«
»

Minneapolis Activist Indicted for Conspiracy to Violate Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act

Nov 20th, 2009 by Will Potter

scott_demuthScott DeMuth, a Minneapolis activist, has been indicted for conspiracy to violate the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, apparently in relation to a 2004 Animal Liberation Front raid at the University of Iowa. He faces up to 5 years in prison. His indictment marks a continued expansion of the scope of the new terrorism law, which has already been used to target activists who release mink from fur farms, and the AETA4, who are accused of protesting and chalking on public sidewalks.

The indictment comes after DeMuth and another local activist, Carrie Feldman, were found to be in contempt of court refusing to cooperate with a federal grand jury investigated that ALF burglary and vandalism. They were handcuffed and taken to jail for refusing to testify about their political beliefs and political associations.

I have written previously about Feldman’s refusal, and her statement to the grand jury (Activist to Iowa Grand Jury: “We will not be intimidated. We will not cooperate.”).

In a statement prepared prior to the grand jury hearing, DeMuth said:

“Grand juries can be very disempowering for us all, and especially for those targeted by them. We face questioning without legal counsel present or a right to remain silent. We can be threatened, coerced, and jailed. However, no punishment could be worse than surrendering our values. “

There has been some speculation about what, exactly, DeMuth’s conspiracy charges entail. Is the indictment for conspiracy to damage property? Or is it for conspiracy to instill a “reasonable fear”?

The truth: neither.

Bear with me for a moment. The indictment lists sections 43(a) and 43(b)(2) of the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, and says the conspiracy was to commit economic damage in the amount exceeding $10,000. Section 43(a) is simply the offense section. Section 43(b)(2) spells out penalties for damages exceeding $10,000. The indictment does not specify whether the charges are for violating
43(a)(2)(A) (damaging property) or 43(a)(2)(B) (instilling fear). Does that make sense? I know it’s a little tedious, but I think it’s important to clear up. (I just spoke with Matthew Strugar, who was quoted on Peter Young’s blog, and he agreed.)

Local press has been speculating. But regardless of what, specifically, DeMuth is charged with conspiring to do, one thing is clear: conspiracy charges have been used throughout U.S. history as a catch-all when prosecutors can’t get anything else to stick. That’s exactly what happened in the case of the SHAC 7, under the previous version of the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act.

I have personally met both Scott DeMuth and Carrie Feldman, on multiple occasions. They were involved in organizing a Green Scare speaking event in Minneapolis. They are both incredibly kind, passionate, activists who are involved in a variety of local issues, including organizing public lectures and supporting the RNC 8. They are lawful, above-ground activists who have organized against the Green Scare. Now they, themselves, have become targets, and they need your support.

You can write letters to Carrie Feldman and Scott DeMuth, and email them to: davenportgrandjury@riseup.net. You can also donate to their legal support at http://davenportgrandjury.wordpress.com/

Related posts:

Tags: , , , , ,

Posted in Activists Arrested, Federal Terrorism Laws, Grand Juries, Legal Issues, Legislation

  • Vegan Socialist
    Once again, the management of the USA, Inc. proves that it values property and profit above life. The AEPA and AETA are obscene; the charges against these people are spurious. If the reality of their situation weren't so grave, it would be comical. Bankers, CEOs and war-profiteers are receiving pecuniary rewards for murder, ruining countless lives and destroying the earth, while the government--constabulary of the corporations--persecutes those who do nothing more than break inanimate objects. Oh, right, they commit the unconscionable act of reducing profit. This is why I hate capitalism with every fiber of my existence.
  • marsupial
    How can they know if he conspired with anyone if even according to the indictment, they don't know with whom he conspired? Last I checked, you had to conspire WITH someone else - you can't just conspire with yourself.
  • The correct email for e-letters is davenportgrandjury@riseup.net. Thank you for writing on this!
  • Thanks for posting the correct address, I'll update it now!
  • haloka
    thanks very much for those thoughts, will - and for covering this whole situation. all these legal nuances sure make it clear how thankful we should all be for radical lawyers.

    one of those nuances - i was thinking the AETA would mandate 10 years, actually -

    (3) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than 10 years, or both, if--
    (A) the offense results in economic damage exceeding $100,000 [which the Iowa action did - unless he's just charged with making threats, in which case how they would figure the amount, who knows - so I guess you're right, the only thing is to wait and see]

    Although, all this is really just semantics for the sake of arguing how ridiculous AETA is, since we're going to beat these bullshit charges if they even stick.
  • @haloka:

    Well, again the depends :) In the indictment, it says $10,000. That might be an error, or it might not.

    I think all of this really hits home one of the biggest problems with the law (the new AETA, and the previous version) in that it is so vague and overly broad.
  • rose
    Bullshit.
    I've been following this because I know Scott, and my sister was acquainted with Carrie, and this whole thing is just ridiculous.
  • haloka
    hey will -
    someone just raised this issue to me: since the Iowa action was in 2004, shouldn't the Animal Enterprise Protection Act apply over AETA? Since both had the same US code, it seems like just by looking at the indictment so far we wouldn't be able to tell which the prosecution was using. It would probably just be a nominal thing affecting the possible prison time, but... any thoughts on that?
  • haloka:
    That's a good point, and I should have made that more clear in the post. My comments about the provisions listed in the indictment would apply regardless, but under the AETA the penalty is up to 5 years, and under the 2004 version it was up to 3 years.

    As far as which would apply: I think we'll have to wait and see. If the government maintains that the conspiracy took place during that period in 2004, it's pretty clear it would have to be the previous version. I am not an attorney, but it is exceedingly rare that a court allows ex post facto application of increased penalties. However, the indictment doesn't firmly put an end date on it, and I wouldn't be surprised if the prosecution is looking to expand this case, and add in others.

    In hindsight I don't think I should have headlined the post this way. It's clear that these are "animal enterprise terrorism" charges, but it's not clear if it is officially part of the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act. Thanks for your comment.
blog comments powered by Disqus