of anything but without something real and truthful to back it up it doesn't mean a darn thing. Regarding the "they are the most vociferous protestors present" part of the statement, Gregg Schumacher, in his Declaration, page 6, makes a lengthy statement about the alleged behavior and threats made by the ALF. Mr. Schumacher does not mention my name in that part of his written testimony. Mr. Grey also refers to Exhibit 1 as support for his allegation ("He denies....most vociferous protestors present"). Exhibit 1 is the DVD the Schumachers submitted to the court with the original Complaint and I received a copy when I was served the Complaint on April 21. Approx. 2 minutes and 12 seconds into the video the video shows someone writing an "ALF" message in chalk on the sidewalk. That is the only reference to the ALF in the entire Schumacher video. In his Declaration Mr. Schumacher talked about threatening ALF chants. There is no video evidence of that. I don't believe they ever happened, certainly not from mid-February 2006 forward when I was present. I am certain I never heard an "ALF" chant (one mentioning the ALF) during all of my time there. The Exhibit 1 video is made up of non-continuous clips merged together. The part of the video in which I appear occurs at approx. the 8 minute and 33 second point (original/disc version; and it lasts about 22 seconds. In that small part of the video I am dressed in shorts and a t-shirt, not covering my face....I am not saying anything to anyone, it's just me and my camera. You can watch the entire video here, part 1 and part 2. I first appear approx. 2 minutes and 49 seconds into part 2, with my back facing the store entrance. Due to the file size I had to convert the file to .mpg format and split the file into two parts (because the website host has a 50 MB file size limit on uploads). No content was removed from or added to the video. The quality isn't the best (made that compromise to keep the file size down) but it's all there. You will see that I am not directing other activists and nothing ALF-related is going on in the segment in which I appear. The DVD does not contain date/time stamps so the date each segment was recorded was not part of the exhibit but it was from the early months of outreach/protests (was 18.5 months from the date of the first protest there in Nov. '05 to the day they closed). "the most vociferous protestors present" claim is not supported by the video "evidence" of the Schumachers. None of the named defendants in the suit are seen in the video demonstrating bad behavior. Mr. Herbert Grey's statement "He denies having control over any other protestors, yet the allegations against ALF show they are the most vociferous protestors present." is complete nonsense. Mr. Grey is once again trying to work the "he had control" and "ALF" allegations all into one broad idea to push. The video doesn't implicate me in anything and they presented nothing else in an attempt to link me to the ALF. It's all untrue, every little bit of it. And I think Herbert Grey and Gregg Schuamcher were completely aware that I had no ties to the ALF (at the very least they had to recognize they had no evidence to support the claim) but that of course didn't stop them from trying hard to push their unsupported allegations as "evidence".
And in the 6/8/07 Plaintiff's Response to Defendant Mieras' Motion for Reconsideration of Preliminary Injunction, p. 5 & 6 Mr. Grey states "The record documents death threats from ALF and others. Gregg Schumacher Declaration, p. 6 and Ex. 3 thereto. Kevin Mieras even acknowledges that he appears in some of the video and photographs of such activity (Mieras Supplemental Affidavit, pp. 3-4) and he is known to be affiliated, or was formerly affiliated with, ALF and In Defense of Animals". In addition to my brief appearance (with my camera) in the Exhibit 1 video I'm also shown in two photographs in the Gregg Schumacher Declaration, exhibits 2b & 2c. Those two pictures show a group of activists standing around (though in the one photo I'm on my knees on the sidewalk), some holding signs and some not. No bad behavior going on in those photos. What was the point of introducing them as exhibits Gregg Schumacher? Did you just want to prove I was present in the vicinity of your store? Because that's all those photos show regarding me. The DVD shows some very rude behavior by some activists. I wasn't a participant in the rude behavior. "Kevin Mieras even acknowledges that he appears in some of the video and photographs of such activity" is another slimy statement from Herbert Grey. Mr. Grey in the "Plaintiff's Response" document defined "such activity" to be "death threats from ALF and others". "Such activity" Mr. Grey? No Mr. Grey. The photos in which I appear do not show anything resembling what you refer to as "such activity", that is, death (or any other) threats. Same goes for the slice of the Exhibit 1 video in which I appear. Mr. Grey, did you pause to contemplate the accuracy of your claim? Mr. Grey, you cited my Supplemental Affidavit to support your allegation. Let's look at that Mr. Grey, pages 3 and 4. Starting on page 3..."I am shown in two of the photos attached to Gregg Schumacher's original declaration; specifically the bottom two photographs shown in Exhibits 2-b and 2-c. In both photos, I am clearly on the public sidewalk, fully clothed, holding a sign. Attached as Exhibit B are true and correct photographs with arrows indicating my position in the photographs" and at the top of page 4, "I am shown in a few seconds of the videotape attached to Gregg Schumacher's original Declaration; specifically on or about the 8-minute, 33-second mark through the 9-minute mark in Exhibit 1. Attached as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of a screen shot of my appearance in the video with an arrow indicating my position in the video. Again I am fully clothed and not saying anything. These exhibits show my subdued, typical and consistent behavior at the protests, and show that I remained calm even when the protests were at their most sensational peaks". How does that help you validate your allegation Mr. Grey? Also Mr. Grey, in my Supplemental Declaration you referred to...I had acknowledged appearing in the two photos and a small slice of the video...I mentioned witnessing "raucous behavior"...I said nothing about threats. I don't know if you were just careless with your writing or intended to mischaracterize what I stated in the Supplemental but your statement (beginning of paragraph) misrepresents what is stated in that document. And in closing, from Mr. Grey, once again, "and he is known to be affiliated, or was formerly affiliated with, ALF and In Defense of Animals"...I had participated in IDA-led activities but not as a member, not a big deal...but the ALF thing...no Mr. Grey, one more time...you provided no evidence to validate your allegation and the allegation is completely untrue.
This series of claims may be the most interesting and is different from the others. Why? The website. It was at least something real around which a discussion of the law, between Mr. Grey and Jami and Shauna (and ultimately Judge Mosman), could take place. That of course doesn't mean the allegations/claims were any more legitimate. From the 6/8/07 Plaintiff's Response to Defendant Mieras' Motion for Reconsideration of Preliminary Injunction, p. 6. On that page Mr. Grey states "In the same way, there is ample evidence of his liability for intentional interference with economic relations and interference with contract. The record clearly evidences an intention to put SFO out of business. Gregg Schumacher Declaration, pp. 6,7 and Exs. 4-b, 4-c. There is evidence of orchestrated efforts to contact other landlords and property managers to prevent SFO from relocating to other malls or retail locations, complete with mailing and other contact information. Id. There is ample evidence of interference with plaintiffs' customers' willingness or ability to patronize the store. Gregg Schumacher Declaration, pp. 3, 5 and Exs. 3-6. Linda Schumacher Declaration, p. 4. It is equally clear that the stated intention of putting plaintiffs out of business when they operate a lawful business is an improper purpose and the protests document the employment of improper means to accomplish that improper purpose. See Ex. 1-2 to Gregg Schumacher's Declaration. Mr. Mieras' website "portlandfurcruelty.com" has been, and continues to be, an integral part of communication and posting of his photos and video about protest activity at SFO. Scott Castleman Declaration, p. 2. Finally, no matter how Mr. Mieras wants to minimize the effects of the protests, no one has controverted that the SFO store was closing May 31, 2007, evidence plaintiffs want to but can't relocate because of the protest activity, and the aformentioned evidence of interference with their customers. One can hardly imagine the closure of a business as anything less than irreparable injury." Lots of issues were put on the table here and I'd love to comment on each claim/allegation/statement made by Mr. Grey. That would require a lot of writing and I don't want to go down that road at the moment. The following two documents address these issues factually, thoroughly and completely...6/13/07 Reply to Plaintiff's Response to Motion for Reconsideration of Injunctive Order, p. 6-9 and 6/28/07 Supplemental Brief on Special Motion to Strike. Please also check out the 9/20/07 Opinion and Order, p. 3, 4, 5, 6 for Judge Mosman's statement on these issues.
Regarding the Schumachers difficulty finding legal representation for this case...from the 5/12/07 Supplemental Gregg Schumacher Declaration, p. 3, Mr. Schumacher stated "For those who question why it took so long for us to bring this lawsuit, I would point out (without any intention of waiving attorney-client or other privileges) that I spent over a year diligently trying to secure the service of legal counsel with both the willingness and professional background to handle a case of this magnitude. That search was not limited to Portland, but also included a national search. I did not locate such counsel until I retained my current attorneys in late January 2007;" Very amusing, this statement. Perhaps the potential legal counsel Mr. Schumacher spoke of evaluated the case and decided the Schumachers were unlikely to prevail on their claims and they didn't want to be in a position of having to try to make arguments (against the named activists) without the evidence to back them up. Judge Mosman, in the 1/23/08 Attorney Fees Opinion and Order, p. 14 stated "This was an extraordinary abuse of the litigation process." and "I find that awarding attorney fees in this case will properly serve to deter putative plaintiffs from filing multi-million dollar lawsuits against non-profit groups and private citizens engaged in First Amendment activities until they have thoroughly investigated the facts and researched the law." Question....why did Herbert Grey decide this was worthy of his time and effort (I'm guessing it wasn't just about the money)?
There was no specific intent, here in Part 1, to omit commentary on any particular allegation, statement or series of statements hurled our way from the Schumacher/Grey camp. There was/is simply too much to address. As I've mentioned before I was given the opportunity to provide live testimony during the June 18 hearing and did so, unrehearsed, and was cross-examined (I recall quite a bit of it but not all of it focusing on the website) during that hearing. Plaintiff Gregg Schumacher was in the courtroom that day too but he did not provide live testimony. I'm guessing he was afraid of the cross-examination. I don't recall if Linda Schumacher was in the courtroom for the June hearing but she certainly did not provide live testimony. No witnesses appeared in court to provide live/oral testimony on behalf of the Schumachers. The Schumachers had the opportunity to provide live testimony but they declined (I don't recall hearing an official statement about it but since they didn't testify and they had a chance to they must have declined). Why would they have done that? ...even after hearing my live testimony? Hmmm. If the Schumachers were so confident in the legitimacy of their allegations and claims...and all that alleged "evidence" that was talked about in their Declarations and other documents was really evidence (or they felt it was, because it wasn't) they should have been eager to testify...right? If Mr. Grey was so sure the plaintiffs would prevail on their claims why did he not put Gregg and/or Linda on the stand? No worries, huh? I think the answer is obvious. I think that hearing, and my live testimony, most importantly Jami's questions, and the failure of the Schumachers to provide live testimony...was very important to the outcome of this case. Anyway, during that hearing Judge Mosman removed the injunction order (see 6/19/07 Minutes..."Order, relieving Kevin Mieras from order/preliminary injunction (#42) pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, based on the court's finding that the evidence now before the court does not support ongoing restraint of Kevin Mieras' liberties."). All claims against defendants IDA, PETA, Matt Rossell and Connie Durkee were dismissed the day of that hearing. The case against me was partially dismissed on that same day.
A couple of issues/claims awaited Judge Mosman's ruling after the June hearing...Interfering with Business Relations and Interfering with Contract (see above). During the June hearing (and after my live testimony) Judge Mosman requested briefs from the legal representation on each side for the purpose of clarifying the issues that remained. On June 28, 2007 the Supplemental Brief on Special Motion to Strike (Pannell & Curphey; for Mieras) and Supplemental Briefing Regarding Evidence and Defenses in Defendant Mieras' Motion to Strike (Grey; for the Schumachers) were submitted to the court. Jami and Shauna prepared and submitted to the court another legal masterpiece and I recommend that everyone read it. And for the heck of it you might want to check out the document submitted to the court by Herbert Grey. From that point all we could do is wait.
On September 20 we received the good news. Judge Mosman ruled to dismiss (Judgement and Opinion and Order) the remaining claims pertaining to me. The Schumachers, on their website, state that "This will be a precedent-setting court case that will protect us all!" (Mr. and Mrs. Schumacher...you might want to update your website). I have no problem with that. The truth matters. Evidence (or the lack of it) matters. Allegations are not evidence. It was a victory for free speech. It was a victory for the animals. The Schumachers are probably displeased that this website still exists to remind visitors of their complete failure in court and Judge Mosman's remarks regarding the legitimacy of this case. Contemplate the "evidence" against me for a moment...the Schumachers submitted to the court, in addition to the Complaint, Declarations, Motions, Memos, Replies, etc....a DVD, photos and copies of various documents/printed material...and what was the "evidence" against me? ...approximately 22 seconds of my face in the DVD holding a camera and saying nothing, my face in two photographs doing nothing but holding a sign and the creation and maintenance of an anti-fur website with a domain name similar to that of the Schumacher's site. Their "evidence" was evidence of nothing (same for PETA, IDA, Matt Rossell and Connie Durkee...and the ALF which was a non-entity in this case, just something on paper). The Schumachers and Herbert Grey certainly tried to ruin the activist defendants financially (don't know if that was their specific intent but $6.6 million is a lot of money and the Schumachers were no doubt aware of the potential impact on the individual defendants, PETA and IDA) and damage the reputations of those who lawfully spoke out on behalf of the animals. One more thing, the claims against the City of Portland were later dismissed as well. Thankfully the internet exists so others with an interest can know that too.
Part 2
The law and process worked, a frivilous/meritless lawsuit was rejected. Thanks to Judge Mosman for his fairness, integrity, and respect for the Constitution. The issue of the attorney fees....motions had been submitted to recover from the Schumachers $99,430.85 (all activist defendants). On January 23, 2008 Judge Mosman ruled for the defendants in the amount of $96,870.85. From oregonlive.com:
In his order, Mosman called the facts of the case "extraordinary" but said the Schumachers had abused the legal process.

"Although the (Schumachers) may have had meritorious claims against people whose names they did not know, or even against the City of Portland," Mosman wrote, "they sued people against whom they had no evidence for $6.6 million, sought to restrict their First Amendment rights, and disparaged their reputations with accusations of criminal conduct, terrorist affiliations and responsibility for 'shutting down' a business whose financial solvency was questionable before the protesting activities began."
Continued, from the 9/20/07 Opinion and Order, pages 14 & 15: "This was an extraordinary abuse of the litigation process. Although I am slightly reducing the fees requested, as explained below, I find that awarding fees in this case will properly serve to deter putative plaintiffs from filing multi-million dollar suits against non-profit groups and citizens engaged in First Amendment activities until they have thoroughly investigated the facts and researched the law."
Seems the Schumachers and Mr. Grey decided to toss a bunch of stuff (allegations) out there and put forward what was often times ridiculous arguments to see what might stick. The attitude of the Schumachers and Mr. Grey seemed to be that...if we say it's so it is so...our word is all that is needed...our allegations are the evidence (but you can read the documents and come to your own conclusion). That notion was clearly rejected here. Judge Mosman stated that it was "an extraordinary abuse of the litigation process". I would argue that Herbert Grey was an active partner in the abuse of the litigation process. Judge Mosman also said that "awarding fees in this case will properly serve to deter putative plaintiffs from filing multi-million dollar suits against non-profit groups and citizens engaged in First Amendment activities until they have thoroughly investigated the facts and researched the law". The ultimate responsibilty was certainly with the Schumachers but isn't that the job of the plaintiff's legal counsel as well? Wasn't it the responsibility of Herbert Grey and his legal partners to thoroughly investigate the facts...and research the law? And then proceed based upon the facts (even if they don't work to the benefit of the client/plaintiffs) and how they apply to the law. No doubt Herbert Grey is a smart person. It would be very surprising if he didn't comprehend the weakness of the Schumacher's case. It seems to me likely that he knew the Schumachers lacked the evidence to affirm the allegations/arguments/claims (against the named defendants). At the very least Herbert Grey must have had (should have had) a lot of doubt about the merits of the Schumacher's case. That's why I feel Judge Mosman's statement should apply to Herbert Grey as well as the Schumachers. Mr. Grey argued, on behalf of the Schumachers, that I was complicit in (responsible for) the allegedly actionable behavior of unnamed persons who participated in the protests at Schumacher Furs, that I was directly involved in other bad/actionable behavior, and that I was affiliated with ("known ties to") or previously affiliated with "terrorists" (the Animal Liberation Front)...all without supporting evidence. It was his choice. It was a team effort...Gregg and Linda Schumacher, and Herbert Grey...the telling of untruths, advocacy without supporting evidence, the disparaging of our reputations, the accusations of criminal conduct, and the unwarranted restriction (though temporary) of my First Amendment rights. The evidence is how this case was conducted on the side of the plaintiffs and the outcome. And one more time...Mr. Herbert Grey, do you believe that (your performance) was proper and ethical lawyering?
Part 3
Below are links to court/case documents (.pdf format) and other communications originating from the court and/or Judge Mosman (available thru the PACER website). These are most of but not all of the documents. For all of the legal documents pertaining to this case go to the PACER website; register then do a Civil Search on case '3:2007cv00601'.
For the 'activist' defendants (including PETA who was not involved in the outreach):

5/11/07 Memo in Support of Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (IDA, Rossell, Durkee, Mieras)
Memo in Support of Motion to Make More Definite and Certain (IDA, Rossell, Durkee, Mieras)
Memo in Support of Motion to Strike (IDA, Rossell, Durkee, Mieras)
Motion to Consolidate (IDA, Rossell, Durkee, Mieras)
Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (IDA, Rossell, Durkee, Mieras)
Motion to Make More Definite and Certain (IDA, Rossell, Durkee, Mieras)
Motion to Strike Portions of Declarations (IDA, Rossell, Durkee, Mieras)
Response to Motion for Preliminary Injunction (IDA, Rossell, Durkee, Mieras)
Special Motion to Strike (IDA, Rossell, Durkee, Mieras)
Affidavit - Connie Durkee (Durkee)
Affidavit - Matt Rossell (Rossell)
Affidavit - Kevin Mieras (Mieras)
Response to Motion for Preliminary Injunction (PETA)
5/14/07 Special Motion to Strike (PETA)
5/25/07 Affidavit - Jason Dahl (Mieras)
Memo in Support of Motion for Reconsideration of Injunctive Order (Mieras)
Motion for Reconsideration of Injunctive Order (Mieras)
Supplemental Affidavit - Mieras (Mieras)
6/13/07 Third Supplemental Affidavit of Kevin Mieras in Support of Mieras' Reply to Plaintiff's Response to Motion for Reconsideration (Mieras)
Reply to Plaintiff's Response to Motion for Reconsideration of Injunctive Order (Mieras)
6/11/07 Reply to Defendant City of Portland's Response to Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (IDA, Rossell, Durkee, Mieras)
6/28/07 Supplemental Brief on Special Motion to Strike (Mieras)
8/22/07 Response to Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration of Judgement of Dismissal (IDA, Rossell, Durkee)
8/27/07 Response to Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration of Judgement of Dismissal (PETA)
2/19/08 Stipulation of Dismissal as to Defendant PETA (signed by Judge Mosman)
2/28/08 Stipulation of Dismissal as to Defendant Mieras
4/1/08 Stipulation of Dismissal as to Defendants IDA, Rossell and Durkee (signed by Judge Mosman)
5/20/08 Stipulation of Dismissal as to Defendants IDA, Rossell and Durkee (signed by Judge Mosman)

For the Schumachers:

4/18/07 Declaration of Gregg Scumacher in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction
Declaration of Linda Schumacher in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction
Declaration of Scott Castleman in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction
Declaration of Herbert Grey in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction
4/20/07 Brief in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction
Complaint
Motion for Preliminary Injunction
5/12/07 Supplemental Declaration of Gregg Schumacher
5/16/07 Plaintiff's Memo in Opposition to IDA Motions
Plaintiff's Reply to IDA, Rossell, Durkee & Mieras' Response to Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction
6/8/07 Declaration of Danny Garner in Support of Plaintiff's Response to Defendant Mieras' Motion for Reconsideration
Declaration of Gregg Schumacher in Support of Plaintiff's Response to Defendant Mieras' Motion for Reconsideration
Declaration of Linda Schumacher in Support of Plaintiff's Response to Defendant Mieras' Motion for Reconsideration
Declaration of Scott Castleman in Support of Plaintiff's Response to Defendant Mieras' Motion for Reconsideration
Plaintiff's Response to Defendant Mieras' Motion for Reconsideration
6/15/07 Declaration of Herbert Grey in Support of Plaintiff's Response to Defendant Mieras' Motion for Reconsideration
Exhibit
Exhibit
Exhibit
6/28/07 Supplemental Briefing Regarding Evidence and Defenses in Defendant Mieras' Motion to Strike
8/13/07 Plaintiff's Memo in Support of Motion for Reconsideration of Judgement of Dismissal as to People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, In Defense of Animals, Matt Rossell and Connie Durkee
Motion for Reconsideration of Judgement of Dismissal as to People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, In Defense of Animals, Matt Rossell and Connie Durkee
9/7/07 Plaintiff's Combined Reply Memo in Support of Motion for Reconsideration
11/16/07 Stipulation of Dismissal City of Portland and Schumachers
2/11/08 Notice of Dismissal of Defendants Animal Liberation Front (ALF), Alex Lilli, John Does 1-10 and Jane Does 1-10
2/19/08 Stipulation of Dismissal as to Defendant PETA (signed by Judge Mosman)
2/28/08 Stipulation of Dismissal as to Defendant Mieras
4/1/08 Stipulation of Dismissal as to Defendants IDA, Rossell and Durkee (signed by Judge Mosman)
5/20/08 Stipulation of Dismissal as to Defendants IDA, Rossell and Durkee

For the City of Portland:

5/14/07 Defendant City of Portland's Answer and Affirmative Defenses
5/31/07 Response to Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction
11/16/07 Stipulation of Dismissal City of Portland and Schumachers

From the court and/or Judge Mosman (via the PACER website, see above):

5/18/07 MINUTES of Proceedings: Motion Hearing regarding MotionMotion for Preliminary Injunction 3 . Motion hearing held. Order DENYING IN PART/GRANTING IN PART/TAKING UNDER ADVISEMENT IN PART Motion for Preliminary Injunction (#3). Order DENYING injunction as to In Defense of Animals, Animal Liberation Front, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Matt Rossell, Connie Durkee, and Alex Lilli. Order GRANTING injunction as to Kevin Meiras, enjoining him from entering closer than 15 feet to the entrance of Schumacher Furs store, from entering Schumacher Furs store, from directing any form of communication to plaintiffs, their family members, or employees, and from entering the residential property of plaintiffs, their family members, or employees, as stated on the record. Order TAKING UNDER ADVISEMENT, as of May 18, 2007, the motion to enjoin John and Jane Does. Herbert Grey and Jill Odell present as counsel for plaintiff(s). William W Manlove, III, Mary McDougal, Greg Kafoury, Jami Pannell, Shauna Curphey, Natalie McDougal, David Hosepud and Eric Wilson present as counsel for defendant(s). Michael W. Mosman presiding. (Related document(s): Motion, Motion for Preliminary Injunction 3 .) (dls) (Entered: 05/18/2007)
6/19/07 MINUTES of Motion Hearing: Defendant Kevin Meiras sworn and evidence adduced. Order GRANTING motions to strike of In Defense of Animals, Matt Rossell, Connie Durkee 16 and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (#29). Order DENYING motion for reconsideration of injunctive order (#45) of Kevin Mieras. Order, relieving Kevin Mieras from order/preliminary injunction (#42) pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, based on the court's finding that the evidence now before the court does not support ongoing restraint of Kevin Mieras' liberties. Order GRANTING IN PART the motion to strike of Kevin Mieras 16, and TAKING UNDER ADVISEMENT, as of June 28, 2007, the remaining portions of the motion to strike of Kevin Mieras 16. Simultaneous briefing on the remaining portions of the motion to strike of Kevin Mieras are due by June, 2007. Order DENYING AS MOOT all other outstanding motions (#s 13, 15, 18, 20). Herbert Grey and Jonathan Clark present as counsel for plaintiff(s). William Manlove, III, Mark McDougal, Greg Kaufoury, Natalie McDougal, David Hosenpud, Eric Wilson, Jami L Pannell and Shauna M Curphey present as counsel for defendant(s). Court Reporter: Bonita Shumway. Michael W. Mosman presiding. (Related document(s): Motion to Strike16.) (dls) (Entered: 06/19/2007)
7/6/07 Judgement of Dismissal (regarding defendants PETA, IDA, Rossell and Durkee)
9/20/07 Judgement of Dismissal (regarding defendant Mieras)
Opinion and Order (regarding defendant Mieras)
10/10/07 Opinion and Order as to Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration of Judgement of Dismissal (pertaining to PETA, IDA, Rossell and Durkee)
12/18/07 Order of Dismissal (regarding defendant City of Portland)
1/23/08 Attorney Fees Opinion and Order
2/19/08 Stipulation of Dismissal as to Defendant PETA (signed by Judge Mosman)
4/1/08 Stipulation of Dismissal as to Defendants IDA, Rossell and Durkee (signed by Judge Mosman)
5/20/08 Stipulation of Dismissal as to Defendants IDA, Rossell and Durkee (signed by Judge Mosman)
5/29/08 Judgement - This Action is Dismissed



The documents below (.pdf format) focus on the issue of attorney fees.
6/28/07 Affidavit of Charles Williamson in Support of Petition for Attorney Fees pertaining to Mr. McDougal and Mr. Kafoury (IDA, Rossell, Durkee)
7/19/07 Affidavit of Bernard Dimuro in Support of Motion for Attorney Fees pertaining to Mr. Hirschkop (PETA)
7/20/07 Affidavit Exhibit of Philip Hirschkop in Support of Motion for Attorney Fees (PETA)
Affidavit Philip Hirschkop in Support of Motion for Attorney Fees (PETA)
8/8/07 Declaration of Kristin Bremer pertaining to Mr. Wilson (PETA)
8/9/07 Declaration of Jeffrey Batchelor pertaining to Mr. Hosenpud (PETA)
8/10/07 Declaration of Greg Kafoury in Support of Motion for Attorney Fees on behalf of IDA, Rossell and Durkee
Declaration of Mark McDougal in Support of Motion for Attorney Fees on behalf of IDA, Rossell and Durkee
Declaration of Natalie McDougal in Support of Motion for Attorney Fees on behalf of IDA, Rossell and Durkee
Memo in Support of Motion for Attorney Fees on behalf of IDA, Rossell and Durkee
Motion for Attorney Fees on behalf of IDA, Rossell and Durkee
Declaration Exhibit 1 of David Hosenpud in Support of PETA Motion for Attorney Fees
Declaration Exhibit 1 of Eric Wilson in Support of PETA Motion for Attorney Fees
Declaration Exhibit 2 of David Hosenpud in Support of PETA Motion for Attorney Fees
Declaration Exhibit 2 of Eric Wilson in Support of PETA Motion for Attorney Fees
Declaration David Hosenpud in Support of PETA Motion for Attorney Fees
Declaration of Eric Wilson in Support of PETA Motion for Attorney Fees
Memo in Support of Motion for Attorney Fees on behalf of defendant PETA
Motion for Attorney Fees on behalf of defendant PETA
8/24/07 Declaration of Herbert Grey in support of plaintiff's response to PETA Motion for Award of Attorney Fees (Schumacher)
Plaintiff's response to IDA Motion for Award of Attorney Fees (Schumacher)
Plaintiff's response to PETA Motion for Award of Attorney Fees (Schumacher)
8/27/07 Declaration of Shauna Curphey in Support of Motion for Attorney Fees on behalf of Defendant Mieras
9/7/07 Reply to Plaintiff's Response to Motion for Attorney Fees on behalf of IDA, Rossell and Durkee (IDA, Rossell, Durkee)
Declaration Exhibit 1 of Eric Wilson in Support of PETA's Reply Memo in Support of Motion for Attorney Fees
Declaration Eric Wilson in Support of PETA's Reply Memo in Support of Motion for Attorney Fees
Reply Memo in Support of Motion for Attorney Fees on behalf of defendant PETA
10/4/07 Defendant Mieras' Memo in Support of Motion for Attorney Fees
Motion for Attorney Fees on behalf of Defendant Mieras
Declaration of Jami Pannell in Support of Motion for Attorney Fees on behalf of Defendant Mieras
10/17/07 Plaintiff's response to Mieras' Motion for Award of Attorney Fees
10/18/07 Supplemental declaration of Natalie McDougal in support of IDA, Rossell and Durkee Motion for Attorney Fees
10/22/07 Defendant Mieras' reply to plaintiff's response to Motion for Award of Attorney Fees
Supplemental declaration of Mark McDougal in support of IDA, Rossell and Durkee Motion for Attorney Fees
Supplemental Motion for Attorney Fees on behalf of IDA, Rossell and Durkee
10/23/07 Memo of Law in support of PETA's Supplemental Motion for Award of Attorney Fees
Supplemental Motion for Attorney Fees on behalf of PETA
10/29/07 Letter from Mr. Grey to Judge Mosman regarding Supplemental Motions for Attorney Fees
1/23/08 Attorney Fees Opinion and Order
Redirect Opportunity
On May 31, 2007 Gregg and Linda Schumacher dba Schumacher Furs & Outerwear in Portland Oregon ended their sales of cruelty and suffering. If you were expecting the website for Schumacher Furs and would like to go there now click here.
The Schumacher's New Adventure
This ad appeared in the 10/15/09 Portland Tribune. There seems to be an error in the ad though...to get thru 'open' works and not 'OPEN'. After requesting the website given in the ad in your browser you are redirected to a different domain/site which has name and email address data fields. Once you've passed that and provided your
user name and password you are taken to a 'private' page in which Gregg Schumacher provides an introductory statement in which he announces they are working with "The Trump Network". Nothing secretive here, access to this web page was provided in the ad. The Trump Network seems to be about vitamins and nutritional supplements. Is it a good thing? I don't know if this particular thing is good or not but it's not selling fur and that is a very good thing. Persons interested in working with the Schumachers should probably become familiar with the terms 'Network Marketing' and 'Multi-level Marketing' since that seems to be the nature of this business. The "We were surprised to learn...." statement...hard to believe they were unfamiliar with Donald Trump but whatever. For more info on 'The Trump Network' you can Google that...and you'll find this link and this link. I'm neutral on the whole thing. If you have an interest in collaborating with the Schumachers do your research and maybe contact the Schumachers, and ask plenty of questions.
Animal Stories
Climate chief Lord Stern: give up meat to save the planet (link added 10/26/09)
9 Weirdest-Looking Animals You Didn't Know Existed (with photos) (link added 10/15/09)
Pirate Healers Treat Sick Sea Lion Stranded on the Coast (link added 10/12/09)
Author's Note
More than a year has gone by since the last significant updates to this site. Those updates focused on the lawsuit. I assumed the site would receive very little traffic. Much to my surprise the site has averaged 480 visits per month since September 2008. Not a spectacular number but still more than I had expected. Didn't realize this until recently when I looked at the traffic stats. Started thinking that as long as people are coming to the site I have got to make it better. The biggest improvement is the 'lawsuit' section. Almost all (and all of the major) documents submitted to the court are listed individually....can be read by clicking on the links or downloaded if anyone should be interested.
The purpose of the outreach at Schumacher Furs & Outerwear, that began in November 2005 was to educate the public about the cruelty of the fur industry. Nobody was prevented from shopping at Schumacher's. It was the citizens of the Portland Metro area who in large numbers said no to the fur industry. The outreach continued in the fall of 2007. There was the annual Fur Free Friday march the day after Thanksgiving and then some activists participated in weekly Saturday outreach at Nordstrom's and Nicholas Ungar Furs. After New Year's 2008 the weekly outreach carried on at Ungar Furs (SW Yamhill @ 12th in the downtown area of Portland)...into the spring. Mr. Grimm's decision in the spring to close the store on Saturdays made it difficult for some activists to participate due to work schedules but activists associated with the Portland Animal Defense League with some schedule flexibility have kept up the effort on week days at Ungar's....thank you to those activists.
Every day we can choose to shop and live cruelty-free....it's about what we eat, the clothing we wear, the shoes we wear, the soap we use, it's about all facets of life. And it's not difficult. To those who are vegetarian...the dairy and egg industries are far from cruelty-free. Please consider making the transition to vegan. A plant-based (vegan) diet is healthy, kind to the animals and kind to our planet. Wearing alternatives to fur, leather and wool and any other animal-derived product is also kind to the animals. And when you are shopping for soap, laundry detergent, dish soap, etc. look for products that contain no animal ingredients and are not tested on animals. These products are not difficult to find and you will be doing a very good thing for the animals. And to those who are already vegan...yea! And thank you.
In the News
Portland Tribune (3/28/06): Fur flies at weekly protests
Portland Tribune (3/31/06): Fur flap moves to City Council
Portland Tribune (4/4/06): Landlord jumps into fur fight
Portland Tribune (4/7/06): Portland's no place for fur (opinion)
Willamette Week (4/12/06): What's the problem with Skinning Mink, anyway?
Portland Tribune (6/23/06): Fur feud far from a thaw
KGW (12/26/06): Schumacher Furs ordered out of downtown Portland store
Portland Tribune (2/19/07): Furriers targeted by protesters say they're going out of business for good
Portland Tribune (4/4/07): Schumachers to close store at end of May
KGW (4/23/07): Schumacher Furs sues animal rights groups
NWCN.com (5/18/07): Judge orders fur protester to stay away from Portland business
Portland Tribune (6/19/07): Schumachers' claims against two animal rights groups dismissed
KGW (6/19/07): Furrier's suit against animal rights groups thrown out
KGW (10/2/07): Schumacher Furs protester lawsuit dismissed
Oregonian (11/20/07): Former Portland furrier drops lawsuit against city
Oregonian (1/25/08): Schumachers ordered to pay $97,000 in protesters' legal fees
Video Fun
Many hours of video were recorded during the many months of outreach at Schumacher Furs. Lots of chanting, group shots, the usual weekly stuff. This is not that video. There were also some unique/atypical video moments and some of them will be posted here. Some will make you cringe, some are more serious and at least one of these will make you laugh.
This video however was recorded by the Schumachers and their security people. The content of these clips make up what was the Schumacher's Exhibit 1 (DVD). I received a copy when the Complaint document (and others) were delivered to me (and Matt R.) during a normal Saturday of outreach at Schumacher furs, April 21, 2007. The only edits are the format change (to .mpg) and that the video was split into two pieces. The edits were done to make it playable thru this website. No content was removed from or added to what was in the original video. I appear approx. 2 minutes and 49 seconds into part 2. My appearance, holding my camera and saying nothing, lasts about 22 seconds. This was all of the video submitted to the court by the Schumachers. Was there rude behavior in this video...yes. Was I (Kevin M.) part of it...no. Were Matt Rossell and/or Connie Durkee part of it...no. PETA and/or IDA...no.
Conversation with Linda Schumacher during her counter-protest 11/25/06. A couple of employees joined her out there amongst the activists though they aren't visible in ths clip.
Linda Schumacher made two separate appearances outside of the store during the counter-protest. This video is from the first appearance. For a few seconds in the video Linda tries (and does) block the sign of one of the activists.
This former employee of Schumcher furs was actually pretty friendly (the moment in the clip, also recorded 11/25/06, was not the only conversation we had), a pretty decent guy in a bad business. I hope life it treating him kindly now.
The counter-protest day chat continues...
This guy, a Schumacher employee decided to come out of the cave and behave badly...the day after the lawsuit Complaint was dropped into the hands of two of use during a standard Saturday of outreach. Was 4/22/07 when this foolish person stormed out of the cave. This clip was part of the video evidence submitted to the court.
This clip was recorded 2/24/07. I recall it being the first Saturday after Gregg Schumacher announced his intent to close the store. It was a rare moment of pleasantness between activists and the Schumacher employees. The reason for the choppiness of it is that it was originally three separate clips so I merged them.
This is a golden video moment
The furry guy (counter-protester, I think, though he didn't stay around very long).
She seemed a little bit affected by alcohol before dropping by.
The outreach that took place at the corner of SW 9th & Morrison (and will continue elsewhere) was and is always about the animals.
Thank you Portland-area citizens for saying no to fur, compassion is the fashion
This site is not affiliated with In Defense of Animals (IDA), national or local, or any other for-profit or non-profit organization
This site is not affiliated with or endorsed by Schumacher Furs & Outerwear in Portland, Oregon
If you would like to visit the website of Schumacher Furs click here.
This site is not affiliated with any retailer selling fur or other items.
This site is not a commericial site and the operator(s) seek no monetary gain from the Schumacher name or the names of other retailers.
This site is an anti-fur campaign site.
Fair Use trademark laws are being followed regarding the use of names of fur retailers on this site.