(Beth Clifton collage)
Indictments do not mention February 25, 2022 FBI raid in Whitesburg, Kentucky
LONDON, Kentucky––Eight alleged cockfight organizers and five alleged cockfighters were indicted for federal felonies in grand jury indictments issued on February 24, 2022 in London, Kentucky, unsealed on March 1, 2022.
Citing more than a dozen alleged specific dates of cockfights held at various Kentucky locations between November 2018 and July 2021, the indictments hint that a February 25, 2022 raid by the Federal Bureau of Investigation on an alleged cockpit near Whitesburg, Kentucky and rumored simultaneous raids on other Kentucky cockpits were directed at apprehending the thirteen individuals named in the grand jury indictments.
If that is the case, further indictments of those individuals and others caught in the February 25, 2022 raids are to be expected.
(See also FBI raids alleged Kentucky cockpit; 31 cockfighters “disappear” in Philippines and Alleged cockfighter indicted for bribery in Kentucky, others named.)
Cockfighting audience at the Whitesburg pit.
Alleged cockfighters & cockpits already named by SHARK
The indictments opened on March 1, 2022 mostly named people and alleged cockfighting locations already known to ANIMALS 24-7 readers from ongoing coverage of the “Crush Cockfighting” campaign conducted since mid-2019 by the Illinois-based organization Showing Animals Respect & Kindness [SHARK] with funding from the California-based Humane Farming Association.
Summarized Ralph Davis for Mountaintop Media, in Hazard, Kentucky, “The indictments, detail cockfighting activities in Pike, Clay, and Laurel counties, and accuse several law enforcement officers of taking part.
“In one indictment,” Davis wrote, “Millard Oscar Hubbard, Timothy Sizemore, Beachel Collett, Lester Collett and Justin Smith are all charged with conspiracy to defraud the United States. Sizemore is additionally charged with a second conspiracy charge, as well as two counts of taking part in an animal-fighting venture.
(See also And right on cue, here come the parasites, by Steve Hindi.)
Showing Animals Respect & Kindness accuses sheriffs who have failed to bust cockfights.
Alleged cockfighters in Clay County & Laurel County sheriff’s offices
“The Colletts are listed in the indictment as employees of the Clay County Sheriff’s Office,” Davis mentioned.
Jacklyn R. Johnson, named in the other indictment, was a bailiff in the Laurel County Sheriff’s Department until months after Showing Animals Respect & Kindness undercover cameras caught her working security at cockfights.
Tim Sizemore.
(Beth Clifton collage)
Sizemore defended cruelty to dogs
Tim Sizemore, described by SHARK as “a well-known, longtime cockfighter,” who allegedly owns and operates the Blackberry Pit near Manchester in Clay County, Kentucky, previously came to the notice of animal advocates for two posts to the American Beagler online discussion forum on March 5 and March 7, 2008.
Opposing proposed reinforcing amendments to the Kentucky anti-animal cruelty law, Sizemore posted first, misspellings and all, “Everybody need to contavt there legistature tell them not to vote the Romeos Law in, if this law passes it will change the law to a class D FELONY if you torture a dog or cat, When we train of dogs beagles, coondawgs, birddogs and any other type of dog you train, if you use shock collars, choke chains or anything in particular they can chrarge you with a class D felony CHARGE. WAKE UP KENTUCKY HUNTERS We need the NRA to help us on this bill.”
Added Tim Sizemore two days later, “About time i get a little support the human society takes small steps then they will keep pushing for more laws, if you shock, kick, use a choke chain to train your dog that is the same thing as cruelty wake up at start calling your senatores and tell them to oppose the bill before it is to late.”
Charles Howard “Magoo” Dixon.
Feds had two cockpits under surveillance ahead of SHARK tip to state
Sizemore and Charles Howard “Magoo” Dixon, alleged manager of the Hawk’s Nest cockpit in Pike County, were subjects of tips forwarded by SHARK to Kentucky State Police commander Colonel Phillip Burnett, Jr. on July 14, 2021.
Explained SHARK founder Steve Hindi to Burnett, “Two illegal cockfighting pits in Pike County are among the largest in Kentucky. Both of these criminal operations are planning on holding illegal cockfights this coming Saturday, July 17, 2021.
“We have repeatedly spoken about these pits with Kentucky State Police personnel at Post 9 in the past,” Hindi said, “but these pits, called Blackberry and Hawk’s Nest, continued their criminal activities as recently as last Saturday.”
Ironically, while the federal indictments did not mention the July 17, 2021 cockfights at Blackberry and Hawk’s Nest, the cockfights at both locations on July 10, 2021 were mentioned, indicating they were under federal as well as SHARK surveillance despite the apparent local indifference.
Cockfighting at the alleged Whitesburg pit.
Riverside Game Club
According to the first of the two federal indictments, “Beginning on a date unknown, but no later than on or about November 2018, and continuing through on or about January 2020, in Clay County, in the Eastern District of Kentucky, and elsewhere, Millard Oscar Hubbard, Timothy Sizemore, Beachel Collett, Lester Collett, and Justin Smith knowingly and voluntarily conspired with each other, and others, to violate laws of the United States,” by “knowingly sponsor[ing] and exhibit[ing] animals in an animal fighting venture.
“It was part of the conspiracy,” the first indictment said, “that Millard Oscar Hubbard owned the Riverside Game Club, located in Clay County, east of the intersection of Phil Young Road and Panama School Road.
“It was part of the conspiracy that Hubbard, with the assistance of Timothy Sizemore, sponsored weekly animal fighting ventures, namely cockfights, at Riverside. The Riverside venue consisted of stadium style seating, storage areas under the seating for storing live birds, enclosed cockfighting pits, a concession stand, two areas for weighing birds, a room for selling animal fighting accessories and two additional side pits for fights.
Why were Lowes’ banners displayed above the dead gamefowl bins at the alleged Whitesburg cockfighting pit? ANIMALS 24-7 has asked Lowes for an explanation.
“Using an instrumentality of interstate commerce”
“The defendants,” charged the indictment, “also collected parking, admission, and seating fees, sold concessions, and rented trailers and utilities to more than one hundred individuals who participated in and attended the animal fighting ventures. The defendants, and others, maintained security at animal fighting events,” which “routinely drew participants from the Eastern District of Kentucky and other states,” crossing state lines to attend.
That participants crossed state lines brought the cockfights under federal jurisdiction.
“At the fights,” the first indictment detailed, “Timothy Sizemore, with the assistance of Beachel Collett and Lester Collett, organized the participants into various fights, catalogued the entry fees, the weight of the roosters, tracked the weapons used on the animals, arranged the fights, and tracked the wins and losses of the various participants.
Further, the first indictment said, “Timothy Sizemore and others distributed advertising material about the fights including distributing the animal fighting schedule using an instrumentality of interstate commerce.”
Alleged cockpits are in the Kentucky counties shown in blue. (Beth Clifton collage)
142 trailers
“Throughout the conspiracy,” the first indictment mentioned, “Hubbard collected admission fees, sold concessions, and had approximately 142 trailers that could be rented to individuals who participated in the animal fighting ventures.
“Throughout the conspiracy, the defendants paid regular employees, including referees and kitchen staff, including Justin Smith, who worked the fights.
“Throughout the conspiracy,” the first indictment continued, “Hubbard and Timothy Sizemore split the proceeds on the animal fighting ventures between them.”
Continuing on from discussion of the alleged activities at the Riverside location, the first indictment adds that, “It was part of the conspiracy that, in concert with the owners and operators of Blackberry, Timothy Sizemore organized and sponsored weekly animal fighting ventures, namely cockfights, at Blackberry.
Kentucky cockfighting opponent Missy Underwood with rescued gamecock friends.
“Extensive security operations”
“The Blackberry venue,” the first indictment detailed, “consisted of stadium style seating, storage areas for storing live birds, one main enclosed cockfighting pit, a concession stand, one area for weighing birds, a room for selling animal fighting accessories, an announcer booth, and four additional side pits, also known as drag pits, for fights” continued among roosters who were already crippled so badly in the main pit as to no longer provide entertainment, but with winners still in doubt.
At Blackberry, the first indictment charges, “Timothy Sizemore and others organized the collection of admission fees, and sold concessions, merchandise, and sharp instruments for use in animal fighting to individuals who participated in and attended the animal fighting ventures.
“The animal fighting venture at Blackberry was maintained with extensive security operations,” the first indictment notes, “including two checkpoints for attendees.”
The first indictment mentioned at least a dozen dates on which cockfights were held, apparently under observation by federal agents.
(Beth Clifton collage)
“Fuzzy” thinking
In the second indictment, defendants Rickie D. Johnson, Jacklyn R. Johnson, and Harold “Fuzzy” Hale were charged with conspiracy to defraud the United States, while Orville D. Asher, Dallas M. Cope, Hiram Creech Jr., Bradley Cye Rose and Joshua Westerfield were charged as alleged actual cockfighters.
“Beginning on a date unknown, but on or about May 10, 2021 and continuing through on or about July 10, 2021, in Laurel County, and elsewhere,” said the second indictment, “it was part of the conspiracy that Rickie D. Johnson rented property off of Loretta Lane, in Laurel County, from Harold ‘Fuzzy’ Hale, and operated regular animal fighting ventures at the location as Bald Rock Chicken Pit.
“Harold ‘Fuzzy’ Hale had previously operated an animal fighting venture at the same location, called ‘Big H’s,’ up until March 2020,” recounted the indictment. “Rickie D. Johnson had previously assisted with operating an animal fighting venture called C.J.’s Cockfighting Piet, located on New Salem Road in London, Kentucky.”
Jacklyn R. Johnson.
(Laurel County Sheriff’s Office)
Netted $7,000 from just one cockfighting card
“It was part of the conspiracy that Rickie D. Johnson, with the assistance of Jacklyn R. Johnson, sponsored regular animal fighting ventures, namely cockfights, at Bald Rock,” the second indictment states.
“The Bald Rock venue consisted of stadium style seating, storage areas for storing live birds, one central enclosed cockfighting pit, additional side pits for fights, a concession stand, an area for weighing birds, and a station for sharpening animal fighting instruments.
“The Defendants also collected admission fees and sold concessions to the individuals who participated in and attended the animal fighting ventures.”
A cockfighting card allegedly organized and managed at Bald Rock by Rickie D. Johnson and Jacklyn R. Johnson on July 10, 2021, the second indictment said, attracted 47 entries and 80 spectators, “raising approximately $7,000.”
SHARK founder Steve Hindi & Sheriff John Root. (Beth Clifton collage)
Will sheriffs be busted?
Said a Showing Animals Respect & Kindness email to supporters, “Two years ago we could have chosen to nibble away at the fringes of cockfighting in other areas. We could have gone where it would have been easier. Instead, we chose to strike relentlessly at the very heart of the monster, where we had to deal not just with criminal cockfighters, but corrupt, dangerous police who protect them, like Laurel County sheriff John Root and Clay County sheriff Patrick Robinson.”
(See Cockfights: Laurel County, KY Sheriff John Root avows he won’t do his job.)
(Beth & Merritt Clifton)
“The last couple of years have been more difficult than we have let on,” Showing Animals Respect & Kindness said, “but our efforts showed federal authorities how extensive cockfighting is in Kentucky, and now they have taken action!”
Please donate to support our work:
https://www.animals24-7.org/donate/
Related Posts
Busting cockfights by people of color but ignoring the good old boys- Will Delaware bust cockpit exposed at SHARK/AWA media conference?
- Cullman County, Alabama: combatting cockfighting in a KKK stronghold
- Cockfighters hit in four states for bribery, drugs, even “grand theft auto”
- 98 alleged cockfighters busted; got only $50 fines & kept birds
- More predators in animal charity than remain in the wild
Forgive me for asking, but what federal laws specifically are (allegedly) being broken by the cockfighters charged in these cases? Do the charges include animal-cruelty violations?
These sadistic, illiterate cockfighters and sport hunters certainly contradict the idealized notion that living in Nature inevitably elevates the minds and spirits of the human inhabitants. This is not to blame Nature by any means but to realize that most human attitudes and behavior are more dependent on the people that other people are surrounded by than they are by the natural world, and that very few human beings have the empathy, sensibility and moral courage to withstand the assault of the community on their accommodating mentalities.
If only the roosters could rise up, round up, and stage an ultimate Battle Royale of the human psychopaths once and for all.
Thank you for the reporting and for the persistent, courageous forays into the Heart of Darkness and what Joseph Conrad also called “the destructive element.”
The complete relevant language from the U.S. Animal Welfare Act:
https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title7/chapter54&edition=prelim
§2156. Animal fighting venture prohibition
(a) Sponsoring or exhibiting an animal in, attending, or causing an individual who has not attained the age of 16 to attend, an animal fighting venture
(1) Sponsoring or exhibiting
It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly sponsor or exhibit an animal in an animal fighting venture.
(2) Attending or causing an individual who has not attained the age of 16 to attend
It shall be unlawful for any person to—
(A) knowingly attend an animal fighting venture; or
(B) knowingly cause an individual who has not attained the age of 16 to attend an animal fighting venture.
(b) Buying, selling, delivering, possessing, training, or transporting animals for participation in animal fighting venture
It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly sell, buy, possess, train, transport, deliver, or receive any animal for purposes of having the animal participate in an animal fighting venture.
(c) Use of Postal Service or other interstate instrumentality for promoting or furthering animal fighting venture
It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly use the mail service of the United States Postal Service or any instrumentality of interstate commerce for commercial speech for purposes of advertising an animal, or an instrument described in subsection (d), for use in an animal fighting venture, promoting 1 or in any other manner furthering an animal fighting venture except as performed outside the limits of the States of the United States.
(d) Buying, selling, delivering, or transporting sharp instruments for use in animal fighting venture
It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly sell, buy, transport, or deliver in interstate or foreign commerce a knife, a gaff, or any other sharp instrument attached, or designed or intended to be attached, to the leg of a bird for use in an animal fighting venture.
(e) Investigation of violations by Secretary; assistance by other Federal agencies; issuance of search warrant; forfeiture; costs recoverable in forfeiture or civil action
The Secretary or any other person authorized by him shall make such investigations as the Secretary deems necessary to determine whether any person has violated or is violating any provision of this section, and the Secretary may obtain the assistance of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Department of the Treasury, or other law enforcement agencies of the United States, and State and local governmental agencies, in the conduct of such investigations, under cooperative agreements with such agencies. A warrant to search for and seize any animal which there is probable cause to believe was involved in any violation of this section may be issued by any judge of the United States or of a State court of record or by a United States magistrate judge within the district wherein the animal sought is located. Any United States marshal or any person authorized under this section to conduct investigations may apply for and execute any such warrant, and any animal seized under such a warrant shall be held by the United States marshal or other authorized person pending disposition thereof by the court in accordance with this subsection. Necessary care including veterinary treatment shall be provided while the animals are so held in custody. Any animal involved in any violation of this section shall be liable to be proceeded against and forfeited to the United States at any time on complaint filed in any United States district court or other court of the United States for any jurisdiction in which the animal is found and upon a judgment of forfeiture shall be disposed of by sale for lawful purposes or by other humane means, as the court may direct. Costs incurred for care of animals seized and forfeited under this section shall be recoverable from the owner of the animals (1) if he appears in such forfeiture proceeding, or (2) in a separate civil action brought in the jurisdiction in which the owner is found, resides, or transacts business.
(f) Definitions
In this section—
(1) the term “animal fighting venture” means any event, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, that involves a fight conducted or to be conducted between at least 2 animals for purposes of sport, wagering, or entertainment, except that the term “animal fighting venture” shall not be deemed to include any activity the primary purpose of which involves the use of one or more animals in hunting another animal;
(2) the term “instrumentality of interstate commerce” means any written, wire, radio, television or other form of communication in, or using a facility of, interstate commerce;
(3) the term “State” means any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and any territory or possession of the United States; 2
(4) the term “animal” means any live bird, or any live mammal, except man.
(g) Relationship to other provisions
The conduct by any person of any activity prohibited by this section shall not render such person subject to the other sections of this chapter as a dealer, exhibitor, or otherwise.
(h) Conflict with State law
(1) In general
The provisions of this chapter shall not supersede or otherwise invalidate any such State, local, or municipal legislation or ordinance relating to animal fighting ventures except in case of a direct and irreconcilable conflict between any requirements thereunder and this chapter or any rule, regulation, or standard hereunder.
(2) Omitted
(i) Criminal penalties
The criminal penalties for violations of subsection (a), (b), (c), or (d) are provided in section 49 of title 18.
(Pub. L. 89–544, §26, as added Pub. L. 94–279, §17, Apr. 22, 1976, 90 Stat. 421; amended Pub. L. 101–650, title III, §321, Dec. 1, 1990, 104 Stat. 5117; Pub. L. 107–171, title X, §§10302(a), 10303(a), May 13, 2002, 116 Stat. 491, 492; Pub. L. 110–22, §3, May 3, 2007, 121 Stat. 88; Pub. L. 110–234, title XIV, §14207(a), May 22, 2008, 122 Stat. 1461; Pub. L. 110–246, §4(a), title XIV, §14207(a), June 18, 2008, 122 Stat. 1664, 2223; Pub. L. 113–79, title XII, §12308(b)(1), Feb. 7, 2014, 128 Stat. 990; Pub. L. 115–334, title XII, §12616(a)–(c), Dec. 20, 2018, 132 Stat. 5015, 5016.)
Editorial Notes
Codification
Pub. L. 110–234 and Pub. L. 110–246 made identical amendments to this section. The amendments by Pub. L. 110–234 were repealed by section 4(a) of Pub. L. 110–246.
Section is comprised of section 26 of Pub. L. 89–544, as added by Pub. L. 94–279. Subsec. (h)(2) of section 26 of Pub. L. 89–544, as added by Pub. L. 94–279, amended section 3001(a) of Title 39, Postal Service.
Amendments
2018—Subsec. (a)(1). Pub. L. 115–334, §12616(a)(1)(A), substituted “It” for “Except as provided in paragraph (3), it”.
Subsec. (a)(3). Pub. L. 115–334, §12616(a)(1)(B), struck out par. (3). Text read as follows: “With respect to fighting ventures involving live birds in a State where it would not be in violation of the law, it shall be unlawful under this subsection for a person to sponsor or exhibit a bird in the fighting venture only if the person knew that any bird in the fighting venture was knowingly bought, sold, delivered, transported, or received in interstate or foreign commerce for the purpose of participation in the fighting venture.”
Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 115–334, §12616(b), substituted “(d)” for “(e)”.
Subsecs. (d) to (h). Pub. L. 115–334, §12616(a)(2), (3), redesignated subsecs. (e) to (i) as (d) to (h), respectively, and struck out former subsec. (d). Prior to amendment, text of subsec. (d) read as follows: “Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (c), the activities prohibited by such subsection shall be unlawful with respect to fighting ventures involving live birds only if the fight is to take place in a State where it would be in violation of the laws thereof.”
Subsec. (i). Pub. L. 115–334, §12616(c), substituted “(d)” for “(e)”.
Pub. L. 115–334, §12616(a)(3), redesignated subsec. (j) as (i). Former subsec. (i) redesignated (h).
Subsec. (j). Pub. L. 115–334, §12616(a)(3), redesignated subsec. (j) as (i).
2014—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 113–79, §12308(b)(1)(A), substituted “Sponsoring or exhibiting an animal in, attending, or causing an individual who has not attained the age of 16 to attend,” for “Sponsoring or exhibiting an animal in” in heading.
Subsec. (a)(1). Pub. L. 113–79, §12308(b)(1)(B)(i), (ii), substituted “Sponsoring or exhibiting” for “In general” in heading and “paragraph (3)” for “paragraph (2)” in text.
Subsec. (a)(2), (3). Pub. L. 113–79, §12308(b)(1)(B)(iii), (iv), added par. (2) and redesignated former par. (2) as (3).
2008—Subsec. (a)(1). Pub. L. 110–246, §14207(a)(1)(A), struck out “, if any animal in the venture was moved in interstate or foreign commerce” before period at end.
Subsec. (a)(2). Pub. L. 110–246, §14207(a)(1)(B), which directed amendment of par. (2) by substituting “State” for “state” in heading, was executed by making the substitution for “states” in heading, to reflect the probable intent of Congress.
Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 110–246, §14207(a)(2), inserted heading and substituted “possess, train, transport, deliver, or receive any animal for purposes of having the animal participate” for “transport, deliver, or receive for purposes of transportation, in interstate or foreign commerce, any dog or other animal for purposes of having the dog or other animal participate”.
Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 110–246, §14207(a)(3), inserted heading and inserted “advertising an animal, or an instrument described in subsection (e), for use in an animal fighting venture,” after “for purposes of”.
Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 110–246, §14207(a)(4), inserted heading.
Subsec. (e). Pub. L. 110–246, §14207(a)(5), inserted heading.
Subsec. (f). Pub. L. 110–246, §14207(a)(6), inserted heading and, in last sentence, struck out “by the United States” after “Costs incurred”, inserted “(1)” after “owner of the animals”, and substituted “proceeding, or (2) in” for “proceeding or in”.
Subsec. (g). Pub. L. 110–246, §14207(a)(7), inserted subsec. heading, in introductory provisions, substituted “In this section” for “For purposes of this section”, in par. (1), substituted “any event, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, that involves a fight conducted or to be conducted between at least 2 animals for purposes of sport, wagering, or entertainment,” for “any event which involves a fight between at least two animals and is conducted for purposes of sport, wagering, or entertainment”, redesignated pars. (3) to (5) as (2) to (4), respectively, in par. (4), substituted “mammal” for “dog or other mammal” and period for “; and” at end, and struck out former par. (2) which read as follows: “the term ‘interstate or foreign commerce’ means—
“(A) any movement between any place in a State to any place in another State or between places in the same State through another State; or
“(B) any movement from a foreign country into any State or from any State into any foreign country;”.
Subsec. (g)(6). Pub. L. 110–246, §14207(a)(11), redesignated subsec. (g)(6) as (h).
Subsec. (h). Pub. L. 110–246, §14207(a)(11), redesignated subsec. (g)(6) as (h), inserted heading, and substituted “The” for “the”.
Pub. L. 110–246, §14207(a)(8), redesignated subsec. (h) as (i).
Subsec. (i). Pub. L. 110–246, §14207(a)(8), (9), redesignated subsec. (h) as (i) and inserted subsec. and par. (1) headings. Former subsec. (i) redesignated (j).
Subsec. (j). Pub. L. 110–246, §14207(a)(8), (10), redesignated subsec. (i) as (j) and inserted heading.
2007—Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 110–22, §3(1), substituted “instrumentality of interstate commerce for commercial speech” for “interstate instrumentality”.
Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 110–22, §3(2), substituted “such subsection” for “such subsections”.
Subsec. (e). Pub. L. 110–22, §3(3), added subsec. (e) and struck out former subsec. (e) which read as follows: “Any person who violates subsection (a), (b), or (c) of this section shall be fined not more than $15,000 or imprisoned for not more than 1 year, or both, for each such violation.”
Subsec. (g)(1). Pub. L. 110–22, §3(4)(A), struck out “or animals, such as waterfowl, bird, raccoon, or fox hunting” after “hunting another animal”.
Subsec. (g)(3). Pub. L. 110–22, §3(4)(B), added par. (3) and struck out former par. (3) which read as follows: “the term ‘interstate instrumentality’ means telegraph, telephone, radio, or television operating in interstate or foreign commerce;”.
Subsec. (i). Pub. L. 110–22, §3(5), added subsec. (i).
2002—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 107–171, §10302(a)(1), added subsec. (a) and struck out former subsec. (a) which read as follows: “It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly sponsor or exhibit an animal in any animal fighting venture to which any animal was moved in interstate or foreign commerce.”
Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 107–171, §10302(a)(2), substituted “deliver, or receive” for “or deliver to another person or receive from another person”.
Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 107–171, §10302(a)(3), substituted “subsection (c)” for “subsections (a), (b), or (c) of this section”.
Subsec. (e). Pub. L. 107–171, §10303(a)(1), inserted heading and substituted “$15,000” for “$5,000” in text.
Subsec. (g)(2)(B). Pub. L. 107–171, §10303(a)(2), inserted “or from any State into any foreign country” before semicolon.
Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries
Change of Name
“United States magistrate judge” substituted for “United States magistrate” in subsec. (e) pursuant to section 321 of Pub. L. 101–650, set out as a note under section 631 of Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure.
Effective Date of 2018 Amendment
Pub. L. 115–334, title XII, §12616(e), Dec. 20, 2018, 132 Stat. 5016, provided that: “The amendments made by this section [amending this section, section 49 of Title 18, Crimes and Criminal Procedure, and section 3001 of Title 39, Postal Service] shall take effect on the date that is one year after the date of the enactment of this Act [Dec. 20, 2018].”
Effective Date of 2008 Amendment
Amendment of this section and repeal of Pub. L. 110–234 by Pub. L. 110–246 effective May 22, 2008, the date of enactment of Pub. L. 110–234, see section 4 of Pub. L. 110–246, set out as an Effective Date note under section 8701 of this title.
Effective Date of 2002 Amendment
Pub. L. 107–171, title X, §10302(b), May 13, 2002, 116 Stat. 492, provided that: “The amendments made by this section [amending this section] take effect 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act [May 13, 2002].”
Pub. L. 107–171, title X, §10303(b), May 13, 2002, 116 Stat. 492, provided that: “The amendment made by this section [amending this section] takes effect 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act [May 13, 2002].”
1 So in original. Probably should be preceded by “or”.
2 So in original. The word “and” probably should appear.
You all at “shark” are dumb asf, gtfu get a damn job and stop wasting ppl time with the cockfighting bullshit. It’s been around since George Washington was president. Way before your dumbasses were born. It’s not dog fighting. Isn’t even animal fighting. It’s a bird naturally fighting, it’s a fowl. That bird isn’t going to do anything different in a pit then he’d do running around in a yard. Go tf on and stopp trying make chicken shows into sonthing their not. If u don’t like it don’t go to them. If your life sucks and ur bored need somthing to do. Get a job
The above is posted as a typical example of the profound ignorance of cockfighters.
For instance, Karen Davis founded United Poultry Concerns in 1990, two years before Steve Hindi founded Showing Animals Respect & Kindness, half a continent away.
Cockfighting was around for millennia before George Washington was born, but had also been denounced for millennia, including by leaders of every major religion. Contrary, by the way, to cockfighting mythology, George Washington never fought cocks on the White House lawn; the first White House was not completed and occupied until 1799, the year of his death, two years after his presidency ended in January 1797.
Concerning the respective definitions of “fowl” and “animal”, this is the Wikipedia definition: “Fowl are birds belonging to one of two biological orders, namely the gamefowl or landfowl and the waterfowl. Anatomical and molecular similarities suggest these two groups are close evolutionary relatives; together, they form the fowl clade which is scientifically known as Galloanserae. Scientific name: Galloanserae. Kingdom: Animalia.”
Concerning gamefowl behavior, I have personally had the opportunity to closely observe the behavior of gamecocks gone feral in Puerto Rico, Bali, Peru, India, and the Philippines. None of them wore blades on their legs. None fought to the death, or even seriously. If one rooster approached a hen from another’s flock, the other rooster might run over and leap at the interloper, but the whole confrontation was inevitably over with in seconds, neither rooster pursued the other for more than five or six feet, & both were always back to other activities within a minute or less.
Since Merritt Clifton and other commenters have responded substantively to the cockfighters’ comments, I will simply comment on the illiteracy of the defenders of cockfighting demonstrated by Kevin and you, Fu. Instead of spending your time abusing birds, why not go (back) to school and learn how to write? I put “back” in parentheses because your inability to write suggests you might never have seen the inside of a classroom. By the way, chickens are animals the same as you and I and a cow are animals. To be an “animal” is to be “endowed with the breath of life.” Did you know that?
Karen Davis certainly makes a valid point in her observation of peer pressure.
Sharing with gratitude and always, as difficult as it may sometimes be to continue having it, hope.
No body should be charged. It is Legal by the Constitution. No Law shaw be passed that’s violates the Constitution. 95% of all the Laws today are illegal and violates our Constitution. Taking everybody’s Freedom and Rights away.
The U.S. Constitution, Kevin, was written to be the foundation and framework for U.S., state, and local law, never intended by the framers to be the complete structure of law, any more than the foundation and framework of a house are intended to fully protect the occupants from the weather. The overwhelming majority of laws in effect today, among them all of the laws prohibiting cockfighting, have repeatedly met the tests of constitutionality at all levels of the judiciary, including the U.S. Supreme Court, created by the U.S. Constitution as the supreme arbiter of constitutionality. To complain that this is “taking everybody’s freedom and rights away” is both demonstrating complete ignorance of what the U.S. Constitution is, and like complaining that the roof, walls, floor, windows, etc. added to your house are blocking the wind, rain, and snow from coming in.
THANK YOU, MERRITT for your reply to “Kevin says.” For all the reasons.
They killed all the birds at the whitesbrug pit at least 300 so tell me what’s the difference in fighting them and them killing them at least over half of the cocks would have went home but none left there what’s up with that
SHARK founder Steve Hindi has argued for years that the legal penalties for cockfighting should include obliging convicted cockfighters to pay for the lifelong sanctuary care of the birds confiscated. Cockfighters have lobbied long and hard against having their moral & ethical obligations toward their birds written into law.
Incidentally, back when ANIMALS 24-7 first exposed cockfighting, about 45 years ago, cockfighters commonly argued that cockfighting is no different from killing chickens to eat, but the existence of facilities for the disposal of dead birds visible, with signage, at every U.S. cockpit on SHARK videotaped record certainly puts the lie to the allegation that any of these birds are ever eaten.