Comments on: Minneapolis Activist Indicted for Conspiracy to Violate Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act

By: Carrie and Scott: grand jury resistance update « ludditerobot

Carrie and Scott: grand jury resistance update « ludditerobot — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 22:52:04 +0000

[...] Potter, Green is the new red, on Scott’s AETA charge and support efforts for both [...]

By: Vegan Socialist

Vegan Socialist — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 05:17:51 +0000

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.

By: 11/24/09 « over the wall

11/24/09 « over the wall — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 12:54:39 +0000

[...] Potter at Green is the New Red continues to follow the animal-rights-activists-as-terrorists story in all its twisted [...]

By: Will Potter

Will Potter — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 16:59:22 +0000

Thanks for posting the correct address, I’ll update it now!

By: marsupial

marsupial — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 16:39:19 +0000

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.

By: support committee

support committee — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 15:59:42 +0000

The correct email for e-letters is davenportgrandjury@riseup.net. Thank you for writing on this!

By: Minneapolis Activist Indicted Under AETA « VeganThis

Minneapolis Activist Indicted Under AETA « VeganThis — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 03:48:33 +0000

[...] a better read and more interesting story, check out Will Potter’s blog about the [...]

By: Will Potter

Will Potter — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 21:45:28 +0000

@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.

By: haloka

haloka — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 20:00:27 +0000

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.

By: Will Potter

Will Potter — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 19:38:10 +0000

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.