From prison, Tiger King star seeks $94 million

The former owner of a roadside exotic-animal zoo, currently serving a 22 year prison sentence after being found guilty of a murder-for-hire plot targeting an animal rights activist as well as other violations of law, is now suing the federal Interior Department and Wildlife Service as well as other persons involved in the case. The details of his claims are, well, exotic [Zoe Shenton, Cosmopolitan]


  • Was bummed that guy didn’t make my state’s ballot, had hoped to vote for him on 2016. Ditto McAfee in 2020 who just dropped out.

    • We should start a write-in campaign for McAfee with Marc Randazza for VP.

      “McAfee/Randazza: because at this point, what difference does it make?”

  • The suit is frivolous. The only waiver for tort under which Congress has waived sovereign immunity for suit in tort is the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 USC Sec. 1346(b) & 2671 – 2680. Under the FTCA, the only proper defendant is the US. There are courts which have dismissed suits naming agencies, although some have allowed amendment to substitute the US as the sole proper party. More importantly, the sole remedy under the FTCA is monetary damages. The FTCA cannot be used to collaterally attack other the results in other proceedings, including convictions and forfeitures. Schweitzer v. United States, 354 Fed. Appx. 601, 2009 WL 4298178 (3d Cir. 2009) (per curiam) (plaintiff’s FTCA claims were, in effect, collateral attacks on his conviction, which should have been brought via habeas corpus; suit dismissed); Okoro v. Callaghan, 324 F.3d 488 (7th Cir. 2003) (affirming dismissal; suit sought return of gems seized at time of plaintiff’s arrest for attempted sale of narcotics; held that since plaintiff alleged he was trying to sell gems and not heroin, the suit was a collateral attack on his conviction), reh. and reh., en banc, den. (Apr 17, 2003), cert. den., 539 U.S. 910 (2003); Bambulas v. United States, 323 F. Supp. 1271, 1273 (D. S.D. 1971) (FTCA cannot be used to review agency decisions concerning forfeitures when the statutes involved have provisions for review of the agency decisions); De Bonis v. United States, 103 F. Supp. 119, 121 (W. D. Pa. 1952) (Congress set forth specific manner to challenge seizure and litigate issues under the forfeiture acts, so it “did not intend that these issues should be litigated under the general provisions of the Federal Tort Claims Act”. (citations omitted)). If the Agency employees were acting within scope of employment, under the Westfall Act, they are personally immune from an damages claims. 28 USC Sec. 2679. If PLTF is represented by counsel, the court should call them in to show cause why they should not be sanctioned under Rule 11, Fed. R. Civ. Pro. The suit is wasting the time and resources of the court for what, charitably, only appears to be a publicity stunt by someone who cannot stand being out of the limelight.