THE SUIT: 8/2/89 - Berosini filed suit for defamation and misappropriation of Bobby Berosini's name and likeness against PETA in the Clark County, Nevada District Court.

In the spring of 1989, PETA began a formal multi-million dollar fundraising campaign based on stopping the use of 'animals in entertainment'. PETA identified Berosini as a principal target in the fundraising campaign.

PETA made contact with activists and entertainers in the production in which Berosini's orangutans appeared. At PETA's urging, some of those entertainers intentionally taunted and incited the orangutans creating a situation in which the animals could become violent and which required Berosini to control the animals to prevent them from hurting themselves or the audience. An activist enlisted the help of other entertainers and working with PETA secretly filmed Berosini trying to get the animals under control. Jeanne Roush in PETA's Animal Times said, "I told them what to do".

In court documents, PETA accused Berosini of criminal animal abuse, child abuse, stated that he beat the orangutans with a steel pipe and that striking the orangutans was routine and unprovoked. All accusations were proven false in the court proceedings. A unanimous Jury found for Berosini and awarded him $4.4 million against PETA et al.

Berosini called in the Department of Agriculture who administered the Animal Welfare Act. At Berosini's request and based on PETA's representations, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service ("APHIS") conducted an 'in-depth' investigation, which included an on-site inspection of the facilities and the orangutans. APHIS issued an official announcement that it found no sign of abuse.

Berosini went on TV and invited PETA and anyone else that thought the orangutans were abused to come out to see the orangutans for themselves. Local Humane Societies and SPCA's came out and inspected the animals and found no abuse. The news media went to PETA's representative who was making the circuit of the TV stations and news media outlets and asked her if she was going to join the others and go out and see the orangutans. PETA's chief investigator Jeanne Roush said "I would not go out to see the orangutans - I have the tape".

Pursuant to a court order, requested by PETA, two independent veterinarian experts, issued reports that the orangutans were in excellent health and had not been abused in any manner. PETA employed three 'experts' to examine the orangutans. None of their 'experts' would sign a report indicating abuse. In fact, PETA was fined by the court for trying to legitimize the report by filing and making public the unsigned and unsubstantiated report written on PETA stationery. That report was never admitted into evidence.

PETA COUNTERCLAIM: PETA filed a counterclaim against Berosini requesting confiscation of the orangutans due to Berosini's alleged abuse. PETA requested the orangutans' skin be peeled back because PETA claimed that the orangutans have natural pigmentation that is blue in color (something like freckles) and they needed to get under the skin to 'see' the bruises. The court dismissed the counterclaim with prejudice, the Judge noting that he "would not permit 'abuse' to prove 'abuse'."

THE TAPE: The producer of the tape admitted in court that he had altered the sound and visual portion of the tape to sensationalize the tape. The original tape was never produced and PETA was fined for failure to do so. Also, PETA's lawyers were sanctioned by the trial court and reported to bar counsel for a number of reasons including manufacturing evidence - one particular piece was the manufacturing of a steel pipe.

THE VERDICT: In August 1990, after 29 days of hearing evidence and then being sequestered for 5 days, the jury found PETA, et al (activists and employees) guilty of Defamation and Misappropriation of Name, Likeness and Character. They awarded Berosini damages of $4.2 million, plus costs and interest.

THE APPEAL: PETA appealed the decision to the Nevada Supreme Court in January 1994. Four years after the jury had found in Berosini's favor. The Nevada Supreme Court issued an opinion overturning the unanimous jury verdict and citing "PETA had the right to voice their opinion". The court said regarding the tape "unless the images had been superimposed as to actually put Berosini's image over someone else's, the tape would not be considered false for defamation purposes." This decision included statements from Mrs. Berosini that were never found in court documents and used testimony from witnesses that never testified as witnesses during the trial. When Berosini's lawyer filed a out motion complaining about these inconsistencies, the Nevada Supreme court recalled that opinion and replaced it with another one which was equally flawed because it replaced the witness who was not a witness with another witness who was not a witness. Another complaint was filed and that opinion was recalled. A complaint was filed when it was found out that one of the Judges was an active member of a local animal rights group in Las Vegas and that Judge was removed from the case. In May of 1995 or the third time, their opinion was reissued and the lower court decision was reversed favoring PETA. The case was remanded back to District Court for the fees and filings to be decided. PETA was awarded costs and attorneys fees. Berosini appealed the award and in 1998 the Nevada Supreme Court threw out the Attorney Fees but did award PETA some of the costs with pre judgement interest. However, in that opinion, they stated that Berosini had a false light and a conspiracy case against PETA, however, Berosini's appeal lawyer did not preserve his right and the Nevada Supreme Court did not have to address the issue.

NOTE: There is an ongoing FBI investigation regarding the Nevada Supreme Court and the Berosini/PETA case is part of that investigation.