PETA: “Crush” Video Makers Sentenced to Life!!

 Received this in email….Well done PETA…at last the courts are taking this despicable act of cruelty, seriously!

Dear Julie,

For three years, PETA Asia has been working with authorities in the Philippines to help them find and prosecute the makers of horrific “crush” videos in which scantily clad girls (one as young as 12 years old) are filmed stepping, standing and stamping on and slowly crushing animals – from the smallest of mice to large dogs who are tied down and helpless.

Now PETA Asia’s efforts to shut down the makers of these sick fetish videos have resulted in a landmark ruling against those who tortured and killed puppies, rabbits and other animals.

Recently, a Philippine court found Vicente and Dorma Ridon guilty of child abuse, animal welfare crimes, human trafficking and wildlife-protection crimes and sentenced the pair to life imprisonment and a fine of more than 9 million pesos (Rs. 1,23,00,000) each for their part in making the videos.

This huge victory began with a single compassionate person who stumbled upon these vile videos and took the time to report them to PETA Asia, which then worked with the help of authorities to ensure that the Ridons were located, investigated, arrested, prosecuted and ultimately sentenced for their crimes. PETA Asia hired one of the top law firms in the country to assist the prosecutor, thereby ensuring that the case was given full attention. The group also stands ready to fight an appeal.

In videos made by the Ridons, one dog is skinned alive and another is burned with a clothes iron. Rabbits flail and scream while their ears are cut off or they’re set on fire. One video shows a puppy who is crushed until the animal vomits up internal organs. The Ridons’ long sentence is a warning to anyone involved in the vile crush video industry that there are grave consequences for harming animals.

Their sentence is also a powerful reminder of PETA Asia’s commitment to helping animals no matter how long it takes. Thank you for all you do for animals in need. Compassionate people like you are helping PETA and our international affiliates save animals’ lives.

Kind regards,

Poorva Joshipura
Chief Executive Officer

 

Related articles

• Filipino Couple Sentenced to Life for Extreme Animal Cruelty ‘Crush’ Fetish Videos (ibtimes.co.uk)
• Philippines: Major Victory In The Battle Against Crush Videos. (havehest.wordpress.com)
• Vicente And Dorma Ridon Get Life Behind Bars For Animal Cruelty Videos (dreamindemon.com)
• Filipino couple sentenced to life for animal cruelty (ireport.cnn.com)

Miami Woman Arrested for KILLING Animals While Performing Sex Acts for Horrific Fetish Videos

“Sickening”

By RYAN GORMAN PUBLISHED: 21:32, 5 April 2014 | UPDATED: 21:32, 5 April 2014

• Police say Sara Zamora mutilated and beat to death chickens while performing sex acts on camera
• She also karate-chopped and killed rabbits and other animals, cops said
• The heinous acts were filmed for a fetish video titled ‘SOS Barn’

A Miami woman faces up to 40 years in jail after being charged with an unthinkable crime – killing animals while performing sex acts for fetish videos.

Sara Zamora’

Sara Zamora, 28, decapitated chickens, beat rabbits to death and more for sexual gratification, Miami-Dade Police claimed.

The sickening videos were filmed at the Homestead home of Adam Redford, 54, of Homestead, said cops. He declined comment when reached by MailOnline.

An arrest report cited by the Miami Herald details the horrors carried out by Zamora and others in a video called ‘SOS Barn.’

Zamora and other women were shown in the the video ‘torturing and killing a wide variety of animals, including chickens, rabbits and more for the sexual gratification of its viewers,’ said the report.

The mortifying video is part of a genre of pornography called ‘crush,’ according to the paper.

Zamora is said by police to have been groping a man’s genitals with her left hand while ‘repeatedly cutting a chicken’s neck using hedge clippers with her right’ in one video.

Other videos had her scantily clad while ‘hacking off the head of another screaming bird, or [beating] chickens to death with a wooden stick.’

She is also shown karate-chopping the necks of rabbits while they howled in pain, police said, adding that she admitted to killing them.

’I’m glad I didn’t have breakfast because I would have puked all over the place,’ the woman’s defence attorney told the paper after he viewed portions of the video in court. ‘It was disgusting.’

Redford was already on parole for a similar animal cruelty violation last year, he has yet to be charged in the heinous crimes.

Adam Renford (right), he has yet to be charged but has a prior animal cruelty conviction

The ship captain’s website boasts that he has ‘been a part of many video productions related to South Florida fishing.’

Zamora’s Model mayhem profile, in which she goes by Gloria Shynez, talks up her ‘Middle-Eastern look,’ which she says ‘distinguishes from many models.

‘I am so excited to see what fun, beautiful shots we create together!’

Other Florida listings for a Gloria Shynez appear on Tampa Foot Party, tickle fetish sites and on another site that claims she ‘is a hot model available for nude and fetish custom videos.’

Her rates are flexible and she is ‘extremely easy to work with,’ according to her Model Mayhem profile.

Zamora was was hit with eight felony counts of animal cruelty, each carries a maximum five year prison sentence if convicted.

She was already on parole for a litany of criminal charges including grant theft with a firearm, multiple counts of credit card fraud, holding a fake driver’s license and multiple drug possession counts, records showed.

The repeat offender had been in jail for the past month after violating the terms of her parole by failing a drug test, according to the paper.

She was due to be set free and was arrested only hours before her scheduled release.

News Link: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2597814/Miami-woman-arrested-KILLING-animals-performing-sex-acts-horrific-fetish-videos.html#ixzz2y6Ydogy1
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

For more information visit:-http://www.stopcrush.org/

 

Feds Bring First Case Under New ‘Animal Crush’ Video Law

A Houston man and woman were indicted Wednesday for producing “animal crush” videos, the first federal case brought under the Animal Crush Video Prohibition Act of 2010, which was passed after the Supreme Court ruled that a previous version of the law violated the First Amendment.

The U.S. attorney in southern Texas charged Ashley Nicole Richards, 22, and Brent Justice, 51, who are already facing state animal cruelty charges, with producing eight videos that allegedly involve the torture and killing of puppies, chickens and kittens, according a release from the federal prosecutor’s office. Richards and Justice face five counts of animal crush charges and two obscenity charges.

A spokeswoman for the U.S. attorney’s office of Southern Texas confirmed the Houston case is the first in the nation brought under the revised law.

In April 2010, the Supreme Court decided 8-1 in U.S. v. Stevens to strike down Section 48 of Title 18 of U.S. Code as unconstitutional.

The code, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the opinion of the court, penalized “anyone who knowingly ‘creates, sells, or possesses a depiction of animal cruelty,’ if done ‘for commercial gain’ in interstate or foreign commerce.”

That case involved a man who sold videos of dogfighting and of dogs attacking other animals. He challenged his indictment on the grounds that Section 48 violated the First Amendment.

Though the government argued the code was necessary for cases of “animal crush” and animal fighting videos, the court held “a law may be invalidated as overboard if ‘a substantial number of its applications are unconstitutional.’” The court, therefore, did not discuss whether animal crush videos were a special case that could warrant an exception to the First Amendment.

“We … need not and do not decide whether a statute limited to crush videos or other depictions of extreme animal cruelty would be constitutional,” Roberts wrote for the court.

The court invalidated the law altogether as overboard, prompting Congress in September of that year to pass the Animal Crush Video Prohibition Act of 2010, which specifically prohibited animal crush videos and defined them as “any photograph, motion picture, film, video or digital recording, or electronic image that:

(1) depicts actual conduct in which one or more living non-human mammals, birds, reptiles, or amphibians is intentionally crushed, burned, drowned, suffocated, impaled, or otherwise subjected to serious bodily injury;

(2) is obscene.

The “and obscene” provision would be key if the statute were challenged anew, said First Amendment expert and University of Chicago law professor Geoffrey Stone.

“[Congress] passed this very complicated law that does not add anything to the scope of what is criminal,” Stone told POLITICO. “So as long as we stipulate that the material has to be obscene to be prosecuted under the statute, then why don’t you just prosecute you under the obscenity statute?”

The reference to obscenity also appears to limit the statute’s application in several ways, including limiting it to videos that are sexual in nature.

Stone believes that if the case were to be brought to the highest court, the question at issue would be whether there is a legitimate reason to distinguish this type of obscenity from others.

With free speech restrictions, the government cannot constitutionally pick and choose what type of speech to restrict based solely on its content, as established in the hate speech case R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul.

Stone compares the animal crush statute to a law creating higher penalties for purveyors of homosexual obscenity as opposed to non-homosexual obscenity – the government in both cases would need to show why the distinction serves a societal necessity.

Stone said in defence of the law, as in the comparable issue of child pornography, sometimes the government punishes selling depictions of something cruel to take away the incentive for individuals to commit the cruelty in order to profit off of it.

The animal crush statute carries a maximum penalty of seven years in prison; the obscenity statute carries up to five.

News Link:-http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2012/11/feds-bring-first-case-under-new-animal-crush-video-150700.html?hp=r2